Commons Sitting of 18 May 1939

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with).
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Corsham Water) Bill
Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.
Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable).
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Newhaven and Seaford Water) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (York Water) Bill.
Bills to be read a Second time To-morrow.
Colne Valley Water Bill,
London County Council (Money) Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
Methodist Church Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
South Staffordshire Water Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  MILITARY TRAINING.
  Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Minister of Labour how many men registered as out of work at Employment Exchanges will be liable to be called up for compulsory military service?
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): The only available statistics relate to the number of unemployed men aged 18 and under 21 years. The number of such men on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain at 17th April, 1939, was 56,844.
  Mr. Davies: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an estimate of how many are 20 years of age?
  Mr. Brown: If the average is taken over the whole group, the number would be under 20,000. That does not mean that they are all unemployed now. They were registered on that date, but many will have been at work since then.
  Mr. Duncan: How many of them are on unemployment assistance?
  Mr. Brown: I have no information on that point.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Minister aware that we have just received telegrams from the Clyde that the Clyde apprentices are on strike against the conscription Bill? Will the apprentices that are of age and are working on work of national importance be exempt from conscription?
  Mr. Brown: Certainly not. There are only three grounds of exemption: that they are in the Regular Forces, that they establish conscientious objection before a tribunal, or they cannot pass the medical tribunal.
  Mr. George Griffiths: Or they belong to Sandhurst College.
  Mr. Daviesasked the Minister of Labour the number of men liable for compulsory military service employed in agriculture, distribution, mining, textiles, and transport, respectively; and what is the percentage to the total males employed in each case?
  Mr. Brown: I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available.
  Mr. Denvilleasked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the position of actors, variety artistes, and other similar persons, in connection with compulsory military training and the reserve forces; and whether it is proposed to make any arrangements with regard to the re-absorption of such persons into their normal employment after discharge from military training?
  Mr. Brown: As my hon. Friend is aware, the Military Training Bill makes general provision with regard to the reinstatement of militiamen in employment, including a power to make regulations with regard to certain matters. It would, I am sure, be advantageous if the organisations in the entertainment industry were to consult together as to the manner in which these provisions could best be operated. Any information or advice which my Department could give would be at their disposal.
  Miss Cazaletasked the Minister of Labour whether, in cases where men are released for compulsory military training, he will ask employers wherever possible to replace them temporarily by men who have a long record of unem ployment?
  Mr. Brown: I have no doubt that in filling such temporary vacancies, employers will give due consideration to the claims of the long-term unemployed possessing the necessary qualifications, and naturally I should welcome any arrangements of this kind which employers may find it possible to make.
  Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister make certain that the employers are not allowed to fill the places of the lads who are out on strike against conscription? There is no answer.
  Mr. Manderasked the Minister of Labour the date on which conversations first took place with the representatives of the churches on the subject of the Clauses to be incorporated in the Military Training Bill on the subject of conscientious objectors?
  Mr. Brown: I have had no discussion with official representatives of the churches on the Military Training Bill, but
  1586
  have seen, at their own request, a deputation from the Council of Christian Pacifist Groups. The date in question was Wednesday, 10th May.
  Mr. Mander: On a point of Order. I addressed this question to the Prime Minister and it has been passed to the Minister of Labour, but, obviously, he cannot answer it. Had the question been put down to the Prime Minister as I intended, no doubt the Prime Minister would have been in a position to give an answer. In the circumstances, was it proper to refer the question to a Minister who is not in a position to answer it?
  Mr. Magnay: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) is not the Nonconformist Conscience?
  Mr. Speaker: No doubt it was because the subject of the hon. Member's question fell to be dealt with by the Minister of Labour.
  Mr. Mander: If I put this question down again, addressed to the Prime Minister, will it, then, be in order for him to give me an answer?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has already had an answer.
  Mr. Mander: With great respect, I have not had an answer from the one Minister who can give me an answer. The question has been referred to a junior Minister who cannot answer it.
  Mr. Brown: May I point out that the question relates to the date on which conversations first took place with the representatives of the churches, and on that point the hon. Member has had a full answer?
  Mr. Kirkwood: And from a full man.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    ASSISTANCE.
    Mr. Daggarasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the practice at the office of the Unemployment Assistance Board at Abertillery, in connection with the presentation of a doctor's certificate, has been for the local officer to inform the applicant of the date of expiry of such a certificate; that recently this practice has been disregarded, with considerable disadvantage to the appli-

    1587
    cant's interest, because he is compelled, unless reminded of the date of expiration in order to obtain another certificate, to wait another week before receiving the extra allowance; and whether he will advise a return to the long-established method of notification?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am informed by the Board that, while there has been some change of practice at Abertillery, the new arrangements safeguard the position of an applicant in whose case the need for a special addition to his allowance continues. When the change of practice took place, certain applicants were not notified. In every case, however, where a further medical certificate was subsequently produced the required addition was made retrospectively so that the applicant suffered no financial disadvantage.
    Mr. Daggar: Do I understand from that reply that the practice is no longer to be followed by the area officer?
    Mr. Brown: I understand that the difficulty in the existing practice has been overcome, but if the hon. Member has other information I shall be glad to have it.
    Mr. Daggar: The purpose of my question was to see that the area officer reverses his previous decision, which was contrary to the practice which has been very long standing in the area.

    DEWSBURY.
    Mr. Rileyasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons in receipt of standard unemployment pay and transitional benefit, respectively, in the Dews-bury Unemployment Exchange area at the end of March, 1939?
    Mr. E. Brown: At 13th March, 1939, there were 2,436 persons, aged 16–64, on the registers of Dewsbury Employment Exchange with claims admitted for insurance benefit, and 819 with applications authorised for unemployment allowances (exclusive of allowances in supplementation of benefit).

    ELDERLY MEN.
    Mr. Tinkerasked the Minister of Labour the percentage of unemployed men over 55 years of age who are signing on at the Employment Exchanges; and the figures for 1937 and 1938?
    Mr. E. Brown: At 3rd May, 1937, and 28th February, 1938, men aged 55 years and over represented 21.8 per cent. and 19.7 per cent., respectively, of all unemployed men aged 18 and over on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain. I regret that figures are not yet available in respect of any date in 1939. If the hon. Member will be good enough to repeat his question after Whitsun, I will gladly give him the percentage on 1st May, 1939.
    Mr. Lawson: Would it not be better for the nation if these men who are out of work were pensioned off, as there is no hope for them at all?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Member will see from my answer that the figures relating to these men have improved.
    Mr. Tinkerasked the Minister of Labour whether it is the intention of his Department to consider insisting that, on all Government contracts, those who are taken on to do the work shall include a percentage of men who have reached the age of 55 years?
    Mr. Brown: No, Sir. It is the general practice of Employment Exchanges, in sending forward unemployed men to employers in connection with vacancies notified by them, to select those who are regarded as industrially best fitted for the work. I can assure the hon. Member however that Employment Exchanges will continue to give, as they are giving, in all cases, sympathetic consideration to the claims of the older unemployed men, provided that they are capable of doing the work required.
    Mr. Tinker: What are we to do with regard to those people if we cannot get contractors to take them? Who else will take them? This question will grow bigger unless something is done.
    Mr. Benjamin Smith: Would the right hon. Gentleman amplify his remark that the Employment Exchanges choose men for the jobs; whereas, other things being equal, the men should go by rota?
    Mr. Brown: If the hon. Member looks at my answer he will find that he has misunderstood it.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know from experience that men of 55 are capable of giving a very good account of themselves in the industrial field?

    SOUTHWARK.
    Mr. Dayasked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed registered at the borough of Southwark, Walworth Road, Employment Exchange, with claims admitted for unemployment benefit and applications authorised for unemployment allowance as at the last convenient date?
    Mr. E. Brown: At 17th April, 1939, there were 7,857 persons, aged 16–64, on the registers of the Borough (Walworth Road) Employment Exchange, with claims admitted for insurance benefit, and 3,103 with applications authorised for unemployment allowances (exclusive of allowances in supplementation of benefit).
    Mr. Day: Are the figures complete up to that date?
    Mr. Brown: Certainly they are.
    Mr. Day: Do they include juveniles under 18 years of age?
    Mr. Brown: They include people between the ages of 16 and 64.

    DISABLED EX-SERVICE MEN.
    Mr. Burkeasked the Minister of Labour how many disabled ex-service men are employed under the King's National Roll scheme; how many are registered as unemployed in Burnley; and whether these figures compare favourably with figures for other Lancashire boroughs?
    Mr. E. Brown: On 3rd April, 1939, 322,218 disabled ex-service men were employed by members of the King's National Roll. On the same date, 173 disabled ex-service men registered as unemployed in the Burnley area. I am not in a position to make such an assessment of the various factors as would be necessary for answering the last part of the question.
    Mr. Burke: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether employers generally are complying with the terms which entitled them originally to be placed on the Roll?
    Mr. Brown: There can be no doubt that the response to this demand continuously since it was first organised has been overwhelmingly favourable.

    BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
    Mr. Burkeasked the Minister of Labour whether he has now completed the inquiry into the non-payment of benefit to young girls of Burnley who declined to accept employment 170 miles from home; and what payments have been made to these persons for the last five weeks?
    Mr. E. Brown: I have written to the hon. Member giving him the latest information available. If there is any further point that he desires to raise, perhaps he would be good enough to communicate with me further. I will ascertain and let him have, as soon as possible, the information requested in the last part of the question.
    Mr. Burke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this communication only reached me after a long delay? If "as soon as possible" on this occasion means another five weeks, does it mean that for another period of five weeks these girls are to be left to be kept by the local authority?
    Mr. Brown: This matter is not quite so simple as that. As the hon. Member will be aware, there are now five cases outstanding which are sub judice, and in these circumstances I could not give the hon. Member the information.

    RESIDENTIAL INSTRUCTIONAL CENTRES.
    Mr. Dayasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons admitted during the 12 months ended the last convenient date to the residential instructional centres started in 1929; and how, according to his latest report, these camps, in cluding the various types of training, differ from the civilian conservation camps that have been established in the United States of America?
    Mr. E. Brown: The number of men admitted to the residential instructional centres during the 12 months ended 30th April, 1939, was 22,112; The main differences between these centres and the Civil Conservation Corps camps are the age limits for entry, the method of organisation, the size of the scheme and the length and scope of the training. The age limits for the instructional centres are 18 to 45, whereas for the Civilian Conservation Corps camps they are 17 to 23, except for a small proportion of war veterans. The organisation in America is

    1591
    in the hands of the Army, whereas here it is under the Ministry of Labour. The number of men in training at any one time here is from 3,000 to 5,000, whereas in America there are from 300,000 to 400,000. The length of the course here is three months, whereas in America it is six months, with the possibility of extension to two years if the trainee wishes. In the instructional centres there is a certain amount of workshop training, but the bulk of the work is road and bridge making, together with a certain amount of work on forestry plantations, all carried out on the estates of the Forestry Commission. In America, outdoor work includes also afforestation, land reclamation, as well as technical education and workshop training. In America, however, the Civilian Conservation Corps camps form the only scheme in operation. Here, in addition to the residential instructional centres, there is the scheme of Government training centres, where intensive courses of workshop training are given.
    Mr. Day: Is any allowance made to the men's dependants during the time that the men are in camp?
    Mr. Brown: I think the hon. Member had better put that question down.

  DOMESTIC WORKERS, HOTELS AND BOARDING HOUSES.
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Labour whether he will make inquiries of seaside resorts to discover whether proprietors of boarding houses anticipate a shortage of domestic servants during the holiday season, with a view to granting temporary permits to refugees to undertake such employment under reasonable conditions?
  Mr. E. Brown: The inquiries which I have made do not indicate that this year the shortage of staff for hotels and boarding houses is likely to be greater than is usually experienced during holiday seasons. In these circumstances I can see no reason for departing from the general rule that permission should not be granted for the employment of foreigners, whether refugees or not, as domestic workers in hotels and boarding houses.
  Mr. Sorensen: While appreciating the reasons advanced by the right hon. Gentleman, might I ask whether where there
  1592
  is a proved shortage of necessary domestic servants it is not desirable to grant a temporary permit?
  Mr. Brown: I should not like to do that in the case of a rule of very long standing, very well-understood in the industry. The House will understand that one of the issues is that of conditions, and I would not like to give an answer under a rule of that kind.
  Mr. Sorensen: Would the right hon. Gentleman distinguish between hotels on the one hand and boarding houses on the other, and would he take my assurance that there is a shortage of domestic servants in boarding houses?
  Mr. Brown: That may be so, but that does not seem any valid reason why we should depart from a well-established rule unless all the other conditions of the rule are satisfied.
  Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Would my right hon. Friend consider in what way the suggestion would help us to deal with the general problem?
  Mr. Brown: This is the natural difficulty about seasonal workers. As my hon. Friend knows, we make very special efforts through the exchanges for this type of worker.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: Would not it be easier to solve this problem if the conditions of employment were better?
  Mr. Brown: I have pointed out that that is one of the issues I have to consider.

  CLOTHING TRADE, WEST RIDING.
  Mr. T. Smithasked the Minister of Labour in which part of the West Riding there is a shortage of female labour in the clothing trade, and the extent of the shortage?
  Mr. E. Brown: A shortage of female workers and particularly of skilled workers in the clothing trade is general over the whole of the trade in the West Riding. The places mainly affected are Leeds and Huddersfield.
  Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman doing anything to get unskilled labour trained in this job?
  Mr. Brown: I do not think that we have a department for that particular work, but I would not like to be quite sure.

  TRADE DISPUTE, WOOLSTON, LIVERPOOL.
  Mr. Charles Brownasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the dispute at the hosiery works of Messrs. Howard, Ford and Company, Bear Brand works, at Woolston, Liverpool; whether he can state the reason for the dispute; and whether he intends using the machinery of the Ministry of Labour to bring the dispute to an end?
  Mr. E. Brown: I am aware of this dispute, which is understood to have arisen in connection with questions of wages and recognition of the union, of which a number of the firm's skilled operatives are members. My Department has been in communication with both parties to the dispute, and the hon. Member may be assured that all possible assistance will be given with a view to assisting towards a settlement.

  CIVIL DEFENCE.

    AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS, NEWPORT (MONMOUTHSHIRE).
    Mr. A. Jenkinsasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been directed to the difficult situation that has arisen in Newport, Monmouthshire, as a consequence of the instructions issued to local offices to the effect that only persons between the ages of 18 and 30 are to be recruited for air-raid precautions work; whether he has considered the communication from the Newport Air-Raid Precautions Organising Committee on this subject; and what steps he proposes to take to remove the difficulties existing in that town, and the damage that is being done to the organising of air-raid precautions activities?
    Mr. E. Brown: The instructions which have been issued by my Department relate to the recruitment of men for certain constructional work in connection with the making of trenches and the erection of shelters. The purpose of the instruction was to secure, in accordance with representations that have been made to me continuously in this House and elsewhere, that in the performance of this work a preference was to be given, as between applicants who are otherwise equally suitable for the work, to those who have been longest unemployed, and particularly to the long-term unemployed in the younger age groups, for whom a spell of regular
    1594
    work would be especially valuable. With regard to the suggestion made by the Newport Air-Raid Precautions Organising Committee that this work should be given to A.R.P. volunteers, the hon. Member will appreciate, from what I have just said, that the instruction does not prevent the employment of unemployed A.R.P. volunteers upon the work. As regards this matter generally, I would add that it would be my desire that the instructions, which are elastic in their nature, should be applied in each area with due regard to local circumstances.
    Mr. Jenkins: Has the right hon. Gentleman received a communication on the lines of this question from the Air-Raid Precautions Committee; and, if he has, has he replied to it in the terms of his present answer?
    Mr. Brown: I am not sure that I have had a direct communication, but I have been informed about the matter. I will look into it and let the hon. Member know.

    EVACUATION.
    Mrs. Adamsonasked the Minister of Health the reason for classifying Gravesend as a neutral area; and whether, in view of the proximity of the big Tilbury Docks, extensive petrol dumps, large armament works, and Woolwich Arsenal, he will reconsider this matter with a view to classifying Gravesend as an evacuation area?
    Miss Wardasked the Minister of Health whether he can now state what boundaries have been fixed for the area to be evacuated on Tyneside?
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): I propose to make a general statement covering the country as a whole in reply to a later question, and would ask the hon. Members to await this statement.
    Miss Wardasked the Minister of Health whether he will assure the House that it is his policy to use, within the general scheme for evacuation, large occupied houses for billeting children; and the percentage of the total available accommodation provided by houses taking four children and upwards?
    Mr. Elliot: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Information as to the second part of the question is not available.
    Miss Ward: In view of the fact that there appears to have been some misunderstanding, could my right hon. Friend say whether the same provisions apply to Scotland?
    Mr. Elliot: I could not answer questions relating to Scotland.
    Mr. Gallacher: You never could.
    Mr. Kirbyasked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the representations made by various local authorities as to their classification for the purposes of the Government evacuation scheme; and whether he is now in a position to make any statement on this matter?
    Mr. Elliot: I must apologise for taking up the time of the House while I read the answer, which is somewhat long.
    Yes, Sir. I have considered this matter in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal. Our desire has always been that every practicable effort should be made to get the maximum number of children, whatever their circumstances, from congested areas to safer conditions. I am satisfied that there are certain towns, in addition to those now covered by existing plans, for which, a measure of evacuation should, if practicable, be carried out. In this connection I have also considered the representations made by a number of authorities to the effect that their districts are not suitable as reception areas. I have decided that the following districts should not be required to act as receiving areas under present conditions:

    Boroughs.—Chesterfield, Dover, Goole, Hedon, Rugby, Scunthorpe.

    Urban Districts.—Bolsover, Dronfield, Leyland, Staveley.

    I recognise that a number of other districts, by reason of their position, or their proximity to works of military importance, may be considered to be open to criticism as receiving areas. We cannot, however, escape from the fact that in this small and industrialised country, under the possible conditions of air warfare, safety is only relative. But clearly, even with these disadvantages, the reception areas offer a much better chance of safety than many districts in which children now live. I am sure that those authorities who have quite properly put before me what appear to them the disadvantages of their districts as receiving areas, will recognise the force of this view.
    1596
    I am happy to say that, after allowing for the reduction mentioned, a margin of accommodation remains potentially available for the extension of the evacuation scheme to certain other areas not covered by present plans. It will be appreciated that the extent to which plans for additional areas can be worked out depends on a number of factors, but I intend to review the following:

    County Boroughs.—Coventry, Derby, Grimsby, Middlesbrough, Nottingham, Rotherham, South Shields, Sunderland, Tynemouth and West Hartlepool.

    Boroughs.—Hartlepool, Jarrow and Wallsend.

    Urban Districts.—Felling, Hebburn and Whickham.

    There are, in addition, portions of certain areas on Thames side or on the borders of the Metropolitan evacuation area, and also in the neighbourhood of Birmingham, which will be included in the review.
    Other towns not included in this list have made representations that their areas should be evacuated. I have examined the case that they have put up with great care, and willingness to respond to their appeal if it were possible, but have been forced to the conclusion, in view of all the factors, that further extensions of evacuation plans, beyond what I have already stated, are impracticable.
    I have instructed my officers to take up forthwith with the local authorities concerned the question of working out plans for the areas under review. It will, of course, be understood that until detailed plans for any additional areas and arrangements for putting them into effect can be worked out, the present evacuation plans stand without modification.
    I should like to pay tribute here to all those, both in evacuating and receiving areas, and especially the latter, who are working so hard, and showing so fine a spirit, in their efforts to ensure the safety of the youth of our nation.
    Mr. Kirby: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his very informative reply, will he be good enough to get in touch with the local authorities concerned as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Elliot: Yes, Sir, I am getting in touch with them forthwith.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any representations from certain industrial areas in South Wales, and have they been considered?
    Mr. Elliot: I have, as I say, received representations from other areas, but I am afraid that this reply must be taken as final.
    Mr. Griffiths: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain what are the reasons why every port in the Bristol Channel except Port Nevin has been scheduled as neutral?
    Mr. Elliot: I am afraid that it would not be possible to go into details of every question in addition to the rather long statement which I have made.
    Miss Ward: Is not the Minister aware that he has been reviewing this question since February, and may we have the result of the review, which was the purpose of my original question?
    Mr. Elliot: I think that my hon. Friend will realise that it is impossible to give a statement on one area without the other, and judging by the length of the list I have given to the House, it will be seen that it is not an undue length of time to spend on a review of what is a very important matter.
    Miss Ward: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter for the second time on the Adjournment.
    Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyteasked the Minister of Health what arrangements he is making for the supply of mattresses or palliasses and blankets for women and children who are moved into reception areas under the Government evacuation schemes?
    Mr. Elliot: The Government are ordering considerable supplies of blankets and bedding for use in the reception areas, to supplement the present resources of these districts. Arrangements for distribution and storage which will be on a basis of decentralisation are now being worked out.

    CAMPS.
    Mr. Denvilleasked the Minister of Health whether tenders or inquiries were received or invited from contractors on the North-East Coast for the erection of new camps, permanent or otherwise?
    Mr. Elliot: I understand that the National Camps Corporation, Limited, invited tenders from three firms on the North-East Coast, but none was received.
    Mr. Denville: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the date?
    Mr. Elliot: I certainly could not give it now, but I am perfectly willing to discuss the matter with my hon. Friend.

    FIRE BRIGADES ACT, 1938.
    Mr. J. Griffithsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that local authorities in the depressed areas of Wales are seriously concerned about the increasing rate burden involved in carrying out the provisions of the Fire Brigades Act, 1938, and other air-raid precautionary measures; and whether he will consider measures to grant further financial assistance to them to ease this burden?
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): My right hon. Friend has received a number of resolutions from local authorities in Wales, with reference to the increased expenditure falling on the rates under the Fire Brigades Act, 1938, and, as regards this part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to a question by the hon. Member for the Sedgefield Division of Durham (Mr. Leslie) on 25th April last. My right hon. Friend understands that, in exceptional circumstances, the Commissioner for the Special Areas (England and Wales) is prepared to consider applications for grants from the Special Areas Fund towards the cost of works for improving the fire fighting services of local authorities in the Special Areas. As regards the air-raid precautionary measures, substantial percentage grants are available from the Exchequer in respect of the approved expenditure of local authorities on their emergency measures, in addition to fire fighting appliances and equipment which are placed at their disposal by the Government for emergency use. My right hon. Friend can hold out no prospect of supplementary financial assistance from the Exchequer for these purposes.
    Mr. Griffiths: Has the hon. Member considered whether it is possible to consider an extension of the existing grant to areas outside the depressed areas?
    Mr. Peake: That is rather a wider question, and I could not answer it without notice.
    Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Does my, hon. Friend realise the hardship which is caused to the smaller local authorities by this extra expense and will he not reconsider his refusal to make a grant towards it?
    Mr. Peake: I am afraid that I cannot add anything to my previous answer.
    Sir Joseph Nall: May I ask whether the Home Office are taking steps in allocating these grants to ensure that a standard type of equipment is being used so that it will be interchangeable between districts?
    Mr. Peake: We do not allocate grants for equipment at all, and, therefore, it is not within our power to carry out the suggestion of the hon. Member.

  EDUCATION.

    SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE.
    Mr. Kennedyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he will assure the House that there is no intention on the part of the Government to suspend the decision reached making provision for the compulsory attendance of children at school until the age of 15 years?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): The Education Act, 1936, provides for the raising of the school-leaving age to 15 on 1st September, 1939. The Government have no intention of introducing legislation to vary this provision.

    PRIVATE SCHOOLS.
    Mr. Markhamasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether, in accordance with the requirements of the Education Act, 1918,persons desirous of opening private schools give prior information of intention to the Board; and whether, in cases of non-compliance, any action is taken by the Board?
    Mr. Lindsay: The Education Act, 1921, which consolidates the provisions of previous Acts, imposes no statutory obligation upon persons desirous of opening private schools to give prior information to the Board. The last part of the question, therefore, does not arise.
    Mr. Markham: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary think it advisable that prior information should be given in all instances?
    Mr. Lindsay: That raises the whole question of legislation with regard to private schools, on which I have given an answer on previous occasions.
    Mr. Markhamasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education to what extent local authorities exercise powers to compel persons desirous of opening private schools for children under the statutory school age to register such institutions; and how many local education authorities have made use of such powers?
    Mr. Lindsay: I am unaware of any provision conferring upon a local authority powers to compel persons desirous of opening private schools to register such institutions.
    Mr. Leach: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the introduction of legislation with that object?
    Mr. Lindsay: As I have said on a previous occasion, there was a recommendation in the Spens Report to that effect, and it is one of the questions which have to be discussed between the Board and the local education authorities.
    Mr. Lipson: Is it not a fact that some local authorities visit private schools?
    Mr. Lindsay: There is one local education authority which makes special provision with regard to ventilation and questions of that kind, but otherwise there are no special powers.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the introduction of such legislation might prevent the setting up of schools of an experimental character?
    Mr. Lindsay: I think there is that danger, and that is one of the thorny points.

    SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS (UNIVERSITY ENTRANTS).
    Mr. Markhamasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what proportion of university students are now drawn from State-aided secondary schools; and what are the specific figures for Oxford and Cambridge and for other universities respectively?
    Mr. Lindsay: I regret that complete figures relating to the secondary school origin of students at the universities are not available; but a forthcoming publication of the University Grants Committee will contain the numbers of students who began their education in a public elementary school.
    Mr. Markham: Can my hon. Friend say when this publication will be available?
    Mr. Lindsay: I think it ought to be available in about a month.
    Mr. Annerley Somerville: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say what is the proportion of such students at the universities?
    Mr. Lindsay: There are certain gaps, so I cannot give an actual figure, but it is about a third.
    Mr. Markham: Does that include all entrants to the universities, or only full-time students?
    Mr. Lindsay: It includes full-time students at universities in Great Britain who have come from State-aided secondary schools.

    CHURCH OF ENGLAND SCHOOL, RAMSGATE.
    Mr. Thorneasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he can give any information in connection with the unhealthy school at Manton, Kent, and what protests he has received from the mothers of the children who attend the school?
    Mr. Lindsay: I have seen a reference in the Press to alleged unsatisfactory sanitary accommodation and insufficient heating at the Ramsgate, St. Lawrence Extra Church of England School, which I presume is the school to which the hon. Member refers. I have, however, received no protests from mothers of children attending the school. I am making inquiries, and can assure the hon. Member that prompt steps will be taken to remedy any defects that may be found.
    Mr. Thorne: If I put the question down next week, will the hon. Gentleman be able to give me an answer?
    Mr. Lindsay: Perhaps in two weeks.

    SECONDARY SCHOOLS (SPECIAL PLACES).
    Mr. Gordon Macdonaldasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of
    1602
    Education whether he is aware that there are a number of local education authorities where the percentage of special places in secondary schools is less than 25; and what action is being taken by the Board to bring about an improvement in such areas?
    Mr. Lindsay: Under Article 14 (c) of the Regulations for Secondary Schools the number of special places to be awarded in any school year is subject to a prescribed minimum limit, namely, 25 per cent. of the total number of admissions in the previous school year, or such other limit as may be approved by the Board. In a few areas the percentage may fall below 25, owing to the approval, in the case of certain individual schools, of a lower minimum limit, but I have no evidence that the schools are not complying with the requirements of the Regulations.
    Mr. T. Smith: How many education authorities are not fulfilling the regulation as to 25 per cent.; and is it a fact that one of the Ridings in Yorkshire is among them?
    Mr. Lindsay: There are four, and the East Riding is one. But there are only four, and in one case—Rutland—there are exceptional circumstances. The figure for the East Riding is 22.9 per cent.
    Mr. Smith: Has the Department taken the matter up with the East Riding authority?
    Mr. Lindsay: I am not sure that it has been taken up, but I will see that it is.
    Mr. Poole: Who are the other two?
    Mr. Lindsay: One is the Soke of Peterborough, and the other is Exeter.

  WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  Mr. James Griffithsasked the Minister of Health the number of widows who have lost their pensions on account of their youngest child reaching the age of 16 years; what would be the annual cost of restoring their pensions; and whether, having regard to the hardship caused by depriving these widows of their pensions, he will amend the Act so as to restore their pensions?
  Mr. Elliot: It is estimated that the number of widows in Great Britain who, having ceased to be entitled to pensions on the youngest child attain-

  1603
  ing the specified age, will again become entitled if and when they attain the age of 55, provided they have not remarried, is in the neighbourhood of 30,000, and that the annual cost of restoring their pensions would be about £750,000. I am afraid that I cannot undertake to introduce legislation to make pensions payable, in cases where it has lapsed, for these widows at an earlier age than 55, which is the present age.
  Mr. Griffiths: In view of the comparatively small cost to the Exchequer of these restorations and the fact that these people are having to fall back upon public assistance, will the right hon. Gentleman not reconsider his decision and restore the pensions?
  Mr. Elliot: I cannot undertake to go any further than the Labour Government went.

