Commons Sitting of 16 May 1939

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Croydon Corporation Bill [Lords].

London Building Acts (Amendment) Bill [Lords].

Southampton Harbour Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Hailsham Water) Bill.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Luton Water) Bill.

Bills to be read a Second time To-morrow.
Provisional Order Bills (No Standing orders applicable),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Burnham and District Water) Bill.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (South Kent Water) Bill.

1158

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Swaffham Water) Bill.

Bills to be read a Second time To-morrow.
Scottish Union and National Insurance: Company Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    EMPIRE RAW MATERIALS.
    Mr. A. Edwardsasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the speech of Mr. Mackenzie King, the Prime Minister of Canada, in the House of Commons at Ottawa, on 3rd May, indicating some concern regarding the export of nickel and other war materials to Germany; and whether any communications have been exchanged with the Dominions, with a view to initiating a policy of controlling such exports throughout the Empire?
    The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Sir Thomas Inskip): I have seen the text of Mr. Mackenzie King's statement in the Canadian House of Commons on 3rd May, in the course of which he stated that the Canadian Government regard the whole question of control of exports of commodities which may be used for war as well as industrial purposes, as one of importance and that this question was reviewed fully in a statement which he made last year and has been continuously under review. The Canadian Prime Minister, however, observed that the recent statements in this House to which his attention had been called did not present any new facts or considerations which required a restatement of Canadian policy. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to recent answers on the subject, to which I have nothing to add.
    Mr. Edwards: Are we to understand that the Government are still determined not to take any action to prevent these raw materials getting to aggressor countries so as to become a menace to the British Empire?.
    Sir T. Inskip: Every raw material which is in common use to-day is wanted for war purposes and the effect of adopting the hon. Gentleman's suggestion would be to place an embargo on commerce all round.
    Mr. Edwards: Although it may be used for other things than war purposes, is it not a fact that without raw materials from the British Empire no combination of aggressor nations could be a menace to the Empire?
    Sir T. Inskip: That is a matter for argument.
    Mr. Edwards: Will the Minister put some fact before the House which will indicate that it is a matter of argument?

    BRASS AND COPPER (EXPORTS TO GERMANY).
    Mr. Edwardsasked the President of the Board of Trade the value of brass

    Table showing the declared value of exports from the United Kingdom of brass and copper and manufactures thereof consigned to Germany during the undermentioned periods so far as the particulars are readily available. Corresponding particulars in respect of the first quarter of years prior to 1934 are not available and could not be compiled for the first quarter of the years 1934 to 1937 without an undue expenditure of time and labour.

    —

    Exports (United Kingdom goods).

    Re-exports.

    Brass and alloys of copper, other than nickel alloys, and manufactures thereof.

    Copper and manufactures thereof.

    Copper unwrought-ingots, blocks, slabs, bars, billets, cakes, cathodes and anodes.

    Ingots, blocks, slabs, billets, bars.

    Other descriptions.

    Unwrought-ingots, blocks, slabs, bars, etc.

    Other descriptions.

    £000

    £000

    £000

    £000

    £000

    Year:

    1929

    93.5

    43.0

    44.3

    106.1

    1930

    45.3

    24.5

    25.3

    77.0

    1931

    14.5

    2.9

    9.7

    44.3

    1932

    10.8

    4.0

    3.4

    46.3

    1933

    0.6

    5.0

    —

    4.9

    24.9

    1934

    2.3

    4.5

    55.2

    3.8

    2.3

    1935

    13.0

    7.7

    167.5

    15.0

    54.5

    1036

    9 7

    9 6

    78.6

    15.5

    313.4.

    1937

    13.6

    12.9

    12.8

    7.8

    473.6

    1938

    7.8

    9.7

    9.1

    3.0

    102.7

    January to March:

    1938

    1.2

    3.2

    4.8

    2.2

    30.9

    1939

    1.1

    1.1

    2.8

    0.2

    —

    NICKEL (IMPORT).
    Mr. Edwardsasked the President of the Board of Trade the value of nickel
    and copper products shipped from this country to Germany in the first quarter of the last 10 years; and the total value for the whole of each of these years?
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): As the answer involves a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the Official Report.
    Mr. H. G. Williams: Do copper products include electric wires?
    Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend will see the descriptions set out in the answer.
    Mr. Collindridge: Is there any increase in this year's imports as compared with last year's.
    Mr. Stanley: No, Sir, there is a very large decrease.
    Following is the answer:
    and nickel ore, respectively, imported into this country in each of the last three years, showing the percentage from Canada?
    Mr. Stanley: As the answer involves a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is the President aware that Britain and France hold the world monopoly of nickel, and that without nickel it is impossible to manufacture munitions of war? Does not the British Empire hold 90 per cent. and France 10 per cent., and will not the Government take some action to prevent its export from the Empire and France?
    Mr. Stanley: I have answered this question before. Nickel, besides having uses for war material, has a very large peacetime use. I am informed that even at the present time with the enormous scale of rearmament in this country, the use of nickel for war material is only about 10 per cent. of the use of nickel in this country. It is clear that if the British Empire puts an embargo on the export of

    Table showing the declared value of imports into the United Kingdom of nickel ore and unwrough nickel during the years 1936, 1937 and 1938, distinguishing the value of imports consigned from Canada.

    —

    1936.

    1937.

    1938.

    Nickel Ore, concentrates and matte—

    £000.

    £000.

    £000.

    Total imports (all from Canada)

    (a)

    2,362

    2,452

    Nickel unwrought, in ingots, cathodes, cubes, rondels, pellets, shot, grain and powder, and nickel flakes—

    Total imports

    2,041

    3,756

    3,689

    of which consigned from Canada

    1,653

    3,296

    3,314

    (a) Not recorded separately prior to 1937.

    NOTE.—The figures for 1938 are provisional.

    WAR MATERIAL (EXPORT).
    Mr. R. Morganasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, since Japan is almost wholly dependent upon imports for the war material used in her air-raids against civil populations in China, any such war material is still being exported from this country to Japan?
    Major Procterasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has recently granted any licences to export war material, either finished or in the rough, to Japan capable of use in bombing operations such as those now being carried on against civil populations in China?
    Mr. Stanley: No licences have been issued for the export of war material to Japan since 4th February, 1938.
    nickel it will bring to an end a large number of peace-time activities all over the world.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Since the success of such an action might be to prevent the outbreak of a world war, will not the Government consider whether it is worth while instituting negotiations with other Governments on this matter?
    Mr. Stanley: There are many people who think that the institution of all-round world economic boycotts is the surest way to start war.
    Mr. Edwards: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that although the facts may be as he has stated, the way he has put them presents an entirely untruthful picture?
    Mr. Pilkington: Are not hon. Members opposite advocating economic sanctions?
    Following is the answer:
    Mr. Andersonasked the President of the Board of Trade how many licences were issued for the export of arms during the six months ending 30th April; and the countries to which the arms were consigned?
    Mr. Stanley: During the six months ended 30th April, 1939, 369 licences have been issued for the export of war material to 27 foreign countries. With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the countries concerned.
    Mr. F. Anderson: Can any reason be given for the great increase over the numbers stated in April, 1938?
    Mr. Stanley: I am glad the hon. Member has given me an opportunity to make an apology to the House. A similar

    1163
    question was asked by the hon. Member a year ago and the number of 207 licences was given. Unfortunately, the number of licences given to Egypt was reckoned as only 18, whereas in fact they amounted to 160. If the number of licences given to Egypt in these periods is excluded, the comparison with last year shows a decrease.
    Mr. Anderson: Are there any later figures with regard to Japan?
    Mr. Stanley: No licence has been given to Japan since February, 1938.
    Following is the list:

    Statement showing the foreign countries of destination for which licences for the export of war material have been granted during the six months ended 30th April, 1939.

    Argentina.

    Netherlands East Indies.

    Belgium.

    Bulgaria.

    Norway.

    Chile.

    Peru.

    China.

    Philippine Islands.

    Colombia.

    Poland.

    Denmark.

    Portugal.

    Egypt.

    Rumania.

    Estonia.

    Siam.

    Finland.

    Sweden.

    Greece.

    Switzerland.

    Iraq.

    United States of America.

    Latvia.

    Lithuania.

    Yugoslavia.

    Netherlands.

    SLIPPER CLOTH (IMPORT).
    Mr. Rileyasked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity and value of slipper cloth imported into this country from Germany for the years ending 1936, 1937, and 1938, respectively?
    Mr. Stanley: I regret that the desired information is not available as imports of slipper cloth are not separately recorded in the trade returns of the United Kingdom.

    COTTON GLOVES (UNITED STATES IMPORT DUTY).
    Mr. H. G. Williamsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, as the trade treaty between the United States of America and Czechoslovakia has now ceased to operate, the duties on British gloves entering the United States of America have been raised from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent.; and whether, in view of the recent Anglo-American Trade Agreement he will represent to the Government of the United States of America that the lower rate of
    1164
    duty be restored in respect of British gloves?
    Mr. Stanley: I presume my hon. Friend refers to certain kinds of cotton gloves on which, under the most-favoured-nation provision, the United Kingdom enjoyed the lower rate of duty provided for in the trade agreement between the United States and Czecho-Slovakia. With the termination of that agreement this lower rate is no longer operative, and I understand that the United States Government have no power to restore it except by negotiating a new agreement covering the goods involved. In these circumstances, I fear that representations on the subject would serve no useful purpose.

    RUMANIAN OIL (SUPPLIES TO GERMANY).
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the House any information concerning free zones on the banks of the Danube granted by Rumania to Germany in connection with oil supplies to Germany from Rumania?
    Mr. Stanley: I understand that no such free zones have as yet been established.

    FILM INDUSTRY.
    Mr. Dayasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Film Council, appointed under the Cinematograph Films Act, 1938, have arrived at any decision with reference to varying the renters' quota as stipulated in that Act?
    Mr. Stanley: I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave the hon. Member on 4th April.
    Mr. Day: Do we understand that the question of the renters' quota will be reconsidered at the time the exhibitors' quota is dealt with?
    Mr. Stanley: The renters' quota cannot be varied until 1st April next year, and any proposals for doing so can only be made at the end of this year, and no doubt between now and then the council will reconsider the position.
    Mr. Day: Did the right hon. Gentleman say that this quota would be considered at the end of the year? Will the renters' quota be considered at the same time?
    Mr. Stanley: As I say, between now and the final date upon which consideration can be given, the council will consider the question of the renters' quota.

    DIESEL ENGINES (IMPORTS).
    Mr. Robert Gibsonasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of diesel engines and the aggregate horsepower thereof imported into the United Kingdom during each of the last three years; and what steps he is taking to ensure that the internal-combustion engines required for new shipping qualifying for Government grant under his recently-announced scheme will be manufactured in this country?
    Mr. Stanley: During the year 1938 imports into the United Kingdom of internal-combustion engines of diesel, semi-diesel and similar types, including parts thereof, amounted to 7,115 tons, valued at £578,000. These imports are recorded by weight and value only. I regret that corresponding figures for earlier years are not available, as such imports were not separately recorded prior to 1938. The Shipbuilding Conference have assured me that British materials will be used so far as possible in the construction of vessels built under the Government's scheme for assisting shipping.
    Mr. Gibson: Does that matter come within the purview of the Board of Trade? Has the right hon. Gentleman's Department the power to give directions, or is the Department merely consulted?
    Mr. Stanley: I have expressed the hope that, as far as possible, British material will be used, but ever since Protection was introduced the principle has been maintained that it should be possible to import those engines which alone can be obtained from abroad.
    Mr. Gibson: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is already considerable unemployment in this branch of engineering in Greenock and a danger of further unemployment? Will he keep that point in mind when further orders are placed?
    Mr. Benjamin Smith: Has the Department considered the question of giving a grant for speed over a certain number of knots, instead of, as at present, dealing with the question on the basis of the number of ships laid down—2,000,000 tons—with a maximum speed of 10 knots only?
    Mr. Stanley: No, Sir, we are not differentiating on the question of speed.

    INTERNATIONAL SUGAR COUNCIL.
    Mr. Thorneasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the International Sugar Council have yet decided to release 5,000 or more tons of sugar to reduce the present shortage?
    Mr. Stanley: I regret that I cannot add to the answer which was given yesterday on the subject to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cardiff, South (Captain A. Evans).
    Mr. Thorne: Does not the President of the Board of Trade recognise the very great hardship which is occasioned to families with a number of children by the holding up of so much sugar, and is it not possible to take some action?
    Mr. Stanley: As stated in the answer, I believe that the International Sugar Council has circulated a recommendation. If that recommendation is not acted upon, and not acted upon promptly, then the Government may reconsider the position.

    SHIPBUILDING (FOREIGN CASTINGS).
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that shipbuilding firms carrying out Government contracts and proposed subsidised shipbuilding have obtained and are obtaining the required steel castings from abroad; that pattern makers and moulders in the vicinity of the firms are unemployed; and what action is it intended to take to deal with this matter?
    Mr. Stanley: I should be glad to consider any instances which the hon. Member cares to bring to my attention where foreign castings are being used in the construction of merchant ships when British castings are available at competitive prices. Admiralty shipbuilding contracts require the steel castings used to be of British manufacture.
    Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman considering the advisability of issuing a regulation that where shipbuilding contracts are subsidised the material and castings should be ordered in Britain or in the Colonies?
    Mr. Stanley: No, Sir. I have to take into consideration the questions of time and availability, because it is my desire to get ships as quickly as possible, but I have expressed the hope that wherever possible British material will be used, and I have received an assurance on the

    1167
    point. If the hon. Member has any information which leads him to believe that it is not being observed, I shall be very glad to have it.
    Mr. Edwards: Do we understand that the Board of Trade is not aware of any steel castings for this purpose coming from Germany?
    Mr. Stanley: No, Sir. I said that I should like instances in which British castings available at competitive prices were not being used.
    Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Is it not a fact that British steel castings are not available anywhere at any time at competitive prices?

    FACTORY, LIVERPOOL.
    Mr. Kirbyasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Liverpool City Council has resolved to build and lease a factory to be used by a firm, consisting of refugees, for the manufacture of flush doors; that manufacturers of flush doors in Liverpool, and elsewhere, object to the proposal on the grounds that existing factories are only on half production capable of rapid expansion; and what steps he is taking to see that the facilities granted to these refugees will not adversely affect the production of flush doors in existing factories?
    Mr. Stanley: I understand the Liverpool Corporation propose to build a factory which could be used for the manufacture of flush doors under powers conferred on them by the Liverpool Corporation Act, 1936, which enables them to build and lease factories on their Speke estate. In doing this, they are acting in accordance with the powers which Parliament has given them; and it is not open to me to take any action in the matter.
    Mr. Kirby: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, and while not wishing to stand in the way of refugees settling in this country, might I ask whether he could take some steps to protect this trade in this country which is suffering severe competition from Canada and the United States, particularly in view of reduction of the tariff from 2s. 6d. to Is. 6d.?
    Mr. Petherick: Would my right hon. Friend draw the attention of the Home
    1168
    Secretary to this matter with a view to limiting the refugees who come into this country and displace British labour?
    Mr. Stanley: I did not understand that other than British labour is to be employed in this factory.
    Mr. Kirby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, according to the representations of the manufacturing associations, there is ample plant already existing in England which is idle and could be used very much more effectively; in other words, that there is no need for further factories?
    Mr. Stanley: There is a certain amount of under-employment in factories of this type, though I am not aware whether all the goods are supposed to be produced by these factories; but, as I say, Parliament gave to the Liverpool Corporation power to take action of this kind and I have no power at all to intervene.

    IMPORTED GOODS (STAMPING).
    Mr. Higgsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that considerable dissatisfaction exists amongst traders with regard to the merchandise marks law; and whether he can see his way clear to introduce legislation in order to have all imported goods stamped with the country of origin?
    Mr. Stanley: Organisations representing the interests concerned in this country have been asked for their views regarding an alteration of the law such as is suggested; but replies have not yet been received from a number of them. I am, therefore, not yet in a position to add to the answer which I gave on 28th March to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sudbury (Colonel Burton).
    Mr. Higgs: Is the Minister aware that most large manufacturing nations refuse to allow goods of foreign manufacture to be imported unless they are stamped with the country of origin?
    Mr. Stanley: When the Merchandise Marks Act was originally introduced the opinion of industry and commerce in this country was against that proposal. There are signs that the opinion since has been changed, and in order to ascertain whether that is so, I have circularised representative bodies asking for their views. I am sorry to say that some of those bodies are taking an extremely long time to reply.
    Mr. Higgs: Cannot the Minister take action without waiting for those replies?
    Mr. Turton: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that poultry producers have always been in favour of imported eggs being marked with the country of origin?
    Mr. T. Williams: Are not many poultry producers very doubtful as to the wisdom of marking imported eggs?
    Mr. Stanley: It just shows how wise I am to wait for those replies. I do not know about eggs. Certainly with regard to some eggs there is considerable doubt in the country whether it is wise to mark them with the names of the importing countries.
    Mr. Higgs: Are eggs manufactured products?

    BULGARIA.
    Mr. Rileyasked the President of the Board of Trade the value of the trade between this country and Bulgaria for the years 1936, 1937, and 1938; and whether his Department is taking any steps to increase the trade between the two countries?
    Mr. Stanley: The hon. Member will find the figures for which he asks on page 191 of the January, 1939, issue of the Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom. The possibility of steps being taken which would facilitate United Kingdom purchases of Bulgarian goods, on which the maintenance of United Kingdom sales in Bulgaria depends, is being actively examined.

    ANGLO-RUMANIAN PROTOCOL.
    Mr. G. Straussasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the tonnage of wheat to be purchased under the Anglo-Rumanian Agreement, and the loan to be made under the Exports Credit Act, are maximum or minimum figures?
    Mr. Stanley: I would refer the hon. Member to the text of the Protocol regarding Commercial and Economic Relations with Rumania which has now been issued as a Command Paper.
    Mr. Strauss: I have read the Protocol, and the figures are up to a certain maximum. Does that mean that if an application is made by the Rumanian Government for an increase of those figures such application would be considered?
    Mr. Stanley: It means what it says. It means that the agreement provides for credit up to a maximum of £5,000,000 in regard to one species of credit, although it would be possible under another section to give a guarantee to the trade organisation to be set up.

    CANADA AND AUSTRALIA (BRITISH SUBJECTS, DEPORTATIONS).
    Mr. Dayasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the number of His Majesty's subjects who have been deported from Canada or Australia to the United Kingdom for the 12 months ended the last convenient date?
    Sir T. Inskip: I understand that during the 12 months ended 31st March, 1939, the number of British subjects deported to the United Kingdom from Canada was 106 and from Australia 11.
    Mr. Day: Have any representations been made to His Majesty's Governments overseas with regard to deportations?
    Sir T. Inskip: I am not aware of any representations recently.
    Mr. Day: May we have the numbers of male and female deportees?
    Sir T. Inskip: I have not got them.

    NEWFOUNDLAND.
    Mr. De Chairasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will consider the setting up of civilian conservation camps for the young unemployed in Newfoundland for work on the Government forestry belt on the lines of the civilian conservation camps in the United States of America?
    Sir T. Inskip: I am somewhat doubtful whether conditions in Newfoundland are suitable for action of this kind, but I will communicate with the Commission of Government in regard to my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is meant by a "conservation camp"?
    Sir T. Inskip: I understand it is a name given to an experiment or policy in the United States whereby young men from 17 to 20 or 21 in groups of about 200

    1171
    are employed on all sorts of work in connection with forests, soil erosion, and so on.
    Mr. De Chairasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what new plans of a far-reaching character are contemplated in the near future for the rehabilitation of Newfoundland; whether His Majesty's Government have accepted the recommendations of Mr. Gorvin; and whether he can state the precise terms of these recommendations?
    Sir T. Inskip: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer to the reply which I gave on 25th April to the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Day). As regards the second part, the position is that the recommendations made by Mr. Gorvin in his recent report to the Commission of Government have been accepted in principle, and that measures to give effect to them are now in course of preparation by the Commission in connection with their Budget proposals for 1939–40. Mr. Gorvin's report covers a wide field, and I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Lunn: Is it a fact that Mr. Gorvin has been made a Commissioner of Government?
    Sir T. Inskip: Perhaps the hon. Member will ask me in a few days' time.
    Mr. Paling: Does the right hon. Gentleman's reply mean that steps are really to be taken to do something of a progressive and really good character to overcome the troubles in Newfoundland; and that in future we may not have such complacent reports from the Commissioners as we have had up to the present?
    Sir T. Inskip: I hope I may say that still further good steps are being taken towards relieving the state of things there.
    Mr. De Chair: Has my right hon. Friend seen the statement in the Press to-day that Mr. Gorvin has been appointed a Commissioner?
    Sir T. Inskip: I was not aware that the statement had appeared in the Press. Perhaps I may say that Mr. Gorvin's name was submitted some days ago, but I was not aware that it had been published.
    Mr. Lunn: Does that mean that his report, which is of a far-reaching character, will be put into operation now for the relief of the depressed position of the people of Newfoundland?
    Sir T. Inskip: I have stated that his report has been approved and that detailed measures are in course of preparation.

  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    CREWS' ACCOMMODATION.
    Mr. Benjamin Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the large number of cases in which verminous bunks and bedding are detected in crews' quarters; and whether any special attention is being given by his Department to this problem?
    Mr. Stanley: The cleanliness of crews' quarters is primarily a matter for the shipowners and the officers and men, and special attention is being given to the question. At the end of last year a joint committee of the Shipping Federation, the National Union of Seamen, and the officers' societies, was set up to consider the matter. The report of that committee was adopted on 3rd May by the National Maritime Board, who are now in consultation with the Board of Trade on certain questions which arise on it.
    Mr. Smith: Will the right hon Gentleman tell the House what the Board of Trade itself is going to do in this matter? Those people are the people who are the culprits. What is the Board, whose business it is to see that conditions on board ship are healthy and clean, going to do?
    Mr. Stanley: I should have thought that an agreement between all the interests concerned, voluntarily entered into, was the very best way of ensuring the quickest improvement, and the Board of Trade will certainly lend every assistance in their power to see that it is done.
    Mr. Smith: The point is that those people are, in fact, the delinquents—we cannot get away from that—and will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to introduce a regulation requiring that in every case the ship should be reported not only to the master but to the owner, and that the inspector should see that the owner carries out a proper fumigation, so as to secure cleanliness?.
    Mr. Stanley: I will certainly look into any point the hon. Member brings forward.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is it not possible for the Board of Trade, in this day and generation, to issue instructions that verminous bunks and bedding must cease on board British ships?
    Mr. Stanley: Such instructions have been given.
    Mr. Benjamin Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade the extent to which masters of vessels are carrying out the recommendation contained in the instructions as to the survey of masters' and crews' spaces that the result of their inspections of crews' quarters should be entered at least once a week in the official log and in the owners' log?
    Mr. Stanley: From reports which the Board of Trade have received from superintendents of Mercantile Marine offices, I am satisfied that masters of ships are generally carrying out the recommendation in so far as the official log book is concerned. I have no information in respect of the entries made in the owners' logs.
    Mr. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to see that both recommendations are carried out? Would it not be one of the most effective means of declaring to everybody the condition of the ship?
    Mr. Stanley: I have no reason to suppose that they are not being carried out. I should have thought that the fact that they were being made in the official log book was more important still.

    RUMANIAN GRAIN CARGOES.
    Commander Marsdenasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the conveyance of grain from Rumania to this country under the terms of the Rumanian Trade Agreement will be reserved exclusively for British shipping?
    Mr. Stanley: In accordance with the general rule applicable to the conveyance of Government-owned cargoes preference will be given to British ships, if they are available at appropriate rates and conditions.
    Commander Marsden: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the very unsatisfactory arrangements that were made
    1174
    last year and make a really big effort this year to ensure that British purchases are brought home in British ships?
    Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir, I will certainly make a big effort, if the shipowners will respond, and not, as last time, decline the opportunity that was given to them, though I agree that owing to the haste with which the purchase was concluded then it was rather a belated opportunity. Under this transaction there will be more time to make arrangements in advance, and I hope that shipowners will take advantage of the opportunity I am giving.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister see to it that shipowners who do not respond to his appeal for the benefit of the country do not get any share of the subsidy?
    Mr. Kirby: Why is it not possible to conscript ships?
    Mr. Stanley: I am hoping that it will be possible to arrange in the normal way for these cargoes to be carried in British ships.
    Mr. Remer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great number of these imports into Britain come from Danzig and Hamburg and almost all of them come in foreign bottoms, and will he consider whether some means can be found to deal with the Baltic side of the imports into this country?
    Mr. Stanley: There will be no "Baltic side of the imports." These grain purchases by the Government will come from Black Sea ports.

    COASTWISE TRAFFIC.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the large percentage of coastwise traffic which is carried by foreign vessels; and whether he can introduce legislation to ensure the increased employment of British vessels and British crews in this coastwise traffic in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Stanley: The share of foreign vessels in the United Kingdom coastwise trade, as measured by arrivals and departures of vessels with cargo, was less than 2 per cent. in 1938 and the first four months of 1939, but the incidence of foreign competition is greater in some trades and in some areas than in others. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply

    1175
    I gave on 9th May to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) regarding British shipping in the coasting trade.
    Mr. De la Bère: Does my right hon. Friend really mean to tell the House that only 2 per cent. of the coastwise trade is carried by foreign ships?
    Mr. Stanley: Yes, it is a fact.
    Mr. De la Bère: With the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend I say that he is labouring under some delusion.
    Mr. Shinwell: Has the right hon. Gentleman not given the average percentage, and does he not agree that in certain coastwise trades there is a very high percentage of foreign vessels engaged?
    Mr. Stanley: I would not agree that it was very high, but I agree that it is higher than the average, and that is the reason why I put in my answer that foreign competition is greater in some trades and in some areas than in others.
    Mr. Benjamin Smith: Is it not a fact that it is 13 per cent. if the passenger coastwise trade is eliminated?
    Mr. Stanley: No, Sir, not so much as that.
    Mr. De la Bère: May I ask the Board of Trade not to take the line of least resistance, but really to give us some accurate figures?
    Mr. Stanley: I do not think I have taken the line of least resistance. I have given the hon. Member accurate figures. If his question was so framed that he did not get the figures he wanted, perhaps he will put another question down on another day.

    SHIPS (FOREIGN PURCHASES).
    Mr. Bellengerasked the President of the Board of Trade whether in the case of those ships transferred from the British register to foreign ownership within the last six weeks, the Board of Trade were consulted prior to the transactions taking place?
    Mr. Stanley: The Board of Trade were notified prior to the completion of the sale to foreign owners in the following cases: "Laleham," "Peckham," "Meopham," "Essex Envoy" and "Tuscania." The remaining ships concerned were sold
    1176
    before owners generally were asked to notify the Board of Trade of proposals to dispose of vessels on the United Kingdom register to foreign buyers.
    Mr. Bellenger: In view of the criticism which has been levelled by the right hon. Gentleman against certain owners who sold their ships abroad recently are we to understand that the strictures apply equally to all owners who sell their ships contrary to the wishes of the Board of Trade; and what is to be the position of these owners if they apply for Government subsidy?
    Mr. Stanley: The case to which the hon. Member refers was that of an owner who asked for the views of the Board of Trade and, on being told that the views of the Board of Trade were against such sale, then completed the sale. I have pointed out that, except in five cases, including the case referred to by the hon. Gentleman, which have already been referred to in the House of Commons, all the cases occurred before the general notification by the Board of Trade.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that unless the Board of Trade take power to prevent shipowners from transferring vessels to foreign flags, the Board of Trade are helpless in the matter?
    Mr. Stanley: Or unless the Board of Trade take power to purchase those vessels and hold them in reserve, a matter which I understand will be brought up later this afternoon.
    Mr. Shinwell: Such circumstances as the right hon. Gentleman has indicated do not prevent certain shipowners from transferring their vessels, if they so care?

    WAR RISKS (COMPENSATION AND INSURANCE).
    Mr. Dolandasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in the position to inform the House of the result of his examination of the question of compensation for loss or damage to stocks held by the retail trade arising from enemy action; and, in particular whether he can now give a definition of essential commodities?
    Mr. Stanley: I cannot at present add to the statement made by my right hon.

    1177
    Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 31st January, except to say that considerable progress has been made with the preparation of the scheme to which he referred.
    Mr. Radfordasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a property association has formed a war risks mutual society, which is already providing limited cover to property worth about £70,000,000; and has he any further statement to make on this subject?
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): I am aware of a case of the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend although I have no detailed information as to the society's operations. The Government have undertaken no liability to the society or to its members.
    Mr. Radford: I wanted to know whether my right hon. Friend would make any further statement about the Government undertaking responsibility to the property owner, even if it was only partial cover?
    Sir J. Simon: The considerations which I have previously mentioned still apply. If my hon. Friend will refresh his memory, he will find that I made quite a definite statement about partial cover.
    Mr. Holdsworth: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his decision? There are very grave doubts about the effect of this on building schemes?
    Sir J. Simon: The circumstances to be considered have not changed.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    MANŒUVRE AREA, YORKSHIRE.
    Mr. T. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to have large scale manœuvres next September over the Yorkshire wolds; why this exceptionally well-farmed area is to be used when the adjoining moors are available; and whether he will consult the Minister of Agriculture with a view to avoiding the destruction of large quantities of food?
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hore-Belisha): It would be disadvantageous at this stage to disclose to the commanders concerned the particular parts of the Yorkshire manœuvre area that will be mainly used this summer. But, if the farming area of the wolds is
    1178
    so used, there is no reason to anticipate any considerable damage, as the usual steps will be taken for the protection of animals and crops.
    Mr. Williams: Might we be assured from the right hon. Gentleman that the shooting of grouse will in no way vitiate any position taken up by the War Office when deciding the area in which the manœsuvres are to take place?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Turton: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the whole of Yorkshire is exceptionally well-farmed?
    Captain Heilgers: Do not the usual notices for the protection of grouse mean in the end that the troops are not able to get on the land at all?

    CLOTH CONTRACTS, SCOTLAND.
    Mr. Erskine Hillasked the Secretary of State for War the value of orders placed within the last 12 months with mills or contractors in Scotland for the supply of cloth for Army purposes?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Approximately £75,000.
    Mr. Erskine Hill: Does my right hon. Friend anticipate that it will be possible to increase the amount of these orders placed in Scotland, with the idea of giving the Scottish mills, which at present are not fully at work, a greater share of this work for His Majesty's Army?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir. If satisfactory deliveries are made, there is no reason why these orders should not be increased, and our augmented requirements indicate that that might be the case.
    Major Whiteley: Can my right hon. Friend say how the figure compares with that of the previous year?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Not without notice.

    WOOLLEN PRODUCTS.
    Mr. Sextonasked the Secretary of State for War the approximate weight of woollen products, clothing, blankets, etc., supplied to his Department for the years 1937 and 1938, respectively, and the estimated weight of similar products for the present year?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I regret that the required information is not readily available,

    1179
    and could not be obtained without a disproportionate expenditure of time and labour.
    Mr. Sexton: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure me that home-produced wool is used to a large extent in the manufacture of these products?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I think so.

    SHELL CONTRACTS.
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for War how many contracts for 3.45-inch shell made from bar, were placed during the latter half of 1936, and at what average price; how many of those contracts have since been renewed under a renewal clause, and at what average price per contract?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: There was one such contract for 3·45-inch shell, but in the event the majority of the shell were made from forgings. There was no renewal clause in the contract. It would be contrary to practice to disclose contract prices.
    Mr. Stokes: Is the Minister aware that these shells from bar can, at to-day's prices, be made at 14s.; and will he assure the House that no such contract is at present running above that figure?
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: What steps will be taken to obtain a revision of prices when these contracts come up for renewal this year?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I do not know that they are coming up for renewal this year. The usual practice will be followed.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is it not the fact that forged shells are far superior to those made from bar?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir, for shells of this size.
    Mr. Stokes: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that all these contracts that were made in the autumn of 1936 are subject to renewal year by year? Surely it is unsatisfactory to hear that he is unaware that these contracts are subject to annual renewal?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: If the hon. Gentle man will accept what I say, there was no renewal clause in the contract to which J have referred.
    Mr. Stokes: That was a very exceptional contract.
    Sir Percy Harris: Will these contracts be under the control and supervision of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Luton (Mr. Burgin), the new Minister in charge of supplies?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. George Griffiths: Is it not a fact that the price now being paid is 50 per cent. higher than that mentioned by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes)?

    WAR OFFICE ANNOUNCEMENT.
    Mr. Mathersasked the Secretary of State for War what steps were taken to give publicity to the cancellation of the War Office instruction broadcast by the British Broadcasting Corporation on 26th April that men between the ages of 20 and 21 years would come within the scope of the Military Training Bill after midnight on that date and be refused enlistment in the Territorial Army; and when and by what means it was made clear to the public that these men would still be accepted for the Territorial Army?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: The War Office announcement broadcast by the British Broadcasting Corporation on 26th April was to the effect that men who joined the Territorial Army before midnight on 26th April would be exempt from the provisions of the Military Training Bill, and was not as suggested in the question. The decision referred to in the second part of the question was communicated to the Press and appeared in many newspapers at the end of April and the beginning of May.
    Mr. Mathers: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the use of the British Broadcasting Corporation to give publicity to a statement of the Prime Minister before it had been passed into law was to make the right hon. Gentleman a dictator; and will not steps be taken to get equal publicity for the amendment which was made last week to that announcement?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: It is perfectly clear that the position was unaffected by that. The question was discussed in the House. My right hon. Friend is not a dictator. It is for Parliament to pass the Bill or not as it desires.
    Mr. Mathers: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the point about equal publicity for the amended position.

    MILK SUPPLY.
    Mr. Dayasked the Secretary of State for War the extent to which tinned or preserved milk is at present supplied to the various units in the Army at stations at home and/or abroad?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: At home stations, milk is purchased under regimental arrangements from the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes out of a daily cash allowance, and information is not available as to the amount of tinned or preserved milk so obtained. The milk supplied to units abroad is principally in the form of full cream unsweetened tinned milk, the bulk of which is of home origin.
    Mr. Day: Do the authorities impress upon the officers the importance of using fresh milk where possible?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Garro Jones: Is it not a matter of interest to the War Office to know what proportion of fresh milk is consumed by the troops, particularly having regard to the pressure by the Army and Navy Institutes to push the sale of tinned and canned products, to the detriment of the health of the troops?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: The matter is in the discretion of the units concerned. While it is a very interesting matter, they are given the cash and are allowed to purchase what they think best.
    Mr. Garro Jones: Is it not a matter of concern to the War Office if the cash is expended on foods which do not give the necessary nutritive value to the Army which the right hon. Gentleman administers?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Of course it is a matter of interest, but I have explained to the hon. Member that this matter is within the discretion of the units, and therefore the amount purchased varies at different times.

    FAMILY ALLOWANCES.
    Mr. W. Whiteleyasked the Secretary of State for War the date from which the recently agreed-upon allowances to the wives and dependants of married soldiers will commence?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: The date from which the reduction in the qualifying age for family allowance will take effect has not yet been fixed.

    TERRITORIALS (TRAINING).
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Secretary of State for War whether His Majesty's Government will consider extending the annual period of training for those serving in the Territorial Army who are under the age of 25?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: To adopt the proposal would not be advantageous, as it would mean that complete units would not be present.
    Mr. Boothby: Is the general question of the amount of annual training for the Territorials under the consideration of the War Office?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I made a statement on that subject a day or two ago.
    Major General Sir Alfred Knox: Is not some increase in the period of training necessary to enable these units to go overseas within a reasonable time after the outbreak of war? If the period of training is not increased, will not the militiamen who have joined up know a great deal more about the work than some of the Territorials?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir; but my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that we are dealing with people who are engaged in civilian occupations, and there is a limit to the amount of training they can undertake.
    Major Whiteleyasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the grave dissatisfaction which will be caused in the Territorial Army by the proposal to terminate the existing service and status of all Territorial soldiers, however efficient, on their being called up for six months' compulsory training; and what steps he is taking to see that the implied lack of appreciation of Territorial training and standards of efficiency does not have an adverse effect on voluntary recruiting for the Territorial Army?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Men serving in the Territorial Army who were accepted before 27th April are not liable, under the provisions of the Military Training Bill, to have their service as such terminated and to be called up for six months' training in the Militia. In the case of those accepted

    1183
    after that date who become liable for service in the Militia, their Territorial service will reckon in diminution of the period of three and a half years' Militia service after the completion of the six months' course; and, further, they may then, subject to the approval of the Army Council, return to the Territorial Army in order to complete the balance of that period of service instead of remaining in the Militia. The value of Territorial Army service is fully recognised.
    Major Whiteley: Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking that Militiamen who were serving Territorials at the time of being called up for their six months' training may afterwards, if they so wish, be reinstated in their old units, with their old Territorial rank and seniority?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I cannot give that undertaking, because, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, that will depend on the commanding officer, but I should think it will be normal for him to reinstate a man in the position he had previously occupied.
    Mr. Bossom: Will my right hon. Friend see that those who are called up and need a medical operation will have it without charge to themselves?

