SCHEDULE. (Hansard, 16 May 1939)

§ 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.

§ 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.

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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

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. 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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?

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

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.

§ 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.

§ 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?

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

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?

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

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?

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ The Lord Advocate
I beg to move, in page 19, line 29, after "in," to insert "the case of the division for."

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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.