  HOUSING.

    SPECIAL AREAS.
    Mr. Whiteleyasked the Minister of Health whether he is prepared to arrange for the same terms to be provided for local authorities in the Special Areas similar to that received by housing associations from the Special Commissioner?
    Mr. Elliot: No, Sir. The financial arrangements between the Exchequer and local authorities in respect of Housing were settled by Parliament only last year, and I see no reason to anticipate the review of those arrangements, which by Statute is fixed to take place after the beginning of October, 1941.
    Mr. Whiteley: Are we to understand from that reply that those local authorities who have not been assisted by housing associations are to be forced to find the whole of the money out of local rates.
    Mr. Elliot: Those local authorities who have not taken advantage of the special arrangements will, of course, not receive the advantage of them.
    Mr. Whiteley: Why is it that the Minister cannot give directly to these local authorities the same assistance as is given by the commissioner?
    Mr. Elliot: These are questions that should be discussed when the legislation is introduced.
    Mr. Craven-Ellis: How is it that the Local Loans Fund has recently charged a higher rate of interest on loans to local authorities?

    SLUM CLEARANCE.
    Mr. Ritsonasked the Minister of Health whether he is prepared to undertake additional expenditure on the demolition of unfit houses and the alleviation of overcrowding in order to relieve the rates of local authorities who are engaged in an endeavour fully to meet a national problem?
    Mr. Elliot: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) on 3rd May, of which I am sending him a

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Mr. Tinkerasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that Tyldesley Urban District Council have carried a resolution asking the Government to pass legislation to increase the old age pension and that other local authorities have done the same; and how many resolutions on this matter have been sent to him?
  Mr. Elliot: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. During the past 12 months 334 local authorities have forwarded to me copies of resolutions on this matter.
  Mr. Tinker: Has the right hon. Gentleman forwarded the resolutions to the Prime Minister?
  Mr. Elliot: All these matters are brought before, not only the Prime Minister but the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. Lawson: Does the Chancellor take any notice of them?
  Mr. Elliot: Yes, I am sure he reads them.
  Mr. Tinker: Has the Prime Minister made any remarks about them to the right hon. Gentleman?

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    ULLSWATER (POLLUTION).
    Mr. Edmund Harveyasked the Minister of Health whether his Department will be represented at the conference which is being arranged by the

    1605
    directors of the Basinghall Mining Syndicate with representatives of the Lakes Urban Council, the Friends of the Lake District, and others to consider the question of the pollution of Ullswater by the discharge of lead-mining effluent into the lake?
    Mr. Elliot: No, Sir. The primary responsibility for the prevention of pollution rests with the local authorities under the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, and, in view of my judicial functions under that Act, I could not appropriately take any part in the matter at the present stage.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Does not this abuse really prove the necessity of making national parks? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider now whether he can carry through the Royal Commission's Report for 1931?
    Mr. Elliot: That does not arise out of this question.
    Mr. Hannah: Has my right hon. Friend's Department any jurisdiction?

    PORT MEDICAL OFFICERS.
    Mr. Benjamin Smithasked the Minister of Health what regulations have been made under the Public Health Act, 1936, regarding the qualifications, duties, mode of appointment, terms of salary and tenure of office of medical officers of health and sanitary officers of port health districts, and regarding the submission of reports and returns?
    Mr. Elliot: These matters are governed as regards port health districts outside London by the Sanitary Officers (Outside London) Regulations, 1935, which were made under the Local Government Act, 1933. I am sending to the hon. Member a copy of the regulations and of the instructions which have been issued by my Department as to the form of the medical officer of health's annual report.

    TYPHOID, NOTTINGHAM.
    Mr. Liddallasked the Minister of Health with reference to the recent typhoid outbreak at Nottingham, what foodstuffs were found by his officers or the local medical officer of health to be suspect, either because of general consumption by the affected persons or otherwise?
    Mr. Elliot: As I have already stated, it has not been possible to identify any particular foodstuff as responsible for the outbreak, and I do not think that any public purpose would be served by enumerating several varieties of foodstuffs, of which one or more may have been involved.
    Mr. Liddall: Why cannot these poor people be given the information that the Ministry and the corporation have obtained, so that they may see what liability exists as between the corporation and the suppliers?
    Mr. Levy: Has the Department called for a report with regard to the water supply at Nottingham?
    Mr. Liddallasked the Minister of Health whether, as the local authority have refused to give any information which is in their possession to the affected persons of the recent typhoid outbreak in Nottingham, he will now take steps to see that all such information should be furnished to them as and when requested?
    Mr. Elliot: I have no power to give any directions to the local authority in this matter.
    Mr. Liddall: Is my right hon. Friend not aware of the unfairness of this position, and cannot he make the request in the interests of the ratepayers affected?
    Mr. Elliot: I think the interests of the ratepayers form the first care of the local authorities.

    ADMINISTRATION, WALES.
    Mr. Jenkinsasked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the terms of a resolution adopted at a meeting of the citizens of Newport, Monmouthshire, presided over by the mayor, calling the attention of the Government to the low standard of public health administration in certain areas in the Principality, and asking that early action be taken to reform local government areas with a view to making them more efficient; and what action he proposes to take to give effect to the terms of the resolution?
    Mr. Elliot: I have received a copy of this resolution. The matters raised in it will need to be reviewed as part of the full consideration of the report on the anti-tuberculosis service in Wales and Monmouth, on which I am in communication with the local authorities.

  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (DEWSBURY).
  Mr. Rileyasked the Minister of Health the number of persons in Dewsbury receiving public assistance benefit for the last week in March, 1939, and the total cost of such assistance?
  Mr. Elliot: I regret that the information is not available in the exact form asked for by the hon. Member. The average number of persons in receipt of out-relief in money and kind in Dewsbury County Borough during the four weeks ending 25th March, 1939, was 885, and the average weekly cost of the relief was £341.

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES' EXPENDITURE.
  Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Minister of Health whether he will send a memorandum to all local authorities calling attention to the fact that, owing to the necessity of increased expenditure for the defence of the country and of maintaining the principles of liberty and freedom, it is impossible, in these circumstances, to increase expenditure of any kind, and, while maintaining social services as efficiently as possible, to economise even to the extent of rescinding decisions already taken where the work, if not of vital importance, has not yet been put in hand?
  Mr. Elliot: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 9th May. I do not contemplate the issue of a memorandum, as suggested, to local authorities.
  Sir W. Smithers: May I take it that the right hon. Gentleman will do all in his power to implement the policy laid down by the Chancellor in his Budget speech, that no major addition to internal expenditure is, in the present circumstances, possible?
  Mr. Elliot: There is a close relationship between my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself.
  Mr. Wedgwood Benn: How long will it be before the Government have to yield to the pressure from their back benchers to make them reduce the social services?

  PROPOSED STEEL WORKS, EDALE.
  Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Health whether he is yet ready to make a statement concerning the preservation of Edale; and can the public generally be assured that this area will be protected against any industrial encroachment?
  Mr. Elliot: As regards the first part of the question, I have as yet nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) on Friday last. As regards the second part, I have already stated in answer to previous questions that a planning scheme is being prepared by the Peak Joint Committee which will cover this area.
  Mr. Bossom: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this was scheduled as a rural zone by a general interim order, that the application was made without plans, and that the rural district council did not apply to the Peak Joint Planning Committee for permission; and cannot he take action to prevent this?
  Mr. Elliot: The action taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air and myself is, as I think is well known, progressing favourably, and my hon. Friend may rest assured that everything possible is being done.
  Mr. Lipson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is a time limit within which town planning schemes are presented?
  Mr. Elliot: I cannot say without notice.
  Mr. Ridley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are other parts of the same county suffering from acute unemployment?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the Minister say whether building operations are going on, as reported last week, or have they been suspended?
  Mr. Elliot: I understand that no building operations are going on. A certain number of levels were being taken, and that work, I believe, has come to an end. The stones reported in the district have nothing to do with the building operations of these works.
  Mr. G. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask them to bring these works to the Hemsworth division?

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING.
  Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the suggestion of the Town and Country Planning Advisory Committee, in their report on the Preservation of the Countryside, that where a local authority gives permission for interim development without taking the advice of the joint planning committee, a special interim development order may be issued giving control to the county council; how many such orders have been issued; and whether he will issue such an order in the Peak district?
  Mr. Elliot: I am aware of the suggestion to which my hon. Friend refers. It has not yet been found necessary to make a special interim development order on the grounds mentioned. I am not satisfied that such an order is desirable in the Peak district.
  Mr. Keeling: Will my right hon. Friend consider issuing a circular to local authorities generally drawing their attention to the fact that he has the right to take away their interim planning powers if they do not use them properly?
  Mr. Elliot: Yes, Sir, I am ready to consider that.

  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Prime Minister whether in view of the urgency of providing equipment for the conscripts to be called up on 30th June, he will consider investing the Minister of Supply designate with certain immediate powers pending the introduction of the Bill constituting a Ministry of Supply?
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): No, Sir. The hon. and gallant Member should understand that every precaution is being taken to see that progress with the necessary expansion of Army supply is not interrupted by the creation of a Ministry of Supply.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is not the case that the Government decided to constitute a Ministry of Supply in order to cope with the situation created by the decision to double the Territorial Force, and since it has now been decided to enrol conscript forces, is it not doubly
  1610
  necessary that the Ministry should be constituted and function without delay?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I quite agree with that, but the question which the hon. and gallant Member put to me was whether I would consider investing the Minister of Supply with powers. As far as I know I have no power to do that except by the introduction of another Bill.
  Sir Percy Harris: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Minister and his staff are carrying out their duties in anticipation of the Bill?
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is carrying out such duties as he can in anticipation of the Bill, which I hope may be introduced almost immediately after the Whitsun Recess.
  Mr. Gallacher: You have not got your conscripts yet.

  MINISTERS (SHAREHOLDINGS).
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Prime Minister what is the rule concerning the holding by Members of the Government of shares in undertakings the operations of which may be affected by Government policy?
  The Prime Minister: There is no such rule.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it not the case that if a Member of this House, who is a partner in a private firm which is contracting with the Government, votes on a matter affecting that contract, he is liable to a penalty; and, if that is so, what is the position of a member of the Government who is a director of a type of company which is controlling a public company which is contracting with the Government?
  The Prime Minister: That appears to be a complicated question, and perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will put it down.
  Mr. Gallacher: Is the Prime Minister aware that if such a Member sat on a local authority he would be liable to prosecution?

  MILITARY TRAINING BILL.
  Mr. Dingle Footasked the Prime Minister (1) whether he is aware that in consequence of the Guillotine pro-

  1611
  cedure many important amendments to the Military Training Bill were not discussed, and that the House was obliged to come to a decision upon certain Clauses of the Bill without any debate; whether he has considered the recommendation of the Select Committee on Procedure that the Kangaroo closure is preferable to the Guillotine; and whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to give effect to this recommendation in future;
  (2) whether he has considered the recommendation of the Select Committee on Procedure that, when the Guillotine procedure is employed, the allocation of time for the Report stage should not be made until the Committee stage has been completed; and whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to give effect to this recommendation in future?
  The Prime Minister: In drawing up the Time-table for the Military Training Bill the Government endeavoured to secure reasonable opportunity within the time available for the discussion of the important points arising in connection with the Bill. I am not quite clear as to what the hon. Member means by the use of the term "Kangaroo closure." If he is referring to the power to closure specified words in a clause, commonly called "Kangaroo closure," I would remind him that the Procedure Committee of 1931–32 recommended its abolition; if, on the other hand he is referring to the power to select Amendments, sometimes called the "Kangaroo," he will find that the Committee, while agreed that in modern conditions the use of the Guillotine was inevitable, expressed a preference for the use of the power of selection. Standing Order No. 28 (Selection of Amendments) is always in force during the proceedings on Bills, and in the case of the Military Training Bill a Time-table Motion was decided upon because it was considered that the normal exercise of this power by the Chair, as well as the ordinary use of the closure, would be inadequate to secure the passage of the Bill by the required date.
  As regards the allocation of time for the Report, the recommendation of the Committee was conditional upon the Guillotine becoming the normal practice for all Bills. In the case of the Military Training and Reserve Forces Bills owing to
  1612
  the shortness of time it was impracticable to defer the allocation of time for the Report until the Committee stage of the Bill had been concluded. Bills have been passed in recent years under voluntary Time-tables or by arrangement with parties and hon. Members specially interested in the Measures, and it is the intention of the Government to adopt this method whenever possible.
  Mr. Foot: Did not the Select Committee on Procedure say that, although the use of the Guillotine under modern conditions was inevitable, the Kangaroo closure is preferable, and is it not clear that I was using the term "Kangaroo closure" in my question in the same sense as it was used by the Select Committee on Procedure?
  The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member will read carefully the passage in question he will see that the Kangaroo closure was not used by the Committee in the sense that he thinks it was.
  Mr. Charles Williams: Did not the Government really give too much time?
  Sir Nairne Stewart-Sandeman: Is it not a fact that if those who are opposing the Bill would only put their heads together, as we did on the India Bill, there would have been time for discussing all important Amendments?

  STATELESS ALIENS.
  Wing-Commander Jamesasked the Home Secretary what steps he proposes to take to meet the increasing problem of alien persons who, upon conviction in the courts and recommendation for deportation, are found to be Stateless and thus have to remain as a burden upon this country?
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): While I fully recognise the importance of this point, I think the extent of the difficulty is likely to be exaggerated by the fact that while publicity is frequently given to cases where undesirable aliens cannot be deported, it is seldom given to cases where deportation is effected. In the 16 months ended 30th April, 1939, there have been 216 deportation orders and 23 cases where it was not possible to make such orders owing to the alien being.

  1613
  Stateless. The only remedy is to exercise the greatest possible care as regards the admission of Stateless persons, and this has been the policy of recent years.
  Miss Rathbone: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the return of these Stateless persons to their country of origin would mean the certainty of their death or permanent imprisonment, and is he not aware that the public of this country would prefer a greater application of leniency rather than of stringency in dealing with these persons?
  Wing-Commander James: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the question relates to persons who have been convicted?
  Viscountess Astor: Is is not true that a great many people in this country want desirable aliens here, but they are very much against having Communists?

  PENSIONS (CERTIFICATIONS).
  Mr. R. C. Morrisonasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that it is difficult for many persons, and particularly applicants for old age pensions, when filling up their forms, to find a qualified person willing to witness their signature; and will he add to the present list of qualified persons, members of local authorities?
  Mr. Elliot: The hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension, since the present list of qualified persons does include any member of a local authority. The present list is very extensive, and an applicant for pension should ordinarily have no difficulty in securing the certification of his claim, but I should be glad to have particulars of any case which the hon. Member has in mind.