    UNIFORMS (TERRITORIALS).
    Major Whiteleyasked the Secretary of State for War what preparations had been made before the announcement of the doubling of the Territorial Army for the supply of uniforms to men joining as a result of that announcement; and how soon a sufficient supply of clothing will be forthcoming?
    Lieut.-Colonel Macnamaraasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the long delay in issuing Territorial uniforms and equipment; that at present there is apparently to be a three or four months' lag before Territorial recruits are to be issued with uniforms; whether he will treat as urgent the issuing of uniforms to all Territorials before their summer camps and work out a time-table for issue of uniforms to meet this end; and will he in future see that the Army has sufficient stocks ready, especially in time of international tension, to meet expansion requirements?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: There was no interval between the decision of His Majesty's Government to double the Territorial Field Army and the public announcement of that decision. 25,000 to 30,000 suits are in fact being issued to the Territorial Army every week, and 1,500,000 suits are on order. The issue of uniforms to all Territorials before the summer camps is being treated as a matter of prime urgency, and it is hoped that this can be arranged.
    Major Whiteley: Would my right hon. Friend assure the House that a supply of uniform caps and of canvas overalls which can be used to protect the uniform shall be available at the earliest possible moment?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir; we shall do our best to meet every reasonable suggestion.
    Viscountess Astor: Can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that, the next time suits are ordered for women Territorials, they will be ordered by a woman and not by a man?
    Lieut.-Colonel Macnamara: Is it true that the Territorials in future are only to have one uniform instead of two; and, if so, what is to happen if these uniforms are contaminated with gas in war? Further, may I ask why the War Office has ignored and not answered letters from the Wholesale Clothing Manufacturers' Federation of Great Britain, who have made certain recommendations about the issue of uniforms?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: With regard to my hon. and gallant Friend's second supplementary question, he was not good enough to give me notice of it, or I should have been able to answer it. As he is aware, Sir Frederick Marquis, a man of real experience, has now taken charge of this matter on behalf of the War Office. With regard to the first question, Territorials will have two suits, but during the time of pressure which is upon us, when as many men have enlisted in a week as in a normal year, I am sure the Territorial Army will show us some forbearance.

    TATTOOS.
    Major Whiteleyasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the international situation and the necessity for intensive training demanded

    1185
    by Army expansion and mechanisation, he is satisfied that the value of the command tattoos is sufficient to justify the dispersion of effort which they involve; and whether he is aware that the adherence to peace-time routine which is indicated by the holding of tattoos may be interpreted abroad as a lack of determination to attain maximum military effectiveness in the shortest possible time?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: The cancellation of forthcoming tattoos would be a matter of great difficulty. The Aldershot and Northern Command Tattoos will be over before the training of the Militia begins.
    Major Whiteley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the proceeds of these tattoos are used to some extent for objects which should now come under public funds, and that a lot of time is taken up which might otherwise be used for military training?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very valuable effect of these tattoos as propaganda to popularise the voluntary system?

  VOLUNTARY AID DETACHMENTS (UNIFORMS)
  Sir A. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state, for what reason members of the Red Cross and St. John Ambulance Brigade, who give their time voluntarily to work of national importance, are compelled to bear the cost of their uniforms, amounting in the case of a Red Cross commandant to £15, while members of the Women's Auxiliary Territorial Service obtain their outfits free?
  Mr. Hore-Belisha: A revised scale of payments in respect of Voluntary Aid Detachments, including allowances for uniforms, has been approved. For the details, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given on nth May last to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Colonel Ponsonby).
  Sir A. Knox: Will uniform be provided for the Red Cross and the St. John Ambulance Brigade?
  Mr. Hore-Belisha: It is a complicated scheme. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will look at it.

  OFFICIAL SECRETS ACTS.
  Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of proposing a Resolution to the House in accordance with paragraph 25 of the Report of the Select Committee of Official Secrets Act, declaratory of the Privilege of Parliament?
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): Yes, Sir.

  CONSCRIPTION OF WEALTH (PREPARATORY PROVISIONS) BILL.
  Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister whether he will make arrangements to provide time for the further stages of the Conscription of Wealth (Preparatory Provisions) Bill?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mr. Mander: In view of the great importance of treating both men and money alike in this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman consider putting down a Guillotine Motion, so that the Conscription of Wealth Bill may be passed during the Whitsuntide Recess?
  The Prime Minister indicated dissent.
  Mr. Mander: Have the right hon. Gentleman's Government any alternative proposals to bring forward, and when do they intend to do if?
  The Prime Minister: I have already stated that alternative proposals will be made.
  Mr. Mander: When is he going to do it?

  MINISTERS (DIRECTORSHIPS).
  Mr. Parkerasked the Prime Minister what is the exact rule governing the holding of directorships by Members of the Government?
  The Prime Minister: The rule was laid down by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman in March, 1906, in the following words:
  "The condition which was laid down on the formation of the Government was that all directorships held by Ministers must be resigned except in the case of honorary directorships, directorships in connection with philanthropic undertakings, and directorships in private companies."
  Mr. Parker: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it important that not only

  1187
  should there not be corruption in public life, but there should not appear to be opportunities for corruption creeping in somewhere or other; and, that being so, does he not think there should be some revision of the rule with regard to private companies, to suit modern conditions?
  The Prime Minister: I am not accepting any suggestion that corruption is either existent or suspected, but I have already said that I am prepared to look into the question of private directorships, and I am awaiting a note on the subject from an hon. and learned Member.
  Mr. Shinwell: Does the Prime Minister not regard an honorary director as a person who, although not in a position to exercise control, receives some profit or remuneration?
  The Prime Minister: No, that is not my conception of what an honorary directorship means.
  Mr. Parkerasked the Prime Minister the number of directorships in public and private companies, respectively, held by members of the Cabinet and by other members of the Government, respectively, giving particulars of such directorships?
  The Prime Minister: I have no information as to directorships of private companies held by members of the Government. The rule regarding the holding of directorships by Ministers is well known, and no permission is necessary in respect of private companies, which are exempted from this rule, although, if a Minister should be in any doubt he would presumably consult me.
  Mr. A. V. Alexander: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that since the laying down of the Campbell-Bannerman rule there has been a very large extension of private companies, which are, in fact, holding companies for public companies, and that the directors of such holding companies have a very direct interest in the working of the public companies?
  The Prime Minister: I repeat, for the fourth time, that I am prepared to investigate the matter, and am awaiting a note from an hon. and learned Member.
  Mr. Bellenger: In reference to the Prime Minister's last remark, we are to—
  Mr. Speaker rose—
  Mr. Bellenger: Do you not propose to listen, Mr. Speaker, to the supplementary question I was going to put?
  Mr. Speaker: The rule as to supplementary questions is being very much abused.

  CIVIL AIR GUARD (PETROL DUTY).
  Mr. De la Bèreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider a reduction of the Petrol Duty in respect of the fuel used for Civil Air Guard flying, since this body is an important part of the National Service scheme, and in view of the fact that such a concession would enable greater efficiency to be obtained in the direction of the actual number of hours spent in the air, and in the use of machines more nearly approximating to the service type?
  Sir J. Simon: I am afraid that I cannot entertain a suggestion which would impair the integrity of the petrol tax.
  Mr. De la Bère: Does my right hon. Friend not realise the importance of having as many men in the air as we possibly can?
  Sir J. Simon: Even so, I do not think the way to do it would be to alter the petrol tax.

  BRITISH CAPITAL EXPORTS.
  Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a certain insurance company is circulating people in the City of London urging them to transfer funds to America in view of the unsettled state of things in Europe; and what action he proposes to take to stop this undesirable practice?
  Sir J. Simon: I can only assume that the circular to which the hon. Member refers was issued in error, having regard to my previous requests on the subject of foreign lending. The company has been communicated with, and I have every reason to believe that the document in question will not be further circulated.
  Mr. Stokes: Whether the circular was put around in error or not, will the Chancellor assure the House that he will take more definite steps to prevent this practice being pursued in the City?
  Sir J. Simon: I have taken quite definite steps to deal with it.
  Mr. Garro Jones: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the views of the City Correspondent of the "Times," who says that the City interprets the request as applying only to the owners of transferred capital, and not to those who, as the agents, operate the machinery of transfer, and who recognise no obligation to comply with the request of the Minister?
  Sir J. Simon: No, I have not seen it.

  BEARER SECURITIES (TAX EVASION).
  Mr. Lewisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the recent legislation in the Argentine for the purpose of checking tax evasion in the case of bearer securities; and whether he will consider whether the adoption of similar devices in this country would be calculated to increase the yield from Surtax?
  Sir J. Simon: I am aware of the Argentine legislation to which my hon. Friend refers. I do not think that in this country it would be practicable to adopt the Argentine system, but my hon. Friend will find that in the Finance Bill I am proposing a provision to enable the Revenue authorities to obtain certain information at the source in relation to the ownership of bearer securities.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Mr. Shinwellasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered a petition sent to him by the hon. Member for Seaham signed by several thousand persons, urging the Government to increase old age pensions; and what answer he proposes to make?
  Sir J. Simon: I have seen this petition, and I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 2nd February to a question by the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams).
  Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that these people have been exposed to great hardships, and that many of them have been compelled, because of their privations, to apply to local authorities for assistance?
  1190
  Will the Government hold out any hope of this increase being made?
  Sir J. Simon: If the hon. Member will look at the reference, he will see that the matter was very fully dealt with by the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
  Viscountess Astor: Will my right hon. Friend ascertain from the Opposition whether it really is part of their pledge, or promise, to give increased old age pensions to these people; and, if it is not, is it not a crime to lead them on?

  BANK OF ENGLAND (FOREIGN SHARE-HOLDINGS).
  Mr. Bellengerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the German Government are to take steps to recover foreign share-holdings in the Reichsbank; and whether any similar powers are contemplated by His Majesty's Government with respect to any shares in the Bank of England held abroad?
  Sir J. Simon: In reply to the first part of the question, I have no information beyond what has appeared in the Press. The reply to the second part of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. Bellenger: In view of the importance of that matter in relation to national credit and finance, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it desirable to ascertain "whether any part of the Bank of England share-holdings is in foreign ownership?
  Sir J. Simon: I believe that the amount, if any, is quite infinitesimal, and whatever the size of anybody's holding, it only entitles him to one vote.

  SHORT-TERM LOAN RATES.
  Mr. Bellengerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has noted the considerable rise in short-loan rates during April; and if, in so far as that was caused by the transfer of funds abroad with its concomitant pressure on the Exchange Equalisation Fund, he has any measures in view to prevent a recurrence of circumstances likely to have far-reaching consequences on national credit?
  Sir J. Simon: The rise in rates was of a temporary character and cannot, I

  1191
  think, be said to have had permanent effects on the national credit. As regards the future, several factors may affect short-term rates at any given moment and it is not possible for me to anticipate whether any particular measures would be appropriate to deal with one factor in isolation from the rest.
  Mr. Bellenger: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the considerable rise in short-term rates during April was due in some measure to the transfer of funds abroad, and in view of that fact, is he not prepared to take steps to prevent a rise in the cost of national borrowing in future?
  Sir J. Simon: I think it is a mistake to isolate one factor and deal with it as if it could be controlled. A number of things combine to effect the result here, and I am glad to say the temporary factor has, to some extent, been alleviated.
  Mr. Bellenger: Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman still believes in laissez faire?
  Sir J. Simon: No, Sir.

  SCOTLAND.

    GRASS LANDS, PLOUGHING (SUBSIDY).
    Mr. Snaddenasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the difference in seasonable arrangements between Scottish and English farming and, in particular, the later harvest in Scotland, he will be prepared to extend beyond 30th September the period of qualification for the grant for ploughing grass lands in respect of Scottish farms?
    Mr. Erskine Hillasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the need for encouraging in creased cultivation in the national interest and of the climatic conditions in Scotland, he will take steps to increase the time limit during which the subsidy recently announced for increased ploughing is payable in Scotland?
    Major Neven-Spenceasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the lateness of the harvest in the North of Scotland, he will undertake to increase by two months the time limit governing the recently announced subsidy
    1192
    for the encouragement of ploughing in Scotland?
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): The Government have given full consideration to the position, and it is proposed to extend to 31st October the period during which farmers may qualify for subsidy in respect of additional ploughing of grass lands. This extension will apply to the United Kingdom as a whole.
    Mr. Snadden: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, will he take steps to give greater publicity to this announcement?
    Mr. T. Williams: Will not the Government really make up their minds what they intend to do, instead of making announcements by weekly instalments?
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that a considerable area of grass land in Scotland is let for seasonal grazing until 31st October, and that unless the date is extended beyond 31st October, that grass land will not be able to be improved with the aid of the subsidy?
    Mr. Colville: I will consider that point, but my hon. Friend will recollect that when this scheme was announced it was explained that it was, in fact, one specially applying to this summer, and was not regarded as a winter programme.

    PRISONERS (MEDICAL EXAMINATION).
    Mr. T. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether a person sentenced to a term of imprisonment in a Scottish prison is medically examined before he is ordered to undertake labour tasks; and whether a record of his physical condition is taken?
    Mr. Colville: The prison medical officer examines all prisoners as soon as possible after their reception, records their state of health, including their physical condition, and classifies them for work. Pending this examination prisoners are sometimes employed on light duties.
    Mr. Henderson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Barhnnie Prison no medical examination takes place before a person is given labour tasks and that some very serious things have been brought to light; and further, that I have a letter from the Governor of Barlinnie

    1193
    Prison stating that he has no record of the condition of prisoners?
    Mr. Colville: I think that the hon. Member must be misinformed. If he has any information to give me, perhaps he will let me have it.
    Mr. Henderson: This is a very important matter, and I beg to give notice that I shall raise it at the first opportunity on the Adjournment.

    SCOTCRAFT FURNITURE COMPANY, LIMITED.
    Mr. Leonardasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the amount lost by the Special Commissioner's Fund in Scotland through the failure of the Scotcraft Furniture Company, Limited, located on the trading estate at Hillington?
    Mr. Colville: The Commissioner has undertaken to make a contribution to this firm towards the cost of rent and rates which for the period prior to liquidation amounts to less than £200. This payment would not in any case be recoverable.
    Mr. Leonard: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this firm gave a promise not to produce a type of commodity in competition with established factories, and that the advantages of this trading estate were made available on this assumption?
    Mr. Colville: That is rather a different question.

  MERCHANT SHIPS AND AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY RESERVES.
  Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister when it is proposed to consider the Supplementary Estimates for the reserves of merchant ships and of agricultural machinery?
  The Prime Minister: The House will appreciate the urgency of proceeding with the arrangements for the building up of a reserve of Merchant Ships and for establishing a reserve of Tractors and other Agricultural Machinery. Legislative authority will be required, and the Bills will be presented in due course. In the meantime, we propose to ask Parliament to give the necessary authority before commitments are entered into or expenditure incurred. The Supplementary Estimates were circulated to Members this morning, and it is essential to obtain the Committee and Report Stages before the
  1194
  House adjourns for Whitsun. I hope that it will be possible to close the Debate on the Pay and Allowances for the Militia at a reasonable hour to-morrow, so that we can then consider the Supplementary Estimates for Merchant Ships and Agricultural Machinery.
  Mr. Attlee: The Prime Minister will realise that very great pressure is being put upon the House at this time, and as far as we are concerned it is impossible to say when the Debate on the pay and allowances to the militia to-morrow will end. It will all depend upon the attitude of His Majesty's Government. If the necessary concessions are forthcoming, no doubt it will not take us long. We recognise that these Supplementary Estimates deal with urgent matters to which we are not opposed in principle, but if these are to be taken at such an hour as has been suggested, can we be assured that there will be a better opportunity of discussing the subsequent Bills? This matter involves very large expenditure, and it is vital that we should consider very carefully the conditions that are to be laid down.
  The Prime Minister: I fully recognise the truth of what the right hon. Gentleman says, namely, that the House is under very considerable pressure at the present time, but he himself will recognise the urgency of these matters. There will, of course, be opportunity later when legislation is introduced to consider further the details of the proposals, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that full opportunity will be given then.
  Sir P. Harris: Have the Government considered, if this vast expenditure is to be pushed through without adequate discussion, the importance of control over the expenditure as a check against waste? Would he consider the possibility of appointing a committee similar to that which was appointed during the War in 1917 to control expenditure?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot answer a question of that kind without notice.
  Mr. Benn: The Estimate for these conscripts is £100, and has not the Chancellor of the Exchequer formed some estimate of the real cost of the expenditure on this matter?
  Sir Waldron Smithers: Work it out.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (TRANSFER RESTRICTION).
  The following Notice of Motion stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Miss WARD: To ask leave to bring in a Bill
  "to restrict the transfer of British ships to persons not qualified to own British ships without the consent of the Board of Trade and for purposes connected therewith."
  Miss Ward: In view of the recent announcement and the developments which are pending, I do not intend to move my Motion to-day. May I say how glad I am to note that the Government have been stimulated into action in this matter?

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
    STANDING COMMITTEE A.
    Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Twenty Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Building Societies (No. 2) Bill): The Attorney-General, Captain Briscoe, Sir George Broadbridge, Sir John Smedley Crooke, Captain Crookshank, Mr. Elliot, Mr. Ernest Evans, Mr. Holmes, Miss Hors-brugh, Mr. Mabane, Mr. McCorquodale, Major Neven-Spence, Mr. Parker, Mr. Selley, The Solicitor-General, Mr. H. Strauss, Mr. Viant, Mr. Westwood, Miss Wilkinson, and Mr. Woods.

    SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.
    Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Solicitors Amendment (Scotland) Bill [Lords]): Brigadier-General Clifton Brown, Sir Thomas Cook, Colonel Cruddas, Mr. Duggan, Mr. Gledhill, Mr. Hepworth, Sir John Mellor, Mr. Allan Reid, Major Shaw, and Wing-Commander Wright.
    Reports to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—
  London and North Eastern Railway (Superannuation Fund) Bill, without Amendment.
  Amendments to—

  Wild Birds (Duck and Geese) Protection Bill [Lords],

  Limitation Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to alter the constitution of the Conservators of the River Medway; to make further provisions with respect to the dues to be taken by the Conservators; to confer further powers upon the Conservators; and for other purposes." [Medway Conservancy Bill [Lords.]
  And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the transfer to the Bognor Gas and Electricity Company of the Undertaking of the City of Chichester Gas Company; to confer further powers upon the Bognor Gas and Electricity Company and to change the name of that Company; and for other purposes." [Bognor Gas and Electricity Bill [Lords.]

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    MEDWAY CONSERVANCY BILL [Lords],
      BOGNOR GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL [Lords],
      Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  MILITARY TRAINING BILL.
  [5TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee. [Progress, 15th May.]
  [Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

  MILITARY TRAINING BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to apply Act to British subjects ordinarily resident outside Great Britain.)
    The Minister may by regulations made under this Act impose upon any class or description of male British subjects between the ages of twenty years and twenty-one years who are ordinarily resident outside Great Britain, the like obligation to register as is by this Act imposed on persons ordinarily resident in Great Britain, and such regulations shall make provision for applying to persons thereby required to register the provisions of this Act, subject to such adaptations and modifications as may be prescribed for the purpose of imposing and conferring upon such persons the like duties, liabilities, rights and privileges, as nearly as may be, as are by this Act imposed or conferred on persons ordinarily resident in Great Britain, and may make provision as to the manner in which any duties, liabilities, rights or privileges, are to be performed, discharged, or exercised:
    Provided that regulations made under this Section shall not apply to persons ordinarily resident in any part of His Majesty's dominions outside Great Britain, in any British protectorate, in any mandated territory, or in any other country or territory being a country or territory under His Majesty's protection or suzerainty.—[The Attorney-General.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    3.50 p.m.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This Clause gives power to apply the Bill to British subjects ordinarily resident outside Great Britain. If hon. Members will look at the proviso they will see that the regulations to be made under the new Clause will not apply to those ordinarily resident in any part of His Majesty's Dominions outside Great Britain, and the purpose of the new Clause therefore is to deal with British subjects ordinarily resident in foreign countries. It is obviously desirable that there should be power by regulation to detal with the special cases of these persons. It is impossible for me to forecast the specific matters with which the regulations will deal, but may I give
    1218
    one example which, I hope, will make clear the necessity for this regulation power in order that the modifications which are necessary to apply the Bill to these persons should be made? It might for example, be desirable to consider whether one should provide that in cases where registration takes place abroad the British conscript should be given opportunities to state his age and other particulars in the country where he is living and residing. These particulars would then come over here and he would then be informed when it would be necessary for him to come and do his training. If there is no regulation of that kind, he has to come over here to register and then might be kept waiting some time before he is called up. It is to deal with matters of that kind, to see that the machinery applies to these special cases with as little hardship as possible that this regulation power is inserted in the Bill.
    Mr. Logan: Does that mean that his passage both ways would be paid?
    The Attorney-General: I have given one example of the kind of case which would come under consideration under these regulations. I cannot give any information as to what financial provision might or might not be thought reasonable in regard to these special cases. The Committee is now being asked to accept a provision which will enable arrangements to be made to deal with these cases.
    Mr. Logan: The Attorney-General has said that it might be desirable for this person to register in, shall I say, a consulate and then be sent over here for military training. The question arises as to the cost of transportation.
    The Attorney-General: I cannot give a pledge, nor do I think it would be expected of me, as to what financial assistance might or might not be provided to meet these special cases. I quite appreciate the point of the hon. Member, but it is an example of the necessity for a Clause of this kind, to enable special regulations to be made to deal with the special circumstances of these cases.
    3.57 p.m.
    Mr. Wedgwood Benn: What happens to a Dominion national who is living in this country, for instance, a South African? Is he liable to be called up or not? I saw a statement by General

    1219
    Hertzog that no South African national will be liable. Further, I should like to ask what is the position as regards the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man? Are boys of 20 in the Channel Islands liable to be called up or not? These places are clearly part of His Majesty's Dominions outside Great Britain and have their own Parliaments. Then what is the position of a young employé who is working in Paris or Rome? It is only fair if you conscript a boy at home that you should conscript him also; and why do you exclude a boy who happens to be working in Egypt or Tangiers or any British Colony? Why does he not get notice to serve his term? I object to the whole thing. The plan has not been thought twit at all; it has been done in a rush, and the Government are hoping that regulations made during a week-end will cover all these cases.
    3.58 p.m.
    Mr. C. S. Taylor: I understand that we are permitted to discuss an Amendment standing in my name to the Clause—at the end to add:
    "This Section shall not apply to persons who are already under an obligation to serve under the military training regulations of a friendly Power."
    I know that my Amendment is drafted very badly indeed, but it has been put down in this form in order to have a discussion on cases which are bound to arise under the Bill as it stands at present. I should like to ask what will be the position of a young man born of English parents who are living in France? Under French law he is liable to the French conscription laws, and in the event of France and Great Britain serving on the same side in a war, the young Englishman may be called up to serve in the French Army, and also may be called up to serve in the British Army. If he does not respond in either case he might be shot or court-martialed as a deserter. In fact, there was one case during the last War in which an Englishman served with distinction in the British Army and subsequently was imprisoned by the French authorities for not having served in the French Army. That is one case.
    There is another case I have in mind which affects a constituent of mine, a young man born of English parents in the Argentine. Under Argentinian law he is bound to serve in the Argentine national
    1220
    service. If he does not do so he forfeits very considerable civil rights, for instance, he forfeits the right to inherit real estate. That young man comes over here for educational purposes and is of an age to be called up as a militiaman under this Bill. Actually in this particular case the young man would like to be called up and is looking forward to it, but he has still a dual obligation which he may not be able to carry out at some future date, because when the time comes he will again offer himself under the Argentinian law to serve under that country's national service regulations. In the event of hostilities who would have the first claim on that young man?
    I am advised that there are many cases similar to this. It seems to me that the only way to get out of this rather difficult situation is to come to an agreement with certain friendly Powers; that is to say, if a young man desires to serve with such and such a country where conscription or national service regulations are in force, he shall be exempted from serving under the national service regulations of the other Power; but in this case of dual responsibility the young man should not be called up to serve under the law of both countries, because at some future date he may find himself in a very difficult position.
    4.2 p.m.
    Mr. R. Acland: I would refer to line 15 of the proposed new Clause. At some later stage of the Bill will the learned Attorney-General not want to insert some words which will show that this line refers to any British mandated territory? As the Clause stands it looks as if people living in a British protectorate would be exempted from the Bill and that all people living in any mandated territory would be exempted. A man living in Syria, which is mandated to France, would be excluded by this proviso. But that is not the intention of the Bill, and the matter should be made clear beyond doubt.
    4.3 p.m.
    Mr. Silverman: Some of the difficult points with which this new Clause bristles have been referred to, particularly by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor). But there are other difficulties. I recognise that the Clause proposes only to take power to make regulations, and no doubt the regulations, when they are

    1221
    made, will take account of the many difficulties, but it is as well that we should realise what will be the effect of such regulations as are made. I take it that boys between 20 and 21 years of age will then be in the same position in places abroad as are those at home, with all the rights that are accorded to those who are at home—for instance the right to appear before a hardship tribunal and to apply to have the period of service anticipated or postponed; the right to claim exemption on conscientious grounds, to appear before a tribunal and make good his claim to be so exempted; and the right to appeal to a central appeal tribunal in London. All these matters are bound to be extremely difficult to work out in practice. Some of us are left wondering how it will be possible to frame regulations that will work if the men I have referred to are to have exactly the same rights as they would have if living in this country.
    Another difficulty occurs to me. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) spoke of boys who happened to be living in friendly countries. I do not know what countries he included in that category, but evidently he meant to exclude some other countries that are not friendly. Suppose that the regulations apply to a country like that, what would be the effect? I know that civilians living in enemy countries in time of war are supposed to have certain rights, but these men would have been declared to be, as it were, soldiers, and they are living perhaps in a hostile country. They are not actively combatant, but the effect of the regulations would be to make them part of the military machine. What would be their position? The whole Clause so bristles with difficulties that I am left wondering why the Government have thought it worth while to introduce it at all. I am wondering whether any estimate has been made by the Government as to the number of men likely to be affected by the regulations made under the Clause. Are they so considerable as to make it worth while to overcome the many obstacles? Is there any estimate? If no estimate has been made or if an estimate has been made and it shows that only a very few men are affected, would the Government say why it has been thought worth while to do this thing? Is it really what they call in other spheres of life a talking point, something with which to meet criticism at home, as to people who
    1222
    are not subject to this requirement? The Committee are entitled to some further explanation of how the Clause is to operate.
    4.7 p.m.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: I believe that if this Bill is to be applied to young men between 20 and 21 in this country it ought also to apply to every other Britisher of that age living in any part of the world; but I want to go on from that statement to ask the Minister whether he has considered something else. It is proposed to apply the Bill to British subjects "ordinarily resident outside Great Britain." According to an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for East bourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) and other hon. Members, this new Clause is not to apply "to persons who are already under an obligation to serve under the military training regulations of a friendly Power." The proposal enables us to raise a very important issue which has not yet been raised, and it is one that the Committee should consider. I know that in several countries, and especially in one country which is smarting under some bitter experience of a recent date, the young men, and also the young women of this particular country, want to support an alignment of forces which will stand for the preservation and maintenance of law and order in international affairs. I want to ask whether the Government have considered enabling these young men in certain countries, as in our own country, provided they have confidence in the foreign policy—
    The Deputy-Chairman: That subject is quite outside the scope of the Bill. We are not legislating for foreign nationals.
    Mr. Smith: I realised that I was skating on very thin ice, but this is the only opportunity we shall have of raising this issue and I have had several letters from friends in many parts of the world.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid that this is not an opportunity.
    Mr. Smith: Under that Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, I do not seem to get anywhere. The Amendment to the new Clause which I have already quoted says that the Clause shall not apply "to persons who are already under an obligation to serve under the military training regulations of a friendly Power." My point

    1223
    is that when people are friendly towards this country they also should have an opportunity of serving in the way that we are calling upon our own young men to serve.
    4.10 p.m.
    Captain Heilgers: I wish to refer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor). In referring to an Amendment which is on the Paper in his name he quoted the case of a boy who was born in the Argentine. I have heard of a similar case of a young man who was born in the Argentine. He lived all his life in the Argentine, until he came nearly to the age for military service. He then returned to this country. He was summoned back to the Argentine to do his service, but he did not go. The position then was that he was under an obligation to serve in the Argentine and he did not fulfil that obligation. Under the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne he not only would have escaped service in the Argentine but he would be released from the obligatoin to serve in this country.
    Mr. C. S. Taylor: Let me explain. The position is that if a man does not fulfil his obligation under the Argentinian military laws he forfeits any civil rights he may have as a citizen in the Argentine.
    Captain Heilgers: The particular young man to whom I have referred would escape the obligation to serve in either country.
    Mr. R. C. Morrison: I see no reason why this Committee should get hot and bothered about young men in the Argentine seeing that we have already decided to give exemption to young men in Northern Ireland.
    4.12 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: I will deal first with the questions put by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He asked four questions. I will try to keep within the Rules of Order, though some of the questions arise really on Clause 1 and some of them on an Amendment which is on the Paper. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the question of a South African national. The Committee knows that the Bill does not apply to persons ordinarily resident in the Dominions overseas. That, of course, includes self-governing Dominions primarily,
    1224
    but colonies and protectorates as well. Therefore prima facie a Union national is excluded. If Union nationals come to this country and identify themselves with this country, under South African law they lose South African nationality. The test applied by the Bill to an Amendment passed yesterday is that South African nationals or those who are nationals of other self-governing Dominions, or who are born or domiciled in other parts of the Empire, are prima facie excluded unless they have been here for more than two years—that, incidentally, is the term in the South African nationality law—or unless they can show that they were here merely for a temporary purpose. That seems to be a reasonable provision.
    The Channel Islands are excluded from the main provisions of the Bill. The Isle of Man is dealt with in Clause 15. One hon. Member has asked, why do you make the Bill apply to a young man who may be in Rome, whereas you do not make it apply to a young man who lives or is domiciled in parts of the British Empire? The reason is this: Those who live in self-governing Dominions or parts of the British Empire have their own defence obligations in respect of the country in which they live. Those obligations may not be the same as these, but they have those obligations for defence in the British territory or protectorate where they are living. With regard to a British subject living in a foreign country, such a person retains the advantage of British nationality, and he can claim our protection if he gets into trouble in a foreign country. Therefore, it seems right—and the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) supported this—that the Bill should not exclude such a person.
    Mr. Benn: As regards the point about the Colonies, obviously there is a defence obligation on a young Englishman in the Colonies, just as there is on all of us. The character of the obligation has been altered in this country, and therefore, there is a case for altering the character of the obligation from voluntary to compulsory in the Colonies. However, it is not worth while pursuing that matter. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will tell us what is going to happen to youths in the Channel Islands, which are not regarded as being overseas.
    Mr. Denville: Surely, the King's Writ does not apply to the Channel Islands?
    The Attorney-General: The Channel Islands are in a special position. I understand that they have an annual dinner there to celebrate the occasion when they conquered this country in 1066. The Bill as drafted does not apply to the Channel Islands in the sense of bringing them within the liabilities under the Bill. With regard to the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor), who frankly admitted that his Amendment would not do, I am bound to say that I think there would be great difficulties in defining in an Act of Parliament the sort of man my hon. Friend has in mind. I agree that there are difficult individual cases, and that there is the possibility of a conflict between the nationality laws of different countries, or, if not between the nationality laws, between the laws imposing an obligation of military service. A man may find himself a national of one country under its law and a national of another country under its law. There are cases of double nationality just as there are cases of no nationality. There are cases where the law of a country says that people residing in it shall undertake certain military obligations. All those are difficult problems. They have, of course, arisen already in the case of nationals of those countries which have had conscription as one of the obligations imposed on their citizens. I do not know that there has been any complete and final solution of the problems, so that there shall in no case be a conflict between different conceptions and different duties. All I can say at the moment is that every point which my hon. Friend raised is an argument for a Clause which enables regulations to be made dealing with special circumstances which may arise within the scope of this part of the Bill.
    The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland) suggested that we ought to insert the word "British" before "mandated territory." I am not sure that the hon. Member is right. However, I will look into that point. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) spoke of the great difficulty of framing regulations that would work. Difficult problems will arise, of course, but I am not so pessimistic as the hon. Member is. The problems to which he referred are, of course, problems that have arisen in the past with regard to other countries, such as France, which have had conscription
    1226
    for many years. I agree that there is no absolutely final solution of those problems which is completely satisfactory, but I believe that the principle of making the Bill apply to those who are British subjects but reside abroad is a fair one. There will be difficulties in applying it, but all we are asking the Committee to do is to give power for regulations to be made which, as fairly and effectively as possible, may apply the principle to the cases to which it has to apply.
    Mr. Silverman: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer my question as to whether any estimate has been made of the number of persons who would be affected by such a Clause?
    The Attorney-General: No. As far as I know, no estimate has been made.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Parliamentary Franchise.)
    Every person registered for military training under this Act shall, notwithstanding that he is under twenty-one years of age, be entitled to be registered as a parliamentary elector and to vote at parliamentary elections in all respects as if he had attained the age of twenty-one.—[Mr. Benn.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    4.20 p.m.
    Mr. Benn: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The purpose of this new Clause is so obvious that it is not necessary for me to discuss it. Clearly, if we are to have this new conception of a citizen at the age of 20, and if the obligation to serve is to be laid upon a young man at the age of 20, we cannot take him as a citizen for the purposes of service and deprive him of the rights of a citizen for the purposes of voting. That being so, the purpose of the new Clause is self-evident, and therefore, I do not propose to say anything more about it, but to wait to hear whether any objections are raised by the Minister. If they are, then my hon. Friends and I will take an opportunity of trying to answer those objections.
    4.21 p.m.
    Mr. Lunn: I support the new Clause. I am entirely opposed to this Bill, but if anything can be done to make conditions

    1227
    better for those who are to be conscripted under the Bill, I shall support it. This is a new Clause that is likely to be acceptable to the Government, and I cannot see any objection to it. In the Representation of the People Act, 1918, Section 5, Sub-section (4) provided that a male naval or military voter of 19 years of age who served in or in connection with the war should be entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector. I remember how that provision was applied. I remember that in my division, in 1918, there was a larger percentage of voters who were absent than voters who were living in the constituency at the time. The provision was taken full advantage of by the men who were serving. As the provision at that time applied to men of 19 years of age, there is no reason why it should not apply to those who are 20 in the present case. Those who will undertake the responsibilities of citizenship when they are conscripted ought, if there is any election, to have a say as to who shall be their representatives. If they can change the Government, good luck to them. If they do get the vote, I hope they will be wise enough to do that; at any rate, we shall give them an opportunity of doing so if the Government are prepared to accept the Amendment, as I hope they will be.
    4.23 p.m.
    Sir Arnold Wilson: There is on the Order Paper a little later on a new Clause in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends who take very much the same view. I should have liked to have seen the exclusion of conscientious objectors, as in 1916, as an essential part of any legislation which gives the vote to those who serve. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I do not propose to take up the time of the Committee to explain what seems to me to be a self-evident fact. There are many hon. Members on this side of the Committee who thought it right, when the Bill was introduced, that we should give the right to vote to those men who are old enough to serve their country and are willing to do so. There would be no difficulty in working this provision in the Army. There would be no difficulty in providing for absentee voters, and I have every reason to believe that the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) is right when he says that it was very largely taken advantage of. In
    1228
    the Army, a man has not to walk five miles to vote or even to try to find a car to take him; the ballot box is in the barracks at a convenient point. There are no such facilities for voting in civil life as there are in the Army. I think the Clause moved by the right hon. Gentleman is a reasonable one, although naturally I would have preferred my own; and I hope the Government will accept it.
    4.25 p.m.
    Mr. Tomlinson: I should like to support the new Clause, which I prefer to that in the name of the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson), since this new Clause contains the word "shall" instead of the word "may." In the Committee upstairs this morning, we discussed for three hours whether a provision should be permissive or mandatory. In this particular instance, I think it ought to be mandatory. If ever there was a case of the sins of the fathers being visited upon the children, it is in the introduction of this Bill. I would suggest that the only people who are entitled to be called up are those who have had a say in what Government there should be during the last 20 years. The people who have made a mess of things are the people who ought to be called upon to clean up the mess. Therefore, I think the young men of 20 are entitled to ask that the sins of their fathers shall not be visited upon them. At any rate, the new Clause means that if we are to call upon these young men to undertake service which is regarded as being so essential that it must be made compulsory, then they are entitled to have a say as to who shall represent them in the House of Commons, and to have all the advantages, if they can be called advantages, of citizenship when they are called up in this way.
    4.27 p.m.
    Mr. Beverley Baxter: There is one point which is causing some confusion to some hon. Members on this side of the Committee. The new Clause contains the phrase "registered for military training." Does this mean that a young man who goes for six months' training becomes automatically a voter, and that another young man, a trade unionist indispensable in his work, remains disenfranchised; or do hon. Members opposite want to confer certain distinctions of citizenship upon trained military men and not upon trade unionists? Or does it really mean

    1229
    that the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting the lowering of the voting age to 20, for that is what the change would amount to?
    4.28 p.m.
    Mr. E. J. Williams: As I understand the matter, the young men would be regisstered in both the cases to which the hon. Member referred. Probably, we shall have a reply on that point from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. I support the new Clause, which certainly is a far better one than that in the name of the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson). Apparently, the hon. Member does not want conscientious objectors to have any rights at all.
    Sir A. Wilson: On the contrary, I have no objection to their having the right to vote at 21.
    Mr. Williams: Last night, when the Minister of Labour was speaking about the protection of civil rights, I interjected a question as to whether it would be possible for the Government to give an undertaking that political rights should come within the category of civil rights. I received no reply. I wonder whether the Minister who is to reply to this Debate will accept this Clause as an indication that the Government are prepared to give complete civil rights to these young men, and to give them the opportunity to decide for themselves the type of Government that there shall be in this country so that they may be able to direct the foreign policy for which they are expected to fight. If these young men are considered fit and proper persons to fight for their country, they should be considered fit and proper persons to have the intelligence to decide the kind of policy for which they should fight. Against that, I should think there would be no objection from any hon. Member.
    4.31 p.m.
    Sir Francis Acland: I hope the Government will be disposed to look favourably on the principle contained in this Clause. It is a small honour for the men, and I do not know that it would be very much valued. The difficulty about elections in these days is that so many people are hardly to be induced to vote at all, on one side or the other, and to add to their numbers slightly would do a little good. It would have this great advantage from the point of view of the Chancellor of
    1230
    the Exchequer, that it would cost nothing, among the many other proposals, which might cost more, that could be urged on behalf of the people who are to be taken up under this Bill. I think the Government on the whole have been doing their best, subject to the feelings which they know that many of us have about the principle, to make the way in which the principle is to be applied as reasonable and, one might say, as friendly and convenient as possible. This is a little recognition of the claim that a man who comes up under the Bill should get on the voters' register automatically, which is what the principle of the Clause says. I think it will do a little bit of good, and I cannot conceive how it could do a single particle of harm.
    4.32 p.m.
    Sir Irving Albery: I understand that a young man can, under this Bill, be called up for training in certain circumstances before the age of 20. Therefore, I take it that if this new Clause were accepted, we should get younger men, perhaps those of 18, having the right to vote. I cannot see that the mere fact of a young man being called up for military training should of necessity immediately confer upon him the right to vote. I am sure that by the time his education has been completed by the military training he will receive he will be more fit to vote than he was before, and as the usual time would be at about the age of 20—
    Mr. George Griffiths: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that some of these youths in colleges and universities who are about 26 years old cannot have a vote as well until they have finished their education?
    Sir I. Albery: I never suggested anything of the kind; I merely said that this particular form of military training is, to my mind, an additional education as far as it goes, which will fit such as respond to it to fulfil the function of voting, and as the ordinary time for being called up will be about 20 years of age, and they will get the vote any way when they are 21, although it may sound unsympathetic, I do not think there is much in the proposal.
    4.34 p.m.
    Mr. C. S. Taylor: As I understand it, the only reason for the Clause is not

    1231
    because young men of 20 should be entitled to say whether or not they should be called upon actually to fight, but because they should have the right to choose, or vote for, their representatives in this House in case the country should be involved in war. I do not see that there is anything in this Bill that gives that excuse at all. Under the Bill, as I see it, the young man is being trained against an emergency which may never occur; he is being trained to fit himself for an emergency in which he would have to serve, in case it did occur, whether this Bill was passed or not. Therefore, I do not see that there is really any excuse for introducing this Clause purely because this Bill is going to be passed into law.
    4.35 p.m.
    Mr. Logan: As far as I am able to understand it, this Bill will not last merely for a month or a year. It would appear to me that its termination cannot come under three years, and as far as I am able to view things, I think it is here for an indefinite period. The principle that we are adopting here to-day is that we are at the genesis of a new orientation in regard to the question of the life of the young men of this country, and we are bringing them into a new category of life entirely. Before, we had a voluntary system, but this is not a voluntary system, and of sheer necessity, on account of age, these young men will come under the military system as conscripts. I look upon this as a very serious matter. I regard a young man who is now taking his place in the country as beginning to realise that at least he is playing a part in the affairs of the land. It may be that some may not be able to understand that responsibility, but I think the greatest factor in any man's life, even at the age of 20, is the thought that he may be able to realise that he is a factor in this land of ours.
    Because of that, I do not want him to be an automaton. I want him to realise that when he comes into the affairs of this nation, he is playing his proper part and is having a voice in the affairs of the land. If he is asked to give his life for his country, he has a right to say who, in the destiny of this land, shall go. I think it is fair to say that if the price is that he must fight and give his life for his land,
    1232
    he should have the power of being able to say under whose direction and under what particular Government it shall be. We then raise the status of a man to the realisation that he is alive, because there are many people who, even when they get to old age, have not realised the fact that they are alive. It is because I want the youth of the land to realise, at a very early age, what part they are playing in the affairs of the nation that I am anxious that all parties, whether Labour or Tory, shall be able to exercise the voice and the power of youth in making this country take its proper place among the nations of the world. I am convinced that if, at the age of 20, we get the young recruit in as a conscript, with all the privileges and disabilities of which we have heard, he will be a worthy citizen and found worthy of the vote. I therefore support this Clause.
    4.39 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if, after the speeches which we have heard from all quarters, I were to state the view of the Government on this proposed new Clause, and possibly also to explain to the Committee what the Clause actually does, because the right hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn), who introduced it, was content to state it as a self-evident proposition and did not really give any detailed explanation to the Committee of the effects of the Clause. This, of course, is not a general proposition that we should reduce the age for voting at Parliamentary elections. If it were, it would, I conceive, be out of order on this Bill and would have to be the subject of a special Bill dealing with electoral reform. Since, I believe, the year 1694 the minimum age for exercising the Parliamentary vote has been 21, with one solitary exception, and that was under the Representation of the People Act, 1918, under which that age was reduced to 19 in respect of men who had served in the War. I will read the words of Section 5 (4) of that Act:
    "A male naval or military voter who has served or hereafter serves in or in connection with the present War shall be entitled to be registered … at the age of 19 years."
    That was a totally different proposition from the proposal in this Clause, which is that a man who is registered under Clause 1 of this Bill for military training

    1233
    shall be entitled to be put upon the Parliamentary register. The Committee will observe the difference between the two propositions. In the War the vote was given in respect of past military service; here it is proposed that it should be given in respect of a liability only to some future training; and it is a wholly different proposition, because many people who will come within the mischief, if it may be so called, of Clause 1 of the Bill, that is to say, people who have to be registered for military service, will not in fact undertake any military training. They may come within Clause 4 of the Bill, which provides for medical examination, under which they may be disqualified from undertaking military training; they may come within Clause 3 as conscientious objectors; and they may also fall within one of the exceptions under Clause 2 of the Bill, that is to say, men who have already enlisted in some branch of His Majesty's Forces.
    There is a second objection, and one, I think, of a conclusive character, to this proposal, and that is that it differentiates between the man who is drawn into military training under some degree of compulsion under this Bill, and a man who has volunteered of his own free will, either by joining the Regular Army, the Navy, or the Air Force, or has joined some branch of the Territorial Army; and I think that if there were no other objection to this Clause, that would be conclusive. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Clause gave us a panegyric on the voluntary system the other day, in his speech on the Second Reading, and I should have thought that he would have been the last person who would give a right in respect of the Parliamentary vote to men who are subject to some measure of compulsion and deny it to those who have come forward for voluntary service under the age of 21.
    Mr. Buchanan: We do not deny it. What happens is that under this Bill the only way in which we can move to give these people a vote is to give it to those who are covered by the Bill. What would happen would be that within 24 hours of this Clause being accepted, the House of Commons would pass the same for every other man in the Army.
    Mr. Peake: Then we should be going back to the general proposition that the voting age should be lowered, not only
    1234
    for men, but for women who are engaged in any form of national service.
    In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson), I do not think he will find much support in any part of the Committee for the suggestion that we should disqualify the conscientious objector from exercising the Parliamentary vote. It is a proposition to which the Government cannot accede. My hon. Friend also desired to make sure that nobody who would, otherwise, be entitled to exercise a Parliamentary vote, shall be prevented by anything in this Bill from exercising it. There will, of course, be men serving under this Bill who will have qualified by attaining the age of 21, at some period of their service, to exercise a Parliamentary vote. I assure the Committee that the ordinary provisions as to naval and military voters being put on the absent voters list will cover the position of men who are subject to the provisions of the Bill.
    4.47 p.m.
    Mr. Benn: Of course there are difficulties in this proposal. Difficulties are inherent in this sort of legislation, but they are not of our making. It may be said, "What about the women?" Of course, that is a difficulty. It may be said, "What about the volunteers?" Of course, that is a difficulty. But it is not we who are making this basic alteration in the system of our society. It is true that I made a speech opposing this Bill and upholding the voluntary system. We have opposed this Measure, but we have been beaten and now something is being imposed upon these boys without their consent. The Under-Secretary for the Home Office very ably and efficiently made a logical case against us. But I ask the Committee to observe the case against the Government. The boy of 20 can say to the Government, "You have altered the whole system. You have compelled me to go into the Army. I was not consulted. I had no voice in the matter, and I have been compelled to give up my trade in order to go into the Army."
    Some hon. Members talk as though all these boys were at schools and universities, but the letters which hon. Members are receiving every day show that many of these boys take an important part in the domestic economy of their homes, and in the support of their parents. I had

    1235
    a letter from one boy who is affected, and who had just opened a little shop, and there are innumerable cases of that kind. I can tell the Government that the unemployment insurance grievances are nothing compared with the grievances which will arise under this Bill. Then, in addition, the Government propose to tell these boys who believe that they are suffering under an injustice, "You are to have no voice in these matters." They are being forced into the Service, but not one of them will have a vote in returning a Member here, or have a say as to the conditions under which he shall serve. Therefore, I say that while there are difficulties, and while a case has been very ably put against the new Clause, there is an even stronger case against the proposition that these boys should be forced into the Army and deprived of their rights as citizens. That is far more serious than any debating case that can be made against our proposal.
    4.49 p.m.
    Mr. R. J. Taylor: I am sure the Committee has been disappointed by the statement of the Under-Secretary. His arguments were puerile and will not bear examination. Reference has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) to the precedent which the Under-Secretary also quoted. The Under-Secretary said that in that case the vote had been given for past services and mainly to those who had joined voluntarily. In this case we are taking an unprecedented step. For the first time in our history we have determined that, in peace time, young men of 20 are to be compulsorily taken into the Army. This is the most important thing that can happen in the lives of most of these young men. I disagree with the view that in the previous case the vote was given for past services, but leaving that question for the moment, I ask the Committee to consider, how much more important it is that these young men, who are being compulsorily taken into the Army, shall have some say as to what the conditions of their future service will be. Undoubtedly the future service which they will be called upon to render to the country, will be largely determined by those who occupy the benches opposite. You are taking liberty away from these young men. At least, they should have a say as to who is to legislate for them,
    1236
    since on the legislation and the policy of the Government may depend the question of whether they will be called upon to serve in war.
    Hon. Members speak of differentiations. Our electoral law still has a number of differentiations. What about the property vote which gives a man two votes, or the university vote? Our electoral legislation teemed with differentiations. As time went on, and more people became qualified, these inequalities were more or less ironed out, but some differentiations still exist and the wealthy and propertied people are not prepared to give up those differentiations which are their own privileges. No real argument has been advanced against the Clause, and in view of the fact that we are conscripting these young men for the service of the country, the least we can do is to give them the vote at 20, so that they may have some say, at all events, in the determination of their future.
    4.52 p.m.
    Mr. Lipson: We have been told that the number liable to be called up each year under this Bill will be something like 300,000. We may ask ourselves: What serious effect will it have on the country if 300,000 men who are called upon to undergo special training to fit themselves for citizenship are given the vote a year earlier than would otherwise be the case? No one can suggest that that can have any serious or harmful effect upon the political decisions reached at any Election. The argument has been used that we should continue, as we have done since 1694, to regard 21 as the age at which the vote ought to be given. But the circumstances have changed. This Bill gives a special significance to the age of 20 and I support the proposal that these young men should be given the vote.
    I do not think that we are merely conferring a favour upon them. I regard the vote, not only as a privilege but as an obligation. Under this Bill, we are giving them the special obligation to undergo military training, and I would like to extend their obligation into another department of citizenship by giving them the opportunity of having a say in the political disposition of the nation. We were told that a conclusive objection to this proposal is that serving men who have volunteered would not get the vote until they were 21. But were we deterred

    1237
    from giving marriage allowances to men of 20, because we were not giving them to men of a similar age already serving? No, but we did the obvious, fair and reasonable thing and said, "We shall give marriage allowances to the men at 20 under this Measure and the men who have volunteered shall also get them." No supporter of this proposal will put any difficulty in the way of the Government extending the right to vote to those of 20 years of age who are already serving.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is now going rather outside the bounds of order. The question of a general extension of the franchise is not before us.
    Mr. Buchanan: May I submit that the Under-Secretary, on behalf of the Government, used the argument that other men already serving would not, under this proposition, get the vote. Surely the hon. Member is now entitled to argue that if this concession is made, the Government can take steps to apply it to the others, without necessarily arguing a case for a general extension of the franchise. Is he not entitled to use the argument that if this new Clause is passed, others will be brought in as well? As the hon. Member pointed out, we have already decided that marriage allowances should be given to these men, and that steps should be taken to give marriage allowances to the others as well.
    The Deputy-Chairman: There can be no question about making use of the statement regarding marriage allowances in this connection, but the question of the franchise as a whole does not arise on this new Clause.
    Mr. Lipson: I accept your Ruling, Colonel Clifton Brown, but I hope I have been able to get in enough to make my point clear. I have only one observation to add. We have heard a great deal about the psychological effect of this Bill. I ask the Committee to consider the psychological effect on the country, if it is suggested that, on the one hand these men are fit to accept the obligation of military training, while, on the other hand, we do not consider them fit to accept the full responsibilities of citizenship. I ask the Committee to realise all the implications of the Bill and to accept the proposed new Clause.
    4.57 p.m.
    Mr. McEntee: I am sure that the Undersecretary did not desire to mislead the Committee when he referred to the Section of the Act of 1918, but I must call attention to the fact that it refers to any male naval or military voter
    "who has served or hereafter serves."
    Mr. Peake: I would ask the hon. Member to read the next words of the Section which are
    "in or in connection with the present War."
    Mr. McEntee: I think, nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman did give the impression to the Committee that only those who had served were entitled to the vote under that Section, and I merely point out that it applies also to those who might hereafter serve. At a meeting last week-end I heard the statement made from the platform that the Government deliberately called up these young men of 20 to 21 because they had no votes, and no right to say by votes what they thought of the Government's decision. That statement was received with very hearty applause and, rightly or wrongly, the people at that meeting were convinced that it was a deliberate act of the Government to select for calling-up men who had not the vote and who could not, therefore, effectively voice their criticism of the Bill. When I saw this new Clause I thought "Here is an opportunity for the Government to prove that they have confidence in their own Bill." If they have not got the confidence of the young people who are being called up for military training and who may have to serve in war, here is a chance for them to gain that confidence. I must express amazement at the Under-Secretary's announcement of the Government's intention to refuse these young men the right to vote. In the last War young men of 19 were permitted to vote. If that was a right course to pursue, what reason can be given now why young men of 20 should not be permitted to vote? Surely, if they are old enough to serve their country by offering their lives, if that be necessary, they are old enough to express their opinion by their votes on any matter which may arise in connection with the war, if one comes, or in connection with the government of the country.
    I was sorry to hear the Undersecretary throw some doubt on the bona-fides of these young men. He said that

    1239
    they had been conscripted, forced into the Army, or some such words. He was making a comparison between them and the volunteers. There is nothing to prevent the Government, on the Report stage, if they so desire, introducing an Amendment which would extend the vote to the volunteers. If that cannot be done on this Bill, there are other ways in which it can be done. The hon. Member seemed to suggest that we on these benches were responsible for keeping the volunteers out of the right to have a vote. We do not wish to keep them out of that right. We are prevented from giving it to them under this Bill, but there is nothing to prevent the Government from giving it to them, if they so desire. If they are prepared to extend the vote to the volunteers, by all means let them do so, and no one on these benches will vote against such an Amendment.
    I would ask the Government to reconsider this matter. It could not do them very much harm to grant these young men of 20 the right to vote, even if they voted against the Government. I wish they would do so, but I do not suppose that all of them would do that, Even if they did vote against the Government, the Government's majority is sufficiently big to be able to face it. The Government cannot expect us to do any-think else but use it as an argument in the country if they are so mean as to prevent these young men, whose lives they are conscripting, from expressing their own opinions by the franchise.
    5.3 p.m.
    Captain Sir William Brass: After listening to the remarks of hon. Members opposite I would ask whether it is not a fact that the real difficulty that we have to face is whether, in fact, the young man who serves his country in war shall or shall not be regarded as a fit person to have a vote. It is true that in the last War young men of 19 got the franchise, and I should like to ask the Under-Secretary whether, in order to satisfy the opinion of the Committee, he would give an undertaking that in the sad event of a war arising these young men, who are to be conscripted at the age of 20, should be brought within the Act of 1918, under which those who served in the last War were able to exercise the vote at 19, and that these young men of 20 would be put in the same position.
    5.4 p.m.
    Mr. Collindridge: There is no difference of opinion on this side of the Committee as to how we ought to treat this Clause. There is difference of opinion on the Government benches, but it is only proper, courteous and chivalrous for me to compliment the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) on the very candid and honest way in which he has pictured how this question will be viewed in the country, if it goes forward that the Government would not accept the Clause to give the franchise to these young men who are to be conscripted for military service. I can very well visualise that when the: newspapers state that these militiamen or conscripts have been refused the right to vote, there will be a complete revulsion of feeling against the action of the Government.
    Mr. McKie: Can the hon. Member say what the practice is in the other democratic countries of Europe?
    Mr. Collindridge: I am unaware of the general rule in most countries, but I can tell the hon. Member from personal investigation that in one conscript country, namely, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the vote is allowed to conscripts at 18 years of age. It is particularly unfortunate that the Minister speaking for the Government should have put forward the point of view which he expressed. The Under-Secretary, like myself, has been connected with the mining industry, and he fully realises that in that occupation people become manly often because of the conditions they have to undergo. We visualise in our Clause that when our young people get into the Army and come closely into touch with the war machine, if they were allowed opportunities of voting they might, perhaps, deal with that war machine better than it is dealt with to-day. How can hon. Members opposite conscientiously deprive a man of the right to vote on the causes of war when they compel him to be interested in these matters?
    When the argument is used that Territorial and Regular soldiers of this age have not the opportunity of voting, my reply is that that can be speedily rectified. Because hon. Members realised that they could not continue to deprive the married soldier of 20 of the marriage allowance, they brought forward a proposal that the marriage allowance should be applied not

    1241
    only to the conscripts but to the Regulars as well. I do not believe that there would be any repercussions on the part of other people demanding votes. When young men of 19 were permitted to have the vote in the last War that did not result in a wholesale application for franchise by other members of the community who were not in war service. Therefore, there is nothing to be troubled about on that score. If the Government decide to vote against this Amendment it will mean that lots of good actions that perhaps they have performed will be completely nullified by depriving the young men of the vote. I suggest that they should reconsider their attitude and permit the right of the franchise to be granted.
    5.9 p.m.
    Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: On the Speaker's Conference—there are not many members of that Conference left—this question of the franchise arose in very different circumstances. I would remind the Committee that the argument which ran through that Conference was that the great mass of the youth of the country at that time were at the seat of war and had been undergoing the pressure and agony of war, and it was, therefore, felt that in their special case the vote should be granted. That is very different from the granting of a peace-time privilege to that section of the community which would come under this Act. Obviously, that would be a discrimination against the people of that age who were not able to join the Militia owing to health, conscientious grounds or otherwise, and who would be eliminated from the vote. I hope that, on reflection, the Committee will agree that if henceforth—the idea rather appeals to me—the man who serves his country should receive an electoral privilege, this is not the occasion for giving it. We ought to have special legislation in order to grant it to all the Forces of the Crown.
    If we do that, and grant the vote to the man who is trained to defend himself and his country, we cannot deny the privilege to Territorials of 19 or 18. We cannot with any logical reasoning deny the same privilege to them. If that be true, what about the nurses who are volunteering in hundreds of thousands as mobile nurses to go overseas? We are opening up a tremendous vista of electoral enlargement. If we mean it—and it certainly appeals to me—then it ought to be done
    1242
    by special legislation. If I oppose the Clause because the present moment is not suitable, I would support a Measure if it were brought in for general electoral reform on these grounds, when Parliament has time. I differ from the suggestion made that these young electors would vote against the Government. I am inclined to think that these hundreds of thousands of young men, after they have been in training and in comradeship, would be likely, as in the past, to vote for the Conservative Party.
    5.12 p.m.
    Mr. Lewis: I think hon. Members opposite approach this problem from the wrong standpoint. Despite the precedent of 1918, I do not think it can be reasonably maintained that the vote should be regarded as a present for somebody, or as a reward given to somebody for services rendered. It must rather be regarded as a duty placed upon the citizen of a democratic country to take his part in the general machinery of the policy of the Government, and it seems to me that the only consideration that should affect the Committee in deciding at what age a person should exercise the franchise, should be the consideration as to what is the age at which he is likely to exercise the franchise wisely. If that be so, it is evident that there is nothing in this Bill that will make these youths more or less fitted to exercise the franchise.
    On general grounds, it would be most unwise if we were to start giving special rights with regard to the franchise to limited classes because of duties they have performed or of obligations that Parliament has laid upon them. It would not be a very long step from that to saying that if a man pays taxation of over a certain amount he ought to have a larger say in the government of the country. If we act upon the principle that a vote is not a duty placed upon a man but a reward for something he does or a compensation for some obligation that is laid upon him, we shall get on very dangerous ground. Therefore, I hope the Clause will not be accepted.
    Several hon. Members Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Buchanan: On a point of Order. I do not know whether you have any power, Colonel Clifton Brown, to deal with the matter which I am about to raise. Under a Guillotine Motion I have always

    1243
    understood that Government supporters should speak only when they are critical of the Government, or when they have a constituency point of view to put, or to ask a question. May I ask, if that be not the case, whether it would mean that on one Amendment the Government could really prevent the Opposition from having any discussion on the other Amendments? Have you any power as Chairman to give guidance in this matter?
    Sir Adam Maitland: On a point of Order. May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he has always observed that principle? The hon. Member has enunciated a principle upon which the Guillotine should work, and I want to ask him—
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member may ask me a question, but must not
    address a question to another hon. Member on a point of Order.
    Sir A. Maitland: I want to ask whether it is permissible for an hon. Member who was a Member on the Government side in 1929–31 to raise such a question when on almost every occasion he violated the principle he is now enunciating?
    The Deputy-Chairman: It has always been the custom that Members, no matter on what side of the House they sit, are entitled to express their views. I would not care to depart from that. I do suggest, however, seeing that there are several more new Clauses, that hon. Members might now come to a decision on this new Clause.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 140; Noes, 241.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Maintenance of civil liberties.)
    Nothing in any enactment shall operate to prevent any person registered for military training under this Act. whether called up or not, from becoming or remaining a member of any political party, trade union or other lawful association and from taking such part in the lawful activities of such party, trade union or association as he would have been entitled to take if he had not been so registered or called up.—[Mr. T. Johnston.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    5.27 p.m.
    Mr. T. Johnston: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    It is difficult to learn from the Army Act and the Regulations precisely how far a young man's civil liberties are restricted when he joins the Army, Navy or Air Force. We have just decided that he shall not have the franchise, and we have not been informed whether the young militiaman may attend political meetings in unform or not. We should like to know whether his membership of any political organisation is circumscribed. We ask that question desiring to make sure that, however unpopular a political organisation may be with a man's commanding officer, the man shall not in any way be barred or circumscribed in his membership. The more one is opposed to a political party the more one should make certain that the young man's right of access to the doctrines of that party are maintained. A young man, for example, may have sympathies towards the Communist party. I hope not, but it is the more necessary that we should make certain that during the six months in which he is under the control of officers of the Army, Navy or Air Force, he should not have his thinking handed out to him or the literature which he may desire to study circumscribed.
    We want to be absolutely certain that a young man may be a member of, for example, the Amalgamated Engineers' Union. He is acquiring certain trade union rights and we want to be absolutely certain that while he is a member of the Militia his trade union rights shall in no wise be lost. We should be glad to know if these young men may make a collective presentation of grievances. In the Army Act I can see no provision for the collective presentation of grievances to commanding or any other officers; a man
    1248
    must disclose his grievance individually to his superior officer. At this time of day, when we are ostensibly building up a great democratic force by means of a levçe en masse of those of a certain age, we should not prevent these young fellows from making a collective presentation of their grievances.
    Mr. Fleming: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what he means by a collective presentation of grievances?
    Mr. Johnston: It is a common form of words. It is known to everyone who is acquainted with conditions of working in factories or offices. If any grievance is suffered by, say, 50 young men or young women there is no reason why they should be compelled to make complaints separately. There is no reason whatever why these young men should not make their grievances known to a commanding officer through a—
    Mr. Wise: Is there any reason now?
    Mr. Johnston: The hon. Member will have an opportunity of putting his views. The terms of the Army Act clearly specify the method by which a grievance can be ventilated, lays down the precise machinery which must be used, and it is clear that it must be an individual presentation, and not a collective presentation. In the police force a policeman with a grievance can ventilate it through the Police Federation, and it is commonly done, and is there any reason why it may not be done in the Militia? At any rate, the object and purpose of this Clause is clear. We want to conserve as far as possible—I know that it is not 100 per cent. possible, but so far as possible—the civil rights and liberties of these young men, whether they are actually called up or not. They may be registered but not called up. Does the fact that they are registered in any way interfere with their civil rights and liberties at home; and when they are called up how far are their rights and liberties to be circumscribed and limited? It is to ascertain how far these young men will lose liberties and rights which we on this side cherish that we have moved this Amendment. The ostensible purpose of the Bill is to secure and defend civil liberty for the people of these islands, and we shall not begin well if we begin by unnecessarily limiting the rights of discussion and rights of action, political and otherwise, which these young men now possess.
    5.35 p.m.
    Mr. Gordon Macdonald: I wish to put the case as I see it as a miners' representative. A great number of boys from the mining industry will be called up under this Measure. What has characterised the discussions throughout on this Bill has been a desire on the part of the whole Committee not to disturb more than is necessary the life of the individual who is called up, and we on this side have appreciated that attitude. Many boys are now members of the miners trade union, and others are members of the different youth political parties—some Conservatives, some Communists, some Labour. We are anxious that these boys should not have their political or industrial life disturbed more than is necessary. While they are on the register they will be at home for a few months, and during that period I do not suppose there will be any difficulty, but when they are called up they will be far from home and cannot take part in the various activities to which they have been accustomed at home. I think the Government would be wise to accept a Clause on these lines. We do not intend the Clause to create any difficulty in the Army. we do not move it for the purpose of making the men who are called up worse soldiers. We think that a good soldier can also be a good trade unionist and a good member of a political party, and I do not see why the Clause should be resisted, but I have my suspicions that it will be. I ask the representatives of the Government, if they do resist the Clause, to realise that we do not put it forward with the idea that the men will be poorer soldiers, because we think they will be all the better for being good trade unionists and good members of a political party.
    5.37 p.m.
    The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): I think I can allay the fears of the hon. Member straight away. The right hon. Member who moved this new Clause said he did so because he and his hon. Friends had some difficulty in ascertaining the limitations which were placed upon sailors, soldiers and airmen in respect of political activities and their rights regarding membership of trade unions, and so on. The position is that there is nothing to prevent a sailor, soldier or airman being a member of a trade union. Any young man who comes under the provisions of
    1250
    this Bill and who is a member of a trade union will be perfectly at liberty to continue his membership throughout his service. The new Clause calls attention to the need of enabling him to retain that membership before he is called up and after he has been registered. Of course, the same condition would apply there. The fact is there are many soldiers in the Army to-day who are members of trade unions, and nobody takes the slightest objection to that; if they are tradesmen, and most of them are, it is to their advantage to be members of a trade union. No rule is laid down and no steps are taken to prevent them continuing as members of any trade union with which they may be associated by reason of their trade.
    So far as political meetings are concerned, I think that all in this Committee, whatever their political views, will agree that it is undesirable that politics should play a prominent part in the life of the Army. To begin with, 99 out of 100 soldiers are not interested in politics, but here, again, there is no desire to prevent a soldier from being a member of any political party. He can be a member of the Communist party if he wants to. All we do say, in the Army as in the other Services, is that while he is in the Service he should not take an active part in political life. As far as the militiamen are concerned, I think that by the very nature of their training it will be extremely difficult for them to take an active part in political life. If they wish to remain members of whatever political party they may have been associated with in civil life they will be perfectly at liberty to do so. The right hon. Gentleman asked about their trade union rights. I was a little mystified by that reference. I assume the fact that a man who went into the Army for six months would not prejudice his position in the union or any rights he would have as a member, and I can only say that I hope, and I am sure it will be the case, that when he goes back to civil life the trade unions will reinstate him as generously as we provide that employers shall reinstate him when he goes back to employment.
    Mr. Johnston: What about attendance at political meetings?
    Sir V. Warrender: No Territorial is allowed to institute political meetings while at camp.
    Mr. Shinwell: But when he is on furlough?
    Sir V. Warrender: It is quite a different thing when he is on furlough. Political meetings, obviously, cannot be held in barracks, but I do not think hon. Members need fear that the Army unduly represses political opinions. Indeed, the whole trend of modern training in the Army is to encourage men to think for themselves.
    Mr. Shinwell: If a man who is undergoing training happens to have week-end leave there would be no objection, I take it, to his attending a political meeting during that period of leave or participating in political activities?
    Sir V. Warrender: I can tell the hon. Member that if any of his constituents see that he is addressing a political meeting there will be nothing to prevent them from going to enjoy his oratory for such time as—
    Mr. Lees-Smith: In uniform?
    Sir V. Warrender: He would not go in uniform.
    Mr. Johnston: Why not in uniform? If he has gone home in his uniform, why should he be debarred from attending a political meeting at his home town?
    Sir V. Warrender: He can attend the meeting, but he cannot go on the platform. There are specific rules to this effect, and soldiers are definitely prevented from taking the chair or going on the platform at a purely political meeting. There is nothing to prevent a militiaman, if at home on leave and there is a meeting going on, appearing in uniform. I do not think he would be committing an offence, but for obvious reasons we do not encourage soldiers to take an active part in political meetings.
    Mr. Johnston: Will the hon. Member deal with the question of the collective presentation of grievances?
    Sir V. Warrender: I purposely did not refer to that point, because I did not think it was covered by the terms of the new Clause. The soldier has a right to represent his grievances under certain conditions which are laid down. If he has a grievance he has a right, first of all, to see his captain, and if he is not satisfied with the result he has a right to see his commanding officer, and if he still feels
    1252
    that his grievance remains unredressed he has a right to see his brigadier or any general officer who may be inspecting his regiment—
    Mr. Ede: And what will happen to him?
    Sir V. Warrender: The collective representation of grievances is not allowed to the Regular soldier, and, therefore, I do not think it would be logical to allow it to the militiaman.
    The Deputy-Chairman: There was an Amendment yesterday which dealt with this particular subject and the Committee cannot go back upon a decision which has already been made. I confess that I do not carry the actual details of the Amendment in my head, but it seems to me that it was very similar.
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. Mander: In connection with this proposed new Clause I want to put the point of view of a certain number of young organised people who have made me familiar with their views. I want it to be quite clearly understood that these are not necessarily my views at all, but it is necessary that they should be made known to the Government and that a statement should be made as to what the position of these young people will be. A number of young people likely to be called up under this Measure have for many years been taking a great deal of interest in foreign affairs. They hold very strong political views which they do not want to drop, and they have had to consider what arrangements they should make in regard to this Measure, whether they should be objectors or should go into the Army and serve. Many of them, so they inform me, feel that they are quite willing to sacrifice their lives for their country but they are not prepared to do it except for a genuine system of collective security which is in line with their idealism.
    The Deputy-Chairman: It might be as well if I read to the Committee at this point the Amendment which the Committee rejected last Friday. It was as follows:
    "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."