  MOTOR CAR REGULATIONS, BIRMINGHAM.
  Mr. Pooleasked the Home Secretary under what authority the police of the City of Birmingham affix adhesive paper to private motor cars left in the streets of the city?
  Sir S. Hoare: I have made inquiries and am informed that it has been the practice for some years for the police in Birmingham to affix to the tread of one
  1614
  tyre of a motor car found standing in the streets a small thin piece of easily removable adhesive paper marked with the date and time of affixing, which are also noted in the constable's notebook. This system was adopted with the approval of the watch committee as a means of reducing the nuisance caused by the parking of vehicles in the narrow streets of the city.
  Mr. Poole: May I ask whether the police have any statutory authority to do this, and is it not an interference with the private rights of citizens?
  Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir. I am told that it is for their convenience. As to statutory power, there is no statutory power against it.
  Mr. Poole: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no fewer than 4,717 persons in 1938 suffered convictions through this pernicious, persecuting method of affixing adhesive paper to motor cars which, after all, are the private property of individuals, and will he suggest to the chief constable of Birmingham that the police would be better employed in the detection of real crime, rather than in further harassing a very severely taxed section of the community?
  Sir S. Hoare: I will certainly give attention to what the hon. Member has just brought to my notice, particularly as he evidently speaks with great experience. I have no reason to think that there is any feeling of grievance generally in the City of Birmingham on this matter.
  Mr. Poole: If I supply the right hon. Gentleman with evidence of very considerable grievance, will he consider it?
  Sir S. Hoare

  REFUGEES.
  Sir Arnold Wilsonasked the Home Secretary how many refugee children of Spanish nationality are still in this country; and whether he will now take steps to expedite their repatriation in view of the known willingness of the Spanish Government to receive them and to provide for their future welfare?
  Sir S. Hoare: I have been in consultation with the National Joint Committee for Spanish Relief who are responsible for the Basque children in this country, and the committee tell me that they have

  1615
  been taking and will continue to take active steps to repatriate as many of these children as possible. Of the total of nearly 4,000 who originally came, about 2,500 have gone back and another 400 are leaving on 21st May. The remaining 1,100 are, I understand, mostly children whose parents are refugees in France or whose whereabouts are unknown, and while the committee does not feel that it would be right at the moment to divest itself of its responsibilities for these children, the committee is continuing its efforts to get into touch with parents and relatives with a view to the return of children to their care whenever practicable.
  Mr. W. Roberts: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many more of these children would already have returned if the Spanish Government had been willing at any time to give facilities for representatives of the committee to visit the parts of the country from which the children came?
  Sir Joseph Lamb: Would it be possible for us to have a microphone for use in the House, as certain hon. Members cannot be heard?
  Sir S. Hoare: In answer to the hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts), I must say that I have no information to that effect.
  Miss Wilkinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the treatment meted out by the Spanish Government to these refugees who have gone there is not such as to encourage any humanitarian person to send people back there?
  Sir S. Hoare: I have no knowledge of that.
  Sir A. Wilsonasked the Home Secretary what restrictions exist respecting the adoption of alien orphan minors by residents in this country; and whether, in view of several cases of improper treatment of refugee children by private persons who volunteered to receive them which have already been reported to and dealt with by refugee organisations, he will take steps to ensure that all such proposals are independently investigated under official auspices?
  Sir S. Hoare: Such information as my Department has about the arrangements
  1616
  for finding homes in this country for refugee children indicates that the voluntary organisations which have undertaken this charitable work take proper precautions to make sure that the people offering to take children are suitable and arrange for subsequent visits to be made to see that the children are being properly looked after. I know of no allegations of improper treatment of such children and shall be glad if my hon. Friend will send me any information he has, so that I may make inquiries.
  Sir A. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in at least 20 cases serious allegations have been made; and, further, is he aware that I put down this question solely in the hope that official organisations such as the police may be enlisted in order to assist the alien refugees organisations?
  Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir; I have made inquiries and I have received no complaints. If the hon. Member will send me any particulars I will look into them.
  Sir A. Wilson: I will gladly do so.
  Colonel Sandemanasked the Home Secretary whether he will consider giving permission to refugees in the future only to enter this country on condition that they work on the land for a minimum period of five years?
  Sir S. Hoare: The majority of refugees at present in this country have been admitted on a temporary basis until they can be emigrated to another country and the question of their employment does not, therefore, arise. A certain number have, however, been permitted to take work in occupations where there is a shortage of applicants, such as domestic service, or where it is advantageous to make use of some special qualifications possessed by the refugee. I think it is best to adhere to the policy which has been consistently followed of dealing with each application on its merits.
  Miss Rathbone: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are a large number of experienced land workers who are longing to get work on the land, and that the effect of the present regulations is that they have to go abroad almost as soon as they have finished their training which results in the farmer losing this labour at a time when it is most valuable?

  PROPAGANDA ORGANISATIONS.
  Mr. Kirbyasked the Home Secretary whether he can give the House a list of the propaganda organisations in this country financed from abroad in the interests of foreign countries and their ideologies, together with the countries involved; and will he take steps to make these organisations illegal?
  Sir S. Hoare: Organisations receiving financial support from abroad are of a very wide variety, covering many phases of commercial and social activity. To the purposes of many of them no objection can be taken. As regards some of them, it is necessary in the public interest to keep a watch on their activities, but it would not be practicable to publish in the form suggested such information as I have about these selected organisations. Legislation for the suppression of every kind of foreign organisation which has some propaganda purpose would not seem to be an appropirate method of effecting the object which the hon. Member presumably has in mind.
  Mr. Kirby: In view of the answer he has given, may I ask whether he is satisfied that every step is being taken by the Home Office and the police in order to put down what I term propaganda organisations who are trying to undermine the State?
  Sir S. Hoare: One is never satisfied about anything, but what we are trying to do is to watch closely the activities of these organisations, and I think on the whole that our machinery is adequate for the purpose.
  Mr. Herbert Morrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman at least consider making public the names of the organisations that depend wholly or in part on financial subsidies from abroad, whatever the nature of the organisation may be?
  Sir S. Hoare: I will look into the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, but on my present information I think it is necessary to draw a distinction between some organisations and others.
  Mr. H. G. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to examine the Bill which was introduced in 1926 to deal with this problem, which the Labour party unanimously opposed?
  Mr. Mander: Would it not be a really useful thing to well-meaning British subjects to have such a list, and so to be put on their guard, so that anyone who is doubtful about a particular organisation can make inquiries from the Home Office and find out whether it is on the list or not?
  Sir A. Wilson: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the result of possible retaliation against the British Council if he does any such thing?

  SHEEP, BARLEY AND OATS (GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS).
  The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:
  Lieut.-Colonel Heneageto ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he can state his plans for dealing with barley, sheep, and oats?
  Mr. Boothbyto ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he can now state the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to sheep, oats and barley?
  Mr. Speaker: It is not the custom to call a Private Notice Question which is similar to a question on the Order Paper which has not been reached. There are two questions, 89 and 91, in the names of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, East (Mr. Boothby) and the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) on which, I understand, the Government are very anxious to make a statement. It may be convenient to the House to put them, but I can only do so by leave of the House.
  Hon. Members: Agreed.
  Mr. Boothby: The sooner we get an answer the better we shall be pelased.
  Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: I, also, am in agreement.
  The Minister of Agriculture (Colonel Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith): The general review of the agricultural situation which was initiated earlier in the year, and the subsequent discussions with the representatives of the farming industry and of other interests, have now reached the stage when the Government are in a position to announce the conclusions at which they have arrived in regard to the application of the principle of price-insurance to sheep, barley and oats.

  1619
  SHEEP: Sheep form an essential feature of the agricultural economy of a large part of the country and past experience suggests the desirability of safeguarding the industry against serious losses such as occurred in 1938. The Government accordingly propose to invite the Livestock Commission to prepare a scheme of price insurance which would provide a deficiency payment from the Exchequer on sheep (excluding ewes and rams) which are presented for sale for slaughter and exceed a prescribed qualifying minimum weight. It is proposed that these deficiency payments should be made in respect of standard weights; that is to say, a given amount per head would be paid in respect of all sheep of the same class eligible for subsidy, irrespective of their actual weights. There would, however, be two different classes of sheep with different qualifying and standard weights, consisting of a lighter class and a heavier class.
  It is proposed that the monthly standard prices for sheep should follow the normal seasonal variations and should be such as will average 10d. Per lb. over the year and that this figure should be related to a total United Kingdom sheep population of 27,000,000, subject to provision being made for varying the standard price in the event of the sheep population rising above this figure or of the standard price being in excess of the market price for two years in succession. To give effect to this provision it is proposed that

  (1)The standard price should be "stepped down" by ⅛d. in relation to successive increases of 250,000 in the total United Kingdom sheep population above 27,000,000 up to a figure of 28,000,000 and by ¼d. for each successive 250,000 thereafter; and

  (2)If the standard price should be for two successive years in excess of the market price, the standard price of 10d. as related to the basic sheep population of 27,000,000 would be scaled down, subject to which all relevant factors, including imports would be considered.

  OATS: On 23rd February I announced that the Government had reached the conclusion that the provisions of the Agriculture Act, 1937, in respect of oats and barley were inadequate and that additional assistance was required by growers
  1620
  of these cereals. The purposes for which these crops are grown are very different and it is accordingly considered that they merit separate treatment in future. Under the Agriculture Act, 1937, growers of oats who receive wheat deficiency payments are debarred from receiving oats subsidy. It is proposed that these growers should be entitled to receive oats subsidy based on 6 cwt. per acre with a maximum payment of £1 per acre.
  Growers of oats who do not receive wheat deficiency payments are entitled at present to receive oats subsidy based on 6 cwt. per acre. It is proposed that these growers should be entitled to receive oats subsidy based on 14 cwt. per acre, with a maximum payment of £2 6s. 8d. per acre. The standard price will be, as at present, 8s. per cwt. and deficiency payments will be calculated according to the difference between the average market price of oats in the United Kingdom during the seven months September-March and this standard price. The average market price in the United Kingdom will be determined by weighting the average prices in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, respectively, according to the acreages in each country qualifying for the higher rate of subsidy.
  It is proposed that the maximum acreage in respect of which the full rate of subsidy will be applied should be 2,500,000 acres, which will be divided as to 1,030,000 acres in respect of growers who take wheat deficiency payments and 1,470,000 acres for non-wheat growers.
  It is proposed that this additional assistance should be applied retrospectively to the 1938 crop, any payments received under the Agriculture Act, 1937, being treated as advances. The effect of these proposals in respect of the 1938 crop will be that oat growers who received wheat deficiency payments will, if Parliament approves, now receive a payment of 13s. 6d. per acre. Oat growers who grew no wheat or who chose not to receive wheat deficiency payments, will receive a payment of 18s. 4d. per acre in addition to the payment of 13s. 2d. which they have already received under the Agriculture Act, 1937. Those farmers who did not apply for oats subsidy during the prescribed period last year will be given a further opportunity of applying.
  BARLEY: The production of barley in the United Kingdom is designed in the

  1621
  main to meet the requirements of brewers, distillers and other users of barley for malting purposes, and these industries have expressed their willingness to co-operate in ensuring to the grower a reasonable price for that part of his crop, the continued production of which it is in their interest to maintain. It is proposed that the risks attaching to the remainder should be insured by the Exchequer. Substantial progress has been made in the discussions with the malt-using industries, which are still proceeding, and I have every hope that a satisfactory scheme will be evolved at an early date. It is proposed that the rate of Exchequer assistance should be related to a "ceiling" of 18 million cwt. which is, on the basis of average yields, the produce of 1,250,000 acres, after making an allowance of 10 per cent. for seed and waste.
  It is clear, however, that no plan of the kind under discussion with the malt-using industries could be applied retrospectively, and it is accordingly proposed that, in respect of the 1938 crop, growers of barley shall receive assistance at the same rates and on the same terms as are proposed for growers of oats.
  The effect of this proposal in respect of the 1938 crop will be that barley growers who received wheat deficiency payments will, if Parliament approves, now receive a payment of 13s. 6d. per acre. Barley growers who grew no wheat, or who chose not to receive wheat deficiency payments will receive a payment of 20s. 8d. per acre, in addition to the payment of 10s. 1od. per acre which they have already received under the Agriculture Act, 1937. As in the case of growers of oats, a further opportunity of applying for subsidy will be given to those farmers who did not make application within the prescribed period.
  Provision will be made for varying the standard prices referred to in this statement if there is a material change in conditions. For this purpose it is proposed that Ministers should be given power, with the approval of the Treasury, and subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in Parliament, to vary the standard prices by statutory order.
  The legislation necessary to give effect to these proposals will be introduced as soon as possible, and the House will appreciate that these will apply to the whole of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Silverman: On a point of Order. I want to ask whether the time that has been taken in reading this very long statement will come out of the time allocated in the Time-table Resolution, and, if so, whether there is any method whereby it can be added at the end, so that the time of the House in discussing a very important matter shall not be further limited?
  Mr. Speaker: The time between a quarter to Four and Four o'clock is usually taken up by Private Notice Questions generally and statements of this character, and other business.
  Mr. Attlee: Further to the point of Order. May I draw your attention to the fact that it is now becoming increasingly the practice for very long statements to be made by Ministers announcing Government policy and taking up the time of the House, whereas they might be circulated or issued as White Papers; and in this case, as you said this is a matter of urgency, I should like to ask what exactly is a matter of urgency, whether this statement could not have been issued as a White Paper for the information of the House, and whether it was, as a matter of fact, urgent that it should be taken at this point?
  Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: Before you reply to the point of Order, Sir, may I draw your attention to the fact that, while I do not disagree necessarily with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, this demand for statements from the Front Bench really comes from the House as a whole, which has repeatedly asked that all declarations of policy should be made from the Front Bench?
  Sir Irving Albery: May I respectfully remind you, Sir, that you put to the House the question whether it desired that this statement should be read?
  Mr. Leslie Boyce: May I ask you, Sir, to bear in mind that the Opposition have recently been in the habit of wasting at least half an hour a week of the time of the House in needlessly dividing the House on the Motion for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule?
  Mr. Speaker: In the time between a quarter to Four and Four o'clock the Government have a right to make statements to the House. There is nothing unusual in that. With regard to the other point raised by the right hon. Gentleman