    1253
    That Amendment was negatived. It is entirely out of order to repeat now arguments which were appropriate on that occasion.
    Mr. Mander: I am not going to deal with that matter at all. I am merely relating something, and I want to know what the position of these young people will be when they are called up in the ordinary way. I am informed that what they are proposing to do is to take every opportunity of carrying on political propaganda in support of their views on what they consider a proper foreign policy while they are called up and inside the Army. [Interruption.] The War Office may just as well know it.
    Sir Robert Tasker: An excuse for cowards, that is all it is.
    Mr. Mander: That was a very disgraceful interruption. I am placing before the Committee the views of some of the most patriotic young people in the country. They are quite prepared to sacrifice their lives, but they have definite views. I do not say that those views are necessarily mine at all, but they are entitled to be heard. Those young people propose, when called up, to march to the recruiting station together, with banners—[Laughter] it is not a laughing matter—and possibly, as I am told they contemplate doing, the banners may contain some such slogan as "Down with Chamberlain."
    Mr. McGovern: And "Long live Mander."
    The Deputy-Chairman: I am wondering very much what all this had to do with the proposed new Clause.
    Mr. Mander: I venture respectfully to say that you will see that it is a question whether these people can carry on their political rights and I want an answer from the Government whether they will be entitled to do certain things.
    Sir I. Albery: May I ask the hon. Gentleman a question?
    Mr. Mander: I think I had better finish this point. We are working under the Guillotine. When these young people arrive at the recruiting station they propose to hand to the recruiting officer a statement of their views.
    Mr. McGovern: And then they will be executed.
    Mr. Mander: During the whole period of their six months' training they are proposing, if they are permitted—and that is the point on which I want an answer for their information—to carry on an active propaganda in favour of the political views which they hold about what should be the proper foreign policy of this country. They hope that when they and the others have finished their six months' period of training they will have a very much larger number of supporters for that policy than there were at the beginning.
    Sir I. Albery: Would the hon. Gentleman say whether these are the young people who provide him with the questions which he addresses to the Foreign Office?
    Mr. Mander: I thought the hon. Member was going to make a serious contribution. I think there is something rather shocking in the idea that the serious views of young persons who are going to be trained to sacrifice their lives should be derided and mocked from the other side of the Committee. Their views are not necessarily my views at all and they may be quite wrong, but these people are entitled to a fair hearing in this Committee. I want to convey to the War Office that a number of young people whom they are about to call up have these ideas in mind. It would be appropriate if a statement could be made as to how far these young people would be entitled or allowed to do anything of the kind which I have described.
    5.52 p.m.
    Mr. McGovern: I heard the explanation made by the Financial Secretary and there is one point on which I am not quite satisfied. It is about a soldier in uniform not being able to attend a political meeting, and I would like some further satisfaction on that point. The other evening I was going towards Tottenham Court Road and stood for some time at a meeting. It was a Communist meeting and in the gathering were two soldiers. I stood there for over an hour, and the two soldiers were in the gathering. They were in uniform. If soldiers are prohibited from attending meetings in uniform, can they not take part in a demonstration in Hyde Park or an

    1255
    ordinary outdoor meeting and cannot they sit in a political meeting when in uniform? Men called up during a General Election campaign may have been very prominent and active members of a political party. Are we to take it that they are to be debarred from attending meetings because they are in uniform?
    We must remember that a considerable number of young men who will be called up have been on the means test and that many of them, not having had any income because of the Government's decision to exclude them from benefit, may not have a proper suit of clothes. Their only decent suit may be the uniform which has been given to them by the Government. Are they to be debarred from going to a meeting in that uniform? Are they to be excluded from ordinary political life or have they to go to a political meeting as people would go to a nudist colony? I know that soldiers were debarred during the last War from taking part in ordinary political meetings in uniform.
    I remember the wife of the present Lord Provost of Glasgow addressing a meeting in the North of Scotland. A young brother of mine who was in the Army at that time went to the political meeting and took part in it. Then he went to have a cup of tea with a lady in a hotel. An armed escort appeared at the hotel and took him, and he was confined to barracks for seven days in solitary confinement because he had taken part in a political meeting. It is outrageous to suggest that young men can be taken from their homes against their will, placed in the Army against their will, compelled to mould their life in a form which they do not desire, be away from their friends and then, on top of all that, not to have complete liberty of action. We are told that the great struggle, if war takes place, may be for freedom and democracy. It is outrageous that young men should be prevented from taking any part at all in political life if they desire to do so in uniform or if they can and do desire to appear out of uniform.
    The position stated by the Financial Secretary would mean that the two young men who were standing the other evening at the outdoor meeting could be hauled up before the authorities because they
    1256
    stood there in uniform at part of that ordinary political gathering. They are entitled to demonstrate politically against things from which their families may be suffering. They may be demanding old age pensions for their aged fathers and mothers whom they have left behind and to whom the Government have failed to give a decent income. If men attend a political meeting to demand higher pensions, the ending or the easing of the means test which bears hardly on those at home, they are entitled to do so whether they are in or out of uniform. Ministers have no right to defend any action which would prohibit liberty in regard to those matters. The Government are giving an undertaking that soldiers can become members of their trade unions and remain members of trade unions and political organisations, but those things entail rights that the men are entitled to have. I cannot see that even the carrying out of the decision of the Financial Secretary will not cause great hardship in taking away the liberty of these young people who are going out to defend the possessions of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    5.58 p.m.
    Mr. Wise: The hon. Member has a little overstated the case about soldiers in uniform attending political meetings. So far as I know there is certainly no objection to a member of the Forces attending a meeting. Go on any day into Hyde Park and you will find members of the Forces listening to the speakers. The only objection taken, and I think rightly, is to serving soldiers taking an active part in political meetings. I am certain that hon. Members will realise that it would be wholly undesirable that soldiers in uniform should be found taking part in a procession or involved in acrimonious arguments with civilians during the course of a political meeting. One of the main arguments always heard in favour of allowing a soldier to go out in plain clothes instead of in uniform was that if he were in plain clothes and got into an ordinary row with a contemporary he was able to hit him in the eye without bringing disgrace upon His Majesty.
    Mr. McGovern: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that when a young man joins the Forces he has sacrificed the whole of his manhood?
    Mrs. Tate: He only joins for six months.
    Mr. Wise: The hon. Member must not assume that the man is going into the Army for life. This is a very short course of training for six months, during which this young man is going to work extremely hard. It is a job of some magnitude, as hon. Members know, to turn a man into an efficient soldier in six months. To start with, these men are going to have very little time to spare, but they are not going to be deprived permanently of their civil rights, as the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) is trying to make us believe. I find it difficult to take the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) quite seriously. The young men to whom he alluded with such burning indignation are, I imagine, even under the Army Act, perfectly entitled to go to the recruiting office bearing a slogan, whether it be "Down with Hitler" or "Heil Mander." There is no reason why that should not be done. I am certain, however, that they will discover, if they invade the barrack-room with incessant propaganda, that the young have methods of resenting that propaganda which are denied to the old.
    Mr. Stephen: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member in order in saying, "To hell with Mander"?
    Mr. Wise: I am sorry that the hon. Member did not quite catch my observation. I was merely suggesting that the young men referred to by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton might make use of a slogan which is fairly common over the large part of Europe to-day.
    One other point that I should like to mention is the point raised by the Mover of the Clause with regard to the question of collective presentation of complaints. I think the actual practice is that there is no objection whatever to any grade of serving soldiers appointing one of their number as a spokesman to carry their collective complaint to the proper quarter, and I think, also, that there is no reason to assume that the complaint will not be listened to, as complaints generally are in the armed forces. I do not believe that the point about the police force is entirely correct. I seem to remember hon. Members opposite suggesting with some violence that—
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is now going back to something that the Committee has already decided.
    Mr. Wise: I will not press the point any further.
    Mr. Johnston: May I draw the attention of the Committee to Section 43 of the Army Act, which will show that I am right and the hon. Member is wrong?
    Mr. Wise: I have not the Army Act with me at the moment, but I am certain that there is nothing in Section 43 which prevents any body of soldiers appointing one of their number to carry a complaint. I suggest that hon. Members opposite are really making a major range of mountains out of a molehill on this question. Militiamen are not being denied ordinary civil liberties, but they are engaging in quite an arduous six months' work, and during that time the less they are pestered with propaganda the better. They are perfectly entitled to remain members of their trade union or political party, and, more important, they are perfectly entitled to pay their subscription to their union or party while they are serving.
    6.5 p.m.
    Mr. G. Strauss: I should like to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office to elucidate one or two points in his speech. I am not quite clear what are to be the rights of these conscript militiamen. It may be that I did not follow the hon. Gentlemen completely, or it may be that he did not explain as fully as he might have done. I understood him to say that the general principle on which the Army Council's regulations are based is that the militiaman will be allowed to attend political meetings and take a certain part in politics as long as he does not take an active part in politics. Am I right in understanding, from the hon. Gentleman's speech, that a conscript will be allowed to attend a political meeting in any circumstances, whether he is on furlough, or in barracks or in camp? If there is a political meeting in the neighbourhood which he wants to attend—in his free time, of course—will he be allowed to attend such a meeting, and will he be allowed to attend it in uniform, because he may not have any other clothes with him? Would he, further, be debarred from exercising the ordinary right of members of the audience at a meeting to ask

    1259
    questions? Is the suggestion simply that he should not be the chairman of such a meeting, or a speaker on the platform? Again, will the conscript be entitled to take part in demonstrations? Many of these young fellows of 20 may, as was suggested by the last speaker, have very little interest in politics, but many of them are very interested in politics and keen workers for one party or another, used to taking part in, say, May Day processions in the case of those who support one or other of the Labour parties. May I take it that a conscript will be entitled to take part in uniform in a political demonstration such as a May Day procession? If that right is denied him, I should like to know on what grounds it is denied. Doubtless the hon. Gentleman is aware that a very considerable degree of civil liberty is given to members of the French Army. I have myself seen political demonstrations in Paris in which there have been literally hundreds of men and officers in military or naval uniform or in the uniform of the French Air Force. That is a right to demonstrate for a political cause which should not, I submit, be taken away from a conscript in the militia. I do not know whether it is the intention of the War Office to accord these rights or not, but I should very much like the hon. Gentleman to state whether they are to be accorded or not.
    Mr. Fleming: Can the hon. Member give one instance which he himself has seen in France of a political demonstration in which any officers have taken an active part in uniform?
    Mr. Strauss: If the hon. and learned Member would like the actual date, there was on 14th July, two years ago, in Paris a great Popular Front demonstration of about 500,000 people, on behalf of the programme of the Popular Front Government which had just been formed. I attended that demonstration, and I assure the hon. and learned Member I saw hundreds of men and dozens of officers. I could not say exactly what was the rank of the officers, but some of them, by their uniforms, were obviously of high position. They took part in that demonstration, and, as I understand it, members of the French Army are allowed to take part in any political demonstration that they choose.
    6.8 p.m.
    Mr. Acland: I should like to ask what will be the rights of the militiamen if this Clause is not inserted. If it were inserted it would give the right to take such part in the lawful activities of their political parties as they would be entitled to take if they had not been registered or called up. If these militiamen while in training—naturally, not while they are on parade—expressed to other militiamen or, indeed, to their officers, if their officer stalk to them, political views which are contrary to the views of the Government, will a sergeant or other superior officer come down upon them and say, "You cannot say that sort of thing here"? That really is important, because hon. Members opposite have a sort of idea that to instil into the minds of all sorts of people ideas which are accepted on their side of the House is a splendid education in the duties of citizenship, while to instil into the mind of anyone the ideas accepted on this side of the House is a piece of disruptive and mischievous propaganda. Take the question of foreign policy. Broadly speaking, there have been two forms of foreign policy in this country in recent years—
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Right and wrong.
    Mr. Acland: From the opposite side of the House there has been the view that we in this country did not care a snap of the fingers about foreigners, that we are Britishers, and that we will let these people cut each other's throats if that amuses them, but let them touch a corner of our interests and they will see what we are made of. On the other side there has been the view that the only thing on earth that is worth fighting and dying for is international justice.
    The Chairman (Sir Dennis Herbert): Unless the hon. Member is giving a demonstration of what he wants to be permitted, I am not sure that there is any relevance in his remarks.
    Mr. Acland: May I take it that it will be in order for an officer to give a lecture to the troops informing them that the purpose of the British Army is to make sure that foreigners shall not interfere with the rights and privileges of the British Empire—that is to say, to instil the ideas of hon. Members opposite—but that it would not

    1261
    be permissible for a militiaman to answer his superior officer by saying that in his view the only thing that is worth fighting for is international justice?
    The Chairman: I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself a little more closely to the proposed new Clause.
    Mr. Mabane: May I ask the hon. Member what experience he has of officers of the Army ever giving lectures to other people on foreign policy?
    The Chairman: I think that that question would almost come under the same ban as the remarks of the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland).
    Mr. Acland: Under the proposed new Clause these militiamen are to have the right to take such part in the lawful activities of the parties to which they belong as they would be entitled to take if they had not been registered or called up. That would give them the right to argue on foreign policy with other militiamen or with their superior officers. I would ask quite seriously whether, if this Clause is not put into the Bill, these rights will be continued and superior officers and non-commissioned officers will not be able to say to them, "You cannot talk about that sort of thing here."
    6.14 p.m.
    Mr. J. Hall: We are particularly anxious that these boys who are taken out of industry for a short period should be able to retain their connections and their civil liberties, so that they may take up the threads again at the end of the six months. The Financial Secretary to the War Office has said that these soldiers will be permitted to belong to a trade union, and one of the things we are concerned about is that these conscripts may be able to retain their trade union membership. I represent a division which includes within its borders the Tower of London. The warders at the Tower are not ordinary military men; one-third of their wages is paid by the First Commissioner of Works, and two-thirds by the War Office, and for that reason these men are not allowed to belong to a trade union. If, in what may be regarded as an ancillary force, the men are not permitted to belong to a trade union, it is very difficult for me to understand how it is that members of the Fighting Forces will
    1262
    be allowed that privilege, and I think we should know whether these conscripts will be allowed to continue their trade union membership during their six-months' period of military training.
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. Hicks: I am sure the House will be very glad to hear that there is no intention to interfere with trade union membership or with membership of any political party. What we are desirous of getting an assurance about is that the men, if they are on leave or have an evening off, will have no difficulty in attending meetings of their trade union branches or of their political parties. I am not enamoured of the idea of uniformed people marching in processions. A short time ago we passed an Act prohibiting that in this country, and I would not like to see the practice revived. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss) has mentioned, in the French Army men are allowed to attend the meetings of their trade union branches, and in some instances they act as officers. I have attended a number of trade union meetings in France, and I have sat with these soldiers. They have been speaking in a language that has had to be interpreted to me, but I believe they were members of their trade unions. If we are assured that members of trade unions will be free to attend meetings of their unions, that will be welcomed on this side of the Committee.
    This Bill is intended to support voluntaryism, as the Prime Minister stated, and it is not intended to conscript the whole of the military service. Therefore, the least compulsion that can be imposed on private individuals the better it will be. I am anxious that when these young people are called to the Colours they shall not lose touch with their civil associations and their citizenship. We are anxious that those who are apprenticed shall have an opportunity of coming back during the time they are on service and familiarising themselves with their old associations. That is absolutely essential, so that their minds shall not be divorced from the social life of the people and the democracy that they understand.
    6.18 p.m.
    Sir V. Warrender: The Government fully appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) has just spoken. It is our aim

    1263
    that, in so far as military training interrupts young men's civil lives, that interruption shall be as limited as possible. We hope that all the desires to which the hon. Gentleman has just given expression will be realised. Certainly, I can say at once that if a militiaman has leave or is on leave for the evening, there will be nothing to prevent him attending a meeting of his trade union or of a political party of which he is a member. All the Regulations say is that he cannot take an active part in politics or in the work of trade unions. He cannot take an active part in the sense of promoting somebody else's candidature, taking the chair at a political meeting, or promoting some interest in a political way.
    The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) wanted an assurance about his friends who wished to make a demonstration when they were called up for training. I can tell him straight away that, as long as they do not get into trouble with the police, the Army will have no objection whatever to them having a demonstration on their way to the recruiting station. What the recruiting officer will do with the illuminated address presented to him when they get there I do not know. In the mess they will be perfectly free to express their own political opinions, but what their messmates will do with them, that again I do not know. The hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss) invented a whole series of possibilities which might arise, and asked me to give a ruling on them all. That I cannot do, but I cannot imagine that a militiaman will be within his rights in driving a wagon in uniform at a Labour May Day demonstration. I think that will come within the terms of the Regulations. If he wants to go to see the fun, that will be all right—if there is any fun. With regard to the point put by the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. J. Hall), the warders at the Tower are permitted to be members of a trade union. If the hon. Member has any doubt about that, perhaps he will see me about it.
    Mr. J. Hall: The last letter I had from the hon. Gentleman turned down the
    1264
    warders and stated quite definitely that they had no right to be members of a trade union. But I shall be very pleased to see him, and to bring the correspondence with me.
    Mr. Hicks: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that if a militiaman attended a trade union branch meeting he would not be able to assist in the promotion of the candidature of another man for an office?
    Sir V. Warrender: I was talking about public meetings. He would not be allowed, any more than a Regular soldier would, to take the chair or anything of that sort at a public meeting, but at a trade union branch meeting—I am not very familiar with what goes an at trade union meetings—if he were asked to second a motion for the election of the hon. Gentleman, for instance, he would be perfectly in order in doing so. It is not an offence to attend a political meeting in uniform, but if he was asked to speak at the meeting, that would not be permitted.
    6.24 p.m.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: Are we to understand that when the militiaman, as you call him—we on this side call him a conscript—is called up, if he goes to a meeting of his trade union branch he is not allowed to speak there? I understood the Financial Secretary to say that the man could attend the meeting, but could not take part. If he goes to the meeting of the branch, where there are perhaps a couple of thousand people, and a dispute is on—as there is at the pit where I worked, and where they are going to give their notices in next week—will he have power to vote, or is that power curtailed?
    Sir V. Warrender: My remarks applied entirely to public meetings. Meetings such as the hon. Member has described would be public meetings, and the men would not be entitled to take part in the proceedings.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 144; Noes, 248.

    Division No. 130]

    AYES.

    [5.18 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

    Owen, Major G.

    Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Paling, W.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    Parker, J.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

    Groves, T. E.

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Pearson, A.

    Adamson, W. M.

    Hardie, Agnes

    Price, M. P.

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

    Harris, Sir P. A.

    Pritt, D. N.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Hayday, A.

    Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

    Banfield, J. W.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Barnes, A. J.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Riley, B.

    Barr, J.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Ritson, J.

    Bartlett, C. V. O.

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    Batey, J.

    Hopkin, D.

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Beaumont, H. (Batley)

    Jagger, J.

    Sanders, W. S.

    Bellenger, F. J.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Sexton, T. M.

    Bevan, A.

    John, W.

    Shinwell, E.

    Broad, F. A.

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

    Silverman, S. S.

    Bromfield, W.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Brown, G. (Mansfield)

    Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Buchanan, G.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)

    Burke, W. A.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Cape, T.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Stephen, C.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

    Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lathan, G.

    Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

    Cocks, F. S.

    Lawson, J. J.

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Collindridge, F.

    Leach, W.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Cove, W. G.

    Lee, F.

    Thorne, W.

    Daggar, G.

    Leonard, W.

    Thurtle, E.

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Leslie, J. R.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Lipson, D. L.

    Tomlinson, G.

    Dobbie, W.

    Logan, D. G.

    Viant, S. P.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    Lunn, W.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Ede, J. C.

    Macdonald, G. Once)

    Watson, W. McL.

    Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    McGhee, H. G.

    White, H. Graham

    Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

    McGovern, J.

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Foot, D. M.

    MacLaren, A.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Gardner, B. W.

    Maclean, N.

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Garro Jones, G. M.

    Wander, G. le M.

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Maxton, J.

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Messer, F.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Gibbins, J.

    Montague, F.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    Muff, G.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Noel-Baker, P. J.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

    Furness, S. N.

    Peake, O.

    Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Peat, C. U.

    Albery, Sir Irving

    Gluckstein, L. H.

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)

    Goldie, N. B.

    Petherick, M.

    Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)

    Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

    Pilkington, R.

    Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)

    Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Porritt, R. W.

    Apsley, Lord

    Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Radford, E. A.

    Assheton, R.

    Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

    Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)

    Grimston, R. V.

    Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Rankin, Sir R.

    Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

    Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Balniel, Lord

    Hambro, A. V.

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Baxter, A. Beverley

    Hannah, I. C.

    Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

    Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

    Harbord, A.

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

    Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Renter, J. R.

    Beechman, N. A.

    Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Bennett, Sir E. H.

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Bernays, R. H.

    Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Blair, Sir R.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

    Rowlands, G.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Hepworth, J.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

    Higgs, W. F.

    Russell, Sir Alexander

    Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)

    Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Brass, Sir W.

    Holdsworth, H.

    Salt, E. W.

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Hopkinson. A.

    Samuel, M. R. A.

    Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

    Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

    Sandeman, Sir N. S.

    Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

    Howitt, Dr. A. B.

    Sanderson, Sir F. B.

    Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)

    Sandys, E. D.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Hunter, T.

    Schuster, Sir G. E.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

    Hutchinson, G. C.

    Scott, Lord William

    Bull, B. B.

    James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

    Selley, H. R.

    Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

    Jarvis, Sir J. J.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Butcher, H. W.

    Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

    Shepperson, Sir E. W.

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Keeling, E. H.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

    Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)

    Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

    Smithers, Sir W.

    Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)

    Kimball, L.

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Lamb, Sir J. O.

    Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Channon, H.

    Lancaster, Captain C. G.

    Southby, Commander Sir A. R. I.

    Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

    Christie, J. A.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

    Spens, W. P.

    Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)

    Lewis, O.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)

    Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

    Liddall, W. S.

    Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

    Colville, Rt. Hon. John

    Lindsay, K. M.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Conant, Captain R. J. E.

    Loftus, P. C.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)

    Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)

    M'Connell, Sir J.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Critchley, A.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

    Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

    Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

    McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

    McKie, J. H.

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Cross, R. H.

    Macnamara, Lieut.-Colonel J. R. J.

    Thomas, J. P. L.

    Crossley, A. C.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Magnay, T.

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Cruddas, Col. B.

    Maitland, Sir Adam

    Touche, G. C.

    Culverwell, C. T.

    Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Davison, Sir W. H.

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Turton, R. H.

    De Chair, S. S.

    Marsden, Commander A.

    Wakefield, W. W.

    De la Bère, R.

    Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.

    Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Denville, Alfred

    Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    Dodd, J. S.

    Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

    Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Warrender, Sir V.

    Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

    Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

    Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

    Dugdale, Captain T. L.

    Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.

    Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

    Duggan, H. J.

    Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    Moreing, A. C.

    Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)

    Dunglass, Lord

    Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

    Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

    Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)

    Wise, A. R.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Ellis, Sir G.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

    Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

    Elliston, Capt. G. S.

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

    Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

    Emery, J. F.

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

    York, C.

    Emmott, C. E. G. C.

    O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Entwistle, Sir C. F.

    Orr-Ewing, 1. L.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Findlay, Sir E.

    Palmer, G. E. H.

    Captain Waterhouse and Mr. Munro.

    Fleming, E. L.

    Patrick, C. M

    Division No. 131.]

    AYES.

    [6.27 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Owen, Major G.

    Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Paling, W.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Parker, J.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

    Groves, T. E.

    Pearson, A.

    Adamson, W. M.

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Price, M. P.

    Ammon, C. G.

    Hardie, Agnes

    Pritt, D. N.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Harris, Sir P. A.

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)

    Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

    Banfield, J. W.

    Hayday, A.

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Barnes, A. J.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Riley, B.

    Barr, J.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Ritson, J.

    Batey, J.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    Bellenger, F. J.

    Hicks, E. G.

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Sanders, W. S.

    Bevan, A.

    Hopkin, D.

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Broad, F. A.

    Jagger, J.

    Sexton, T. M.

    Bromfield, W.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Shinwell, E.

    Brown, C. (Mansfield)

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Silverman, S. S.

    Buchanan, G.

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

    Sloan, A.

    Burke, W. A.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Cape, T.

    Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)

    Chater, D.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hen: G.

    Stephen, C.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Lathan, G.

    Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

    Collindridge, F.

    Lawson, J. J.

    Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

    Cove, W. G.

    Leach, W.

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Daggar, G.

    Lee, F.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Leonard, W.

    Thorne, W.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Leslie, J. R.

    Thurtle, E.

    Day, H.

    Lunn, W.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Dobbie, W.

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Tomlinson, G.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Viant, S. P.

    Ede, J. C.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

    McGovern, J.

    Watson, W. McL.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    MacLaren, A.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

    Maclean, N.

    Westwood, J.

    Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

    Mander, G. le M.

    Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

    Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

    Maxton, J.

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Foot, D. M.

    Messer, F.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Gardner, B. W.

    Milner, Major J.

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Garro Jones, G. M.

    Montague, F.

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Carn'v'n)

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    George, Major G, Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Muff, G.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Nathan, Colonel H. L.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Gibbins, J.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

    Noel-Baker, P. J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Mr. John and Mr. Mathers.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Dodd, J. S.

    Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Dugdale, Captain T. L.

    Albery, Sir Irving

    Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)

    Duggan, H. J.

    Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)

    Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Dunglass, Lord

    Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Eastwood, J. F.

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Channon, H.

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

    Apsley, Lord

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Assheton, R.

    Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

    Ellis, Sir G.

    Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)

    Christie, J. A.

    Elliston, Capt. G. S.

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)

    Emery, J. F.

    Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

    Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

    Emmott, C. E. G. C.

    Balniel, Lord

    Colfox, Major W. P.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Baxter, A. Beverley

    Conant, Captain R. J. E.

    Entwistle, Sir C. F.

    Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

    Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)

    Erskine-Hill, A. G.

    Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

    Cocke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

    Everard, Sir William Lindsay

    Beechman, N. A.

    Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)

    Findlay, Sir E.

    Bennett, Sir E. N.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Fleming, E. L.

    Bernays, R. H.

    Critchley, A.

    Fox, Sir G. W. G.

    Blair, Sir R.

    Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

    Furness, S. N.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Cross, R. H.

    Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Gluckstein, L. H.

    Brass, Sir W.

    Culverwell, C. T.

    Goldie, N. B.

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    De Chair, S. S.

    Gower, Sir R. V.

    Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

    De la Bère, R.

    Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

    Denville, Alfred

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Bull, B. B.

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

    1266

    1267

    Grimston, R. V.

    Marsden, Commander A.

    Selley, H. R.

    Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

    Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.

    Shepperson, Sir E. W.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.

    Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

    Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

    Hambro, A. V.

    Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

    Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

    Hannah, I. C.

    Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

    Smithers, Sir W.

    Harbord, A.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Snadden, W. MON.

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

    Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

    Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

    Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Moreing, A. C.

    Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

    Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

    Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

    Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

    Heneage, Lieut. -Colonel A. P.

    Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)

    Spens, W. P.

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

    Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

    Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

    Hepworth, J.

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Higgs, W. F.

    Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Holdsworth, H.

    O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)

    Holmes, J. S.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Hopkinson, A.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

    Palmer, G. E. H.

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Howitt, Dr. A. B.

    Patrick, C. M.

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)

    Peake, O.

    Thomas, J. P. L.

    Hunter, T.

    Peat, C. U.

    Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

    Hutchinson, G. C.

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

    James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

    Petherick, M.

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Jarvis, Sir J. J.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Touche, G. C.

    Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

    Pilkington, R.

    Train, Sir J.

    Keeling, E H.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

    Porritt, R. W.

    Tufnell, Lieut. -Commander R. L.

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Turton, R. H.

    Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

    Radford, E. A.

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Kimball, L.

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

    Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    Lancaster, Captain C. G.

    Rankin, Sir R.

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

    Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Warrender, Sir V.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Rayner, Major R. H.

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Wedderburn, H. J. S.

    Lewis, O.

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

    Wells, Sir Sydney

    Liddall, W. S.

    Renter, J. R.

    Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

    Lindsay, K. M.

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

    Lipion, D. L.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Little, J.

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)

    Loftus, P. C.

    Rowlands, G.

    Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)

    Mabane, W. (Huddtrsfield)

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    Wise, A. R.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

    Russell, Sir Alexander

    Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

    McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Wragg, H.

    McKie, J. H.

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Salmon, Sir I.

    York, C.

    Magnay, T.

    Salt, E. W.

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Maitland, Sir Adam

    Samuel, M. R. A.

    Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

    Sandeman, Sir N. S.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Sandys, E. D.

    Mr. Munro and Lieut.-Colonel Harvie Watt.

    Markham, S. F.

    Schuster, Sir G. E.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Civil contracts with respect to wages, etc.).
    It shall be an implied term of the contract of service between an employer and an employç who is called up for training under this Act that during such period of training the employç shall be entitled to receive from the employer, the salary or wages payable immediately prior to his being called up (or in the case of payment by piecework or other payment by results, the amount of his then average weekly earning) less the amount actually received by him during the said period by way of army pay and allowances (if any).—[Mr. Jagger.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    6.36 p.m.
    Mr. Jagger: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This Clause, which stands in the names of my hon. Friends and myself, is intended to remedy something which I am
    1268
    sure was never intended to be done when the Bill was drafted. If the Bill goes through as it is now, there will be thousands of employers who will make profits out of conscription. I am sure that nobody on the opposite side of the Committee or on this wants to force young men into the Army for a period of military training in such a way that the employers will profit by their absence. If you take the whole gamut of clerical and distributive trades in particular, in not a single case will a man of 20 be replaced by a man at a similar rate of wages. If the establishment is of any size at all, the work will be divided up between the other employçs, and the employer will pocket the whole of the wages he formerly paid to the man of 20. In cases where that is not possible because of the smallness of staff, a boy of 14 or 15, at a wage

    1269
    of 4s. 6d. or 5s. 6d. a week, will be brought in to replace the youth of 20 who has gone for his military training. That is one aspect of the question.
    The second aspect of the question to which I want to direct the attention of the Committee is the great hardship which, in innumerable cases, will fall upon families to which these youths of 20 belong. So long as the Government insist on trying to get military service done at less than the market price of labour, so long will that hardship continue. There is no general remedy except for this House to determine that those who have to undertake the defence of the country should be paid at least the general rate of wages earned by those engagd in commerce and industry. In the meantime, during the special period when this Bill has to operate, there is every justification for providing that a young man, who sacrifices, for the time being at all events, the position he has been building up in commerce or in industry, shall not be compelled in addition to inflict hardship upon his family through the withdrawal of his earnings.
    The third aspect of the question to which I would draw attention is that so many arguments have been used on the benches opposite that I feel absolutely certain, no matter what happens to my hon. Friends behind me, hon. Members opposite will troop into the Lobby in support of this proposed new Clause. I have sat here day after day and heard hon. Gentlemen opposite argue that it is not right that a patriotic and well-disposed member of the community, who is prepared to do his duty by the country, should be allowed to do that while the shirker—I think I heard them call him that—evades his responsibilities. As far as the proposal contained in this new Clause is concerned, all the patriotic and decent and the best employers are contracting to carry it into effect. I would ask hon. Members opposite to keep as keen an eye on the shirker in business. Messrs. Boots, by no means an insignificant firm in the affairs of this country, have already given that undertaking. Dunlops have already done so, and the trade unions have given the undertaking to those of their employés who are called up. Imperial Chemical Industries, Messrs. Mackintosh, one of the biggest firms of confectioners in the country, the Co-
    1270
    operative Wholesale Society, and a number of the retail co-operative societies are extending to the militiamen the line they took with regard to the Territorials. We have no right to let these patriotic, right-thinking and good-feeling employers make all the sacrifice in meeting the country's necessities, and I ask the Committee to make it certain beyond any doubt that the worst and meanest employer shall be compelled to do what the decent employers are volunteering to do.
    6.42 p.m.
    Mr. W. A. Robinson: I ask the Committee to remember what has been spoken in this Chamber during the last fortnight as to fair play for the men conscripted under this Bill. We were told that fair play is the very essence of British patriotism, and I hope that the new Clause which has been moved so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Clayton. (Mr. Jagger) will be accepted by the Committee. My hon. Friend has stated that all the decent people in this country are determined, wherever possible, to make this Military Training Bill acceptable. The Imperial Chemical Industries, a tremendous combine, which was one of the first to bring about rationalisation have seen the wisdom, in a well-conceived rationalisation scheme, of giving recognition to young persons called up, by paying them on their return the amount they would have earned if they had kept in their employment. I know the plaintive story of the son of the widow, but we cannot argue that. We have to argue the principle here. The principle we have to argue is that this six months should be regarded as a six months' leave of absence because the nation and the Empire want these boys who are withdrawn from industry and commerce.
    Hon. Members opposite may tell us that boys of 20 earn only so much, but whatever they earn it goes into the home to-help perhaps a widowed mother or an unemployed father and brothers and sisters. Is this Committee deliberately, after due thought and consideration, going to decide that the boys must leave their work for six months, forego the rights secured by their trade unions, that there is to be this void in their lives in which, they are forgotten in industry, are wiped out, are robots, their soul gone and their work gone, and that they are forgotten in the British constitution? The Com-

    1271
    mittee on calm reflection will not and cannot do that. I may be now speaking outside my book, but it may be that they are going to give these boys 10s. 6d. per week during their six months' training. What is wrong with asking the employers to bear this point in mind in connection with conscription? They want the boys to save the nation, but if the boys are getting £1 or £1 2s. 6d. per week what is wrong in asking the employers, some of whom will be engaged in making war profits, to guarantee to these boys, for the six months they are training, the wages which they would have got? It is a decent thing to ask for, and it is a decent thing to give.
    There is no moral law which can dispense with the right of this Committee to say that in a moment of great international revolution when the youth of Britain is wanted, insurance claims, household insurance, and the obligations of helping the rest of the family shall be considered when the boy has been taken from his home. This Committee should not stand for anything but that. It is not a question of high phrases or of high finance. At the moment you hope to get 200,000 boys from industry and you may give them 10s. 6d. per week pocket money, leaving their mothers and unemployed fathers without anything barring a portion of the 10s. 6d. which the boys have as pocket money. We ask the Committee to rise to the big occasion and give lads, whom the Government are withdrawing from industry, the balance of the wages which they would have earned, and to do so as a matter of justice and equity.
    6.50 p.m.
    Mr. Fleming: It is quite true, as hon. Members have said, that a great many firms have already agreed to carry out what I may call the spirit of the new Clause as regards making up the Army pay to the amount of the wages they would earn. It was done by a great many local authorities in the last War, but I want to deal with the point of a written contract of service. Many big firms have written contracts of service with young employés who will come within the ambit of the Bill, and I should like to ask whether an employé who is under such terms of service and is withdrawn from that service thereby breaks
    1272
    his contract with his firm. If the contract is broken—
    The Chairman: That hardly arises on this new Clause.
    Mr. Fleming: The point is that on a question of wages, if the contract of service is broken the employer would not be bound in law to pay any wages at all.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): That was discussed on a previous Amendment and a decision come to.
    The Chairman: Clearly it has nothing to do with this new Clause. This is a question of terms which it is proposed to insert in a contract.
    Mr. Fleming: If the contract is still subsisting, then the employer, "apart altogether from the new Clause" is undoubtedly liable to pay full wages.
    The Chairman: If it is "apart altogether from the new Clause," then the hon. and learned Member cannot discuss it.
    Mr. Fleming: If the new Clause is accepted it is obvious that the employé would suffer. If a written contract is still subsisting the employé, although withdrawn from the service of his employer, is still liable to his full wages irrespective of what he receives from the Army and, therefore, if hon. Members opposite persist in this new Clause their friends the employés are going to be worse off. That is all I wanted to point out in regard to this proposal.
    6.54 p.m.
    Mr. Stephen: I support the new Clause. It is obvious that as things stand many thousands of people are going to lose a certain amount of money. As I see it the question resolves itself into whether it should be the employer who is to lose or the employé, and I have no hesitation in saying that instead of the financial burden being put on the shoulders of the young men, in addition to the other burdens they will have to bear, it should obviously be placed upon the shoulders of the employers, unless the Government are prepared to accept the full responsibility of putting those who will be called up into such a position that they will suffer no financial loss. It is a definite proposition which the Committee has to face. We have to realise that many of the 200,000 will lose a certain part of their income, and that the families whom they have been assisting will suffer because of this

    1273
    financial loss. I do not think it is fair for the Committee to put this financial loss upon the shoulders of the young men who are called up.
    It may be that hon. Members opposite will feel that it is pretty hard that every employer should be called upon to undertake this responsibility, but I am told of many employers who have undertaken it voluntarily. I was told yesterday that I was not sufficiently trustful of employers. I am prepared to trust them within reason; and the reason is in the proposed new Clause. Good employers will not suffer anything, because they are intending to make up the wages. I am thinking of the employers who will not undertake the responsibility which good employers are undertaking voluntarily. Why should you employ compulsion only in regard to young men in pushing them into the Army in order to defend the property of employers? I hope the Government will accept the new Clause, and will realise that if there is going to be financial loss in the carrying out of the scheme, if thousands of people are going to pay in connection with it, it should not be that section of the community which is also to be called upon to give this service.
    6.47 p.m.
    Sir Joseph Lamb: I have listened with great care to the arguments which the Proposer and Seconder of the new Clause put forward, and I think they were rather contradictory. The first argument was that there was a danger of the employer, when losing a young man, refusing to provide a substitute and therefore making a profit because the staff would be called upon to make up the loss. Anyone who did such a thing as that is not acting properly, but that is not a point which should be dealt with by an Act of Parliament. I am a strong believer in trade unions and they are the proper people to deal with a point like that. Where a man has been taken and no substitute employed, the other employés would have a strong case for making representations that the employer was not playing the game.
    As regards the other question, I am told that large firms are doing it already, but the large firms which have been mentioned are not doing it out of their own money, they are not doing it out of directors' fees, but out of the money subscribed to the capital account of the com-
    1274
    pany. What we all want is to get fair treatment as between man and man. What are you going to do in the case of an unemployed man who is called up? Are you going to make up his unemployment pay? You have not mentioned his case in the new Clause.
    Mr. Jagger: If you can get it included I will support it.
    Sir J. Lamb: The hon. Member must deal with his own proposal. By it he is asking an employer to make up the difference between the normal earnings of a young man and what he will receive when he is in the Army. But nothing at all has been said about the unemployed man receiving unemployment pay, and that would create a greater injustice between the man who is unemployed when he joins up and the man who is in employment with a chance of going back to it.
    7.1 p.m.
    Mr. E. J. Williams: I am rather surprised to hear the argument that the hon. Gentleman has advanced. After all, good employers have already adopted something comparable to what is contained in this Clause and have never thought of the unemployed man at all. They have thought that it was a patriotic thing to do. Consequently we should be prepared to accept their conception, rather than that of other employers who are obviously very mean employers. Surely, if we compel young men to train, and ultimately to give their lives for the country, these employers ought to be made to do a certain patriotic duty and see that the dependants who are left behind are not left destitute.
    7.2 p.m.
    Mr. E. Brown: I think the Committee will have found this a very interesting discussion. The words "rich" and "good" have been used as exchangeable terms by several Members who have argued the Clause. The firms which have done what we are all glad to know they are able to do have all been large organisations. But the issue is not between the good and the bad at all. It is interesting to notice the arguments put forward from those benches in favour of large combines. I shall note them for future reference. But that is not the issue. It is not between the good and the wicked. The issue is this. The Clause asks us to put a burden not upon

    1275
    the rich but upon every single employer. It is not that the Committee has to choose whether they would say one employer is generous and another mean. It is a question whether or not in these circumstances Parliament ought to put this burden equally upon all shoulders irrespective of the scale of the organisation, its responsibilities, the possibility of replacement or the effect upon the industry if, as it would be in thousands of cases, it is a small-scale industry. There is no doubt whatever that small-scale industries on the whole would have the greatest difficulty in meeting the industrial implications of the Measure. There is no doubt whatever that to put upon many of them the burden suggested in the Clause would be to put upon them a burden which they would find it difficult, and in some cases impossible, to bear. [Interruption.] We shall have time to-morrow to discuss pay and allowances, which are not in this Bill.
    Those who support the Clause overlook one thing. There is a very different state in the homes to which the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Pilkington) referred, because the man is no longer there, and he is not merely receiving his pay and allowances but, if we are to discuss it on that basis, any value that may be taken into account in respect of his board and lodgings and the costs which the State has to bear while he is away from home on his training. The glorification of the large-scale industries which have been able to do this sounded very strange on the lips of hon. Members opposite. I hope a good many more will be able to do it. But it is one thing for the heads of organisations to meet the situation from a patriotic motive and to do what they feel in terms of their organisation able to do in fairness to their employés and to their organisation, and an entirely different thing to hold them up as a standard by which to judge other employers who may not be in the same fortunate position, who have very different responsibilities to face and might not be able, in the case of small industries, to carry the burden. I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Clause.
    Mr. Jagger: Can I get the right hon. Gentleman to say at least that the Government will set the example of doing it in the Civil Service?
    Mr. Garro Jones: The right hon. Gentleman has excused himself from accepting the Clause on the ground that hardship would accrue to a certain limited class of, employers. Would he be prepared to accept it if a hardship Clause were added to it, as in the case of the conscripts themselves?
    7.7 p.m.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman has not convinced the Committee. He has exaggerated the new Clause out of all proportion in order to try to get away with his argument. There are only 200,000 young men to be called up out of 17,000,000 wage-earners—that is the proportion—and when he talks of employers in small industries being burdened with this proposed financial problem he must know that in thousands upon thousands of cases of small businesses there will not be an employé of 20 years at all to be called up. The right hon. Gentleman also said that my hon. Friend the Member for Clayton (Mr. Jagger) rather glorified in the fact that we had great combines in this country. Of course he did nothing of the kind. What he did was to glorify in the fact that some of those combines were patriotic enough to do voluntarily what we now ask that all employers should do compulsorily. The hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) wants trade unionism to deal with the problem. He knows that there is no trade unionism covering the vast majority of workpeople. There are only 5,000,000 trade unionists out of 17,000,000 wage-earners.
    Sir J. Lamb: I said I was a great supporter of trade unions and, where there are no trade unions, I should like to see them.
    Mr. Davies: The point that the hon. Gentleman made was that it was not necessary to pass a law to compel this to be done because it could be left to the trade unions. The hon. Gentleman is interested in hospitals. I have yet to learn that there is a trade union among the nurses, even the male nurses in some cases, which would attend effectively to a matter of this kind. My hon. Friends who have spoken feel very strongly on this issue. Take the big shops and the large offices. When young men of 20 are called up from those it is almost certain that the employers will benefit financially by their going.
    Mr. E. Brown: That is a large assumption.
    Mr. Davies: Some of us are connected with the distributive trade and we ought to know more about it than the right hon. Gentleman does. When a shop assistant or a clerk is away ill for a month or two it is very seldom that the employer engages another person to do his work.
    Sir J. Lamb: That is very often with the consent of the other workers, because they want to keep the place open for the man who is ill.
    Mr. Davies: It is very seldom indeed that their consent is asked, and we speak of what we know. The problem is not however as large as the right hon. Gentleman would make it out to be. What is the wage, in the trades that we know about, of a young man of 20? There are people employed in some of these trades who will be lucky if they get 25s. a week—some very much less. Consequently, the financial problem for the employers is not as heavy as the right hon. Gentleman would lead us to believe.
    Mr. Butcher: Will the hon. Gentleman quote the trade board rates for certain industries with which he is concerned?
    Mr. Davies: There are not trade boards for every industry. There are young men of 20 in Lancashire who are now working full time for less wages than the amount that will be paid to them when they are in the militia if you take into account the value of the lodgings and allowances they will get. There are many cases where they will actually be better off financially because of the poor wages that they are getting at the moment. There is no doubt that in calling these men up for service the Government are automatically reducing the income of the home in the vast majority of cases. I cannot understand the opposition of the Government to the Clause, because during the Great War there were cases where employers made up the wages of their workpeople for the whole of the four years. I have yet to learn that a hardship would be imposed on the employers if the Clause were carried. We are naturally very anxious that these young men should be kept on the employer's pay roll. In that case they will not be forgotten when their term of service expires. There is a very much greater chance of their securing reinstatement in their former posts if they
    1278
    are kept on their employers' pay roll. The right hon. Gentleman's opposition is not very sound when we remember the experience of the Great War. We intend to divide the Committee on this Clause, and I shall be very interested to see how much patriotism is displayed in the vote in the Lobby.
    7.14 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: There were moments yesterday when I hoped that the right hon. Gentleman was going to rise to the height of a statesman. There were remarks that he made and concessions that he gave which indicated a breadth of mind which I have not noticed in him during the last four or five years. But to-day he has once again become the mere party politician. The Minister could have made a speech on this matter that would have been most convincing, even if he had not accepted the new Clause. Instead of the rather tepid admiration that he expressed for the firms that are carrying out the principle embodied in the new Clause, he could have, said that he was so strongly convinced they were right that the biggest combine of all, the Government, would adopt this principle in its relationship to the persons in its own employment. Considering the action of the Government during the last War and the action they have taken with regard to Territorials, I was at least hoping that he would take the opportunity of making that announcement. I regret that he did not do so; In view of his temporary enlightenment yesterday, I can only conclude that it is an oversight to-day. He cannot have been so dazzled by his own brilliance as to be unable to rise to the opportunity today. I hope he will take the opportunity, before we go into the Division Lobby, to announce that the Government will give a lead to the employers by accepting this principle with regard to its own servants.
    7.17 p.m.
    Mr. Charles Williams: This is a very interesting Clause, which I could almost support, were it not, like so many of the new Clauses proposed by hon. Members opposite, completely unworkable. However, I feel that this is a case where the Government might meet the point that has been raised. I am sure that my hon. Friends will be only too glad that one tribute after another has been paid to the big employers by hon. Members of the Socialist party, who have said that practically all the big employers in this coun-

    1279
    try are really angels. As practically all the big employers are good, why should not the Government, which is good in other ways, say that any employés of the Government shall have the advantages laid down in this Clause? I do not think the matter should stop there. Why should not the big municipal authorities, such as London and Glasgow, which are notoriously bad employers of labour, guarantee these people work, as they might easily do?
    There is another argument that has been made by hon. Members in favour of the Clause which has rather caused me to move towards the Clause. I think there is something to be said for keeping a man on the pay-roll of the employer even if the sum paid is only a small one, for this would keep up a connection with the old firm. It is the wish of the whole Committee, I feel, that during the time the men are called up and are away, the employers should do everything possible to help them in every way. That is a wish that has been expressed from all sides of the Committee. There is one case to which I want to refer which, although it may seem a small one, is of importance. Before coming into this Debate I heard of a case in a constituency—not my own—where a young man of 20 has been able to build up a very small business of his own, and during the period he is doing military training, in all probability the business will go. Such a case could not possibly be compensated in any way under this Clause. I have referred to this case because it shows how impossible it is to lay down a hard-and-fast rule such as is laid down in this Clause, and for that reason, although I would like to have seen it laid down, if that were possible, I do not see how I can vote for the new Clause. If hon. Members can explain how the Clause might be made workable—which none of them so far has done—there may be a chance of my following them into the Division Lobby.
    7.21 p.m.
    Mr. Collindridge: With regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), I envy a good many hon. Members on the Government side who very adroitly pay a tribute to the proposals we make, but gracefully extricate themselves from the difficulty of voting for those proposals. If the right
    1280
    hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour has any criticism to make about the points we put regarding his reply, I think he is himself largely responsible for the difficulty, for he and the Government have decided that the conscripts shall not have the normal standard of life to which they are accustomed before being called up for their training. I want to draw attention to the way in which statements are made and then not carried out in practice. In the early stages of the Bill, I listened with interest when the Minister of Labour, in grandiloquent terms, said that the people who would be called up under the Bill would be cooks' sons and dukes' sons, and that they would be treated equally. It now seems that there is to be a difference in the standard of life of the cook's son and the duke's son.
    There is another point to which I wish to refer, as I think it has not been commented upon during the discussion. In the mining industry, from which I come, there has recently been a definite contraction of the working life of the average man owing to the heavy run of unemployment. Whereas our fathers did work when they were 65 years of age, a great many of the men in the mining industry now are prevented from working after they are 45 years of age. Under this Bill, there will be a further contraction of the working life of those between the ages of 20 and 21 by six months, which will represent a loss of well over £40 to the young men, and six months' less working time. The Minister has blandly said that we must have regard to the fact that the young man will not have to be kept in the house in which he lives. I think I am voicing the opinions of the men in the mining industry when I say that they wish it was otherwise, and that the young men were left where they are.
    In the matter which we are now discussing, surely the Government are not acting with ordinary fairness. I suggest that if the Minister of Labour were sent by the Cabinet to various countries to investigate certain conditions appertaining to the interests of this country, his standard of life would not be reduced while he was doing that. I maintain that if these men are called up for training, they should be no worse off as a result of it. We have here a very definite test as to whether hon. Members opposite feel that there is equality in this matter. It is fair to say that in the mining industry,

    1281
    if the new Clause were accepted, the burden of the cost, as a result of the method of ascertaining the wages, would fall on the miners themselves, but I think I can speak for all the men in the industry when I say that they would prefer that the Clause should be accepted, that justice should be given to the men who are having imposed upon them the burden of looking after this country's interests, and that they should have no lower standard of life while they are conscripts than they had before.
    7.26 p.m.
    Mr. Burke: I am rather disappointed that the Minister did not reply to the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Clayton (Mr. Jagger), and I am surprised that no real case has been made against the new Clause. All that the Minister has done has been to say that he has noted the statements we have made and that he will keep them for use as evidence against us at some future time. I do not think the country is concerned with all that kind of twaddle. It is concerned—I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour will listen to me and take my advice—by the fact that the Government have had an opportunity this afternoon of doing something as good as is done by those employers about whom the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to feel very warmly, and that the Government have refused to take the opportunity of putting on the employers a sacrifice equal to the sacrifice which they very readily put on the homes. It has been argued that because this cannot be applied all round, it should not be applied to the thousands of cases where it can be. It seems to me to be a very weak argument to come from the Government Front Bench that because there happen to be two men who may be in a business of their own, and cannot be fitted into the scheme, it should be denied to the 200,000 people to whom it could be applied. Before the Debate is concluded, I would like the Minister to give a guarantee that, if he cannot get every employer in the country to do as the better employers—I will not say the good employers—do, the Government will give to all of those employers, whether rich or poor, good or bad, the lead which they can
    1282
    give, and which they have no excuse for not giving.
    7.28 p.m.
    Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman: I want to say a few words as the representative of a cotton constituency. At the present time, there is before the House a Cotton Enabling Bill, because the cotton trade is in such a very bad state. Any extra charge placed upon that trade will affect the employment of every one in the trade, and therefore I feel that this new Clause is one which I could not possibly support. It is all very well for those firms which have a monopoly. I am glad that they can do as the new Clause proposes, and I hope that many others in the country who are in a similar position will follow their very good example. What I am afraid of is that the firms which are just hanging on would not be able to continue if any extra charge were placed upon them.
    7.29 p.m.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: I want to ask the Minister whether he saw the circular that was sent to the Skegness Urban District Council asking them to pay their employés who were called up, or to make up the difference between the 10s. 6d. that the militiamen will receive and the wages they received before being called up. The hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons) asked the Minister a question as to what he intended to instruct that urban district council to do. I wonder where the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester is to-night. [Interruption.] One of my hon. Friends suggests that he has gone to Skegness. The hon. and learned Member asked a question in the House as to whether the Government would press the local authorities to pay their employés' wages or salaries during the time they were called up, or to make up the difference between their pay as militiamen and their wages.
    It being Half-past Seven 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.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 135; Noes, 263.

    Division No. 132.]

    AYES

    [7.30 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke

    Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)

    Parker, J.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Hall, J. H. (Whitsehapel)

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

    Hardie, Agnes

    Pearson, A.

    Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

    Hayday, A.

    Price, M. P.

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Pritt, D. N.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Banfield, J. W.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Riley, B.

    Barr, J.

    Hicks, E. G.

    Ritson, J.

    Batey, J.

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    Bellenger, F. J.

    Jagger, J.

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)

    Bevan, A.

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Sanders, W. S.

    Broad, F. A.

    John, W.

    Sexton, T. M.

    Bromfield, W.

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

    Shinwell, E.

    Brown, C. (Mansfield)

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Silverman, S. S.

    Buchanan, G.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Sloan, A.

    Burke, W. A.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Cape, T.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lathan, G.

    Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lawson, J. J.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Cocks, F. S.

    Leach, W.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Collindridge, F.

    Lee, F.

    Stephen, C.

    Cove, W. G.

    Leonard, W.

    Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

    Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

    Leslie, J. R.

    Stokes, R. R.

    Daggar, G.

    Logan, D. G.

    Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

    Dalton, H.

    Lunn, W.

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Thorns, W.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Day, H.

    McGovern, J.

    Tomlinson, G.

    Dobbie, W.

    MacLaren, A.

    Viant, S. P.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    Maclean, N.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Ede, J. C.

    Mander, G. le M.

    Watson, W. MeL.

    Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

    Marshall, F.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Mathers, G.

    Westwood, J.

    Gardner, B. W.

    Maxton, J.

    Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

    Garro Jones, G. M.

    Messer, F.

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Milner, Major J.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Gibbins, J.

    Montague, F.

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    Muff, G.

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Noel-Baker, P. J.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    Owen, Major G.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Groves, T. E.

    Paling, W.

    Mr. Anderson and Mr. Adamson.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

    Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)

    Dunglass, Lord.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

    Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)

    Eastwood, J. F.

    Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

    Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)

    Channon, H.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Ellis, Sir G.

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Christie, J. A.

    Elliston, Capt. G. S.

    Apsley, Lord

    Clarke, Colonel R S. (E. Grinstead)

    Emery, J. F.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Assheton, R.

    Colfox, Major W. P.

    Entwistle, Sir C. F.

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Colville, Rt. Hon. John

    Erskine-Hill, A. G.

    Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

    Conant, Captain R. J. E.

    Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)

    Balniel, Lord

    Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)

    Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

    Baxter, A. Beverley

    Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

    Everard, Sir William Lindsay

    Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

    Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)

    Findlay, Sir E.

    Beechman, N. A.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Fleming, E. L.

    Bennett, Sir E. N.

    Critchley, A.

    Fox, Sir G. W. G.

    Bernays, R. H.

    Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

    Furness, S. N.

    Blair, Sir R.

    Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Cross, R. H.

    Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Boulton, W. W.

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Gledhill, G.

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

    Culverwell, C. T.

    Gluckstein, L. H.

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    De Chair, S. S.

    Goldie, N. B.

    Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)

    Do la Bere, R.

    Gower, Sir R. V.

    Brass, Sir W.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Danville, Alfred

    Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.

    Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

    Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

    Dodd, J. S.

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Doland, G. F.

    Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

    Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.

    Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

    Bull, B. B.

    Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.

    Burghley, Lord

    Dugdale, Captain T. L.

    Hambro, A. V.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Duggan, H. J.

    Hannah, I. C.

    1284

    1285

    Harbord, A.

    Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

    Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

    Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)

    Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

    Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

    Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Smithers, Sir W.

    Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

    Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

    Moore, Lieut.-Colonel Sir T. C. R.

    Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

    Moreing, A. C.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Hepworth, J.

    Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

    Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

    Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth)

    Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)

    Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

    Higgs, W. F.

    Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

    Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

    Holdsworth, H.

    Nall, Sir J.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Holmes, J. S.

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Hopkinson, A.

    Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)

    Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Howitt, Dr. A. B.

    O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Hunter, T.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Hutchinson, G. C.

    Peake, O.

    Tate, Mavis C

    James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

    Peat, C. U.

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Jarvis, Sir J. J.

    Parkins, W. R. D.

    Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Thorneyoroft, G. E. P.

    Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Petherick, M.

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Touche, G. C.

    Keeling, E. H.

    Pilkington, R.

    Train, Sir J.

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Kimball, L.

    Porritt, R. W.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Turton, R. H.

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Radford, E. A.

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

    Walker-Smith, Sir J.

    Lancaster, Captain C. G.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

    Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Rayner, Major R. H.

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

    Reed. A. C. (Exeter)

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

    Lewis, O.

    Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

    Warrender, Sir V.

    Liddall, W. S.

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Lindsay, K. M.

    Remer, J. R.

    Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie

    Lipson, D. L.

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Wayland, Sir W. A

    Little, J.

    Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

    Wedderburn, H. J. S.

    Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Wells, Sir Sydney

    Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

    Loftus. P. C.

    Rowlands, G.

    Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

    Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)

    M'Connell, Sir J.

    Russell, Sir Alexander

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Wise, A. R.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

    Salmon, Sir I.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

    Salt, E. W.

    Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

    McKie, J. H.

    Samuel, M. R. A.

    Wragg, H.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Sandeman. Sir N. S.

    Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

    Magnay, T.

    Schuster, Sir G. E.

    York, C.

    Maitland, Sir Adam

    Scott, Lord William

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

    Selley, H. R.

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Shakespeare, G. H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Markham, S. F.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Ferfar)

    Mr. Munro and Mr. Grimston.

    Marsden, Commander A.

    Shepperson, Sir E. W.

    SCHEDULE.
    7.40 p.m.
    Dr. Edith Summerskill: I beg to move, in page 19, line 9, to leave out "male."
    I believe the Amendment is self-explanatory. The Schedule as it stands excludes women from serving on tribunals and the purpose of the Amendment is to give both sexes the opportunity of so serving. I cannot understand how the Bill was drafted in this form at all. The Prime Minister himself said that he was anxious that every boy who was a conscientious objector and who wanted to put his case before a tribunal should have it carefully investigated in an impartial manner, and also that the tribunals would be drawn from the courts of referees. Most of us know that the courts
    1286
    of referees are composed of men and women, and, therefore, I cannot under stand why women have been discriminated against in this way. The argument that women have never served on a tribunal which might be regarded as a military tribunal is not valid, because, in the first place, this is a civilian tribunal, and, secondly, we have to remember that it is a quarter of a century since the last War started, and I feel that the status of women has changed completely during that time. To-day we not only serve on courts of referees, but we serve on juries and even have the honour to be represented in this House, and I feel that women have established completely their right to equal citizenship. Therefore, surely it is only equitable that women

    1287
    should be represented on these tribunals. If it be said that women should not be put on these particular tribunals—
    Mr. E. Brown: I would point out that the hon. Member's Amendment affects the hardship committees and not the tribunals.
    Dr. Summerskill: I take it that surely the composition of the hardship committees will establish a precedent for the other tribunals.
    Mr. Brown: There will be numerous hardship committees, and they will deal with the hardships of individuals. The tribunals to deal with conscripts will be small in number, probably one for each region, not local in the sense of one for each town, and, therefore, they will be of a different construction.
    Dr. Summerskill: I hope the Minister will be very kind over this matter. He has not been kind during the last two or three Clauses, but I hope he will make up for it now and agree to this Amendment. I should like to have women represented on both kinds of tribunals, both the hardship tribunals and those before which conscientious objectors will go. If the argument is used that women should not be represented on these tribunals, because they are not serving in any way, that is not sound, because women are volunteering for all sorts of services, even in the Civil Air Guard, and I do not believe that anyone can say that physical courage is a monopoly of one sex. Another argument—and I think this is the important one for both tribunals—is that we have to regard the personnel of the tribunals not from the point of view of sex, but from the point of view of qualifications. Surely we want to bring to these tribunals people who are wide in their sympathies, who are kindly, and who will try to do their duty in the right manner. Can we therefore exclude women and say that they have not these qualifications?
    I do not want to weary the Committee with sentimentality, but surely the nearest person to these boys is very often their mother. I think that women who have brought children into the world, who have looked after them, cared for them and taught them, are very conscious of what a child feels, and even at the age of 20 we may put a youth into the category of a child. I ask the
    1288
    Minister, therefore, to allow women who have done such a great deal in producing and in rearing these recruits, to have some say in what is to be their future, and to give some help to these committees in coming to the very important decisions which will be involved.
    7.46 p.m.
    Mr. Hutchinson: The hon. Lady has said that women have earned their right to equal citizenship. That is not a proposition with which any of us on this side of the Committee are likely to disagree; but in the particular case with which the Amendment deals we are not so much concerned to protect the rights of women to equal citizenship, as to protect the rights of men to equal citizenship. These tribunals have to deal with questions in which men and men alone are concerned. These young men are embarking upon a career in the Army, in which they will have to be led by men, to live with men, to serve with men, and it would be remarkable if the tribunal which decides when they are to commence their service in those circumstances, is to consist of women.
    Mr. Thorne: I would rather have a tribunal of women than a tribunal of men.
    Mr. Hutchinson: The hon. Member will not have to appear before one of these tribunals, but he will forgive me for saying that if he were 20 and had to appear before a tribunal, he would prefer a tribunal of men. There is another aspect of the matter to which I would draw attention. I think it was the purpose of the Minister when the Bill was being drafted to provide that these hardship tribunals should consist of men. That, I think, was right and as regards the two members of the tribunal, the Minister has succeeded in his object that these two members shall be men.
    The Chairman: I must point out to the hon. and learned Member that we are not discussing that part of the Schedule which relates to local and appellate tribunals. This part of the Schedule refers only to the hardship committees.
    Mr. Hutchinson: I am obliged to you, Sir Dennis; I should have said hardship committees. The Schedule provides that the two appointed members of the hardship committee shall be men, but it does not appear to provide that the chairman should be a man. All that is required is

    1289
    that the chairman should be a person holding the office of chairman of a court of referees. Women have exercised their right of equal citizenship to the extent that some of them have become chairmen of courts of referees, and as the Schedule stands you may get the anomalous position that, although the two members of the committee are bound to be men, the chairman may be a woman. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that the Schedule will be amended so that both the appointed members and the chairmen of these hardship committees shall be male persons and not women.
    7.50 p.m.
    Viscountess Astor: I hope the Minister will accept this Amendment which has, I am sure, the support of most Members of the Committee. If these committees are intended to inquire into cases of hardship, women members would be most useful because women have much more intuition than men and are capable of getting at what is in some young men's minds better than men. I am sorry that there are to be either tribunals or hardship committees. I wish the Minister had said simply that these boys had to be trained for six months either for arms, or for some other form of service to the State, but if we are to have tribunals and committees, I say it is essential that we should accept this Amendment. When these questions arise one hears hon. Members talk a great deal about women and men acting in these various capacities, but there is really very little difference. Some women are so manly and some men are so womanly, that one hardly knows where to draw the line.
    An hon. Member opposite said that if he had to go before a tribunal he would rather have a tribunal of women than one of men. But I do not think it follows that they would necessarily be easier, and one of the reasons why I want women members to be appointed on these committees is because very often they are more practical and less sentimental than men. Sometimes, indeed, they are actually harder than men, but in these matters we want to be guided by practical considerations and not by sentiment. We want women who are suited to it, to perform this task equally with men, and we want the proper people to be appointed to these committee whether they are women or men. We do not want
    1290
    any sex disqualification to operate in this matter, and I hope the Minister will accept the Amendment.
    7.53 p.m.
    Mr. E. Brown: Perhaps I might intervene in the discussion at this stage with advantage to the Committee. I am sure hon. Members do not wish, on this very limited issue, to fight over again the whole battle about equal citizenship between men and women. The issue is actually a very narrow one. This Amendment does not affect the actual service of any man, except as regards the question of whether his period of service is to be accelerated or postponed because of practical difficulties. The hardship committees exist solely for the purpose of deciding that, but, as has been pointed out, that is a matter which affects the home very much indeed. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) is right in saying that chairmen of courts of referees in some cases are women. That is a status which is due to them. They act as chairmen and deputy-chairmen of courts of referees, and I should add that women are among the most able and impartial chairmen. The normal structure of the committee, apart from the chairman, provides for two members, one representing the employers and the other the workers.
    It is true that when the Bill was drafted we had in view the consideration that as the people who were to serve were males, it was appropriate that these committees should consist of male members. But, on reflection, I think the Committee will agree that if either the employers' association, or the workers' organisation, has upon their respective panels, from which the Minister will nominate these committees, both men and women, there is no reason why there should be any bar against a woman being a member on either side. No hardship and no lack of effectiveness has been involved in the case of the courts of referees because of the fact that sex is no bar in the appointment of chairmen or deputy-chairmen. Perhaps it will help to shorten the discussion and tend to avoid a repetition of the old battle about equal citizenship if I say that I am willing to accept the Amendment.
    7.56 p.m.
    Sir Joseph Nall: I feel certain that this proposal will not be well received in a

    1291
    great many quarters. This is a Bill compelling men to render service to the State. If it were a Bill to compel women to undergo compulsory training in any form, one can well imagine women claiming that the tribunals in such a case should be composed of women and objecting to tribunals composed of women and men alike. The Minister has drawn a distinction in this matter between the hardship committees and the tribunals which are mentioned in the other part of the Schedule. I hope that even if the Minister sees fit to accept this Amtndment in the case of the hardship committees, he will not accept any suggestion of the same kind in relation to the tribunals.
    Amendment agreed to.
    7.57 p.m.
    Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, in page 19, line 9, to leave out "of one or other of the," and to insert:
    "drawn in equal numbers from each of the two."
    I move this Amendment for purposes of clarification. The Minister has just explained that the committees which are to be set up will be equivalent to the committees under the Unemployment Insurance Act. I wish to ensure that both employers' and workers' representatives shall be appointed on the hardship committees. As the Schedule does not make this point clear, I move this Amendment in order to give the Minister an opportunity of making it clear.
    7.58 p.m.
    Mr. E. Brown: I readily give the assurance for which the hon. Member asks. It is the intention that there should be one member from the workers' panel called for each session of the committee, as well as one member from the other panel. I would, however, have difficulty in accepting this Amendment. First, it would not achieve what the hon. Member wants, because the actual size of the panel does not matter. Speaking from general experience and not from an actual analysis made, I would say that, normally, the workers' panel is larger than the employers' panel, and I think every trade union member will agree with that general view. Therefore, this Amendment would not achieve its purpose but, as I say, it is our intention that in every case there shall be a workers' representative. Even if the Amendment did what the hon. Member wants, I think it would be
    1292
    inadvisable to make it. I do not anticipate non-co-operation, but I must look ahead and there might be some cases, probably very few, of non-co-operation, and if I tied myself down I might not be able to complete my panels inside the law. As I say, I do not anticipate that, but I must be prepared, and I hope the Committee will accept my assurance as to our intention in this matter.
    Mr. Shinwell: In view of the Minister's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. Parker: I beg to move, in page 19, line 13, to leave out from "forty-one" to the end of the paragraph.
    It seems to us that this paragraph gives the Minister rather too wide powers to collect the chairmen from all sorts of quarters. We think it would be much better that the courts of referees should form the basis of the personnel of the members of the committees as a whole.
    8.1 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): I agree with the contention of the hon. Member that courts of referees should form the basis of the constitution of these committees as a whole, but it would be impossible to accept the Amendment, for if we did so it would mean that only a person who is chairman of a court of referees would be eligible to be chairman of a hardship committee. There will be many such committees, and it is our intention wherever possible to appoint the chairman of a court of referees or the reserve chairman as chairman of the hardship committee. It would undoubtedly tie our hands if we were precluded from appointing anybody else. I can, however, assure the hon. Member that we regard the chairmen and the reserve chairmen of courts of referees as eminently suitable and indeed the most suitable persons to be chairmen of these hardship committees.
    Mr. Parker: In view of the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    8.3 p.m.
    Mrs. Hardie: I beg to move, in page 19, line 20, after "members," to insert:

    1293
    "(being persons not connected with any of His Majesty's Forces)."
    The object of this Amendment is to prevent the military from being members of these tribunals. We think that civil people are more likely to understand the conscientious objector and his claims for exemption. Therefore, we suggest that these words should be inserted, making it clear that the members of the committee shall not be connected with any of His Majesty's Forces.
    Mr. E. Brown: I cannot accept the words of the Amendment, because they are much too wide. As I made clear in a previous Debate, it is not intended to appoint to these tribunals persons who are members of His Majesty's Forces, but the phrase "not connected" would prevent us from appointing any ex-serviceman, who might be the very best man to put on the tribunal. In view of the statement that I previously made that the tribunal will be a civil tribunal, and that that does not necessarily bar men who have had connection with His Majesty's Forces, I hope the hon. Lady will not press the Amendment.
    8.4 p.m.
    Mr. J. J. Davidson: The right hon. Gentleman has given us another very definite reason for pressing this Amendment, because I say quite frankly, as an ex-serviceman, that I do not think that ex-servicemen should be asked to serve on these tribunals. Any hon. Member with any military experience must know—we must generalise on this—the generally hostile attitude of the Army man and even of the ex-serviceman to the conscientious objector.
    Mr. E. Brown Mr. E. Brown indicated dissent.
    Mr. Davidson: The right hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but I can assure him that I am speaking from practical experience, and I ask him to accept that statement. If these men who have really conscientious scruples have to prove those conscientious scruples, I say that the tribunal to be formed should be made as clear from any prejudice whatsoever as we can possibly make it. Therefore, our Amendment is reasonable. There are many classes of society and sections of the community, many responsible citizens, from whom the Minister can draw in order to form his tribunals, without in any way interfering with the duties of His
    1294
    Majesty's Forces or calling upon ex-servicemen who, generally speaking, are expected to perform much more practical and useful duties towards the State.
    I trust that on our side we shall press this Amendment very strongly. I think the Minister ought to accept it, even for his own sake. It would not in any way hamper him in his selection or in the variety of his selection. It would not in any way injure his powers of selection, but it would clear away any vestige of suspicion that may remain in the minds; of hon. Members or members of the public with regard to the composition of these tribunals. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that ex-servicemen's organisations, generally speaking, have always retained a certain amount of the military outlook. In any decision they have taken, even in regard to applications to-the Government for increases of pensions, they have always shown that they still retain a certain amount of what may perhaps be called regimental pride, or pride in having been members of His Majesty's Forces in the past, or pride in having participated on behalf of the country in the last War. Undoubtedly, on these ex-servicemen's associations, generally speaking—although a number of them have seen the light of reason and have joined the Socialist party—the great majority of the ex-servicemen still have the military outlook. It has been ingrained in them by military training, and it would be very unwise on the part of the Minister to insist on the ex-servicemen argument in opposing this Amendment. For these reasons—and I have put them as reasonably as I could—I hope that he will accept the Amendment.
    When I was a member of His Majesty's Forces as a volunteer I know that when the conscripts came there was a very definite feeling on the part of the officers and non-commissioned officers against the conscripts. My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge (Mr. Barr), in an earlier part of the Debate, referred to the phrases that were used by the tribunals, but if I used some of the very un-Parliamentary phrases used by soldiers serving in the Army with regard to the conscripts—many of whom were not conscripts of their own will but would have volunteered if the Conscription Act had not been applied to them—and quoted some of the statements that were made showing the prejudices of non-commissioned officers

    1295
    against these men, I think the Committee would accept my view that we should be wise in keeping military men from these tribunals, which are set up to try the consciences of men.
    8.9 p.m.
    Sir J. Nall: I think everyone will agree as to the desirability of excluding from the tribunals anyone with a particular bias in either direction. The arguments of the hon. Member apply with equal force to a man who was a conscientious objector in the last War, or to a man who has never served in the military forces. If you say that because a man has served he is for ever biased in compelling other people to serve, you might as well say that if a man has never served he is therefore biased in preventing anyone else from serving. If we exclude different classes or categories of persons from the tribunals because they have or have not served in the military forces, the selection from which these tribunals can be appointed will be so narrowed that they may not command the public confidence, which is essential. There is nothing in the Schedule or the Bill to prevent an out-and-out conscientious objector being appointed, and it would be ridiculous to go the other way and to exclude a man who has served in His Majesty's Forces or is in any way connected with them. Without prescribing a definite prohibition we must leave it to the authorities to use discretion in the selection of individuals for the tribunals. It might be that a civilian having some sort of connection with His Majesty's Forces may be a civil member of a Territorial association, and under the Amendment a civil member of a Territorial association who has never been in military service would be excluded. I cannot think that that would in any way add to the prestige of these tribunals.
    8.12 p.m.
    Mr. Barr: I give my cordial support to the Amendment, not perhaps altogether on the grounds that I have heard stated since I entered the Chamber. As the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) said, I gave the other day a quotation from the regulations that were issued by the Local Government Board in the last War in order that these tribunals might be in every way impartial and might be regarded as impartial by those who had to go before them. The regulation said:
    1296
    "The functions of the local tribunal will be of a judicial nature; persons should therefore be appointed who will consider the cases impartially."
    Although that statement was put forward I cannot say that it was always observed. There were those who said of the regulation "That is not an Act of Parliament, and we are not bound by a regulation." I agree to a certain extent with the hon. Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall). I have always defended the rights of the conscientious objectors, and it has given me great satisfaction that they have been as fully acknowledged as they have been in this House, but I have also maintained that those who take that attitude must bear in mind that there are also conscientious assenters. The soldier, although we may not approve the work that he is called upon to do, is dictated by conscience and feels that his service is an act of conscience. Indeed, for some of them, while their sufferings were greater, they were in no dilemma because conscience and country both beckoned the same way. They were able to reverence the King as if he were their conscience, and their conscience as if it were their King. We also know that sometimes those who were at the front had a calmer feeling towards the conscientious objector at home than some of those who were nearer to him here.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but we are now discussing the question of persons connected with His Majesty's Forces being appointed to the tribunal. The question of conscientious objectors is hardly relevant at the moment.
    Mr. Barr: I was not intending to dwell on the general subject of conscientious objection. My point is not that I think a military man or even a prominent military man may not give a fair decision, but that I do not want in the setting up of the tribunals any feeling that the conscientious objectors are not getting full justice. I support what fell from the hon. Member for Hulme in this regard. The rights of conscience were never so clearly stated than by one of the greatest military men in the country—Lord Roberts. His definition bears out my point. These were his words:
    "If you penetrate deep enough into the depth of human nature, you will unfailingly reach in each one of us a stratum which is impervious to discipline or any other influence

    1297
    from without. The strangest manifestation of this truth lies in what men call conscience—an innate sense of right or wrong which neither reason nor man-made law can affect. It is useless at such a juncture to invoke the authority of the constitution"—
    The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is going into matters which are not relevant to the Amendment.
    Mr. Benn: I assume they will be in order on the Question that the Schedule be agreed to?
    The Deputy-Chairman: Yes, I think the hon. Member's speech may be in order on that Question.
    Mr. Barr: May I conclude what was to be my argument? While there will be a certain amount of confidence in the fairness of military men, these tribunals should be above all suspicion, and those who come before them should have confidence that they are before men who can see their point of view. I am trying to make out that the military man can be fair, but I will state later the exact position. I will only emphasise now that, even from the point of view of the seeming fairness of these tribunals, I support the Amendment.
    8.19 p.m.
    Mr. Benn: May I point out to the Minister the kind of difficulty that we foresee? This Bill is going to yield a very unsatisfactory result from the point of view of numbers, and the fact that the Government have to go round and rake out all residents of this age who happen to be abroad shows forcefully that the numbers will not come up to their predictions or their hopes. After all, the Minister of Labour is a civilian. He is a distinguished ex-soldier, but he is only a civilian now, and when the War Office find that the numbers are not what they would like them to be, they will come round and say, "You had better put somebody on these committees and tribunals with a little bit of go in them in order to put a bit more spirit into the thing and brush aside all the concessions which they are making, and which are letting so many men through. When we have our trained boys, which will not be until Christmas, the numbers will be so unsatisfactory that something must be done." We have tried in a number of Amendments to meet that point. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what he has in view in order that we may be sure that the working of these
    1298
    tribunals, which is entirely in his hands, is in conformity with the spirit of fairness of the House of Commons itself?
    8.21 p.m.
    Mr. E. J. Williams: I would like to amplify what has been said by my right hon. Friend. Many Members will recall how tribunals were set up in the mining industry. They began with the men who were engaged on the surface, and ultimately they dealt with men who were working underground. The conscientious objectors were brought before local tribunals, but the men in the mines were, brought before the travelling tribunals which went from colliery to colliery. It became known to everybody in the industry that on the second and third call of a tribunal at a colliery the mesh got very much smaller and a larger number of persons were picked out. The teeth of the comb became much closer until we found that on some of the tribunals, although they came under the Home Office and not under military law, there were as many as two military representatives in order to bring added pressure. That may take place under this Bill, and I instance this in order to give some evidence to prove that in the last War something similar to what has been visualised by my right hon. Friend actually occurred.
    Mr. Lansbury: I want to recall to the-right hon. Gentleman that in discussing the machinery of the committees and tribunals he has always held that they will be civilians.
    8.23 p.m.
    Mr. E. Brown: If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to my remarks on the last Amendment, he will find that I made that clear. It is not intenfided to appoint those serving in the Forces, but the Amendment goes much wider than that. It would prevent the Minister appointing to these tribunals any civilian who has had connection with the Forces—no ex-service man. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]. I am giving the Committee my advice as to what the Amendment means, and I will not be moved from it except on the grounds of exact facts to the contrary.
    Mr. Benn: Suppose it is necessary to appoint a Liberal to some position; would the right hon. Gentleman or I be available?
    Mr. Brown: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to be personal, I would say that it is very certain that he has gone very much further from Liberalism than I have. The tribunal will be a civilian tribunal, as the whole procedure up to the day when the boy goes into the Army is a civilian procedure. The registration, the medical examination, the hardship committees and the actual calling up are all done by the Minister appointed under the Bill, and these tribunals will be appointed in the same way. I was surprised at the speech of the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson). The sweeping statements which he made about ex-service men were not shared, I am sure, by his colleagues on the benches opposite any more than by hon. Members in other parts of the House. I have often heard, not him, but his friends, though I have no doubt he has said the same thing, complain that in war time it was not the serving soldiers who were really against the conscientious objectors. That has been said over and over again.
    8.26 p.m.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: I appreciate the difficulty which the Minister feels about the Amendment, which he fears might exclude the possibility of appointing any ex-service man on the tribunal. That fear may be well founded or not, but the real point is that we are confronted with a Measure that means a profound change in the social life of a nation which is predominantly civilian and peaceful-minded. We are introducing the principle of compulsory military service, which is a novel departure and, undoubtedly, is a very great shock to the people of this country, and it is very necessary for the Government to do everything they can to reassure the predominantly civilian and peaceful-minded feelings of the nation at large. The great fear which exists, and it is a real and genuine fear, is that sooner or later these tribunals will assume a semi-military character. We have the assurances of the Minister that that is not his idea. His idea is that the tribunals shall be civilian in character and that the 100 per cent. military-minded member, if I may put it so, shall be excluded. But when we come to the facts of the case we find that we have only the assurances of the Minister to depend upon I am sure that those assurances are given with complete good faith on his
    1300
    part—I should like to make that quite clear—but Ministers come and Ministers go and the only thing the nation has to depend upon is what is in the Bill. Assurances may be given with complete good faith, but circumstances alter and in the last resort the country has only the words in the Bill to depend upon. Having that in mind, I would ask the Minister whether it is not possible for him to devise some form of words which would give effect in the Bill to what I believe to be his intention, and that is that these tribunals shall never in any circumstances become military in character, but always remain essentially civilian in outlook. If the Minister could devise some such form of words I believe he would give great reassurance to the people of this country.
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. Edmund Harvey: I should like to add my appeal to that of the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher). While I think the Minister may feel that the words suggested in the Amendment are too sweeping and would exclude most suitable ex-service men, I believe it is his desire to make it quite clear that the tribunal is to be civilian in character. On the other hand, it must be recognised that while the Bill is intended to be temporary it contains within itself the possibility of a permanent system, and therefore it is desirable that at the outset words should be inserted in the Bill to make it clear that this is to be a civilian tribunal. I shall not suggest any words now, but I hope the Minister will be willing to propose suitable words on the Report stage. That would meet substantial objections which have been advanced. I am sure that those who not only want justice done but desire that there should be the clear appearance of justice, will realise that some of the fairest men in the past have been old soldiers. I remember serving upon the committee, dealing with work of national importance, which was formed in connection with the Military Service Act, 1916. The second chairman of that committee was an old colonel of volunteers, Sir Hildred Carlile, for many years a Member of this House, and another member was an old colonel of the Regular Army, Colonel Sherard. They were only two members of the committee, but they were eminently fair-minded men, and though they did not in any way share