  1623
  the Leader of the Opposition, I was informed that it was a matter on which, from the point of view of agriculture, it was urgent that an announcement should be made as early as possible.
  Mr. Attlee: The point is that we have rather strict Rules in the House as to what is urgent, and when we are raising matters of urgent public importance, there is a point of urgency which you decide. I was asking whether in this case this was decided to be a matter of urgency; that is to say, a matter of hours or even of days.
  Mr. Speaker: The matters on which, as the right hon. Gentleman said, I am very often called upon to judge whether they are urgent or not, under Standing Order No. 8, are altogether different from this one. This matter is one which, I believe, is urgent to the agricultural industry.
  Mr. T. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the reason for the proposed method of weighting the price of oats in determining the United Kingdom average price.
  Sir J. Nall: What will be the cost to the Exchequer in the first year?
  Sir R. Dorman-Smith: With regard to the first question, the answer is that it is proposed to divide the growers of oats, for the purpose of the oats subsidy, into two categories—those who also receive wheat deficiency payments and those who do not. The latter category represents in the main growers for whom oats are the principal cereal crop, upon the sale of which they largely rely for their cash income. The proposed method of determining the average market price by reference to the acreages in this category will ensure that the price, and therefore the deficiency payment, is related to the market conditions in those parts of the country where oats are the main cereal crop.
  Mr. T. Williams: May I ask then, as oats are very largely sold to farmers, if the price the selling farmer receives is so small as to call for the maximum additional price, will the Minister state what steps the Government will take to ensure that the seller does secure from the farmer-buyer an economic price for the oats and barley, and will the right hon. Gentleman say what the estimated cost
  1624
  for a full average year will be for sheep, oats and barley?
  Sir R. Dorman-Smith: With regard to the first part of the question, I think the farmers can be relied upon to make the best possible price for the oats. As far as the cost is concerned, in the case of oats, for the 1938 crop, the additional cost will be about £2,120,000. The maximum liability in any one year will be about £4,500,000. As far as barley is concerned, the additional cost of the 1938 crop is about £800,000. Of course one cannot say for the future what the maximum Exchequer liability will be until the scheme for malting barley is settled with the malt-using industries. As far as sheep are concerned, the cost, of course, will vary considerably from year to year according to the average market price of the sheep, but on the basis of prices in the last six years the average annual cost will be about £900,000.
  Mr. Boothby: Arising out of my right hon. Friend's statement, is he aware that the fanners of Scotland will be deeply grateful to him and will raise no objection whatever to the length of his statement?
  Mr. Gallacher: The old age pensioners would be deeply grateful for something too.
  Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: May I also thank my right hon. Friend and ask him to bear in mind that barley growers have been living on borrowed money very largely during the last six months, will he do his best to let us know when they can expect to receive the money under this new arrangement?
  Mr. G. Griffiths: Will there be any means test for those who receive this money?
  Mr. H. Morrison: In all seriousness I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is now in a position to answer the question I put some time ago, namely, can he inform the House what is the gross amount of public money that is now being expended for the political purpose of the Government retaining the support of the farmers?
  Mr. Gallacher: Old age pensioners, what about them? It is a scandal.
  Mr. Benn: On a point of Order. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, this House

  1625
  treasures the right to authorise public expenditure. Now it appears to me a new practice has grown up, by which, through statements of this kind—this is about the third made—the Government seek to gain some authority from this House for the expenditure of public money pending the introduction of legislation. I understood from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that payments have been made under cover of last year's Bill and in anticipation of legislation to be introduced. I would suggest that some word might be spoken to indicate that a statement of this kind at the end of Questions is no substitute for the procedure laid down in this House for governing the expenditure of public money.
  Sir R. Dorman-Smith: No payments will be made until the House has in fact passed them. The only payments to be made are under the Agriculture Act of 1937. No advance payments will be made at all without sanction.
  Mr. T. Williams: Is it not the case that the foreshadowed payments can only be made when a Bill is introduced to cover the right hon. Gentleman, and that the Measure will in fact become a retrospective payment for the 1938 crop? Is not that really a departure from the normal procedure of the House?
  Mr. J. Griffiths: On a point of Order. I understand that payments are to be made retrospectively. Last week I put to the Home Office a question asking whether they would consider making payments retrospectively to certain men in South Wales who are suffering from silicosis and have no compensation, and the Home Secretary replied that he had no power whatever to make retrospective payments. If there is to be no payment to injured poor miners, where do the Government get the power to make retrospective payments to farmers?
  Mr. Speakers: As to the last point of Order, the reply is that this House will have to authorise any payments.
  Mr. Griffiths: Am I to understand that if this House desires to make payment of compensation to silicosis men this House can do it? The Home Secretary says that he cannot do it.
  Mr. Speaker: I understand that the Home Secretary said he could not do it without the authority of the House.
  Mr. Silverman: I understand now that the Minister has said that his announcement does not bind him to make any payment to anyone pending the approval by his House of the expenditure that is entailed. In view of that statement may I ask what was the urgency of this question?
  Mr. Price: I wish to get back to the original question. I would ask whether, in view of the fact that a portion of the money that is raised on beef subsidies and for the assistance of the beef industry is used to improve the quality of beef, the same thing will be done for mutton; whether in fact an attempt will be made to use this money for the purpose of improving the quality of mutton?
  Sir R. Dorman-Smith: The answer is "Yes."
  Mr. R. Acland: When the beef subsidy was passed was it not on the basis of the price realised in 1938?
  Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I have not got that figure with me, but I can let the hon. Member know.
  Sir H. Morris-Jones: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that part of his statement which refers to the sheep and lamb industry will be received with the greatest satisfaction? Is he aware that that industry has been suffering from more depression than the mining industry?
  Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Will my right hon. Friend state how his scheme is to be explained to an agricultural audience in a short bright speech?

  PALESTINE (SITUATION).
  Mr. Attlee(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any statement to make regarding the situation in Palestine?
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I have received a telegram from the High Commissioner. The situation throughout the country is generally quiet. There is a Jewish general strike in all towns and no Jewish traffic is running. In Jerusalem

  1627
  this morning there has been an orderly demonstration in Zionist Square. Small fires were started by time bombs placed in suit cases in four rooms of the Department of Migration in Jerusalem last night. In three rooms the fire did no damage beyond charring the furniture; in the fourth room some records were destroyed which will result in inconvenience. A suit case containing gelignite was also found un-exploded. The Department is normally at work this morning. At Tel Aviv, after the broadcast of the White Paper last night, a crowd collected and went to a District Office where they forced an entry into building and set fire to furniture and equipment in the Land Registry Department and also burnt a number of documents of no great value. Doors and windows of buildings were also damaged. A curfew was imposed at midnight but lifted at 4 a.m. to-day.
  Miss Wilkinson: What is it like when it is not quiet?
  Sir J. Lamb: Like you.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Attlee: Would the Prime Minister state what is to be the business for next week?
The Prime Minister: The business for next week will be:
Monday and Tuesday (until 7.30 p.m.).—Debate on Palestine on a Government Motion. The terms of the Motion will be:
"That this House approves of the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to Palestine, as set out in Command Paper 6809."
Tuesday (after 7.30 p.m.) and Wednesday.—Conclusion of the Committee stage of the Civil Defence Bill.
Thursday.—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
Friday.—If all necessary business has been disposed of, we hope to take the Motion for the Whitsun Adjournment until Monday, 5th June. The Adjournment Motion will contain the usual provision empowering Mr. Speaker to call the House together at an earlier date, if the public interest should so require.
Durng the week it will be necessary for us to obtain the Report stage of the urgent Supplementary Estimates for the
1628
Reserve of Merchant Ships and Agricultural Machinery. It will also be necessary either on Thursday or first Order on Friday, to consider any Amendments which may be received from another place to the Military Training Bill and to the Reserve Forces Bill.
Mr. Atlee: On that statement I would ask two questions. First, with regard to the Committee stage of the Civil Defence Bill, there are many Amendments to be disposed of and I understand that a number of new Clauses are to be put down. An important Bill of that kind should not be taken at a very advanced hour. I suggest that the new Clauses might be left till we return after the Recess if it is possible to get the Committee stage finished on Wednesday. In any case the matter should not be unduly rushed. My second point is with regard to the Amendments from another place on the Military Training Bill. Can we be assured that we shall get them in time to consider them before they are brought to this House? I understand that the Bill is not to be considered in Committee in another place till Thursday. I suggest that these Amendments should not be taken late at night on Thursday, when it is impossible for us to cover what has been done in another place.
The Prime Minister: With regard to the first question, I do recognise that the Civil Defence Bill is a very important Measure and contains a great number of important Clauses. We will see how we get on. I certainly do not wish to curtail unduly the Debate upon it. At the same time, I know that the right hon. Gentleman recognises that it is an urgent matter to get on the Statute Book as soon as possible. With regard to the second question, we will do our best to get these Amendments in good time. I cannot say exactly when they will come, but the reason I said either Thursday or first Order on Friday is that I hope it will be possible for hon. Members to see them in good time.
Mr. Benn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the important question of the contractual obligations of soldiers falls to be dealt with by Order in Council? Shall we have the draft Order in Council in any form before we part with the Bill?
The Prime Minister: I cannot say that without notice.
Mr. Benn: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to ask those concerned, because if we part with the Bill and the House rises, the whole matter will be settled while the House is in Recess?
The Prime Minister: I will certainly look into the point.
Sir P. Harris: May I ask what time the Prime Minister expects to get the Third Reading of the Military Training Bill? Does he realise that there should be some discussion on Third Reading before it leaves for another place because of the new issues involved?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Baronet will realise that the whole matter is laid down under the Guillotine Motion.
Mr. Gallacher: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to find time before the Recess to discuss the question of increased old age pensions?
Mr. Foot: Can the right hon. Gentleman say at what stage in the Session it is proposed to bring before the House the Bill for the amendment of the Official Secrets Act which has passed through the other place?
The Prime Minister: I cannot give an answer to that.
Mr. Maxton: Can the Prime Minister tell us when we are to get the Bills dealing with the Reserve of Merchant Shipping and the Reserve of Agricultural Machinery? We were discussing the Estimates very much in the dark, and we are to be asked to pass the Report stage, still without the Measures.
The Prime Minister: I am afraid I cannot give the exact date. Obviously, it cannot be before the Whitsun Recess.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
George Alfred Isaacs, esquire, for the Borough of Southwark (North Division).

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 143.]
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

ROYAL WANSTEAD SCHOOL BILL [Lords].
Reported, without Amendment, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).
Bill to be read the Third time; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolution reported from the Select Committee on Standing Orders:
"That, in the case of the London County Council (Improvements) [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
Resolution agreed to.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Viscountess Davidson, Mr. Hogg, and Sir Ernest Graham-Little; and had appointed in substitution: Sir George Jones, Major Leighton, and Brigadier-General Sir Ernest Makins.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—

Saint Nicholas Millbrook (Southampton) Church (Sale) Bill, without Amendment.

London Midland and Scottish Railway Bill, with an Amendment.

Camps Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Mumbles Pier Bill [Lords],

City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Metropolitan Water Board to execute works and to acquire lands; and for other purposes." [Metropolitan Water Board Bill [Lords.]
And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the abandonment of the

1631
Droitwich Canal and the Droitwich Junction Canal and the vesting thereof in the Droitwich Corporation; and for other purposes." [Droitwich Canals (Abandonment) Bill [Lords.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD BILL [Lords].
    DROITWICH CANALS (ABANDONMENT) BILL [Lords].
    Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  MILITARY TRAINING BILL.
  [ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  Ordered,
  "That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments in Clause 3, page 7, line 18, and in Clause 3, page 7, line 29, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. William Morrison."—[Mr. E. Brown.]
  Bill accordingly considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  MILITARY TRAINING BILL.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Conscientious objectors.)
    4.21 p.m.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I beg to move, in page 7, line 18, to leave out from the beginning to "and," in line 21, and to insert:
    "comply with the requirements of the Subsection next following.'
    The discussion arising on this Clause in the Committee stage turned mainly on the problems involved in work of national importance. Apart from one hon. Member who desired no provision of this kind at all, there were four outstanding indications of the feeling of the Committee. The first was this. The deliberate vagueness of the drafting, it was felt, was bound to give rise to difficulties. The proposed arrangements that the tribunals should indicate that the man concerned should find and continue to perform work of national importance, was bound, in view of the lack of precision, to cause unnecessary difficulties in connection with an already difficult problem. The second indication was that there were fears that if the tribunal indicated that a man should stay in his own occupation as being of national importance, there would be industrial repercussions, for it would be impossible to have men working side by side in the same occupation or craft in similar grades at different wage standards or to attempt to tie an individual worker to one employer. On the other hand, the drafting would not enable the tribunals to test a man about whom they had doubts whether he was a genuine conscientious objector or not. The third indication was this. It was contended that
    1658
    the arrangements would not meet the case of the conscientious objector who desired to prepare himself for non-military work of national importance in such a way that he was not better off as against his friends or neighbours who were training for the Defence Service. Lastly, there was the wish among Members that a job of national importance, such as training for work on the land, should be included. Having regard to that, the Government have given consideration to the express views of the Committee and are asking the Committee to adopt this form instead of the original form. I think that is so precise as to speak for itself.
    I do not disguise from myself that it does put a difficult problem upon the shoulders of the Minister of Labour instead of leaving it to the tribunal to indicate that a man should find a particular job. All we are asking the Committee to agree to is that a person who is ordered to comply with the requirements of the Sub-section should, when directed by the Minister, undertake a continuous period of six months' training either provided by the Minister or approved by him. During that training he should receive pay and allowances similar to those which are being received by those undergoing military training and the work should be of a civil character and under civil control. There is one exception: if the tribunal should decide in the case of a particular worker that it was very desirable he should take part in the particular class of work not necessarily where he was then working. I think the Committee will generally agree that we have tried to meet what was the real desire of hon. Members in all parts.
    4.25 p.m.
    Mr. Shinwell: We have returned to the Committee stage, I hope not for long, and I do not propose to say more at this stage than to ask the right hon. Gentleman to be a little more precise. He has spoken of training and made some reference to training on the land. Apparently, he must have in mind some other kind of training to which these men would be sent. Have the Government made up their minds as to the nature of the training courses which the men will be called upon to undertake?
    Mr. Brown: I have made it clear that the outstanding case will be training on the land, but it may apply to a number

    1659
    of civil tasks of national importance not competing with ordinary industry. It might, of course, apply in some cases to courses of training in, say, first aid. There are quite a number of works of national importance, but the Committee will not expect me at this stage to do more than indicate that we are not in this matter confined to one particular class of training. We use the word "training" deliberately because we do not want to raise the issue, about which hon. Members were concerned last time, of wages as we should do if we had used the word "work." I hope that the Committee will be content to leave it to the Minister to see that the jobs are civilian and of national importance, and that he will either provide them himself or approve schemes for those who are sent on this work.
    Mr. Shinwell: I appreciate that the Government find themselves in a position of some difficulty, but it is a difficulty which accompanies this Bill for which we are not responsible. The Government must find a means of escape from the difficulty. None of my hon. Friends are asking for preferential treatment, but we have a right to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has a clear conception of what is meant by training. We must press for something more specific than he has yet disclosed. Let us take the question of training on the land. This matter has been sprung upon us almost at a moment's notice. The Government seem to have no idea in their minds, and we can hardly be expected to be more specific. What I am about to say occurred to me while the right hon. Gentleman was speaking. Is it proposed to send these men for a six months' period to agricultural centres or to selected farms and be employed by farmers? If so, what kind of work are they expected to undertake? If they are to be trained in agricultural pursuits, that is a different matter, but, obviously, that would not hold good in practice. If a man is sent to a farm or agricultural centre he will be expected to undertake menial tasks—labouring tasks or, at any rate, tasks which are not highly skilled, but which are ordinarily paid for at certain standard rates.
    There, again, we are back in the same difficulty that presented itself to the mind of the Committee. It is not for the Opposition to find a means of escape for
    1660
    the Government, but we must not take a shot in the dark. We are entitled to know what the Government really intend. As regards ordinary training, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he contemplates sending men to training centres under the Ministry of Labour scheme. Has he that in mind? That is the only kind of training with which I am familiar, and indeed it is the only form of training with which he is familiar. I cannot conceive of any kind of training, whether in agriculture or in ordinary industry, which would not create difficulties of the kind that presented themselves to the Committee when this matter was previously considered. Therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be in a position to give us a less vague answer.
    I have already said that we are not asking for preferential, treatment, but on the other hand, we must safeguard the interests of the trade unions and working-class standards, and it would be highly prejudicial to the interests of the workers and of the trade unions and their standards if a comparatively large number of men were thrown into the labour market as trainees—in fact, as dilutees, because that is what they would be, or at any rate potential dilutees. I hope the right hon. Gentleman has nothing of that kind in his mind, for if he has, there will be quite a lot of trouble. He need not delude himself about that, because the trade unions are very jealous of their rights, particularly in view of the kind of legislation with which we are now dealing. I have addressed myself to this subject, I hope, temperately, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will do his best to help us in arriving at a practical solution.
    4.33 p.m.
    Mr. E. Brown: It is not intended that the training should be training with private employers. That, of course, would raise an issue that this scheme is designed to avoid. But it will be quite possible for me, as Minister of Labour, to provide that these men shall go into Government training centres—but not into the ordinary industrial training centres; that is not intended. We are not talking about work of normal industrial importance, but about work of national importance. The work must be of national importance. That is the issue. I am talking now, not knowing of what size the problem will be, but my own view is that it will not be a large one, and my own view is that the amount

    1661
    of time that the Committee has rightly given to this question is not so much due to the fact that Members think it will be a problem of magnitude, as that they are aware of the quality of the problem. We have a number of instructional centres—not training centres—for unskilled men, where men are doing work which is of national importance. These instructional centres are in connection with forestry schemes, and the result of the work accrues to the nation as a whole. The work is done in these instructional centres by volunteer unemployed men. It will be possible for me to set aside a centre—not to mix unemployed men with these men—but to set aside a centre in an appropriate place, so that men ordered to do this kind of work could be trained on work of national importance. That is what I have in my mind, and I hope the Committee will think we have done our best to find a solution of the problem.
    Mr. Price: Is it contemplated that any of this kind of training should be given to men on the land, in addition to the forestry work, and, if so, where would such institutions be?
    Mr. Brown: We are actually training men for agricultural work as well.
    Mr. Edmund Harvey: On a point of Order. Are we now discussing both the Amendments to this Clause in the Minister's name on the first Amendment?
    The Chairman: Yes; I think it would be impossible to do otherwise.
    4.37 p.m.
    Mr. E. J. Williams: The Minister indicated that men who may appear before the tribunal will be unskilled men. If so, they could be trained in many occupations, but some of the persons who will appear before the tribunal will probably be skilled men, men of high training. It would seem to me a waste of effort on the part of the Government, as well as wasting very good labour material, if such a person were taken from a job where he was already performing work of national importance to some kind of training centre, either for agriculture or for some other purpose. One may assume, for instance, that a conscientious objector may be a man working in agriculture, but take another case. If he is already specifically trained for mining or engineering, is he to be trained for agri-
    1662
    culture? In other words, what training can be given to a person in six months, and what is to be done after the six months are over? Is there to be a job available for such a person after he has received his training? He may be a person in a normal occupation and in receipt of a good wage and rendering very good service, service of national importance. It would seem to me that we should be wasting very much effort and very good labour material if that person, in a good occupation, were put in some kind of training institution where he would be deprived of his earnings for six months and would then have no assurance that he would get back to his old occupation.
    I suggest that it would be far better—I put this modestly—if the suggestion that I advanced before were adopted, namely, that the tribunal itself should have supplied to it a schedule of work of national importance, so that if the individual before the tribunal was already engaged in such an industry—and there is no reason why we should apply anything penal to the individual; we should look upon the matter as one which would concern the nation as a whole as well as what I may call the predilection of the individual concerned—after his case had been considered by the tribunal, it would be better if he were told by the chairman to go back and do the work which would be of the greatest service to the nation as a whole.
    4.40 p.m.
    Mr. E. Harvey: I am sure the Minister has had a most difficult problem to deal with and that he has endeavoured to do it in a spirit of great fairness and with an earnest desire to serve the interests of the nation as a whole, without injustice to anybody. I wish, and I am sure that others would wish, that we might have had this very important Amendment before us at an earlier stage, because it is hardly possible, in spite, of the Minister's explanation, to realise all the effects of his Amendment. I recognise that it is conceived in a spirit of fairness, and I hope that the administration of it will be carried out in that spirit. I should like to ask that the Minister would consider, making, perhaps in another place, some slight variation of the wording. It is desirable that an opportunity should be given to an applicant before the tribunal

    1663
    to offer some definite work—not remunerative work—the pursuance of which is in the public interest.
    There are all kinds of unremunerative work for which applicants would wish to volunteer—such works, for instance, as are being carried out by the International Voluntary Service for Peace. They have undertaken, in areas which have suffered from disaster, either from economic or natural causes, work of reconstruction which would not otherwise have been carried out. It is being done without salary or payment at all. The workers there are living the hard life of labouring men, working side by side—navvying work of a difficult kind—and they get no payment at all, excepting their board and lodging, so that there is no question of their taking up work of that kind from any mercenary motives; it would be from a real desire to serve. I hope that by a slight modification of the Minister's proposed new Sub-section it may be possible to recognise work of that kind.
    Mr. E. Brown: Anything of that kind might be the kind of scheme which would be approved.
    Mr. Harvey: I am glad to know that. The important thing is that, if possible, some opportunity should be given to offer some definite form of service. I am sure that many of these men are eager to give service, to give of their best, and to submit to conditions of hardship in doing it. They do not want to avoid that, and indeed they would feel privileged to work in that way. I believe that such service as the Minister has indicated in connection with forestry and land reclamation work under his training centres would be exceedingly suitable for very many of these people. I believe that many of them would welcome the privilege of working alongside of their unemployed fellow countrymen, if that were allowed, though I recognise that there may be difficulties there.
    There are other countries that have adopted this method of dealing with conscientious objectors. We are not alone. In Denmark, Norway, Holland, and Finland it is a part of the legal system of the country. There they have work provided under the State forestry department and land reclamation work and similar work for men who undertake this service
    1664
    from motives of conscience in place of their military obligations. The problem has been faced elsewhere, and faced successfully, and I believe that if the spirit which the Minister has shown in dealing with this difficult subject permeates the work of administration in the days that are coming, he will be able to meet the difficulties successfully. I wish to assure him of the good will of a great many people in his difficult task.
    4.44 p.m.
    Mr. Gordon Macdonald: I fully appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties, and I think he has made a valiant effort to deal with them. We must remember that we are dealing with a very noble body of men, and, after all, if they are conscientious objectors of a genuine kind, some of whom I know, we do not want to approach this question in any mean spirit. I do not think they are asking for preferential treatment, or wanting it, but they do not want to be treated worse than men who are called up for military training. I would refer in particular to the second paragraph of the proposed new Sub-section. I have much sympathy with the point of view put by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. J. Williams). Here it states that the individual has to prove that it would be "detrimental to the national interest" to take him away from his job. I know to-day a miner, a conscientious objector, who could certainly prove his case before any tribunal. The tribunal will have to say whether the withdrawal of that man from his colliery would be detrimental to the national interest.
    I can see that it would not be considered detrimental to the national interest to withdraw that man, because somebody else, possibly at a lower wage, would be found to carry on the work. Therefore, I can see difficulties arising in cases of that type, just as in cases from engineering shops. But does the Minister think it wise or in the national interest, to withdraw a man from the job which he is doing now and put him somewhere else on land work, digging trenches or drains or the like? Does he not think that that is imposing an unnecessary penalty upon a man because he has taken up a stand in his objection to military service? It will be difficult for any individual, anywhere, at any moment, to say that his withdrawal from workshop or mine would be detrimental to the national interest.
    Mr. Maxton: Would not the case put by the hon. Member come within category "A," namely, those who will get complete exemption without any conditions?
    Mr. Macdonald: The only point which I have in mind is that the Minister should consider that type of case—that is, the case of the man who is, at this moment, engaged on work of national importance and the difficulty which he would have in convicing any tribunal that his removal from that work would be detrimental to the national interest. My own opinion is that to withdraw a man from such work and put him on to work which is, comparatively, unnecessary, or which is created specially for him, would be wrong.
    4.48 p.m.
    Mr. E. Brown: I do not disguise from myself, nor do I seek to disguise from the Committee, the fact that this problem bristles with difficulties. As regards the remark of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) I will not go into the cases which will come into Class "A," because we are not discussing them at present. We are discussing only the question of whether this provision will penalise any of the men who will be subject to it. We have to consider the case of the man who may want to do service of this kind. Suppose there are two miners, Tom and Fred, in the same colliery. Tom is not a conscientious objector and he goes into the militia. Fred has conscientious objections, but he says, "I do not care to stay here and I would like to do something of national importance other than my own job." He might be willing to undertake service which would yield him no more in pay and allowances than what was being given to those who were doing military service. I am not dealing here with the case of the Class "A" conscientious objector, who will have nothing whatever to do with the thing, and who would not even help to make another man available for military service. This is not intended to deal with cases of that kind, but is intended to give the tribunal some assurance that if a man takes this alternative then his objection is a real one. Everybody who has studied the records of the tribunals which sat in 1917 and 1918 knows that the real trouble arose over the man about whom an honest tribunal had doubts.
    Mr. Richards: Will the Minister not go a step further in his answer to my hon. Friend? What is he going to do with the man who is employed on and is actually performing a service of national importance? Is he to transfer that man to some other kind of work, which may, conceivably, be of less national importance, having regard to the man's efficiency?
    Mr. Brown: That would remain with the tribunal, and while the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Richards) is entitled to put that point, I am entitled to say that it is difficult to think that a man of 20 to 21 would be indispensable. I realise the difficulties, however. There is the case of the small farm with only one. young man upon it, and the production of food from that farm might be an important national interest. But I do not use that in any way to anticipate the decisions of the tribunal. I do say that if there is a class of work which the tribunal, considers to be of vital national interest we should not put it out of their power to allow a man to engage in such work.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 29, at the end, insert:
    "(8) A person who is ordered to comply with the requirements of this Sub-section shall, when directed by the Minister, undergo a continuous period of six months' training provided or approved by the Minister, being training of a civil character and under civilian control for work of national importance, and, the Minister shall pay to persons undergoing such training allowances in accordance with such scale as he may, with the consent of the Treasury, approve, being a scale corresponding as nearly as may be to the scale of pay and allowances applicable to militiamen while undergoing the special course of training which they are liable to undergo by virtue of the provisions of this Act:
    Provided that if the tribunal by which a person is ordered to be conditionally registered in the register of conscientious objectors is of opinion that it would be detrimental to the national interest that he should undergo such training as aforesaid instead of performing some class of work specified by the tribunal (being work of a civil character and under civilian control), the order of the tribunal may direct that he shall be exempt from liability to undergo such training, and a person so exempted shall be deemed to comply with the requirements of this Sub-section so long as he engages in, and performs, that class of work."—[Mr. E. Brown.]
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in Committee and on recommittal), considered.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Place and time for legal proceedings.)
    (1) Proceedings for an offence under this Act may be taken against any person at any place at which he is for the time being.
    (2) Notwithstanding any limitation imposed by law as respects the time within which proceedings under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts may be commenced, proceedings against any person for an offence under this Act alleged to have been committed by him while outside Great Britain, may be commenced at any time after the date on which he is alleged to have committed that offence.—[The Attorney-General.)
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    4.53 p.m.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    Sub-section (1) of the proposed new Clause provides that proceedings for an offence under this Measure may be taken against any person at any place where he is for the time being. In the ordinary case of people who are resident in this country all the time, but for this Subsection proceedings could only be taken against them at the place where the offence was committed. In the case of refusal or failure to register that would be the place at which the man ought to have registered. It may be, however, that he will have moved from that place, and it is for everybody's convenience to provide that the proceedings can be taken at the place where he is for the time being. This also covers the case of those who commit offences outside the country, and enables proceedings to be taken against them at any place where they may be when they return home.
    Sub-section (2) removes the ordinary six months' period of limitation under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts in respect of proceedings under this Measure alleged to have been committed outside Great Britain. The House knows the class of case to which this refers. We dealt with it on Clause 15 in Committee. Obviously, if you have not this Sub-section, and if the person did not return here until six months after the offence, no proceedings could be taken. In order to deal with that class of case it is, therefore, necessary to remove that limitation.
    4.56 p.m.
    Mr. Silverman: I have no comment to make on the first Sub-section of the proposed new Clause, but I think the second
    1668
    Sub-section is wider than is necessary to meet the point which the Attorney-General says it is designed to meet. It is true that if the law is not altered in some way a person who committed an offence under the Measure, outside the country, and remained abroad for more than six months, would escape altogether. But from the wording of the new Clause it appears there is to be no limitation of any kind, so that a man who has been abroad for either a long time or a short time, may come back, well within the period of six months, and remain liable to prosecution for the rest of his natural life. I do not know whether that is what the Attorney-General intends. If he intends to alter the law so that this new criminal offence which we are creating will involve the liability of prosecution for the rest of a man's life, it requires further explanation. There are some kind of criminal offences for which there is not and should not be any period of limitation at all, but I doubt whether the House will consider an offence under this Measure to be in that category. I do not gather that the Attorney-General is inviting the House to consider this offence as an offence of that kind. He put his point in a manner which indicated that what he wanted to cover was only a sufficient period for the person to return to this country. I suggest that that point could be met, if instead of saying:
    "may be commenced at any time after the date"
    the new Clause said:
    "may be commenced at any time not later than six months after the date on which he returned to this country."
    If the Attorney-General really means that there is to be no period of limitation of any kind, then I would invite him, with respect, to defend that rather extraordinary proposition.
    4.59 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: The point which the hon. Member has just put to the House was one which occurred to me when we were considering the form of this Clause which only goes to show how great minds coincide. The form of Clause which he has suggested was not used, because it would enable an issue to be raised which it would be difficult to check and prove. A man might say, "I came back for a month last year; I was here for