    1301
    the view of the conscientious objector they wanted to be fair to him and I believe were fair.
    We should not wish to exclude that type of man from serving on such a tribunal. But I think the danger is very real that those outside the House who have not heard the Minister's words will still fear that the tribunals will be used in the way that tribunals sometimes were during the late War, and still more they will fear that some day in the future, when another Minister takes the place of my right hon. Friend, a different spirit may prevail, and the wording of the Bill, which will then be an Act, gives no safeguard that the tribunal shall be civilian in character. Therefore, I hope the Minister will seriously consider the possibility of making a slight change on the Report stage to ensure that the text of the Bill embodies what he has told us are his intentions.
    8.33 p.m.
    Mr. Lloyd George: I wish to support the appeal of my hon. Friends. It is one of the matters upon which I have received communications from men who in the main are supporting this Bill. They are very anxious that the tribunal should be a non-military tribunal. I heard the better part of the speech of the Minister, and I felt that he was sympathetic, and I do hope that he will be able to meet the appeal which has been made to him. Possibly he cannot find words at the moment, and that I can well understand as one who has himself had some experience in getting a Bill through the House. Any form of words which is suggested would have to be considered carefully. But it would create a very great prejudice if there were on a tribunal of this kind obviously military men overbearing the rest of the members.
    It is so important when an experiment of this kind is tried—and this is an experiment in the sense that this is the first time we have had conscription in time of peace—that confidence should be given that fair play will be meted out to all the genuine cases. The public know very well which are the genuine cases—yes, they have a very fair idea as to which are the cases which have been put up by men who are trying to evade military service, and the cases which have a sound basis. If the appeal is overruled in a case which has a really sound basis
    1302
    a great deal of harm is done in the whole of the neighbourhood. If a military man is on the tribunal it seems very largely to be a kind of military dragooning, even when it is not so. In fact, military men have a way of expressing their opinions in a very emphatic and peremptory manner. Would not the right hon. Gentleman go a step further and promise that upon the Report stage he will find words to make it clear that there will not be what I call pukka soldiers on the tribunals. I quite agree that if you have a man who has seen service and has returned to civilian life, becoming for all practical purposes a civilian, that would be quite a different thing.
    8.36 p.m.
    Mr. E. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman puts me in a somewhat difficult position. He knows that a Minister is only too often asked during a Committee stage to give an assurance that he might not be able to fulfil afterwards, and that to give such an assurance looks like a half promise that he will do what is asked.
    Mr. Leach: A whole promise.
    Mr. Brown: No, not a whole promise but only a half promise, and if a Minister says he will look into the matter, of course, he will do so. I want to make it plain that the procedure to be followed under the Bill, up to the moment when the young man joins the Forces, is civilian in character. The whole of it is controlled by a civilian Minister who will carry out his obligations in the course of his ordinary administration. He will be under fire constantly through questions in the House, and when the Estimates are discussed every detail of the administration can be examined. What we are now discussing is the appointment of these panels, and I would like to tell the right hon. Gentleman once more that the position is not the same as it was during the War. Because the Bill is civilian in operation up to the time the man joins, there is no military representative present at all on the tribunal. They are not concerned with the matter until they get the men.
    The second thing is that you are not now dealing in millions, with the whole man-power of the nation, but with one specific section each year. The result is that we are able to think of tribunals in

    1303
    a very different way from that in which the right hon. Gentleman thought of them when he was responsible. He had to appoint many tribunals and while it is true that local people know, or think they know, who is the genuine man, it is also true that many conscientious objectors during the War felt themselves victimised because local people thought they knew when, in fact, they did not know. One of the difficult problems was that some of the tribunals were appointed on much too narrow a basis. I am trying to be fair.
    The nature of the tribunals under the Bill will be different. We shall be able to deal with those who are thinking of going forward to register a conscience not in terms of 100 or 200 local tribunals but of one regional tribunal for each region. That will enable us to pick the best and most impartial men for the purpose and they will not be subject to local gossip as were the tribunals in the last War. The situation will be very different. I shall not give a promise because of the difficulties that I have pointed out. I would ask the Committee to remember that a form of words will have to be considered. I am up against the problem, What is a civilian?
    Mr. Lees-Smith: He is not a serving soldier.
    Mr. Brown: I have already told the right hon. Gentleman that the tribunals will be civilian in character. I might find myself hampered in administration by not being able to appoint quite the right man to a tribunal, so I will only give this promise, which I do not want the Committee to take as a pledge to introduce an Amendment. I will look into the matter, and if I can find words which will do what I want without hampering me I will see what can be done before the Report stage. Further than that I will not go.
    Mr. Leach: In view of the Minister's promise and the express declaration that he intends the tribunals to be entirely civilian in character, there seems to be something a little mysterious about the line which he is taking. We are moving an Amendment that will ensure putting into the Bill something which the Minister has himself promised shall operate when the time comes. I do not know what the objection to that can be. What puzzles
    1304
    me is this: The Minister says, in endeavouring to persuade the Committee that certain very important and suitable men will be barred from membership of these committees, that he means by that ex-Service men. That is the only thing I got out of him as to the people who were possibly going to be excluded, but they may well be suitable to be members. I am rather glad that there are two distinguished lawyers who support the Government now on those benches. What is an ex-Service man? I understand by that phrase that he is a man who has been in the Army and is no longer in the Army. What there can possibly be in our Amendment to exclude such a person from serving on these tribunals is rather baffling. Perhaps the legal advisers to the Government will tell us what an ex-Service man is, and whether he would be precluded from sitting on these committees if our Amendment were carried.
    8.43 p.m.
    Mrs. Hardie: I wanted to ask the Minister whether if the wording referred to persons not now connected with His Majesty's Forces it would meet the position, and whether we could get an assurance from him?
    Mr. Brown: I hope that the Committee will be satisfied with the promise that I made.
    Mr. Benn: Does the Minister really say, sitting there with the Attorney-General, the Lord-Advocate and a galaxy of Ministers, that he cannot find words which will make it impossible under the Statute for a soldier to serve on these committees? The Minister has told us that his intention is that these tribunals shall be civilian in character, yet there he sits and cannot find four or five words to give effect to his promise. The whole of the Bill is based upon a broken pledge, and therefore we are pressing that those words should be found.
    8.44 p.m.
    Mr. Davidson: I want the Minister to understand that the Amendment has not been put down to hamper the legislation in regard to tribunals, but in order to avoid any suspicion in the minds of appellant with regard to their cases. I want to ask the Minister a straightforward question. Can he tell me how the phrase

    1305
    "being persons not connected with any of His Majesty's Forces,"
    rule out ex-service men who have served in the past? There are ex-service men on these benches—I myself am one of them—who are not now connected with His Majesty's Forces. There are many ex-service men of experience who could be called upon, even if this wording were accepted, and the only section of the community that we ask shall not be placed on these tribunals consists of persons who are actually connected with His Majesty's Forces, and at whom a person could point the finger of suspicion and say they were acting from a military point of view. That is a very small section as compared with those who could be drawn upon for these tribunals.
    The Minister's insistence in opposing this reasonably worded Amendment appears to me to indicate that he has something else at the back of his mind about which he has not informed the Committee. Does he intend to see to it that every facility will be given to serving soldiers or men connected with the Services to serve on these tribunals? If so, he ought to inform the Committee, because he must take either one attitude or the other. He could say, "I desire that there shall be no suspicion of these tribunals—that, so far as we can, men connected with His Majesty's Forces will not serve on them, so that they can be bodies that can be looked upon with the maximum of trust." Or, on the other hand, he might say, "I desire to leave the position open, so that I can take men of military mind and place them on these tribunals." For far too long the Minister has used words which clouded the issue—to adopt a phrase he used the other day—and made the position vague. Our wording is as plain English as we, who are Scotsmen, can get.
    I want to reply to one or two things that have been said. It is true that, so far as I am concerned, and so far as my experience and that of many ex-service men goes, that the conscript was not looked upon by the serving soldier in the same way as the volunteer was. I know that my hon. Friends who served in the Forces have heard many phrases like "before you came up." They know that the old soldier always tried to "have one over" on the recruit, and that, if there was an argument between a volunteer and a con-
    1306
    script, it was very often thrown up in the latter's face that he was a conscript; and old Regular serving soldiers, particularly, used to use many phrases that cannot be repeated here with regard to the impertinence of a so-and-so conscript trying to do them out of a peg on the wall, or a place to hang their equipment. We want to prevent people from having suspicions of that kind with regard to these tribunals, and surely it is not too much to ask the Minister to accept this Amendment, recognising that all we desire is that there shall be no suspicion that the military mind is going to operate on these tribunals.
    8.50 p.m.
    Mr. Lees-Smith: I find it difficult to understand why the right hon. Gentleman will not now tell us that he can find a form of words to express what is in his mind. We are asking for a very simple thing—a form of words that will indicate that no soldier on active service shall be a member of one of these tribunals. The right hon. Gentleman has indicated that he will consider whether that can be done. There is no doubt that it can be done; there is no doubt that a form of words can be found to define a soldier on active service; and in these circumstances there is no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not give us a definite statement. If there is any difficulty, I suggest that he should consult the Secretary of State for War. He appears to be in a position to take a decision now, and there can be no reason why he should not be able to say that he can find a form of words to define that simple thing. The only difficulty I can imagine is that another Minister is concerned, and, in those circumstances, I suggest that he should either consult that Minister or clear the matter up on his own responsibility and allow us to continue this discussion on the very friendly and give-and-take terms on which it has taken place hitherto.
    8.52 p.m.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Before the Committee come to a decision on this point, I would ask the Minister whether he has had any consultation with the Secretary of State for War.
    Mr. Brown: This has nothing to do with my right hon. Friend at all, except so far as we share responsibility. I am

    1307
    responsible for this Section of the Bill. I have made a very fair offer to the Committee, and I cannot go any further.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: The right hon. Gentleman says that the responsibility is shared between himself and the Secretary of State for War. Has he had any consultation with his right hon. Friend on this point, and would it not be of advantage and assistance to the Committee if the Secretary of State for War were to listen to some part of this Debate and give us the benefit of his counsel and advice on the matter? Is it fair to expect the Committee to come to a decision on this very important point without having the benefit of the presence of the Secretary of State for War?
    8.53 p.m.
    Mr. Viant: I have listened to the whole of this discussion, and I feel that we are all agreed on the main point of the Amendment, namely, that it is highly desirable that no one serving in His Majesty's Forces should in any way be connected with these tribunals. Seeing that the Minister of Labour has mentioned that he was reluctant to accept this form of words because he feared he might be hampered at some future date, I had hoped that he would give some indication to the Committee of his reasons for fearing that these words might hamper him. I am at a loss to understand in what way they could hamper him if he is keen, as we are all keen, that no serving member of His Majesty's Forces shall be on these tribunals.
    It is not unreasonable to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us some indication of the source from which his fears could arise. I am at a loss to understand the reason for them. Will he give the Committee some idea or guidance as to why he should fear the acceptance of these words? The right hon. Gentleman appears to have made up his mind that he will not accept these words, although he will not give the Committee any idea of how he considers he would be hampered by them. We are entitled to come to the conclusion that, at the back of his mind, he feels that at a later stage it will be necessary to bring someone connected with the Services on to these committees; otherwise, he would surely accept these words, which can mean nothing
    1308
    more than they say. It would conduce to the good working of the Committee for the rest of the evening if the right hon. Gentleman would give us a clear indication as to why he fears that he would be hampered by accepting the Amendment.
    8.57 p.m.
    Mr. E. J. Williams: If the wording of the present Amendment is unsatisfactory, would the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that on the Report stage he will bring forward another Amendment which would meet the wishes of the Committee? The Minister indicates that he is not prepared to do that. I have cited before some of the experiences that some of us had in the last War. Although the tribunals were set up under the jurisdiction of the Home Office, they became purely mechanical. I know that from experience. Their purpose was to get as many people as possible into the Army. I am sure that the last thing the right hon. Gentleman desires is that these tribunals should be purely mechanical. He wants them to give the greatest possible consideration, I am sure, to the plea of the conscientious objectors. I ask him to tell us that although he cannot accept the Amendment in its present form he will, on the Report stage, find a form of words that will meet our case. I ask him to reply.
    8.59 p.m.
    Mr. Lansbury: I heard the right hon. Gentleman on the last occasion and I have heard him again to-night, and my reaction is to take him at his word. But the more this is discussed the more uneasy I feel, not because I doubt what the right hon. Gentleman says, but because it is quite possible that he may not be in that position even for the very short period that will elapse before these tribunals are set up and are working. While I accept his statement that he has no intention of appointing a serving soldier to the tribunal, I cannot understand why it could not be put in the Bill. That really flabbergasts me, because the right hon. Gentleman has been so emphatic about this on both occasions. I am not going to drag up anything about the experiences of the tribunals during the War, because we have had plenty of that before; but we are dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's own statement that the whole of this procedure is to be under civilian control, right up to the time that a man joins.

    1309
    An ex-soldier like the right hon. Gentleman himself is a civilian. Perhaps I am wrong, but I do not consider that either the right hon. Gentleman or my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) is connected with His Majesty's Forces now. Therefore, I appeal to him to tell us quite definitely that he will accept this Amendment. He has the Attorney-General and the Lord Advocate beside him, and the three of them could have settled this matter some minutes ago.
    I do not know whether really and truly the Government are behind the right hon. Gentleman. Ministers have got into the habit of saying, "I am acting on my responsibility," but actually it is a corporate responsibility. I am not sure how far the Cabinet, if this comes to the point, might back the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps it is a point that has not been discussed by the Cabinet. I have not had as much experience as the right hon. Gentleman, but I have had a little experience of Cabinets, and I know what Cabinet responsibility is supposed to mean. It may be that this has not been before the Cabinet. This is pot a matter of no importance; it is a matter of principle, a matter of very great importance that the military authorities should not be able to override the right hon. Gentleman by going to their chief and inducing him to bring pressure on the Cabinet to have certain things done. That does happen, as we all know. In a Cabinet the members do not always agree, or there would be no resignations.
    I have done my share in criticising the right hon. Gentleman, and if we go on together for any length of time in future I have no doubt I shall do it again, but up to this point I really have taken him at his word and accepted at its face value what he has said. On this occasion I still take him at his word. But he has not the last voice on this. The Cabinet will have the last say. If we leave it open, they will be able to say, "The House of Commons took your word for it, but circumstances alter cases, and the Cabinet have come to another decision. We are not getting the men quickly enough, and we must have someone on the tribunals who can educate the tribunals as to how to get the men." If all I have been saying is beside the mark, all that the Minister has to say is, "I quite agree, and I will produce the words by Thursday." If the right hon. Gentleman
    1310
    does not mind my saying so, I think he is not quite fair to himself in this matter, but I take his word that he wants these tribunals to be all that he has said, and that he does not want the serving soldier on them. Therefore, for the life of me, I cannot understand why the Attorney-General, the Lord Advocate and the right hon. Gentleman himself cannot between them, here and now, give us the words that will make the right hon. Gentleman's own point of view absolutely clear in the Act of Parliament.
    9.6 p.m.
    Mr. E. Brown: I always find it hard to resist the right hon. Gentleman, but I think that I have made a perfectly fair offer. There is no question of discussing the Cabinet here. The Bill is the result of Cabinet consent, and I have told the Committee what I am willing to do, and I adhere to every word that I have said. I have said that I shall try to find a form of words, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee that I shall do my best to do so before the Report stage. I do not think that I ought to be faced with general suspicion in various parts of the Committee when I say that I do not care to go further than that to-night.
    Mr. Lansbury: I would ask hon. and right hon. Friends to take the Minister at his word and not to divide on this Amendment. If we divide we shall be beaten. In any case, it would be a good thing for us not to divide, but to take the right hon. Gentleman at his word.
    9.7 p.m.
    Mr. Davidson: May I ask the Minister to make his pledge perfectly clear to the Committee? Hon. Members on this side of the Committee heard him say definitely that he would give only half a pledge. It is all right for the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) to make a speech and draw from the Minister a pledge that he will stand by what he has already said, but would the right hon. Gentleman say to the Committee that he definitely means to try and obtain a wording that will meet this Amendment?
    Mr. Harvey: Half a loaf is better than no bread. I think that the Minister has gone a little further in what he said hi reply to the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), and I

    1311
    would add my appeal to the hon. Member and his colleagues that, if possible, they will accept the assurance that has been given by the Minister and will withdraw the Amendment.
    9.8 p.m.
    Mr. Attlee: It is very important that we should not have this matter passed over on the Report stage. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that something will be put down on the Report stage so that we may be able to have a discussion, and, if necessary, get the opinion of the Committee upon it. Otherwise, the right hon. Gentleman might do his best, and then say that he had failed, and we might not have an opportunity for a discussion.
    Mr. E. Brown: That is a very fair question, and I will see that the right hon. Gentleman's rights are safeguarded.
    Mrs. Hardie: In view of that undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    9.9 p.m.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, in page 19, line 20, at the end, to insert:
    "Of the four members not less than one shall be appointed by the Minister after consultation with organisations representative of workers."
    My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy has added his name to the Amendment which hitherto stood in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) in a slightly different form, and the Government are prepared to agree that on the local tribunals, on which there will be four members, not less than one member shall be appointed by the Minister after consultation with organisations representative of workers.
    Mr. Hicks: As one whose name is attached to the Amendment, I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his statement in regard to the composition of local tribunals that of the four representatives one at least shall be appointed after consultation with the trade unions concerned.
    Amendment agreed to.
    9.11 p.m.
    Mr. McLean Watson: I beg to move, in page 19, line 23, at the end, to insert:
    1312
    "and of the four other members not more than one shall be resident within the district in which the tribunal exercise their jurisdiction."
    So far we have two members of the local tribunal appointed. In England one will be a county court judge and the other a representative of the workers—two members out of the five. In Scotland, the sheriff of the county, or sheriff substitute, will be the chairman of the local tribunal. It is very necessary that we should be given information as to the area that is likely to be covered by these local tribunals. A great deal will depend upon the area which is to be covered as to whether or not the Amendment which I am moving will be one of substance. If a tribunal is to cover a considerable area, it will be possible to draw the other three representatives to be appointed from an area sufficiently wide as not to prejudice the man who has to come before the tribunal. If, on the other hand, the tribunal is to be drawn from a comparatively small area, this Amendment is of substance. The object of it is to ensure that the local tribunal shall not be prejudiced against the man by local knowledge. Certain local bodies have certain prejudices which are used against those who have to come before them. We want to ensure that, of the members of the local tribunal that is to be set up, not more than one member of the five shall come from the district from which the man is making his appeal.
    I do not know whether the Ministry of Labour have made up their minds whether these tribunals are to be on a county basis or on a district basis. If in England there is to be a county court judge and in Scotland the sheriff of a county, the tribunal will cover a fairly large area, and in that case the three other members, apart from the chairman and the representative of the workers, can quite easily be drawn from a wide area, in which case there will be no particular prejudice against the man who is making his appeal. As a matter of fact, the man who is appealing may come before a tribunal not one of whom may have any knowledge about the man himself, and if those are the circumstances in which a man appeals, he can rest assured that he will get a fair chance. On the other hand, if these tribunals are to be drawn from an area so narrow that two out of the five have an intimate knowledge of the man who

    1313
    is appealing, one cannot be sure that he will get a fair deal. At any rate, the object of the Amendment is to get some indication as to the area that will be covered by a local tribunal and whether a man will have a fair chance when he makes his appeal.
    9.16 p.m.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think I can reassure the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson) and do so straightaway. He has said that if these tribunals cover a wide area the Amendment would not be so necessary, indeed, might not be necessary at all. It is our intention that there should be 12 local tribunals corresponding in general to the Ministry of Labour divisions throughout the country. That being so, the hon. Member will agree that it is exceedingly unlikely, indeed almost impossible, that at any hearing there would be members of a tribunal who would be so personally acquainted with the circumstances of the applicant as to run the risk of being prejudiced against him. No doubt the fears of the hon. Member date from the last War, when there were a large number of tribunals, a tribunal in every large town and a great number of small towns, but I can assure him that his fears do not apply in a case like this, where it is our intention not to have more than 12 tribunals. I hope that meets his point.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: This is rather amazing information from the Parliamentary Secretary. A division of the Ministry of Labour covers the whole of Wales, and roughly the distance from South Wales to North Wales is 150 to 160 miles. If the tribunal is placed in the centre of Wales it will be extremely inaccessible and there will be a distance of at least 70 miles to be covered in either direction. If the tribunal is placed in the populous area of South Wales then people will have to travel long distances from North Wales. It is absolutely impracticable. In fact, it amounts to making this very important tribunal almost inaccessible to many who would like to appeal, and I would like an assurance that this is not a hard-and-fast decision and that it may be changed to meet conditions which may differ from those anticipated. I hope we shall have an assurance that the figure of 12 is not irrevocably fixed, but will be changed should conditions demand it.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think I can reassure the hon. Member. There are nine Ministry of Labour divisions in the country, and when I said that it was our intention to have 12 tribunals it was to allow for one covering each Ministry of Labour division and three extra for districts where there was an unexpected or unusual amount of work to do. I can assure the hon. Member that there is nothing hard-and-fast about this proposal, and that in the light of experience we shall be prepared to modify and adopt our machinery to meet the circumstances of the moment.
    Mr. Lees-Smith: Is it the intention of the tribunal to sit always in the same town?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is a matter which experience alone can enable us to decide. At the present moment it is intended that they should sit in the same place, but there is nothing to prevent the tribunal travelling to other places if conditions necessitate their so doing.
    Mr. Stephen: One of the things that surprise me is that there is only one tribunal for Scotland. There is only one division in Scotland, which means that the local tribunal and the appeal tribunal will practically be the same tribunal sitting probably in Edinburgh. I confess that to me it is quite impracticable on the lines suggested.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It will obviously be impossible for the whole of Scotland to be served by one local tribunal. I hope the hon. Member will not expect me to go any further than to say that we recognise that the case of Scotland will need careful consideration.
    9.22 p.m.
    Mr. Davidson: The Parliamentary Secretary has indicated that his Department will review the question in regard to Scotland and bring forward further information upon which we may come to a decision. I would point out to him that it would be very difficult for a tribunal sitting in Glasgow or Edinburgh to decide cases of men who come from the far North and even from the Islands. It would take weeks, it may be months, to have their cases posted, for them to come to the tribunal and after the case has been decided for them to return home. I hope we shall have an assurance that

    1315
    this question will be considered and that Scottish Members will have an opportunity of discussing it.
    Mr. Maxton: I hope the Parliamentary. Secretary will give us something more specific than he has given up to the moment. I understood him to say that the Ministry of Labour have not gone into any detail on this matter and that the whole scheme is tentative and experimental, and that they were only getting down to decide things when they were confronted with the job. Do I understand now from the Parliamentary Secretary that he will be able to tell us precisely, before we take the Third Reading of the Bill, what the local tribunal arrangements for Scotland will be, which seems to us a most difficult case?
    9.24 p.m.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am afraid that the hon. Member must not understand anything of the kind, but any representations which hon. Members may make will be listened to with great interest. As I have said, there is nothing hard-and-fast about this matter, and without committing myself in any way it seems to me scarcely conceivable that one tribunal will be sufficient for Scotland, and I hope he will accept my assurance that we shall adapt our procedure and our machinery to meet the situation which may develop in practice.
    Mr. Watson: The Parliamentary Secretary's answer has certainly got over the particular difficulty that we had in mind—too much local knowledge about the men who, appear before the tribunal. If there are only to be one or two tribunals in Scotland, I think we can depend upon it that too many members of the tribunal will not know too much about the men. On the assurance that we have had I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, in page 19, line 25, at the beginning, to insert "Each division of."
    This is really consequential. We have already decided that the tribunal can sit in two divisions and that one shall be in Scotland. By this Amendment each division shall consist of one chairman and two other members.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, in page 19, line 26, at the end, to insert:
    "Of the two members one shall be appointed by the Minister after consultation with organisations representative of workers."
    This is another Amendment originally in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) to which, in a slightly different form, the Chancellor of the Duchy has also attached his name. It provides that of the two members, one shall be appointed by the Minister after consultation with the Trades Union Congress. We are now dealing with the Appellate Tribunal and, although there are only to be three people on it, the chairman and two members, we are none the less prepared to accept the suggestion that one shall be appointed after consultation with the general council of the Trades Union Congress.
    Mr. Lees-Smith: The words are:
    "after consultation with organisations representative of workers."
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I apologise to the Committee. The words on the Order Paper and the words on my note of the Amendment differ. Of course, what we are considering are the words on the Order Paper. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for pointing out the error.
    Mr. Davidson: On a point of Order. May I ask Colonel Clifton Brown if you are not calling on the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean), which deals with a question that we have already discussed with regard to local tribunals? May I ask if it was not called because the principle of it has already been discussed? I should like to know whether the promise that the Minister made will also apply to this.
    The Deputy-Chairman: That Amendment is not selected.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 19, line 27, after "be," to insert "a person who is or has been."
    This Amendment deals with the qualification for the chairman of the Appellate Tribunal. The Bill says:
    "The chairman shall be a barrister or solicitor of not less than 10 years' standing."

    1317
    The question was raised as to whether or not that would qualify for chairmanship a judge or an ex-judge. The question whether a judge or an ex-judge is a barrister is, I think, a somewhat obscure one. I take the view myself that he is not, although undoubtedly a judge is a member of the Faculty of Advocates in Scotland. But it is desirable that those who have held judicial office should be available. As the words, in fact, cover a Judge of the High Court, I should like to say that, at any rate as far as England is concerned, it is not contemplated that it would be possible to appoint a Judge of the High Court, but it is the intention of my Noble Friend, of course, to appoint someone whose experience and position will make him suitable for, and appropriate to, this very important position.
    9.32 p.m.
    Mr. Maxton: The Amendment still leaves us passing as chairman of the Appellate Tribunal a person who may have no judicial experience at all. We should be agreeing that any person who has been a solicitor or a barrister in however inconspicuous a way might be appointed as chairman even with the addition of the words proposed. It seems to be against all our ideas of judicial procedure that an appeal should lie from a responsible judge—a county court judge in England or a sheriff in Scotland is a man with very considerable judicial experience—to a person who has absolutely no judicial experience at all. I am profoundly dissatisfied. I do not know whether you, Sir, propose to call the Amendment that follows, which would specify, if I read it correctly, that the chairman of the Appellate Tribunal should be a High Court Judge. I do not know whether there will be a later opportunity for discussing that.
    The Deputy-Chairman: No. I thought that matter might be discussed on this Amendment now.
    Mr. Maxton: I would very strongly urge that the Attorney-General should change the wording so that we quite definitely have something which makes it absolutely necessary that the person occupying this very responsible position should either now be holding, or should have had at some time, a responsible judicial position. "Ten years standing as a barrister or solicitor" may mean something or it may mean nothing. I should imagine that one
    1318
    could collect hundreds round about London, and not a few in the House of Commons, who have never done anything at the Bar, but still have 10 years' standing. I do not know that there is so much in the point which the Attorney-General made about High Court Judges being so overwrought that they would not have time for this. I do not know how many cases the Government are contemplating under this Schedule, but I think there will be very few, if the local tribunals do their work in any intelligent way. I should think the total number of appeals that would come up to the Appellate Tribunal on each occasion would be comparatively few, and that even an overwrought High Court Judge might find the necessary hour or two.
    Let it be remembered that this Measure assumes an abnormal state of affairs in the land, as the Budget assumes an abnormal state of affairs in the land; and there is an assumption that in times such as these everybody has to do a wee bit extra. Might not that principle be applied to High Court Judges or judges of the Court of Session in Scotland? Certainly, I know more about them than I know about the English High Court Judges, and I do not think that any one of the judges of the Court of Session in Scotland would be in danger of physical or further mental breakdown if this little extra duty were imposed upon them. Certainly, it seems to me that it would give the Appellate Tribunal that status which it is desirable that such a tribunal should have if it is to be regarded as being capable of revising the decisions that have been come to by county court judges and sheriffs, backed up by four responsible citizens.
    One needs something more in the way of chairman than one who is a barrister or solicitor of 10 years' standing—or has been. I do not think the addition of "has been" strengthens the case. It has a significance that does not raise, but tends to lower, the status of the person. I ask the Attorney-General whether he cannot give the Committee some undertaking that he will revise this part of the Schedule in order to meet the views that have been expressed.
    9.39 p.m.
    Mr. Dingle Foot: I should like to support the plea that has been made by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). It seems to me that this Appellate

    1319
    Tribunal needs a good deal of explanation. After all, it is a remarkable thing that a man should appeal from a tribunal presided over by a county court judge or a sheriff of Scotland to someone who is merely a barrister or solicitor of not less than 10 years' standing. One would have expected that the head of the Appellate Tribunal would be a person of a higher status in the legal hierarchy than the head of the tribunal of first instance. I do not wish in any way to depreciate the qualifications of the legal profession, but I do not think it is sufficient to provide that the head of the Appellate Tribunal, which will be a very important body giving rulings that presumably will be binding on the local tribunals and will guide them in their work, should simply have the qualification of having been called to the Bar or having been a solicitor for a period of years.
    The objection that has been raised is simply that if we were to take away a High Court Judge or a Judge of the Court of Session in Scotland from his work, we should be placing too great a burden on him. The remedy for that is a very simple one. If in fact it was thought that it would place too great a burden on the existing judiciary, it would be a very simple matter to create an additional High Court Judge. I think that both the Law Officers, and certainly the Solicitor-General, will agree that we could find plenty of work for an additional High Court Judge after the need for this particular tribunal had passed away. Certainly, nobody would maintain that we have too many High Court Judges at the present time. In recent Debates on law reform in the House, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) and other hon. Members have urged that there should be a still greater increase in the judicial strength of the High Court, so that we should not have a judge too many if an additional judge were created for this particular purpose. I think we ought to have a very full explanation as to why a man should appeal from a tribunal presided over by a county court judge or a sheriff to somebody with less qualifications.
    9.42 p.m.
    Mr. Goldie: May I, as a barrister who is, and has been, of at least 10 years' standing, detain the Committee for a
    1320
    minute or two to reply to the arguments that have been put forward—
    Mr. Maxton: May I ask whether the hon. and learned Member thinks that it is in accordance with the traditions of the House that a man who may be prospectively interested personally in this matter should intervene in the Debate?
    Mr. Goldie: That is a remark that would also apply to the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) even more than to me, but if the Fates should in any way carry out the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), I sincerely trust that I should not do as he has suggested. In reply to the arguments made by the hon. Member for Bridgeton, while frankly I know nothing about the Scottish judicial system, it seems to me that the position is protected by the wording of the provision:
    "The chairman shall be a barrister or solicitor of not less than tan years' standing nominated in England by the Lord Chancellor."
    I cannot conceive that a Lord Chancellor would appoint anyone to such an important judicial position unless he was fully satisfied that the person would worthily fill that position.
    9.44 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: With regard to the last remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Mr. Goldie), unfortunately my memory goes back to the palmy days of Lord Halsbury. In those days, I heard criticisms of the appointments made by the Lord Chancellor which suggested that even certain Lord Chancellors were not absolutely to be relied upon in making nominations of this sort. I drew attention to this point on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I admit that an effort has been made to meet me; but still I am not quite satisfied. I heard a suggestion—and I think it is enshrined in another Amendment which is on the Paper, certainly not from the Government benches—that ex-judges of the High Court might be appointed. I sincerely hope that is not being contemplated, because the age at which people retire from judgeships of the High Court is not one that makes it appear probable that they ought to be employed on work of this sort. I sincerely hope that advantage will not be taken of the Amendment that is now being made in the Bill to bring

    1321
    in persons of such an age that the present Lord Chancellor, if they were sitting on benches of magistrates, would be engaged in removing them.
    I sincerely hope the Attorney-General will not suggest to the Lord Chancellor that this Committee was in favour of appointing to this kind of position some octogenarian or nonagenarian luminary of the bench who is already appearing in people's memoirs somewhat anonymously, in stories of persons who ought not to have been, at any rate for the latter part of their career, on the bench. What is required is a person who has had to exercise judicial functions, not merely the functions of an adviser or pleader, and is still sufficiently mentally alert to be able to carry out these duties, which will be very difficult duties, in a manner that will command the confidence of those who will have to appear before him. I am glad that some steps have been taken to improve the wording here, but I share some of the misgivings that were mentioned by the hon. Member for Bridge-ton (Mr. Maxton), which have not been entirely removed by the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Warrington.
    I make no criticism of the present Lord Chancellor or of the appointments that he has made, but there have been rumours with regard to the length of tenure that he may have in his high office, and there are, I understand, plenty of people who are willing to taken on the job. It is the natural next step onward for at least one hon. and learned Member who is within reach of my voice, and I would not distrust him in the office, but even he would not be permanent in the office. I think we have to make allowances for what has taken place in the past, and I hope that this power will be exercised very carefully and that the mere addition of these words does not mean that the age has been extended upwards for people who have already given their full service to the State and who are now enjoying a retirement that we hope will not be disturbed by their being called on to strain their hearing and their eyesight in having to attend to cases of this sort.
    9.48 p.m.
    Mr. Davidson: I want to raise a point with reference to the Faculty of Advocates, and I would like to know whether the Scottish Lord Advocate has been consulted with regard to this Clause.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I think the hon. Member is speaking to the next Amendment.
    Mr. Davidson: I understood that the next Amendment was incorporated in this one, but if it is coming up later, I will wait.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The Amendment in line 27, to insert "member of the Faculty of Advocates," will be called separately.
    9.49 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: There is, first of all, the question of nominations. I thought at one point that the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) might be leading up to the suggestion that he had omitted to put on the Order Paper an Amendment to leave out the words "Lord Chancellor," and to insert in their place "the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede)."
    Mr. Ede: Is that an intimation that the Government would be prepared to accept such an Amendment? If so, I will gladly put it in, in manuscript.
    The Attorney-General: I am afraid that it is a little too late to deal with Amendments not already on the Paper. In all these matters, of course, the question of appointing is in the hands of my Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, and that is the safeguard that duly qualified individuals will be appointed, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. Goldie) pointed out. With regard to qualifications, the qualifications in this Schedule and in all other Schedules are minimum qualifications. So far as a barrister is concerned, these qualifications are those for a High Court Judge in this country, and those who suggest that a High Court Judge should be appointed are asking for somebody to be appointed with the qualifications that already appear in the Schedule.
    Mr. Maxton: And something more, surely. Would a barrister of not less than 10 years' standing normally be given important appeal cases to try?
    The Attorney-General: Yes. In certain cases he can try a man for his life, and he can sit with another Judge. No one suggests that a High Court Judge is not entitled to try the most vital and important issues. I am merely pointing out

    1323
    that these are minimum qualifications. I entirely agree with everything that has been said as to the importance of the chairman of this Appellate Tribunal, but I think it is relevant to point out that the qualifications mentioned in the Schedule are only minimum qualifications.
    Mr. Maxton: Then why does pot the right hon. and learned Gentleman say in the case of the lower court, the local tribunal, a person of five years' standing? Why does he insist on having in the lower court a person who has definite judicial appointments and definite judicial experience?
    The Attorney-General: In dealing with the local tribunals it should be remembered that you have county court judges with judicial experience on the spot, and therefore it seems appropriate that they should be appointed. I am sure my Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is fully aware of the importance of this position, both because of the work the chairman will have to do and because of the fact that he will be hearing appeals from local tribunals which will be presided over by county court judges or sheriffs. I hope that, with that explanation—I should like to express my gratitude to the hon. Member for South Shields for saying that his point had been met to some extent, if not as much as he would have liked—the Committee will agree to this Amendment.
    Mr. Harvey: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain the change in the Bill from the statement in the explanatory Memorandum which says, on page 2, that the Central Tribunal will consist of a High Court judge or an ex-High Court judge, and in the Scottish case a judge of the Court of Session? Those words do not appear in the Bill itself, and it looks as if the Government had at one time made up their mind that these high legal luminaries should serve in this capacity, and that after the Memorandum had been printed, they had changed their mind, apparently, and put in something quite different. We know that the Bill had to be drafted hurriedly, but this is a strange discrepancy between the Memorandum and the Bill and it would be a help to the Committee if the Attorney-General explained the reason for this change.
    The Attorney-General: I have already made two speeches and I shall make a third attempt to explain the position.
    Mr. Maxton: We are moving towards a solution.
    The Attorney-General: I agree that there is a lack of co-ordination in this respect between the Memorandum and the provisions of the Bill. I do not know whether the hon. Member heard my first speech.
    Mr. Harvey: I apologise for being absent during the right hon. and learned Gentleman's earlier statement but I was called out of the Committee.
    The Attorney-General: If hon. Members who have not heard the replies to Amendments really want to have them repeated—
    Mr. Harvey: I may say that I had been previously in the Chamber for some hours.
    9.57 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: If the hon. Member had heard my first speech he would know that the words which I asked the Committee to accept included High Court Judges, but I explained that it was not intended to appoint a High Court Judge for reasons with which those who have followed these matters are familiar. The High Court Judges at the present moment are all required to deal with judicial work. The possibility of appointing a High Court Judge was considered, and I agree that the Memorandum refers to that, but for reasons which I have already explained, it would be impracticable at the moment to take a High Court Judge from the work in which he is ordinarily engaged and put him on to this work. As I pointed out in my second speech, the qualifications which now appear are the same qualifications as those which would entitle a man to be appointed a Judge of the High Court.
    Mr. Maxton: I am unwilling to allow this to go in its present form, and I hope the Lord Advocate will tell us whether the same view is held in regard to Scotland.
    The Attorney-General: I am dealing only with the position in England. The next Amendment deals with the position in Scotland.
    10.0 p.m.
    Mr. Maxton: Then I hope we shall hear from the Lord Advocate whether it is intended, in Scotland, to appoint a Lord of the Court of Session. Hon. Members may recall two previous cases in which we agreed to a provision similar to this. One was the Dartmoor inquiry. A barrister of so many years' standing was appointed to conduct that inquiry. [An HON. MEMBER: "Now Lord Justice du Parcq."] Yes, he was appointed a judge after the Dartmoor inquiry, and, in my view, if ever there was a complete miscarriage of justice, it was in the handling of that Dartmoor case. As regards the other case, I take it to be the intention of the Attorney-General to have, if not a barrister who has had no judicial experience, someone who has had judicial experience but is now retired. Hon. Members will remember Lord Amulree.
    The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot discuss the merits of individual judges on this Amendment. We are going far too wide.
    Mr. Maxton: I am citing two cases to show the kind of chairmen who might be appointed under this general phrase, namely, one who is a barrister of 10 years' standing, or who has been a barrister. I mentioned the case of Lord Justice du Parcq. I did not mention him by name. It was an hon. Member opposite who mentioned the name. He presided at the Dartmoor inquiry without any previous judicial experience.
    Mr. Goldie: The hon. Member will allow me to say that before then, the present Lord Justice Du Parcq had had many years experience as a recorder.
    Mr. Maxton: I had left his case and was turning to the case of an ex-High Court Judge in the person of Lord Amulree, who was sent out to examine judicially the position of Newfoundland. Can anyone here say that either of those two cases justifies us in agreeing easily to a general qualification of this description? I appeal to the Attorney-General not to ask the Committee to agree to a form of words which gives a completely free hand, as we have done on previous occasions, with disastrous results.
    10.3 p.m.
    Major Milner: I hope the Government will maintain the position which they have
    1326
    taken up on this matter. In my opinion this is a very proper and timely, indeed long-deferred recognition of the position occupied by barristers or solicitors of 10 years' standing, whether practising or not. Particularly, I think it is a very proper recognition of the equality, in some respects at any rate, of the two branches of the legal profession. For too long has the solicitors' branch been treated as being, in some way, inferior. I have often felt it my duty to call the attention of the House of Commons to the fact that solicitors to Government Departments, in a great many cases, are not solicitors but barristers. It is time, in my view, that solicitors were appointed to positions to which the title of solicitor properly Attachés. However that may be, the proposed tribunal appears to be very suitable. I do not think it is desirable that a High Court Judge, or a "has been" of any description, should be appointed to it. The necessary qualification is that the man should be or have recently been in close contact with every sphere of our national life, and every type of individual likely to come before the tribunal. He should be a man who is likely to take a knowledgeable and sympathetic view of the questions which will come before the tribunal. In my view, the proposed constitution, with the addition of the slight Amendment which has, I understand, been suggested, is very suitable, and I hope the Government will retain it.
    10.5 p.m.
    Mr. C. Williams: At this stage perhaps I might say a few words to help the various Oppositions in their struggle. I have noticed in the last few minutes that we are gradually drifting down in our arguments. At one time the argument seemed to be that we should have a judge, or some one of that calibre. The hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken says that a barrister or a solicitor may be just as good as a judge, possibly a little better.
    Major Milner: Certainly.
    Mr. Williams: In other words, the longer anyone has been a lawyer the less good he is. This is the supreme tribunal which rectifies the decisions of the judges, and we want the best that we can get. That being the position, and having established the fact that those who have had a long experience of the law have not

    1327
    possibly the width of understanding of outside men, then perhaps we might say that we will have a layman, straight away. I have listened to several of the speeches and I realise that there are other types of men who might be suitable. Omitting barristers and lawyers, why not choose ex-chairmen of county councils? They might be most excellent people for the job. Some are good, some are bad. We have chairmen or ex-chairmen of county councils in this House. I thought that one Member of the Opposition, an ex-chairman, was rather throwing a fly towards offering his services. Having made this suggestion to the Government, with possibly the effect of relieving the Opposition of one of their Members, and realising that the Opposition are making very heavy weather of a rather easy job, I congratulate the Government on a proposal which is probably fairly good.
    10.8 p.m.
    Mr. Silverman: I cannot say that I appreciate the attempts at light humour in the last speech to which we have just listened. I happen to be one of the Members of this House, and I think there are a great many, who have very vivid recollections of the tribunals in the last War. It may be that the people with whom these tribunals will have to deal are few in number and that a great and mighty nation, consisting overwhelmingly of people who do not share their views, can afford to treat them and their opinions as though they were some kind of joke. I do not think that some of us will share that view. Certainly, from my own recollection of the people who held these views, rightly or wrongly, I know that they held them very earnestly and regarded them as amongst the most important things in their lives. Therefore, it is not a question of no importance whether the tribunals will have to consider the genuineness of the opinions of these people.
    I would say to those hon. Members who seem to despise the legal complexion of the tribunals, that I have a recollection—I hope my hon. Friends on these benches will not mind my saying this—during the War of tribunals that were presided over by well-known trade union leaders.
    Mr. Hicks: They were good ones.
    Mr. Silverman: I am not sure. I have recollections of some of them. I have
    1328
    appeared before one of them, and I do not know that those tribunals were any better or any worse than the other. Having said that, let me say that I do not believe that elderly barristers, elderly solicitors or elderly judges are likely to be any better. My point is that I do not think it is possible to approach this question from the point of view of the professional calling of the members of the tribunals. What we have to be concerned with far more than that are the personal qualities of the people appointed to the tribunals.
    Mr. H. G. Williams: On a point of Order. Is not the hon. Member referring to the composition of the local tribunals, when we are considering the composition of the Appellate Tribunal?
    The Chairman: It is the Appellate Tribunal with which we are dealing.
    Mr. Silverman: I have been in this House three and a half years, and I have heard the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) interrupt a great many speeches—
    The Chairman: I have not stopped the hon. Member, and I hope he will address himself to the matter under consideration and not to personal questions.
    Mr. Silverman: Perhaps I am entitled to say that the hon. Member for South Croydon has never made a more inapt interruption.
    Mr. H. G. Williams: On a point of Order. The hon. Member was referring to the tribunals in his speech.
    The Chairman: There are no points of Order with which I now have to deal, except to ask hon. Members to confine themselves to the Amendment.
    Mr. Silverman: I think I am entitled to point out that, although we are dealing with the Appellate Tribunal, the Bill provides for two Appellate Tribunals, one in England and one in Scotland. In the case of the composition of the judicial tribunals we ought to follow the same principle whether it is a local one or an appellate one. The important thing is not the profession of the members but their personal qualities, and I would ask the Attorney-General whether the House of Commons will have an opportunity before the appointment is finally made of

    1329
    knowing who it is that the Lord Chancellor proposes to appoint. I should like to know whether any arrangement can be made to enable us to know about the appointment before it is finally made. It is important that the members appointed to these tribunals, particularly the Appellate Tribunals, should not be too old. It it very difficult at the best of times, particularly if a war should break out, even for the best intentioned and most judicially-tempered people to hold themselves free from movements of popular passion—
    The Chairman: The hon. Member must not discuss personal qualifications on this Amendment.
    Mr. Silverman: I am sorry if I was transgressing, but I thought that we were discussing the Appellate Tribunal.
    The Chairman: The hon. Member was giving a somewhat wide description of it. Perhaps he will look at the sentence in the Schedule which deals with the matter.
    Mr. Silverman: I do not want the discussion to stray over too wide a field. I was giving reasons for thinking that the professional calling of a person is not the most important thing. However, I will not pursue the matter further.
    Mr. Magnay: I want to support what the hon. Member has said in regard to the two other members appointed by the Minister, and to say, from my experience of the tribunals during the last War, that I hope the Government will be particular not to appoint members who are too old.
    The Chairman: That does not come into the Amendment at all.
    Amendment agreed to.
    10.17 p.m.
    The Lord Advocate (Mr. T. M. Cooper): I beg to move, in page 19, line 27, after "barrister," to insert "member of the Faculty of Advocates."
    In view of one or two questions that have been addressed to me I will explain how matters will stand in regard to Scotland if effect is given to this Amendment and the consequential Amendments. The position will be that the choice of chairman of the Scottish tribunal will be in the hands of the Lord President of the Court of Session. If there is one thing more than another which seems to have
    1330
    emerged from the discussion which has just taken place in connection with the choice of the chairman, it is that what matters is the person who is to choose him rather than the question of qualifications. In Scotland he is the Lord President, and under the terms of the Schedule, as proposed to be amended, he will be free to choose anyone from the ranks of solicitors or members of the Bar, including, if he so desires, such persons as sheriff principals, judges, or former judges of the Court of Session.
    10.19 p.m.
    Mr. Maxton: This is most unsatisfactory. All that the Lord Advocate is doing is to repeat for Scotland what we have had from the Attorney-General in regard to England. It is good to see such unity among the Law Officers, but it does not help to improve this Measure in the least. The one argument which the Attorney-General had for not stipulating in the Schedule a judge of the High Court was the fact that the judges of the High Court in England were too overworked to take on another five minutes' work in the service of their country. That does not apply in Scotland. I have the greatest confidence in the Lord President of the Court of Session. He was a genial and competent colleague when he was a Member of this House, but he is now a judge of the High Court and I am not expecting him to do my job. My job is to see that legislation leaves this House in decent form, and I do not want to have it said that I allowed to pass legislation which leads to some briefless barrister of 10 years' standing being put to judge a very difficult type of case—to judge another man's conscience. We might have some inexperienced barrister of 30 years deciding about the consciences of young fellows who are only a few years his junior. I urge that the Lord Advocate shall consult with his colleagues before the concluding stages of this Measure are reached to see whether he cannot insert some description of the chairman of this tribunal which will secure that he will be a person of the type and standing that would normally be entrusted with work of this importance.
    10.21 p.m.
    Mr. Davidson: I should like to ask the Lord Advocate whether he can give the Committee any specific reason why the Faculty of Advocates has been included.

    1331
    In the Scottish Committee upon another occasion there was a great controversy over the inclusion of this particular organisation. I would point out to those hon. Members who may not understand the position that the Lord Advocate, or the President of the Court of Session, in drawing upon the Faculty of Advocates is drawing upon an organisation which comprises, as I see it, only the least advanced members of their profession. There are roughly about 260 to 270 members of that faculty. A certain number of them have retired from professional work, and others, still following their profession, are receiving incomes which would not tempt them to accept this particular job, and the choice will therefore have to be made from among the least prominent members of the faculty. We had experience of the same difficulty in connection with another Bill, and the objections were put so very ably that a Clause was withdrawn.
    A member of the Faculty of Advocates is a man who proves his worth by being able to walk Parliament House for a year, and whose only achievement is being able to show that he has not competed in any way with somebody else's employment. A solicitor, on the contrary, has to serve years of apprenticeship—even in a Government Department he has to serve years before he becomes established. I feel that there is somebody behind the scenes who is trying to secure for this antiquated group some of the plums that fall from the Government. Why is this new move being made? The selection of this group of persons will create what has already been created in one Scottish Department. Only in one Scottish Department is the Faculty of Advocates allowed to take part in Government work, and in that Department on every occasion since they were admitted they have always received the position at the top of the tree, whereas the solicitors who served their apprenticeship, who have five years' training before they can even qualify and who are ruled by traditions of experience with regard to promotion and service, have been consistently overlooked in that Department. A member of the Faculty of Advocates has been placed in the position of importance at the top of the Department. I therefore view with very great suspicion this innovation, and I ask
    1332
    the Lord Advocate to make it clear what has prompted him to make it.
    Mr. G. Nicholson: Is it the intention of the Government that a member of the Faculty of Advocates should be appointed to the English tribunal?
    10.27 P m.
    The Lord Advocate: The answer to the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) is that the Faculty of Advocates is introduced into this Clause because it is the precise equivalent of the English Bar. Having said that, I propose not to detain the Committee by entering into argument as to the respective merits in England and in Scotland of solicitors and members of the Bar. With regard to the question which was just put to me, it is not the intention, I understand, that members of the Scottish Bar should be eligible for appointment to the English tribunals, or vice versa, but my hon. Friend will no doubt be aware that a considerable number of members of the Scottish Bar are also members of the English Bar.
    Mr. G. Nicholson: The wording at present makes it quite competent for a member of the Faculty to be appointed to an English tribunal.
    The Chairman: The hon. Member appears to be talking upon an Amendment which we have now passed.
    The Lord Advocate: I turn for a moment to the speech made by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). I understand his suggestion was that though a free hand is given to the Lord Chancellor in England in making his choice, a free hand should not be left also to the Lord President in Scotland. I hope I have not misunderstood the hon. Gentleman's point, and I demur to the suggestion.
    Mr. Maxton: That would be a good debating point, but it was not the point which I made.
    The Lord Advocate: If it was not the point which the hon. Member made I need not trouble to answer. The point which the hon. Member made must then be the same point which my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has already answered. The answer is the same for Scotland. The minimum qualification is prescribed, and I would remind the hon. Member that that minimum

    1333
    qualification, is the qualification upon which a member of the Faculty can be appointed a judge of the Court of Session.
    Mr. Maxton: The substantial point made against specific mention of a High Court judge was that the High Court judges were overworked. If that be true of the judges in England, it is not true of the judges in Scotland.
    The Lord Advocate: The answer to that is that the position in Scotland is precisely the same as in England. I cannot anticipate what volume of work the chairmanship of the tribunal will involve; I do not suppose that anyone can; but I do know that last week the work of the Court of Session was getting into difficulties because there were only eight Judges available in Edinburgh, the others being either on circuit or, in two cases, laid aside by illness. It would not be possible to contemplate with equanimity, if the work is going to be at all substantial, seconding a Judge of the Court of Session, any more than a Judge of the High Court in England, for more or less continuous duty of this kind. It is, however, possible for that to be done, and the Schedule contemplates that the Lord President, who is well qualified to deal with the situation in the light of the experience gained, will be able to appoint a judge if he is so disposed, or any other person who would satisfy the minimum requirements laid down in the Schedule.
    10.33 p.m.
    Mr. Gallacher: I do not think the Committee should allow this Amendment to pass. I am certain that, if they do, it will be in complete ignorance of the situation as regards the Faculty of Advocates. I would ask the Lord Advocate if he would give us the number of members of the Faculty of Advocates, the number who are already holding Government jobs, and particulars of the attempts that have been made recently to get new jobs for the remaining few who are without them. Most of them already have jobs, and, whenever a Bill comes along that provides an opportunity, the Faculty of Advocates is mentioned in it in order to provide for the remainder. If the Lord President of the Court of Session is to be left a free hand, there is no reason for this Amendment. He knows the Faculty of Advocates; he understands all the people who are at his disposal. Why are the Government so much concerned about
    1334
    this narrow, close, petrified trade union while they give no consideration to any of the other great trade unions?
    The Chairman: I must ask the hon. Member to read the Amendment with a little care. It does not narrow the class from which chairman of the tribunal can be taken, but rather widens it.
    Mr. Gallacher: I understand that the Amendment introduces a new feature into the Schedule, namely, the Faculty of Advocates, and I cannot understand why this narrow, semi-petrified organisation should be introduced. Why do the Government show such concern for this narrow trade union, and introduce it in the form of an Amendment without taking into account some of the other trade unions? He could have got men and women of real quality for acting as chairmen of such faculties. I demand of the Members of this Committee that they force the Lord Advocate, before they accept this Amendment, to make a clear statement as to the numerical strength of this union, the Faculty of Advocates, the numbers who are already holding Government positions, and how many of the few of them that are left are scrambling for every new position that may come along.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 19, line 28, after "in," insert "the case of the division for."—[The Lord Advocate.]
    10.36 p.m.
    The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 19, line 29, after "in," to insert "the case of the division for."
    The CHAIRMAN proceeded to put the Question. [Interruption.]
    The Chairman: I must ask the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) to preserve a little Order when the Chair is putting the Question.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In line 29, after the first "the," insert "Lord."—[The Lord Advocate.]
    Question put, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the Schedule to the Bill."
    The CHAIRMAN collected the voices, and declared that the Ayes had it.
    Mr. Foot: Before we pass from this Schedule—
    The Chairman: I said "The Ayes have it." I am afraid the hon. Member is too late. I think I am right to saying that, before the hon. Member rose to address me, I had got as far as saying, "The Ayes have it."
    Mr. Foot: While I am not endeavouring in any way to be discourteous, as soon as you put the Question, I rose and was on my feet, endeavouring to catch your eye.
    The Chairman: I am very unwilling to be harsh on any hon. Member in those circumstances, but the hon. Member has been long enough in this House to know that when Questions of this sort are put it is just as well to do something more than stand up. However, I am very loth to debar him from speaking on technicalities of that kind, if the Committee is willing to hear him.
    10.38 p.m.
    Mr. Foot: I do not think we should part with this Schedule without a little more information, because the only question that has been discussed on the Schedule is the membership of the appeal tribunal. I would like to direct one or two questions to the Minister in charge of the Bill. It is provided in the Schedule that the local tribunals are to be presided over by county court judges. Are the county court judges going to be expected to perform this duty in addition to their ordinary duty? That is a matter of considerable interest to Members in different parts of the Committee, because hon. Members, particularly those who are familiar with the county courts, know that already in some parts of the country there is considerable congestion. It is all the county court judges can do to get through the work already laid upon them, and if they are expected, in addition, to carry through these duties, it will mean considerable delay in the county courts over which they are expected to preside. I do not think it would be the wish of the Committee that, in order to facilitate the working of these local tribunals, we should impede the administration of justice in the county courts. We raised these matters on the Money Resolution, and we were not given any explanation at that time, and a word ought to be said about them now.
    I want to know whether these will be regarded as part of the normal duties of a county court judge. Will he preside qua
    1336
    judge, or will this be an extra job of work which he is given to do quite apart from his ordinary duties as a judge? I want to know, too, about the members of the Appellate Tribunals. Are the chairmen and members of the two Appellate Tribunals to be whole-time members, or are these merely to be part-time appointments? Also, may we be told for what period of time these chairmen and the other members are to be appointed? It is important to know how they are to be remunerated. We are told that it is desired to get men of high qualifications, or at any rate men of high qualifications to preside over the appeal tribunals. Unfortunately, perhaps it will depend upon the salaries that are payable. Unless you are prepared to pay a requisite salary, obviously you will not get anyone of high standard in the legal profession. Whatever may be the sums payable, the Committee have had no information at all on these points, and we ought to be told about these matters before we part with this Schedule.
    10.42 p.m.
    Mr. Magnay: This is a very serious matter. There cannot be a more serious matter discussed by this Committee than that which affects the liberty of the subject. The first point I want to put is in regard to the county court judge. I hope that it will be the county court judge and the county court judge alone, and not someone appointed by him as his deputy. The deputies appointed by county court judges are not always the most competent lawyers. Anyone who knows anything of barristers, and of county court practice, of which I have had knowledge for 25 years, will know that it is not always the best and most competent lawyers who are appointed as deputy county court judges. We cannot leave this matter to someone who is not very competent indeed, and therefore I suggest that the full meaning of the words "county court judge" will be the county court judge and he alone. Someone said a few moments ago that county court judges are overworked in other directions, but none of their work is as serious as the consideration of these cases. No contracts or torts with which they have to deal in the county court can be compared in seriousness with the consideration of the cases which will arise under this Bill when it becomes an Act. The county court judge himself, as chairman, and not a deputy

    1337
    appointed by him, should consider these cases.
    The other point I wish to put is in regard to the laymen representatives appointed on these tribunals. I have had some experience of these matters. I was one of the representatives in Gateshead on the military tribunal during the last War. I was only 41 years of age then, and of military age, and I was appointed without my knowledge and consent as one of the military representatives. When we were weeding out the cases to be considered by the tribunal, it was amazing—I was almost going to say criminal—how coolly the old members of the tribunal considered some of these cases. I would suggest to the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) that the judges should not be too old. We can have them too old and too callous about the rights and responsibilities of young people who come before them. I suggest that men of humane character should be carefully chosen to sit with the county court judge to consider these cases. I say that because of my experience during the last War and the hundreds of cases which we had before us.
    10.47 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: In reply to the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay) the chairman will be a county court judge and not a deputy. I agree that judges have already duties, but it is hoped that it will be possible to obtain a sufficient number of county court judges to do the work of these tribunals. As regards the appellate tribunal, it is impossible to forecast how much work that tribunal will have. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) said he thought it would be comparatively small and, therefore, it is impossible to say exactly what will be the position as regards remuneration and whether it will be a whole-time job. The actual Clause which deals with remuneration is Clause 3, but it does not state the amount beyond saying that payment will be made according to the number of sittings. But it is impossible at the moment to say whether the remuneration will be on that basis or whether it will mean a whole-time job.
    Mr. Davidson: Can the Attorney-General assure the Committee that in the event of the chairman being a member of the Faculty of Advocates or a solicitor there will be any difference in the re-
    1338
    muneration because of his different status?
    The Attorney-General: I cannot say at the moment. In reply to the hon. Member for Gateshead the Schedule does not deal with the age of those who are to be appointed to these tribunals, that is a matter for the appointing authority, but I have no doubt that the appointing authority will have all these considerations in mind. I think the Committee were interested and somewhat agreed with the view put forward by the hon. Member, that there is a great deal to be said, other things being equal, for having younger men rather than older men on these tribunals.
    Mr. Davidson: Will the Lord Advocate answer my question whether, if a selection is made from the Faculty of Advocates or from solicitors, there will be any difference in the remuneration?
    The Lord Advocate: There is no intention to discriminate between them.
    Question, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the Schedule to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 140.]

  RESERVE AND AUXILIARY FORCES BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  RESERVE AND AUXILIARY FORCES BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Calling out of reserve and auxiliary forces.)
    10.52 p.m.
    Mr. Lawson: I beg to move, in page 3, line 10, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided that no such person shall, by-virtue of this Section, be liable to 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."
    This Amendment is the same that we had on the Military Training Bill. The Secretary of State for War gave a guarantee in connection with the militiamen and, if the hon. Gentleman can give us the same guarantee in reference to these men, we shall be satisfied. I am in the awkward position that I do not know whether it is necessary to argue my case or not. The Bill very definitely says that

    1339
    the reserve forces and the Territorials shall be called up only in the case of external danger, and that they are called up specifically for that purpose. In this Clause the Government are asking very great powers indeed, but it does not seem that the Financial Secretary should have any difficulty in giving this guarantee. I would prefer to move the Amendment and, if necessary, speak at a further stage, and my hon. Friend, if need be, will deal with the answer.
    10.54 p.m.
    Sir V. Warrender: I am afraid the Government cannot accept the Amendment, for a reason which I hope will be convincing. The hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying that under the Bill powers are given to call out the reserves and the auxiliary forces only where external danger is the cause. There really is not a parallel between the position of these Forces and the position of the militiamen who are to be called up to do their six months' compulsory training. The men in these Forces can be called up only in the event of the Realm being threatened from external dangers, but when they have been called up under the machinery of this Bill, they will be in exactly the same position as if they had been called up under powers which exist already. They are, therefore, liable to be used in the aid of the civil power in exactly the same way as officers and men of the Regular Forces are at all times. The men who are in these Forces realise from the terms of their engagement their liability to this extent. There really is nothing new being imposed upon them. It is true that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War gave an undertaking on Friday last that he would take steps to ensure that militiamen who are called up to do their six months' training will not be called upon to do duty in the aid of the civil power in the event of industrial disputes, but I really do not think the hon. Gentleman can maintain, with logic or justice, that the personnel in the Forces which are affected by this Bill are at all a parallel case; and for that reason, I am afraid it is not possible for us to accept the Amendment.
    10.57 p.m.
    Mr. Batey: The answer given by the Financial Secretary to the War Office must have alarmed every hon. Member
    1340
    on this side. The Government have very wisely accepted a provision of this sort with regard to the militiamen, and it is infinitely more important that these words should be accepted by the Government with regard to the Reserve Forces. The Financial Secretary has said that the Reserve Forces will be called up only when there is external danger. We can say that there is external danger now, and if a strike were to take place at a time such as this, the Government might call up these Forces and use them in order to break the strike. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must remember that we have got conscription through France, and again and again France has used her reserve forces in order to break strikes. There is far more danger in this respect from the Reserve Forces than there would be in using the militiamen. What we want to make absolutely sure about is that the Reserve Forces will not be called out in order to break strikes. We are bound to insist that the Government should accept this Amendment because of the danger that might come from the use of the Reserve Forces to break strikes.
    10.59 p.m.
    Colonel Nathan: I must confess that I was profoundly startled by the answer given by the Financial Secretary to the War Office, and I cannot believe that on further consideration the hon. Gentleman will persist in the stand he has taken. I say that for a variety of reasons. In the first place, to adopt the position which he has, that Territorial soldiers called out under this Bill are for all purposes in the same position as Regular soldiers, is inconsistent with the speech that was made on the introduction of the Bill, and it is inconsistent with the terms of the preamble to the Bill. So far as the general position is concerned, as related by the Secretary of State in introducing the Bill, it is that as the law stands at present, broadly speaking, the Territorial Army can be embodied only when there is a state of imminent national danger and a proclamation is issued for the purpose. The governing factor is that there shall be imminent national danger from a foreign foe and that the Territorial Army is required to be embodied in order to take part in the defence of the country against that foreign foe.
    Now I come to the terms of the Bill itself. It recites as a fact in the Preamble:

    1341
    "Whereas a situation has arisen in which it is necessary that His Majesty should be empowered, whenever the service of members of His reserve and auxiliary forces is urgently required for ensuring preparedness for the defence of the realm against any external danger, to call out for service such of them as may be needed."
    Service in what regard? Service against an external danger. Indeed, it will be within the recollection of the Committee that the point was emphasised more than once from the Treasury Bench during the Second Reading Debate that the words "external danger" were the governing factor in regard to the Bill, and that hon. Members on this side were unduly apprehensive if they thought the Territorial Army could be used under the Bill for any purpose except that of meeting external danger. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to consider the practical implications of the stand that he has taken. The members of the Territorial Army are those who have taken upon themselves special, additional responsibilities beyond those which fall upon citizens who have not voluntarily accepted those special duties. Those duties are to assist in the defence of the realm against a foreign foe. The Bill imposes very onerous obligations upon the Territorial Army, quite unforeseen, either by the Government when they asked the private citizen to become a citizen soldier or by the citizen when he accepted that invitation. He is being asked now, not at a moment of imment national danger, to surrender a month of his time as against the fortnight stipulated when he joined—a month, that is, at any period of the year instead of a fortnight at the holiday season.
    It is a very onerous obligation, and is it to be contended by the Government that the private citizen who puts on uniform and puts himself under military discipline for the purpose of training and making himself ready to defend the country shall, let us say, in the anti-aircraft forces, during the month he is called out for training, be liable to be used in support of the civil power in an industrial dispute? I refuse to believe that the Government seriously intend that. Had this Amendment not been placed on the Order Paper, the question would not have arisen, and it would have seemed incredible to the Territorial Army that at this time, when they are called upon to make these sacrifices, these very grave sacrifices, they should be exposed
    1342
    to the liability of being called upon to act as strike-breakers.
    I say to the Secretary of State that that is an untenable position. I can imagine few things which would have a more disastrous effect on the moral and feeling of that splendid force, which is willing to undertake any kind of sacrifice directed to the purpose for which it was enlisted, than that it should be told in cold blood, by the spokesman of the Government, that having been called up for military training, to be prepared against an external danger, it might be called upon at the will of the Government to assist the civil power in a strike. I implore the Government to withdraw from that attitude.
    11.6 p.m.
    Sir J. Nall: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman has overlooked the fact that this Bill relates to the Regular Army and Navy Reserves. Only a few nights ago a spokesman on the Opposition Front Bench admitted frankly mat those who joined the Regular Forces know full well that they may be called on to act in aid of the civil power. Therefore, as far as that part of the Bill is concerned, there can be nothing new in the provision that the Regular reserves may be called up.
    Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman does not assert that any one here, either on the Front Bench or the back benches, made any such statement on this Bill.
    Sir J. Nall: Not on this Bill but on the other Bill. The statement was made, however, from that bench that there is a difference between the Regular and the Territorial forces, and that the man who joins the Regular Service realises when he joins that he may, in certain circumstances, be required to act in aid of the civil power. That view was not disputed by other hon. Members on the Opposition side. That is the case, at present, without this Bill. As explained on Second Reading, this Bill merely facilitates the machinery for mobilising the reserve and auxiliary forces. In Clause 1 provision is made that action taken under the Bill can relate only to circumstances of external danger. The hon. and gallant Gentleman objected that troops mobilised for reasons of external danger might, in certain circumstances, be used in aid of the civil power. As regards Territorial or second-line reserves, surely it is stretching the point to imagine that this Bill would first be invoked to mobilise the

    1343
    reserve forces to meet an external danger, and that the Territorial Army, having been mobilised on that pretext, would thereafter be used in aid of the civil power. There is no analogy between the circumstances in which the undertaking was given on the other Bill and the circumstances which might arise under this Bill.
    Clause 1 clearly limits the Bill to circumstances of national emergency and preparedness against external danger. As far as the first-line reserves of the Regular Army and Navy are concerned, it does not alter the law or the conditions under which they can be employed. To suggest that it might conceivably be applied to the Territorial Army in the way suggested is stretching the case beyond the limits of reason. I cannot see that there is any ground for the Amendment.
    11.10 p.m.
    Mr. Garro Jones: It is fortunate that the Secretary of State for War has come in, because, although it is suggested that we are merely continuing a line of policy previously embarked upon, we are in fact embarking upon an entirely new policy if this Amendment is accepted. I would ask the Committee to look at the wording of Clause 1. These provisions are designed
    "for ensuring preparedness for the defence of the Realm against any external danger."
    It is not a case of imminent external danger but preparedness for defence of the Realm against external danger. That is to say, in every conceivable circumstances in which the Committee of Imperial Defence reported that there was a prospect of external danger, it would be in order for these Proclamations to be issued, and all the classes of troops, Air Force and Naval reserves under Subsection (3) could be called up. That, obviously, gives the Government authority to call up the whole of these forces in circumstances which they consider threaten the realm, however remotely, by external danger.
    Why are the words "external danger" put in? In their context they have little or no meaning. Certainly they have no meaning in reference to the troops and the purpose to which those troops may be put when they have been called up. I think it was not a matter generally known to the Committee that once they are called up even the Territorial Army
    1344
    can at present be used for the purpose of aiding the civil power. That is not under the Statute but under Territorial Force Regulations made by the Secretary of State for War in 1906. It seems to me that the wording of Sub-section (3) has been specifically put in in order to give to these sections of troops called up, the status of Regular forces under the Act which entitles them to be used in aid of the civil power. Therefore, the Government is specifically contemplating their use in aid of the civil power. There may be some case for using any of the State forces in aid of the civil power, in the case of some tremendous civil war, riots or commotion, but our Amendment is very moderately drawn. It seeks only to prevent these troops being used in connection with an industrial dispute. That is subject to a very narrow definition by previous Acts of Parliament, and it can in no case be extended to cover riots, civil war or any commotion of that kind.
    Therefore, it cannot be alleged against the Amendment by hon. Members opposite that it is a subversive Amendment. Its objective is that the Government shall not use these troops by way of breaking a purely industrial dispute, either in the form of military action against the strikers, who are acting within their rights, or in the form that has been adopted in France, where the troops have been used to operate the services in which the strikers have ceased work. That is the proposal we are making in respect of the whole of the forces covered by Sub-section (3). If, however, the Government feel that they are not able to accept our Amendment in respect of the forces referred to by the hon. Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall), who tried to establish erroneously that this part of the Bill only dealt with Regular forces, who knew that they were undertaking this obligation—
    Sir J. Nall: The hon. Member must not misrepresent me.
    Mr. Garro Jones: If the hon. Member did not intend to convey that impression, then I am sure that he will support us.
    Sir J. Nall: The hon. Gentleman has no right to misrepresent what I said. I referred to two aspects of the matter, and said that the Bill did not alter the present liability of the Reserves, and that to stretch it, as it has been stretched, into the possible use of the Territorials is grotesque.
    Mr. Garro Jones: I am glad, at any rate, to know that the hon. Member recognises that there are two aspects of this matter. The first aspect covers those Regular Forces who, when they enlist, envisaged the possibility at some time or another of being called upon to carry out duties in aid of the civil power. Those duties are not envisaged by soldiers who enlist as members of citizen forces, and, in any case, we are only suggesting that they should not be used in connection with a trade dispute. We do not say "provided that no such person shall by virtue of this Section be liable to take duty in aid of the civil power," and leave it at that. What we say is that they shall not be liable for duty in connection with an industrial dispute.
    Mr. Beverley Baxter: While I do not think such a thing will happen again, does the hon. Gentleman make the words "trade dispute" include a general strike?
    Mr. Garro Jones: If the hon. Gentleman had spent his time more profitably in the House in recent years than in other directions, he would have known that the House has laid down a definition of what is an industrial dispute and what is not. I shall not presume at short notice to give a precise legal definition, but it is clearly laid down. It was subject to prolonged Debate in the House, in which Debate I participated on many occasions some years ago. However that may be, we are not asking that these troops should in no circumstances be used in aid of the civil power. We are asking—and surely we are on strong ground in asking—that they shall not be used for industrial purposes. If our request is refused it will encourage the suspicion which is being focussed on the Government in certain quarters as to the ultimate objective of these measures of conscription. If the Government meet our request, it will at least be said that none of the Forces called up under this Bill will be used for suppressing an industrial dispute.
    I want to say a word more to encourage the Government to accept our proposal. The arm of the State will not be paralysed against disorder if they accept the Amendment, because already, apart from all the Regular Forces, the Government have enormous powers by regulation and by common law to call upon all citizens, including members of the Territorial Force,
    1346
    for aid in suppressing riots and civil commotion. I have looked up some of the regulations made by the Secretary of State for War, Lord Haldane, in 1906. They provided that once men were called up they were under the same obligations as all citizens to use all reasonable endeavours to suppress riots. They may be required by the civil authority to act as special constables, and in such a case they would not be entitled to wear uniform, but would carry a constables staff. In case of serious disturbance the civil authority may require them to use weapons appropriate to the occasion. This is even when they are not being called out in aid of the civil power.
    Then it was said that if their stores or armouries were attacked they might combine as an organised force and use arms. I mention that to show that it is not necessary for any reasonable or lawful purpose to give the Minister the power to use these troops in an industrial dispute. We are asking that a clear distinction should be drawn between troops who are a regular part of the forces of the Crown and these forces who are part of the citizen forces. They are different in character and they are entitled to be exempt.
    11.21 p.m.
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I think it would be appropriate that we should be left under no misapprehension as to the purposes of this Bill or as to the uses to which the powers under the Bill could be put. This Amendment is an unnecessary one, as I shall hope to show to the Committee. In so far as it suggests that troops might be used in an ordinary industrial dispute, that is to say, in a strike or a lock-out, it is a suggestion that we should safeguard ourselves against something which we have no power to do. There is no power to use troops in an ordinary industrial dispute, and, therefore, the Amendment is unnecessary under that head. In so far as the Amendment suggests that the forces cannot be used in cases of general disturbance, it is suggesting something quite dangerous, because under the common law every citizen has to aid the civil power when there is public disturbance, riot, or commotion. That is the law. Any fears or apprehensions which hon. Members opposite may have are quite misguided.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I am trying to give an explanation.
    The Chairman: The hon. Member cannot intervene if the Minister does not give way.
    Mr. Griffiths: He has given way now. If they had not the power to intervene in an industrial dispute, why were the naval ratings sent to my pit when everybody was quiet there?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: If the means of life of a community are affected, if the transport services and the communications of the country and its water supply are interfered with, whether directly or indirectly, as the result of a trade dispute, then the troops have a duty to preserve the life of the community. That is quite a different thing. That is either a common law power or it is a power which is used under the Emergency Powers Act.
    Mr. Garro Jones: May I—
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: May I finish the sentence? It is difficult to be coherent in an argument if one is interrupted in the middle of a sentence. We are in Committee and any hon. Member can speak more than once. I am ready to give way, but may I be allowed to say that under the Emergency Powers Act, when there is danger to the life of the community, Regulations can be introduced into this House under which the troops can be used to man the pumps in a mine or to restore railway communications or for any other purpose of that kind—but they would be used under the Emergency Powers Act. It therefore is my case that you cannot use the troops in an ordinary industrial dispute, in a strike of a lock-out. You can use them in circumstances which I think are appreciated and respected by hon. Members opposite—in cases of general disturbance. In any event you could not call the troops up under this Bill, and nobody in his senses would endeavour to do so, for such purposes as hon. Members opposite fear. They can only be called up within the terms of this Bill, that is when they are
    "urgently required for ensuring the preparedness of the realm against external dangers."
    Mr. G. Griffiths: That was not stated when the Financial Secretary spoke.
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I am reading the terms of the Bill. The Financial Secretary read the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Anyhow, I have endeavoured frankly to explain the position. It would be unfortunate if any feeling were stirred up that there was any sinister purpose behind the introduction of the Bill. We are dealing with the reservists, who are part of the Army, and you cannot take advantage of a Bill which is to increase our state of preparedness to change the general military and the general common law. Hon. Gentlemen opposite need have no fear whatever about troops being used in the circumstances which they apprehend.
    11.25 p.m.
    Mr. Garro Jones: In the Amendment are these words:
    "Provided that no such person shall, by virtue of this Section, be liable to take duty."
    The whole argument of the right hon. Gentleman has been to prevent us from depleting the War Office of certain powers which they possessed before the introduction of the Bill. Our Amendment would not deplete the War Office of these powers, because it seeks only to add to those powers.
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: The Amendment says that no such person shall take civil duty by virtue of a trade dispute. I say that you could not use troops to intervene in an ordinary strike, anyway. If the Amendment was carried it would throw doubt on the whole legal position.
    11.27 p.m.
    Colonel Nathan: I think there is some confusion of mind on this matter. If the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman had been given by the Financial Secretary to the War Office I should not have risen to my feet at all. The impression left upon my mind by the statement of the Financial Secretary was the reverse of that given to the Committee by the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. I would like to know who is making the authoritative statement, the right hon. Gentleman or the Financial Secretary. I feel sure that when those two Ministers read their speeches in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow they will find that the two statements conflict with each other.
    11.28 p.m.
    Mr. Lawson: The Committee will remember that I moved my Amendment