    1669
    two months another time, and I was here for several week-ends, and all these periods add up to six months." I agree that there are certain offences in respect of which there is no limitation, but it is for the reason which I have given that I came to the conclusion that it would be a mistake in this case to put in a period of six months from the date of return. I think it is better to leave the matter at large. Prosecutions under this Act are under the control of the Minister, and there is not the slightest intention to do anything except to act promptly and expeditiously as soon as it is known that someone has returned to this country, if he does return, and the Minister can be challenged in this House.
    Mr. Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of putting in some proviso to say that after six months no proceedings shall be commenced without the consent of the Attorney-General?
    The Attorney-General: It cannot be done in any case except with the consent of the Minister, and I think that is a sufficient safeguard against the abuses which the hon. Member has in mind.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Application to Scotland.)
    In the application of this Act to Scotland—

    (1) for any reference to a local education authority there shall be substituted a reference to an education authority;

    (2) Sub-section (8) of Section one of this Act shall have effect as if the proviso were omitted;

    (3) Sub-section (1) of Section two of this Act shall have effect as if for paragraph (e) thereof the following paragraph were substituted:—

    (e) is the subject of an order or warrant for his detention or custody under the Lunacy (Scotland) Acts, 1857 to 1919, or is being entertained and kept in an asylum in pursuance of Section fifteen of the Lunacy (Scotland) Act, 1866, or is a person for whose safe custody during His Majesty's pleasure His Majesty is authorised to give order or is a prisoner whom the Secretary of State or the Prisons Department for Scotland has, in pursuance of any Act, directed to be removed to a criminal lunatic asylum or to the criminal lunatic department of Perth prison or to an asylum, or is a person placed in an institution or a certified house or under guardianship
    1670
    under Section four of the Mental Deficiency and Lunacy (Scotland) Act, 1913, or is the subject of an order under Section seven, nine, or ten of that Act.—[The Lord Advocate.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    5.3 p.m.
    The Lord Advocate (Mr. T. M. Cooper): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The purpose of this Clause is to make certain adaptations in the Bill in applying it to Scotland. Sub-sections (1) and (2) are in common form, but the House may like a short explanation of Sub-section (3), which is to be read in conjunction with an Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy in Clause 2, page 4, line 25, which proposes to insert the English counterpart of this Sub-section (3). The purpose of the Sub-section is to exclude from the operation of Clause 2 all those categories of persons who are mentally disordered or mentally defective and are subject to one or other of the Statutes specified in the Sub-section. Obviously, no purpose would be served by requiring such persons either to register in the Military Training Register or calling them up and subjecting them to examination by medical boards.
    5.4 P.m.
    Mr. Benn: This new Clause provides an extraordinary illustration of the shoddy way in which we are legislating; it was only thought of by the Government last night and did not appear until this morning. However, we are now assured that lunatics in Scotland and England will not be subjected to the provisions of this Bill. There are other classes of persons about whom I should like to ask a question or two, because we get so few opportunities of putting these inquiries. What about people in prison? Blind people were thought of last night, and not thought of till last night, but what happens to people who are serving a term of imprisonment?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): The position of those people does not arise on this Clause.
    Mr. Benn: I am only making a comment. This is legislation by decree. When we are legislating by decree the officials are responsible for the legislation and it is not legislation by the House of Commons, because we have not any

    1671
    opportunity of discussing it. It is a betwixt and between method which will result in a very shoddy Measure.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Member's comment makes it necessary for me to make another comment—that his is not relevant.
    Mr. Benn: I quite agree.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision of educational and social facilities.)
    It shall be the duty of the Army Council in consultation with the Board of Education, and through national organisations interested in adult education, to provide educational and social facilities for persons called up for service under this Act.—[Mr. Creech Jones.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    5.6 p.m.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    Last week, or earlier, the House considered the question of trade union rights in reference to the new conscripts, and in that discussion reference was made to their civil liberties. I am sure this new Clause will receive sympathetic consideration, because we are dealing with a new class of soldier who is being taken away from his normal civilian surroundings and to some degree deprived of his personal interests. There will be among the conscripts many men of studious habits and of sensitive nature, men who are curious about life and about the world, men who are active-minded, and as they are to be transferred to a completely new environment I want to impress upon the House the importance of ensuring that certain educational and social facilities are available to them in that new environment, especially as they will be returning to civil life after their period of training. I think it will be generally agreed that during their training it would be undesirable that their studious habits should in any way be broken and the purpose of the Clause is to secure the co-operation of the Board of Education and the Army Council in arranging facilities, particularly through those bodies already working in the field of adult education.
    1672
    I am encouraged to move this Clause because during the last War the Government set up a Committee to investigate education in the Army, and particularly what kind of adult education might be made available for the soldiers serving in the Forces. I think the House is familiar with the second interim report which that distinguished Committee made to the Minister of Reconstruction, but there is an observation in it which I should like to bring to the attention of hon. Members, The report points out that on entering the Army men are taken away from their old interests and old associations and are cast into an entirely new environment and method of life, and continues:
    "In such circumstances education has made a new appeal. The regular life, with its accompanying regular leisure time, and the lack of counter attractions, have led many men to attend classes and lectures or to undertake a course of reading."
    It is well known that even during the War, when men were preoccupied with the war, very successful educational schemes were run in the Army, largely because the men wanted that facility. Lord Gorell, who was, I believe, at that time acting in association with the War Office, particularly recommended that these facilities should be made available, and pointed out the success of the schemes which had been experimented with while the War was on. If such need was felt during the War and a scheme could be worked out under war conditions, how much more easy would it be to plan a scheme during peace. Already there is in existence machinery for carrying through the proposals in the Clause. The report in question clearly indicated the type of machinery and the form of organisation which might be adopted, and we have among the adult educational bodies a considerable staff of tutors who are willing to undertake this sort of work. Therefore we have the machinery and the voluntary associations, which are quite prepared to play their part in organising the facilities, and I suggest that serious consideration should be given to the case of young men who are temporarily taken away from their existing educational life and from their opportunities of discussing and studying subjects in which they are interested. I suggest that during their training they should not be cut off altogether from their major interests, because when it is over they will have to

    1673
    take up those studies afresh and will also want to read, study and think about the problems they are interested in. Seeing that the machinery is already in existence, I earnestly ask the Minister favourably to consider this proposal and to accept the recommendations of the report which was worked out during the War.
    5.13 p.m.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: I beg to second the Motion.
    I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education and the Secretary of State for War will be good enough to take note of what I am going to say, because it is based very largely upon my own personal experience. I finished my apprenticeship at an earlier age than that at which these boys are to be taken away, and in my view one of the most important periods of apprenticeship is the last year of it. Last week I discussed this question with one of the most representative persons in the engineering industry on the employers' side. He was very much concerned about the effect of taking these young men away, and that anxiety can be relieved if the Secretary of State, working in conjunction with the Board of Education and other bodies, will take steps to carry out what my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) has suggested.
    I am not speaking critically of boys now, only stating facts, but until boys reach the age of 19 they are not apt to take things as seriously as they do afterwards. It is then that they begin to look forward to having to obtain their livelihood, because they are urged by their fellow craftsmen and other people to acquit themselves as well as possible in order to become efficient craftsmen. The result is that the boys, and their parents, wish that education to be continued at evening classes in order that the boys may qualify themselves in the best possible way. At the ages of 19 or 20, when they are beginning to get nicely settled down, the Bill will come into operation and they will be taken away. Some provision should be made to enable such boys to continue their technical training while they are away from their home surroundings.
    For instance, it is well-known in regard to mathematics that once students have discontinued their study of that subject it
    1674
    takes some getting down to again. I was being trained in the shops to become a draughtsman after I had had a practical training in the workshop. After I came home from the Army I could not get down to that subject. Other boys are being trained in art or commercial subjects. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education and the Secretary of State for War should consult the Workers' Educational Association, the National Council of Labour Colleges and the co-operative and trade union movements to get their point of view about the need for continuing training. They should consult also representative organisations which encourage boys to continue their technical training. In that way, despite the fact that the boys will have been taken away, we shall be able to safeguard that early training. I hope that the Secretary of State for War will also remember the effect of taking boys away from their home surroundings at a period of life when they need the home environment more than at any other period in their lives. I want to use what influence I have to safeguard as far as possible the future of these young men. An hon. Member spoke earlier of a small section of young men who will be affected, and called them a noble body. I look upon all the young men of this country as a noble body, and I want to safeguard the interests of that noble body of young men whom we are going to take into the Army for six months' training.
    A great deal will depend upon how this Measure is administered and upon the spirit of that administration, as well as on the attitude of the Secretary of State for War and the Army Council. A great deal will depend upon the officers who will train the young men. I want, therefore, to refer to the obsolete discipline under which these young men are to be put. I would be the first to admit that discipline is necessary, but the obsolete discipline under which many of us were trained, and with which we had to contend, belonged to the Elizabethan and Victorian periods and not to modern times. The spirit in which the Bill is administered should be based upon a discipline of respect for merit and not upon that form of discipline which many of us experienced. The old form of discipline brought about humiliation to an extent that ought never to be tolerated. I will give the House an example. We

    1675
    are all upon an equal footing in this House, no matter what our social status. One Member may drive up to the House in a Rolls Royce or a limousine and may be looked up to by chauffeurs and footmen, with all that that may mean, but that Member is on an equal footing with the humblest and poorest of us. I know that you cannot bring about that condition in the Army to the same extent, but I suggest that it should be brought about to a greater extent than has been the case in the past.
    I know that discipline is necessary, particularly on the parade ground, but once the parade ground is left behind there is no need for the discipline which has been maintained in the past. I will give the House another concrete illustration and then I will close. I remember being taken to France and, because of the technical training which I had had, I was put into a school to be trained in the mechanism of tanks and to understand the internal combustion engine. No body of men could have taken that work and that training more seriously than did those young men in the training school in France. We received word that the Army had difficulties in getting over the Hindenburg Line and that the tanks were getting held up. It was necessary for us to carry out experiments on the tank field so that the experienced man of the Tank Corps could be watched by the Army Council and the officers, and devices brought out to prevent the tanks from getting fast. After the training, we were taken on to the tank field and had to dig trenches to represent the Hindenburg Line. No body of men could have worked harder than we did on that occasion, but we were lined up by an officer who addressed us and said that we had worked disgracefully, that the trenches ought to have been dug within a few hours, and so on.
    Owing to the stern military discipline, we had to stand there and dared not say a word, but this fellow carried on to such an extent that I could no longer stand it. All I did was to make a deprecatory noise, but I was given a severe trouncing and I had to appear before the commanding-officer the following morning. Fortunately, the commanding officer was a decent sort of man and I was not subjected to the discipline that one would have got in the ordinary infantry. Tech-
    1676
    nical corps were not under the same discipline, and I am pleading for a relief from that discipline because of the social effects. In the infantry, men who are called up will think themselves as good as any other man in the land, although they will respect the need for discipline upon the parade ground. I am appealing to the Secretary of State for War to give instructions that the Bill should not be administered in the spirit of the discipline of the old days, because we have got away from the mid-Victorian and Elizabethan period and we are now living in the year 1939.
    5.25 p.m.
    Mr. Sexton: With what has been said by my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith) and Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones), I am in perfect agreement. It cannot be too often emphasised that the workers in various crafts should be enabled to continue their education during the six months. At the age of being called up, young men who are entering a profession such as teaching, the Church or the law will have finished their preparatory studies and will have qualified by examination to enter some academy, university or training college. It would be a pity if, during their six months' training, they should not be able to continue the thread of their studies, in order to go to the college or the university or higher seat of learning and then right on to make a success of their profession.
    That means something more than the ordinary Army education being given, something on the lines suggested by the proposed new Clause. Special courses should be set up for craftsmen, as suggested by my hon. Friends. There is a great danger of young men of 20 years of age being taken away from the line of thought to which they have been used and forgetting all that they have learned or, on the other hand, not desiring to take up that profession in the future. To safeguard against that, the Board of Education and various other bodies should be called in to enable these young men not only to have a military training but to continue their education.
    5.27 p.m.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I am sure that the House is grateful to the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) for proposing this