    1349
    formally. I did not expect for a moment that the Government would refuse it, in its limited form. When we spoke from this side on the Second Reading of the Bill those who were present will remember that we were reasonable in our consideration of the Bill, that we were discriminating and that we said we had very great doubt about this Bill at this point. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that the right hon. Gentleman has made a different statement from the Financial Secretary, but I do not think that in essence there is any difference. I wonder if the Committee understand what we are being asked to do. The Government are asking for very great powers. They have certain rights under certain Acts, but they are asking Parliament, in certain circumstances, to give up certain old-established rights in exchange for Orders in Council to be placed before Parliament as soon as may be. That is to say, the Government are going to call up masses of men in certain circumstances. We may be, unfortunately, involved in war, and in that case the position would not arise. They may be called up for a limited time for a definite purpose, as stated in the Bill. If this is all that the Government have in mind—speed in calling up the men by getting rid of proclamations and all kinds of difficulties—why should they refuse an Amendment of this kind?
    Let us be quite blunt with the right hon. Gentleman. It is well known that, however much soldiers respect the power of Parliament in a time of peace, there are certain of them who, in a situation like this, are apt to try to get powers which go much further than the House would be inclined to allow. You have odd chiefs among the soldiers from time to time who are contemptuous of the civil power. I can imagine the right hon. Gentleman asking for certain powers, for some of which he has no need, and I can imagine certain soldiers saying: "While we are dealing with the matter, let us get rid of this too." The right hon. Gentleman has gone further than the Financial Secretary. Can he not give us an undertaking to reconsider the matter, either now or on Report? We on this side, and the Committee as a whole, have been quite ready to consider the need of the country for calling the forces together with speed and without undue noise, but we are not going to give
    1350
    away the rights of industrialists—for these Territorials and reservists are industrialists in the main. We are not going to give without a challenge the right to call these men up when, by a series of circumstances, they may in a few weeks' time he asked to turn upon their own fellows, or some of their own fellows, in the event of an industrial dispute. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his decision. His refusal is not worth while, in view of the Bill for which he is asking.
    Mr. Leslie Boyce: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest to the Committee that the Army chiefs have power to override the statute and common law of the realm?
    Mr. Lawson: What I suggest is that the history of the past War and other wars shows quite clearly that once you get into such a position there are people who have contempt for the civil power and use their influence to get other powers.
    Mr. Boyce: In that case, what are our law courts for?
    11.36 p.m.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: We on this side have been dumbfounded by the statement of the Financial Secretary that this reasonable Amendment could not be accepted, after what the Secretary for War said on Friday about the militiamen—I call them Belishamen. The Secretary for War said on Friday that no militiaman—no conscript—would be called up for any trade dispute, and he added that he was prepared to give every man called up a written statement that he would not, in any circumstances, be called up in a trade dispute. We then said to each other, in conversation about this Bill, "Now the Minister will accept our Amendment."
    Mr. Baxter: If the Secretary for War gave that assurance, why move this Amendment?
    Mr. Griffiths: Apparently the hon. Member does not know anything about either of these Bills. This is a different Bill entirely, and if the Minister is prepared to give the same undertaking on this, that is what we want. The Secretary for War said there was no danger of their being called out. If so, why not accept the Amendment?
    Mr. Holdsworth: It is not necessary. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member can show me that it is necessary, I will keep quiet.
    Mr. Griffiths: You have been quiet since you went over to that side; quieter than when you were on this side.
    The Chairman: The hon. Member will have a better chance of being heard if he will address the Chair.
    Mr. Griffiths: I will address the Chair, Sir Dennis; and I ask for the protection of the Chair against Members on that side. The Secretary for War has said that these troops cannot be called out except when there is danger to the civil population. Naval ratings were called out in 1921 and 1926, when there was no danger to the civil population. At the pit where I worked they were used to save the colliery company, not the people. They were there to man the pumps, simply to save the pit for the colliery company. The Secretary for War has stated that they can be called out for that purpose now. I ask him whether he thinks that he would have obtained as many volunteers to be Territorials if he had told them before they enlisted that they would be called up in a trade dispute? I want to bring it closer home than that, and I want the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) to listen to this. We have had a trade dispute at the pit where I used to work for the last 12 weeks, and the men are going to tender their notices next Wednesday, 3,500 of them. Some of these men are Territorials and some are Reservists. The Secretary of State for War says, "I can call them up and use them in that dispute."
    Mr. Holdsworth: No.
    Mr. Griffiths: He said so here to-night. He said that they could call up these men. If there is no danger of this, as he said, we ask him to accept this mild Amendment to the Clause. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to treat the Reservists and the Territorials in the same way as he has pledged himself to treat the militiamen that are to be called up. If he does not do that, we shall go out into the country and say to the lads and Reservists at my pit, "You will be called up to break the strike here, although you men are fighting for your trade union principles."
    Mr. Holdsworth: That will not be true.
    Mr. Griffiths: I am telling the truth. I say that it is true. The Secretary of State
    1352
    for War has stated that they could be called up for this purpose. If that is not true, let him accept this Amendment at once.
    11.42 p.m.
    Mr. E. J. Williams: After the statement we have had from the Secretary of State for War to-night, I am certain that all my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee believe that we were deceived last week. What is the purpose of giving to an individual who is a militiaman some assurance that he will not be called up during a trade dispute if the statement which the Minister has made to-day is correct? If these men can be called up under the common law, what is the use of an individual statement? The Committee has been deliberately deceived. The language of the Amendment is precisely the same as the Amendment that was put upon the Paper last week and carried, and yet we are told by the Financial Secretary and by the right hon. Gentleman tonight that that statement to be handed to the individual militiaman can be overruled by Order in Council or by common law. The Committee have been completely deceived. There is not a Territorial in my constituency who has voluntarily joined for a period of years and has given of his time who has ever understood that he could be used for the purpose of smashing a trade dispute, or used by his employer in a lock-out to defeat men fighting for their trade union rights. Yet that is what we have had to-night.
    Hon. Members on this side feel that, however much we suspected the purpose of the Military Training Bill, the statement that we have heard from the Secretary of State for War to-night has certainly magnified that suspicion. We are informed that on Friday next the trades union executives of this country are to be called together to consider the question of conscription. I am sure that, after the statement we have heard from the Financial Secretary and from the Minister himself, they will realise that the substance of this Bill, and of the other Bill, is a deliberate attack upon trade union rights. [An HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish."] It is not rubbish. It was said here last week. We are convinced that there are a large number of Members opposite who would be prepared at any time to use the Forces against the trade unions. [Interruption.] This is an indication of the temper of hon.

    1353
    Members opposite. They have no room for trade unions.
    Commander Bower: On a point of Order. Is it right for an hon. Member to make these entirely unsupported accusations against Members on this side of the Committee?
    Mr. Williams: Why do you oppose the Amendment?
    The Chairman: I did not understand that the hon. Member made any definite accusation against individual hon. Members. It is said to be an offensive statement generally against an undefined group of hon. Members, and although they may disagree with the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. J. Williams) I cannot rule him out of order.
    Commander Bower: May I ask the hon. Member to specify the hon. Members to whom he is referring?
    Mr. E. J. Williams: Now that the hon. and gallant Member has had his point of Order I hope he is satisfied.
    Commander Bower: I am satisfied that you have not the courage to tell us who the hon. Members are.
    The Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member ought not to make accusations of that kind. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I deprecate these interruptions on either side, and the hon. and gallant Member should not invite an hon. Member to do something which I have just indicated would be out of order.
    Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is it in order for an hon. and gallant Member to accuse an hon. Member of being a coward?
    The Chairman: When that point arises I will deal with it.
    Mr. E. J. Williams: I was sure that in making my statement I was getting under the skin of certain individuals—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"]—and the interruptions indicate that they felt it very much. If hon. Members opposite had had the experience which hon. Members on this side have had they would be suspicious of the Minister's intentions after the statement we have had to-night. We have seen naval ratings used in ordinary trade disputes; we have seen soldiers brought in to deal with ordinary trade disputes, and
    1354
    it is quite impossible for us to accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman on Friday as being valid if militiamen, when called up, are to be handed a statement saying that they will not be brought before a court martial for refusing to participate in a trade dispute, when according to the statement of the Minister they can under the common law or by Order in Council be compelled to do anything which the Minister desires. I want the right hon. Gentleman to reconcile the statement he has made to-night with the statement he made last Friday. Is the statement to be given to militiamen to be of any use at all? If not then the Committee has been deceived, and the right hon. Gentleman should accept the Amendment. If he is not prepared to accept it I must say that I was deceived, and I think that most other hon. Members were deceived also.
    11.54 P.m.
    Mr. Arthur Henderson: I listened to the statement of the Secretary for War and very largely agree with his statement of the law relating to the use of troops during trade disputes. Subject to the powers which the Government have under the Emergency Powers Act there is no power which would justify the Government using troops during an actual trade dispute. At the same time the powers that the Government seek to obtain are a very important innovation and I am sure that the War Secretary must realise that in the past there have been occasions when trouble has taken place during a trade dispute and armed forces have been called out. There is no dispute about that fact. In view of these two points, first of all the fact that in the Bill the Government are seeking much wider powers than they have enjoyed in the past and, secondly, that the Labour movement, rightly or wrongly, is extremely suspicious of any statutory power given to a Government which might occasion the use of troops during a trade dispute, what is the objection to accepting the Amendment, more especially having regard to the fact that it provides that "no such person shall by virtue of this Section be liable to take duty in aid of the civil power? "In other words, the acceptance of the Amendment would not in any way affect the powers which the Government enjoy under the Emergency Powers Act, but it would be declaratory of the law

    1355
    that would exist if the Bill passed. It would have no effect at all upon the legal position of the Government in relation to civil disturbance, but it would make clear that, as far as the Bill is concerned, apart from any other Statute, it would not be possible to call up or to use the Territorials or the militiamen for use during a trade dispute.
    11.53 p.m.
    Sir Hugh Seely: I think the Government have rather brought this storm on themselves because of the statement of the Secretary of State on the last Bill, which I thought rather surprising at the time, because I had always understood the law to be as he—not the Financial Secretary—explained just now. Of course, if what was said on the other Bill is going to be accepted, it becomes more logical to accept it now, although I do not think the statement made then was of any value really as regards the militiamen being called up, because it was unnecessary as the law stands, but if it was necessary to make that statement, it shows that this is also necessary. When troops and naval ratings have been called up they have been used not to protect property or transport or the people who were carrying out the duties. They took part in the actual pumping of mines or working the transport. I could never see that that was quite right. There is, no doubt, a fear that, now that you are going to have power quickly to embody large numbers of men, you are giving great powers to the Executive to use in case of an industrial dispute. Although, personally, I still believe that it was a mistake to use naval ratings on that occasion, and although I believe that the interpretation given by the Secretary of State is the right one—that the troops could be used for the protection of the State and not for use in an industrial dispute—I am alarmed that the right hon. Gentleman considered it necessary to make that statement on the earlier Bill, and as it has been made, I think we need a great deal of further inquiry into the reason this Amendment cannot be accepted.
    11.56 p.m.
    Mr. Collindridge: After the two statements that have been made from the Government Front Bench, I have no doubt as to the intention of hon. and
    1356
    right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I feel that the first statement of the Financial Secretary indicated that on occasion these people would be used, under this Bill, in industrial disputes. Although some of my hon. Friends feel that there was a difference in the statement made by the Secretary of State, I think his statement made that position more definite. I happen to have had experience of an occasion of this sort, which is illustrative of what might happen in future. What happened was this. The coalowners were trying to get the miners to submit to a reduction of wages and longer hours in 1921. It was not a strike, as no notices were handed in; it was purely and simply a lock-out, or a strike on the part of the owners. The men were compelled to leave the pits or to submit to the owners' conditions. Naval ratings were brought in. While it may be said, as the right hon. Gentleman said in very blunt terms—for although the right hon. Gentleman used very nice language, the sting was there all the same—that those people came to protect communal interests, nevertheless they were protecting the private interests of the colliery owners—
    Mr. Boyce: And the future livelihood of the miners.
    Mr. Collindridge: I should be prepared—
    Mr. Boyce: Is not the hon. Member rather callously neglecting any consideration of the importance of the continuation of the mine after the strike is over from the point of view of the livelihood of the miners?
    Mr. Collindridge: I have heard those arguments on many occasions, and I do not suppose it is the last time I shall hear them. The reply is that if there never arose circumstances in which miners and other workers were locked out, we should never have to live through what we experienced in 1921. Then the Naval ratings were brought in for the purpose of protecting the property of the pit, and ultimately the miners lost their case. On this occasion, I should have thought that, in view of the circumstances with which the country is confronted, we should have done away with things of that description. It is stated definitely in the Bill that these measures have been introduced for the purpose of resisting the possibility of external danger. For

    1357
    that reason hon. Members on these benches have joined with hon. Members opposite. We have felt that the working-class people have interests to protect equally with hon. Members opposite. But we can now see, if the Government resist this Amendment, that some of our worst fears will have been justified. A pledge has been given to the conscripts, but of what avail is that to the working class if it is witheld from another section of the Forces?
    I appeal to Members on the Government benches to appreciate the seriousness of the position, and I would ask them whether they can expect the voluntary effort for harnessing our people to help against aggression to continue if this pledge cannot be extended in this Bill? We shall have to take a new view if the Government insist on their resistance to the Amendment. There is need for unity against external aggression, but can there be unity if the working-class movement is to be subject to internal attacks in this way? By their resistance to the Amendment the Government are endeavouring to hamstring the trade union movement. I am under no dubiety that while the Financial Secretary was a little wooden in his expressions, the Secretary of State, although talking more blandly and with a little more tone, really meant the same thing. I hope my hon. Friends will press the Amendment to the last.
    12.3 a.m.
    Colonel Nathan: I want to refer to a statement made on the Second Reading of this Bill on 9th May. I said, speaking earlier in this Amendment, that my recollection was pretty clear that assurances upon the subject matter of the Amendment had been given on Second Reading. I have now refreshed my memory by reference to the OFFICIAL REPORT. I would ask the Secretary of State how he can refuse the Amendment in face of these assurances, which were given by the Government spokesman, the Civil Lord of the Admiralty. These are the words he used:
    "The 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."
    I do not know how the Secretary of State reconciles that statement with the state-
    1358
    ment of the Financial Secretary to-day. The matter does not end there, for later in the same speech, dealing with the same point, the Civil Lord, speaking for the Government, said:
    "Hon. Members can rest assured that it is not and never has been the intention to use the Territorial Army or any army of that sort, in industrial disputes in this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th May, 1939; cols. 377–8, Vol. 347.]
    The Amendment now before the Committee is designed to put into legal shape, and in my judgment it does, the assurances given by the Government through the mouth of the Civil Lord last Tuesday.
    12.5 a.m.
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: The quotation which the hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth (Colonel Nathan) has read out is not very different from what I have myself said. You could not use this Measure, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Civil Lord said, and call up the troops under it for an internal dispute. That is a very different thing from a civil commotion, but even so you could not call up any troops under this Bill for that purpose, and I identify myself completely with what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Civil Lord. But having said that, what did the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) say? He quoted the passage last Friday, and he said:
    "That was a specific assurance, and we were grateful for it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th May, 1939; col. 893; Vol. 347.]
    He was perfectly contented with the statement of the law. I am asked to-night by the hon. and learned. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson), who agrees with my interpretation of the law, whether I cannot accept this Amendment as declaratory of the law. I am not prepared to do that, for this reason, that it would have exactly the reverse effect from that which he has in mind, because it would suggest that, apart from this Section of the Act, you could use the troops in an ordinary industrial dispute. Therefore, his Amendment, instead of achieving the purpose which he desires, would have exactly the contrary effect.
    Mr A. Henderson: I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to two cases. There is, first of all, the Trade Disputes Act, 1927. Although the Government always took the view that a general strike was illegal, they embodied in that Act Section 1, which was declaratory of the

    1359
    law, to the effect that a general strike in certain conditions was illegal. Secondly, in the Regulations issued under the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, special provision was made to the effect that it was not in breach of the Regulations for workmen to take part in a trade dispute. If the argument which the right hon. Gentleman has just put forward is a good argument, it must mean that, apart from that provision in the Regulations, it is unlawful for workmen to take part in a trade dispute when the Emergency Powers Act comes into operation. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I thought the hon. and learned Member accepted my statement of the law.
    Mr. Henderson: Yes, certainly, but I cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's views about this Amendment.
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: If that is the law, if I have correctly stated it, and if it is not possible to use troops in an ordinary industrial dispute, why cast doubt on the law by saying that, for the purposes of this one Section of this one Act of Parliament, they cannot be so used?
    Mr. Henderson: If the argument that the right hon. Gentleman is now putting forward is sound, why was it necessary that Section 1 of the Trade Disputes Act, 1927, should be passed? That could only be casting doubt upon the question whether a general strike was lawful or unlawful.
    Mr. Silverman: I noticed that both in his previous speech and just now the right hon. Gentleman referred repeatedly to an "ordinary" trade dispute. I wonder whether he will tell us what is an "ordinary" trade dispute as distinct from another kind of trade dispute. Who is to be the judge of whether or not a trade dispute is an ordinary trade dispute, and what is the position of the troops under this Bill where a trade dispute is not an ordinary one but some other kind?
    Mr. Lawson: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has said the last word on this matter? I thought he was going to say something further.
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: As I was asked a question, I would say that an ordinary trade dispute in the sense in which I used
    1360
    the term is a dispute resulting in a strike or lock-out, but if the trouble spreads beyond that into civil commotion, then you are beyond the region of an ordinary trade dispute. Hon. Members on that side of the Committee have, I think, admitted in their speeches that in the case of civil commotion it would be proper to use the troops, and indeed it would be proper for civilians to intervene to assure the life of the community.
    Mr. Attlee: May I ask whether the learned Attorney-General could not give the Committee the benefit of his views on the point at issue between the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson)? The Secretary of State said that putting in these words would have a certain effect, and the opposite view was put by my hon. and learned Friend.
    12.12 a.m.
    The Attorney-General: I am, of course, willing to give any assistance that I can. I favour, personally, very strongly the argument which was put forward by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, that to insert these words would necessarily throw doubt on the general principle, recognised on all sides of the Committee, that the obligation undertaken by the soldier under this Bill does not involve him in having to obey an order to take part in an industrial dispute. The hon. and learned Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) said that if that was a good argument, how came it that Section 1 was to be found in the Trade Disputes Act? That may be a question with a good deal of controversy behind it. I have not the Section before me. I am well aware, of course, that a speech was made in this House in those stormy and distressful times by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer on the legal position of a general strike.—[An HON. MEMBER: "That was incorrect."].—Someone says that that was incorrect, but that just shows that it was not, as this is, the law accepted on all sides of the House, and, therefore, it might well be proper and advisable in those circumstances to insert a provision in an Act of Parliament, not as declaratory, but as laying down something about which there had previously been controversy.
    Mr. A. Henderson: It is declaratory.
    The Attorney-General: But this proviso does not purport to be declaratory. This is the very root of the argument, which is that if you put into an Act of Parliament a proviso saying that some result will not be attained, you suggest that if you did not have the proviso there, that result would be attained.
    Mr. Benn: Is it not dangerous to supply all these militiamen with these declarations that the Secretary of State has been quoting?
    The Attorney-General: Not at all, because, obviously, the militiamen are in a different position. They are undergoing a period of compulsory training, but we are dealing in this Bill with the forces of the Crown, quite apart from any compulsory training. I suggest that there is very little dispute about the law, and that the insertion of this proviso would necessarily throw doubt on the very principle which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite seek to uphold. The reasons which they have advanced are all present to us now. This thing would go on the Statute Book, it would be looked at by people who would have no knowledge of this Debate and no knowledge even that it had been inserted as an Amendment in the atmosphere which has developed in our discussion, and they would say that if Parliament inserted this proviso, it must have felt some doubt about the state of the law on the matter. On those grounds, which I think are general, I hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment.
    Mr. A. Henderson: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman deal with the second example, namely, the provision in the regulations, that are issued under the Emergency Powers Act, dealing with trade disputes?
    The Attorney-General: I do not think that it affects the argument. I am not saying that you may not find that Parliament, either in Acts or in regulations, has adopted what I am suggesting is the unwise course of inserting provisions which throw doubt on principles generally recognised; what I am suggesting is that, in this vital matter that soldiers cannot legally be ordered to take part in industrial disputes, the Committee would be extremely unwise to accept words which, on the face of them, would throw doubt on that generally recognised principle.
    Mr. Lawson: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman have any objection to accepting, on the Report stage, some such words as would make the matter declaratory, as "it is hereby declared"?
    12.17 a.m.
    The Attorney-General: There would be the objection to the declaratory form that Parliament does not declare things unless there is some doubt about them. When there is a declaratory provision in an Act it is because, although the principle has been accepted, somebody has thrown doubt on it, and it is thought that there may be ground for those doubts. Parliament, therefore, gives the principle statutory effect, and wants to show that doubts have been thrown upon it. Speaking for myself, I desire that this principle should be left as it is, a generally recognised principle, and that neither by the provisions of this Measure or by declaratory provision should there be any suggestion that there is any doubt about it at all.
    12.18 a.m.
    Mr. Stephen: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested that there may be some doubt as to the law on this matter. I would say to him that there is no doubt of the law, but what the Attorney-General and the Secretary of State for War state here to be the law is not necessarily the law. The law will be interpreted by the courts. In 1926, difficulties arose as to what the law was, although it was otherwise regarded as perfectly clear. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer came down to this House and made a speech, and certain action was taken on the Floor of the House; afterwards, it became apparent that the law was very doubtful. I cannot see that the statements of the Attorney-General and the Secretary of State for War are at all adequate statements of the law on this matter, or why they should object to a declaratory provision.
    The Opposition have been very reasonable.
    It being one hour and thirty minutes after the conclusion of proceedings on the Military Training Bill, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 10th May, as amended by the Order of the House of 15th May, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
    Question put "That those words be there inserted."
    Mr. G. Griffiths: On a point of Order I thought we had from 12 O'clock until half-past 1 to discuss this Bill.
    The Chairman: The time allotted was an hour a half from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Military Training Bill.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 111; Noes, 217.

    Division No. 133.]

    AYES.

    [12.21 a.m.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Paling, W.

    Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Parker, J.

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Ammon, C. G.

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    Pearson, A.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)

    Price, M. P.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Pritt, D. N.

    Banfield, J. W.

    Harris, Sir P. A.

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Barnes, A. J.

    Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)

    Ritson, J.

    Barr, J.

    Hayday, A.

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    Bartlett, C. V. O.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Batey, J.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Rothschild, J. A. de

    Bellenger, F. J.

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W

    Jagger, J.

    Sexton, T. M.

    Bevan, A.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Silkin, L.

    Bromfield, W.

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Silverman, S. S.

    Buchanan, G.

    Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Sloan, A.

    Burke, W. A.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Cocks, F. S.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Collindridge, F.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

    Stephen, C.

    Cove, W. G.

    Lawson, J. J.

    Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

    Daggar, G.

    Leach, W.

    Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

    Dalton, H.

    Leonard, W.

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Logan, D. G.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Lunn, W.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Dobbie, W.

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Tomlinson, G.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Viant, S. P.

    Ede, J. C.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Watson, W. McL.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    McGovern, J.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

    Marshall, F.

    Westwood, J.

    Foot, D. M.

    Maxton, J.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Frankel, D.

    Milner, Major J.

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Gallacher, W.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

    Windsor, W. (Hull, G.)

    Gardner, B. W.

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Garro Jones, G. M.

    Nathan, Colonel H. L.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

    Noel-Baker, P. J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Mr. Mathers and Mr. Adamson.

    NOES

    Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Emery, J. F.

    Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

    Channon, H.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Agnew, Lieut. Comdr. P. G.

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Entwistle, Sir C. F.

    Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)

    Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)

    Errington, E.

    Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)

    Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

    Erskine-Hill, A. G.

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Colfox, Major W. P.

    Findlay, Sir E.

    Apsley, Lord

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Fleming, E. L.

    Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

    Colville, Rt. Hon. John

    Fox, Sir G. W. G.

    Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

    Conant, Captain R. J. E.

    Fremantle, Sir F. E.

    Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)

    Craven-Ellis, W.

    Furness, S. N.

    Balniel, Lord

    Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

    Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Baxter, A. Beverley

    Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

    Gledhill, G.

    Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

    Crossley, A. C.

    Goldie, N. B.

    Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Gower, Sir R. V.

    Beechman, N. A.

    Cruddas, Col. B.

    Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

    Blair, Sir R.

    Culverwell, C. T.

    Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.

    Bossom, A. C.

    De Chair, S. S.

    Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

    Boulton, W. W.

    De la Bère, R.

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

    Denville, Alfred

    Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Dodd, J. S

    Grimston, R. V.

    Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)

    Doland, G. F.

    Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

    Brass, Sir W.

    Donner, P. W.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

    Hambro, A. V.

    Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

    Duggan, H. J.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    Hannah, I. C.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Dunglass, Lord

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

    Eastwood, J. F.

    Harbord, A.

    Bull, B. B.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Burghley, Lord

    Ellis, Sir G.

    Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Elliston, Capt. G. S.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

    Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

    Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

    Hepworth, J.

    Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A

    Higgs, W. F.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Holdsworth, H.

    Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

    Munro, P.

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)

    Nall, Sir J.

    Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

    Hunter, T.

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

    Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

    Hutchinson, G. C.

    Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    James, Wins-Commander A. W. H.

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Jarvis, Sir J. J.

    O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

    Palmer, G. E. H.

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Kimball, L.

    Patrick, C. M.

    Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

    Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

    Lancaster, Captain C. G.

    Petherick, M.

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.)

    Pilkington, R.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Turton, R. H.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

    Porritt, R W.

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Liddall, W. S.

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Walker-Smith, Sir J.

    Lindsay, K. M.

    Radford, E. A.

    Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

    Lipson, D. L.

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    Loftus, P. C.

    Rankin, Sir R.

    Warrender, Sir V.

    Lyons, A. M.

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Rayner, Major R. H.

    Watt, Major G. S. Harvie

    MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Wayland, Sir W. A

    M'Connell, Sir J.

    Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

    Wells, Sir Sydney

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

    Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

    Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

    McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

    Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

    Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)

    McKie, J. H.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Macnamara, Lt.-Col. J. R. J.

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Wise, A. R.

    Magnay, T.

    Rowlands, G.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Maitland, Sir Adam

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

    Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

    Wragg, H.

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

    Markham, S. F.

    Salt, E. W.

    York, C.

    Marsden, Commander A.

    Sandys, E. D.

    Young, A. S. L. (Patrick)

    Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

    Scott, Lord William

    Medlicott, F.

    Selley, H. R.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

    Shakespeare, G. H.

    Captain Dugdale and Major Sir James Edmondson.

    Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Shepperson, Sir E. W.

    The CHAIRMAN then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions on Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given, and the Questions necessary to dispose of the Business to be concluded at this day's Sitting.
    Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 224 Noes, 100.

    Division No. 134.]

    AYES.

    [12.30 a.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

    Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

    Duggan, H. J.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

    Bull, B. B.

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)

    Burghley, Lord

    Dunglass, Lord

    Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)

    Butcher, H. W.

    Eastwood, J. F.

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

    Apsley, Lord

    Channon, H.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Ellis, Sir G.

    Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

    Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)

    Elliston, Capt. G. S.

    Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

    Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

    Emery, J. F.

    Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)

    Colfox, Major W. P.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Balniel, Lord

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Entwistle, Sir C. F.

    Bartlett, C. V. 0.

    Colville, Rt. Hon. John

    Errington, E.

    Baxter, A. Beverley

    Conant, Captain R. J. E.

    Erskine-Hill, A. G.

    Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

    Craven-Ellis, W.

    Findlay, Sir E.

    Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

    Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

    Fleming, E. L.

    Beechman, N. A.

    Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

    Foot, D. M.

    Blair, Sir R.

    Crossley, A. C.

    Fox, Sir G. W. G.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Fremantle, Sir F. E.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Cruddas, Col. B.

    Furness, S. N.

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

    Culverwell, C. T.

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    De Chair, S. S.

    Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)

    De la Bère, R.

    Gledhill, G.

    Brass, Sir W.

    Denville, Alfred

    Goldie, N. B.

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Dodd, J. S.

    Gower, Sir R. V.

    Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

    Doland, G. F.

    Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

    Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

    Donner, P. W.

    Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.

    Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

    Magnay, T.

    Scott, Lord William

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Maitland, Sir Adam

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

    Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

    Selley, H. R.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Shakespeare, G. H.

    Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

    Markham, S. F

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.

    Marsden, Commander A.

    Shepperson, Sir E. W.

    Hambro, A. V.

    Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

    Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Medlicott, F.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A

    Hannah, I. C.

    Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Harbord, A.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Harris, Sir P. A.

    Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswiek)

    Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

    Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

    Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

    Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

    Nall, Sir J.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Hepwerth, J.

    Neven-Spenee, Major B. H. H.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

    Higgs, W. F.

    Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Holdsworth, H.

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

    Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

    Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

    O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

    Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

    Hunter, T.

    Palmer, G. E. H.

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Hutchinson, G. C.

    Patrick, C. M.

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Tufnell, Lieut. -Commander R. L.

    Jarvis, Sir J. J.

    Petherick, M.

    Turton, R. H.

    Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pilkington, R.

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Walker-Smith, Sir J.

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

    Porritt, R. W.

    Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

    Kimball, L.

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

    Radford, E. A.

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

    Warrender, Sir V.

    Lancaster, Captain C. G.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.)

    Rankin, Sir R.

    Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Wells, Sir Sydney

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

    Rayner, Major R. H.

    Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

    Liddall, W. S.

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

    Lindsay, K. M.

    Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

    Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)

    Lipson, D. L.

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Wise, A. R.

    Loftus, P. C.

    Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Lyons, A. M.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Wragg, H.

    MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

    Rothschild, J. A. de

    Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

    M'Connell, Sir J.

    Rowlands, G.

    York, C.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

    McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    McKie, J. H.

    Salt, E. W.

    Captain Dugdale and Mr. Munro.

    Macnamara, Lieut.-Colonel J. R. J.

    Sandys, E. D.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Parker, J.

    Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Pearson, A.

    Ammon, C. G.

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    Price, M. P.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N)

    Pritt, D. N.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Banfield, J. W.

    Hayday, A.

    Ritson, J.

    Barnes, A. J.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    Barr, J.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Batey, J.

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Sexton, T. M.

    Bellenger, F. J.

    Jagger, J.

    Silkin, L.

    Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Silverman, S. S.

    Bevan, A.

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Sloan, A.

    Bromfield, W.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Buchanan, G.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Burke, W. A.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Charleton, H. C

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

    Stephen, C.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Lawson, J. J.

    Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

    Collindridge, F.

    Leach, W.

    Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

    Cove, W. G.

    Leonard, W.

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Daggar, G.

    Logan, D. G.

    Taylor, R. J. (Mcrpeth)

    Dalton, H.

    Lunn, W.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Tomlinson, G.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Viant, S. P.

    Dobbie, W.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Watson, W. McL.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    McGovern, J.

    Welsh, J C.

    Ede, J. C.

    Marshall, F.

    Westwood, J.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Maxton, J.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H

    Milner, Major J.

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Frankel, D.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Gallacher, W.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Gardner, B. W.

    Noel-Baker, P. J.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Garro Jones, G. M.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

    Paling, W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. Mathers and Mr. Adamson.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Reinstatement in civil employment.)
    Amendments made:
    In page 3, line 29, leave out "applicable to him when he was," and insert:
    "which would have been applicable to him had he not been."
    In line 36, leave out "four," and insert "twelve."
    In line 41, leave out from "not" to "or" in line 43, and insert:
    "before the expiration of one month after the termination of such service as aforesaid apply to the employer for reinstatement, or that, having been offered reinstatement by him, he failed without reasonable excuse, to present himself for employment at the time and place notified to him by the employer."
    In page 4, line 11, at the end, insert:
    "(2) For the purpose of securing the fair adjustment of contracts of service or apprenticeship in force between employers and employès when the employès are called out for military service under this Act, the Minister of Labour may make regulations relieving the parties to such contracts of all or any of their obligations thereunder in respect of the period of that military service, and may also make regulations modifying such contracts by extending the period of service or apprenticeship thereunder by a period not exceeding the period of the said military service and adapting the terms of the contracts in relation to any such extension."
    In line 21, leave out Sub-section (3) and insert:
    "(3) If the Minister of Labour is satisfied that it is necessary to restrain employers from terminating the employment of their employès by reason of any duties or liabilities which they are or may become liable to perform or discharge by virtue of the provisions of this Act, or to make provision for the prevention of evasion of the provisions of this Section, he may make regulations for those purposes, and such regulations may make provision for the punishment of breaches of the regulations and may in particular apply with respect to persons found guilty of such breaches of any of the provisions of this Section relating to persons found guilty of offences under this Section, with or without modifications."
    In line 26, at the end, add:
    "(4) Any regulations made under this Section by the Minister of Labour shall, as soon as may be after they are made, be laid before Parliament; and if either House of Parliament within the period of forty days beginning with the day on which any such regulations as aforesaid are laid before it, resolves that the regulations be annulled, they shall thereupon become void, without prejudice, however, to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of new regulations.
    In reckoning any such period of forty days as aforesaid no account shall be taken of any
    1370
    time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.
    (5) Section one of the Rules Publication Act, 1893, shall not apply to any regulations made under this Section."—[Sir V. Warrender.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Simplification of procedure for obtaining possession of land taken under Defence Acts.)
    The Chairman: In regard to the first Amendment standing in the name of the Secretary of State, I had called his attention to the fact that by some error or other the Amendment was a little wrongly put in, that two and a half lines earlier should have been left out in order to make sense. I think that is not an unfair way of putting it. I do not feel I can put it in the way I should have done if the time under the Guillotine had not arrived, unless it is with the general assent of the Committee. I am afraid I cannot discuss it, and that it can only be put if no hon. Member has any objection. In that case, I would have to put it in a revised form.
    Mr. Lawson: On a point of Order. As you have read the general Amendments, Sir Dennis, none of them have made sense at all.
    The Chairman: That is rather far from a point of Order.
    Mr. Garro Jones: On a point of Order—
    The Chairman: I am debarred from taking points of Order now under the Order of the House.
    Mr. Buchanan: Are you not debarred from taking objections?
    The Chairman: I think not. The Chair has a number of privileges as well as disadvantages which do not attach to other hon. Members.
    Amendment made: In page 5, line 7, leave out Sub-section (2), and insert:
    "(2) Where possession of any land is taken under the foregoing provisions of this Section then, notwithstanding that the case is one in which the land is not to be acquired by way of absolute purchase, the amount of compensation to be paid shall, in default of agreement, be determined by an official arbitrator appointed under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, who shall conform to the rules prescribed by that Act, subject to such modifications as

    1371
    may be necessary to render them applicable to such cases."
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 4 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill
    Preamble agreed to.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as Standing amended to be considered upon Thurs day, and to be printed. [Bill 141.]
    The remaining Order were read, and postponed.
    It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House,without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order
    Adjourned at Fourteen Minutes before One o'Clock.