    1677
    new Clause in order to call attention to the manner in which a militiaman should be treated. I do not think he is particularly anxious that the Clause should be carried in this form, because we intend to do much more for the militiaman than is exactly specified here. It is, however, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith) said, a question of spirit, and I wish to assure the House that we fully share the sentiments and aspirations which have been expressed by hon. Gentlemen who have spoken from the opposite side of the House.
    Sometimes, paradoxically enough, hon. Gentlemen opposite have antiquated notions. It is a long time since we buried Colonel Blimp. [HON. MEMBERS: "Some of them are still alive."] Yes, but they are fading away, like all old soldiers, and their influence has been eliminated from the Army. Also, the bibulous, blustering sergeant-major is now a figment of the imagination. I wish his spectre could be dissociated for ever from the Army, which is a modern and alert profession. It respects education perhaps more than does any other profession. Anyone who visits barracks must have been struck by the fact that men continue to attend classes throughout their military careers. That is a practice which does not prevail in most callings. Every soldier is supposed to have a third-class certificate. He gets an extra 3d. a day if he obtains a second-class certificate, and a first-class certificate qualifies him, other conditions being satisfactory, for promotion. Thus we set much store upon education in the profession of arms. We cannot treat the militiaman in exactly the same way as the soldier, because he will be with the authorities for a much briefer space of time, but we recognise the necessity for giving him every available opportunity for improving his mind, as he certainly will improve his body.
    In the spiritual sphere, the chaplains of all denominations have met under the chairmanship of the Chaplain-General to see what additional succour they can bring to these men during their period of service. In the realm of sport, we intend to provide them with every possible facility for games and exercise, and also to furnish them with the necessary equipment. They will have have open to them the institutes of the Army, where they will be able to purchase glasses of milk, bars of chocolate, or otherwise to spend
    1678
    their money in a way that may be agreeable to them, perhaps to the accompaniment of the gramophone and wireless. They will also be able in these institutes to play billiards and indulge in other harmless recreations like darts. We have been in touch with the National Book Society. We intend to purchase books specially for them, and to augment our libraries, which already exist, and we shall be grateful for any assistance we can have from societies such as that which I have mentioned. We have also been in communication with certain philanthropic institutions. There are a number of bodies, like the Y.M.C.A. and the Workers' Educational Association, who co-operate with the local education authorities; and the Board of Education provides classes on all manner of subjects. We shall be only too happy to draw upon the resources of the Board of Education wherever they may be offered to us and may add to the advantages which we ourselves can provide. I trust that I have said enough to convince the House that we shall approach this matter from a human point of view, and that we shall endeavour to do all we can to suit the convenience and the needs of these men.
    The hon. Member for Stoke made a new suggestion, which I had not heard before, namely, that, in addition to ordinary educational facilities and facilities for reading, encouragement should be given for the continuance of technical education. Of course, in the Army itself, with its great diversity of trades, there will be occasions for obtaining experience and proficiency, perhaps in some trades with which the ex-apprentice was not previously acquainted. These men will be living a pretty full life, and we must not overcrowd either their working hours or their leisure; but I see no reason—because we are breaking new ground here—why a militiaman should not use his evenings for the purpose of attending educational classes rather than visiting the pictures, if he so desires. I can assure the hon. Member that, in the light of what we shall learn in the course of our practice, we shall endeavour to expand in every-possible way the opportunities which maybe offered to these men. If they do not wish to attend technical classes, we propose to approach the cinema trade and see whether they can give facilities for these men to see films. I share the

    1679
    attitude that has been adopted by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I can assure them that, while it is not necessary to accept this particular Clause, because we wish to do more than is here specified, we will do our best to carry out what it suggests and to give every possible satisfaction. We realise that these men are being withdrawn from civil life, that this is a new experence for them, as it is for us, and we desire to make it as agreeable and profitable as possible.
    Mr. E. J. Williams: Are these libraries brought up to date periodically?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, I think they are. It is my desire that they should be. If the hon. Member has anything in mind and will tell me what it is, I will inquire into it.
    Mr. Creech Jones: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman's reply means that, so far as non-vocational education is concerned, the Army Council are prepared, through the Board of Education, to enter into consultation with voluntary associations such as the Workers' Educational Association, with a view to preparing some scheme so that these facilities will be made available for militiamen?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: The fact that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education is sitting beside me is evidence of the unity of the Board of Education and the Army Council. I have already been discussing the subject with him, and we shall put ourselves in touch with the Board of Education to see to what extent we can carry out what the hon. Gentleman, as the result of his experience, has suggested.
    5.38 p.m.
    Mr. Lees-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman's answer has been given to us in the spirit in which the Clause was moved, but he was rather vague and not very concrete in the information he gave. I am not at this stage seriously criticising him for not being able to be more definite, but I think it will be found that the types of evening education needed for these new conscripts will be quite different from the types that are needed for ordinary soldiers in the Army. After all, the ordinary soldiers are spending their educational hours in preparing for the certificate examination, and that is not at all the kind of work which
    1680
    will be suitable for these young men who are there for six months. I do not think that the Army Council, by itself, is a Department which has the experience requisite for providing the proper type of education for this new class of militiamen. The Department which is specially concerned with these new men, who are civilians, is the Board of Education, and I should be more satisfied if I knew that the scheme for these young men was being drawn up on the initiative of the Board of Education, with the Army Council taking a secondary place. I do not go further than that at the moment, but I would ask for a definite assurance that the scheme will be drawn up in the closest co-operation with the Board of Education.
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I will give the assurance that we will put ourselves in touch with the Board of Education, who, of course, have much more experience of education than we have. It must be the duty of the Army Council to draw up a curriculum of military training, but we desire that these men should be given every possible advantage. I could not be more specific because we are dealing with the future, but I wished to indicate the state of mind in which we are approaching the subject. We will put ourselves in touch with the Board of Education, and do our best by co-operation to arrange for what the right hon. Gentleman desires.
    5.40 p.m.
    Mr. Sorensen: I desire to express my pleasure that sitting beside the Secretary of State for War is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, for their co-operation will certainly be to the benefit of these young men who are to serve in the Militia for six months. Naturally I, in common with my colleagues, look upon conscription as an evil, but even evil may sometimes be turned to good. In any case we have to make the best of a bad job, and in this case I think that an appreciable amount of good can be extracted from it if there is the right spirit. The only plea I would make is that, in considering the question of education for these militiamen, regard should not be paid solely to technical education. There are some young men at least—perhaps more than is anticipated—who will be glad of the opportunity of studying what are sometimes called the humanities. It may sound strange to

    1681
    some people to suggest that a militiaman actually serving should be interested in cultural subjects, but, bearing in mind the statement of the right hon. Gentleman a little while ago that the Army of to-day is very different from the Army of many years ago, it is clear that there are men in the existing Regular Army, and there will be men in the Militia force, who will respond to the opportunity to consider other than purely technical matters.
    I do not want it to be assumed that these young militiamen are only interested in their muscles. Although muscles have their place, and the development of them is very necessary, surely we can do something to stimulate the minds of these militiamen, not merely in a technical direction, but in a general cultural direction as well. I am cerain that the men of the present Army and of the future Militia are very different in many respects from those of the Army of 30 or 40 years ago. I say that without casting any reflection upon those who belonged to the Army then. We have a higher type of man joining the Army now. It is not merely the unfortunate and the depressed that join, but men of all types, and it seems to me that here is an opportunity to provide, for thousands of young men each year, facilities for considering matters which can help them to be better citizens when they have finished their term of service, and will help to link up the young man in the Militia with other young men outside. The old assumption that once a man was in the Army he was in a separate category must be destroyed. All men, whether outside or inside the Army, are human beings, and, for the sake of a more intelligent and better informed democracy, I hope that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman will be implemented in the near future, and certainly on technical but also on cultural lines every endeavour will be made to feed the minds of these young militiamen as well as their bodies.
    Mr. Creech Jones: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that there will be consultation with the Board of Education, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Penalty for refusal on conscientious grounds to obey order.)
    Where a person has applied under the provisions of Section three of this Act to be
    1682
    registered in the register of conscientious objectors and his application has been either rejected or he has been registered in the military training register as a person liable to be employed only on non-combatant duties, and he refuses on conscientious grounds to obey an order given him by his superior officer, he shall forthwith be tried by court martial, and if it appears to the court that there is reasonable ground for believing that his refusal to obey such order was due to conscientious motives, the matter shall be referred for trial to a civil court which may order the person to engage in some work designated as being of national importance as an alternative to military service subject to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding two years if he fails or refuses to comply with the order of the civil court.—[Mr. Messer.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    5.44 p.m.
    Mr. Messer: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This Clause and the one which follows it—(Penalty for failure on part of conscientious objector to present himself)—are both alike in principle, and I should be grateful, Mr. Speaker, if I could have your assurance that we can discuss the two together, because, although there are differences in their application, the principle in both cases is the same.
    Mr. Speaker: Certainly, if it is for the convenience of the House.
    Mr. Messer: I am not sure whether the implication of this proposed new Clause will be rightly understood from its wording. The principle is very important, and I hope that, if it is not possible for the Secretary of State to accept the Clause as it stands, he will be able to give an undertaking that the points raised in it will be considered with a view to dealing with the difficulties that have been envisaged. This new experiment is making an impact on our accepted customs. What we have regarded as a tradition of our social life is being interfered with, and the liberty of the subject with regard to a particular aspect of life is, for the first time in the history of this country, in danger.
    In consequence of the new situation which has arisen, we have to have regard to the position in which our ordinary civil law will be placed in relation to this new martial law. We have a tribunal which will examine an applicant to be placed on a register as a conscientious objector. I do not envy that tribunal

    1683
    its job. I know of no greater difficulty than to determine people's consciences. I know of no method that it is suggested shall be used to discover what the conscience of an applicant is. I have sat in the ordinary police courts and heard evidence, as a result of which I have been able to judge to some extent the intention of the person who comes before the court; but if I were placed in the position of a member of this tribunal I should be compelled to have more regard to a man's own sworn declaration than to any evidence that might be submitted, in concluding what his conscience might be.
    That being so, it is evident that there are bound to be a large number of people who will slip through the net. I do not think it will be a large number proportionately. I do not think the tribunal will work in such a way that we shall have thousands of conscientious objectors denied the right to register, and compelled to join the Army; but there are bound to be some. An applicant may state his case badly, he may be badly represented, if he is represented by a professional representative; and remember, we are dealing not with men but with boys, and one can conceive the possibility that they will not be able to state their case when they come before the tribunal. We are supposed to be able to express ourselves, but we have all had the experience of not being able to state our case in the way we want to state it, at the time we want to state it, in order to prove our point. If that is true of ourselves, how much more is it likely to be true of a boy of 20 who is called upon to face a tribunal of this sort.
    Is there to be any regulation laid down that shall be observed by these tribunals? I was discussing the question only yesterday with a man who represented a conscientious objector during the War. The chairman of the tribunal was one not unknown to Members of this House, Sir Donald Maclean; and the tribunal was held in a Committee Room of this House. There was only one rule applied; one question was put, and that was, "What are you employed at?" It hardly mattered during that period what anybody was employed at: it was in some way connected with the War; and, because of that, the applicant was unable to prove that he had a conscientious
    1684
    objection to service. I do not suppose for a moment that there will be such a rigid attitude as that, but one can see the possibility of a young man attending one of these tribunals and failing to be registered, although he is a genuine conscientious objector. The next step will be that such young men will receive their calling-up notices or notices of medical examination, and they will refuse. Under the Bill, they will have to be proceeded against in the ordinary way, and they will be subject to a penalty up to £5. I do not know what alternative there will be for non-payment of the fine, but I suppose that if they are genuine they will not pay the £5; they possibly will go to prison. But the automatic effect of their not having succeeded will be that they become members of the armed forces of the Crown, they are in the Army; and they refuse to obey an order.
    I am disposed to believe all that has been said about the improvement that has taken place in the Army. I do not believe that the officers at the present time are the type of the sergeant-major whose language could be understood only with difficulty by the recruits. The officers are the same as other people; but they will have a duty to perform, and when that unwilling conscript refuses to obey an order he must be subjected to a punishment. No matter how much we may consider these people to be misguided, we have to remember that reason is not the most important factor in human life: emotion plays a very large part. Suppose they refuse to put on uniform; what is to happen? Are they to be forcibly stripped, forcibly dressed, forcibly detained; and, after their period of detention, if they continue to refuse are they to be punished again for a second refusal?
    There should be some way out of that difficulty. Some of us remember the cat-and-mouse business during the last War. There can be no question that there were people who suffered in the last War. Perhaps they did not suffer so much as the soldiers. I do not believe in this idea of lauding up the conscientious objector as being something superior to the soldier who risked his life. Anybody who propagates that idea is doing a disservice both to those who showed courage in going into the Army and those who showed courage in refusing to take part in war. It does not do to hold them up to hero-

    1685
    worship, but there were men who were punished repeatedly and the very repetition of the punishment proved conclusively that they had a genuine conscientious objection to doing that which they were called upon to perform. It may be said, "The ordinary soldier who refuses to obey is subject to Army discipline; by what right do you say that the conscript should be exempt?" I think, by every right in the world. One man is a volunteer. He has undertaken a military life. He volunteers with full knowledge of all that that implies. The other man is compelled to do something; and, in this case, to do something to which he has a very strong conscientious objection.
    The way out of the difficulty is that suggested in the Amendment. The man should be tried by court-martial. Whether I agree with this Bill or not is another question, but, as a democrat, I am bound to believe that the law should be upheld, and that when it is broken there should be a penalty for its breach. There can be no hope of ordered society unless there is some penalty for such a breach. Because I admit that, I say that the conscientious objector who breaks the law should be subject to punishment when, after trial, it is shown that he has broken the law. This Amendment provides that he can be subject to a very heavy penalty. I am not sure that the Amendment does not go too far. It allows up to two years' imprisonment. I am prepared to believe that that is rather severe for the offence. Let us first remember the dual character of the individual. He is not just a soldier because he is forced to be one; he is something more than that: he is a citizen; and we have no right to impose on him for this breach of the law anything worse than would be imposed on him for breaking any civil law.
    The Amendment further suggests that he should first be tried by court-martial, and if that court-martial establishes the fact that his case should be tried by a civil court, the Amendment suggests that he should be sent to the civil court. We have in this House quite recently been considering the treatment of offenders, and, in our capacity as magistrates, some of us realise that there is only one justification for the application of any penalty, and that it should not be imposed in the spirit of revenge against somebody who
    1686
    has broken the law so much as a means to prevent people from breaking the law. I am grateful for what the Government have done so far in improving the Bill. They have shown a great deal of energy in getting this Bill through. One could wish that as much energy had been shown in other directions. One is reminded of these words, which are so expressive and so very fundamental in their meaning:
    "Were half the power that fills the world with terror,
    Were half the wealth that is spent on camps and courts
    Given to redeem the human mind from error,
    There were no need for arsenals and forts."
    Mr. Sorensen: I beg to second the Motion.
    6.1 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: I am sure the whole House will agree with me in paying tribute to the hon. Gentleman who has just moved this Clause for his eloquence and for the reasonableness with which he put forward the case for the new Clause, but, in spite of that, my advice to the House will be not to accept the Clause. Under the Bill as it stands, the question as to whether a person is or is not a conscientious objector, and, if he is, whether his objection excludes him from any military service or makes it right that he should do non-combatant service, as a matter entrusted to the tribunals with an absolute right of appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. The effect of this new Clause would be that, although the tribunal had decided that a man was not a conscientious objector but could reasonably be asked to do military service or non-combatant service, after the issue had been dealt with by the appeal tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal, it could be tried over again. It is an indirect means to a further appeal.
    Mr. Silverman: On new evidence.
    The Attorney-General: No, not on new evidence, but on a new act by the man. The proper structure is to provide tribunals and appeal courts, and the House should provide the machinery which is intended for deciding this question, and when that machinery is decided it should be accepted as final. In addition to dealing with the matter on general principles, I would examine it a little more closely. I am not going to do it

    1687
    in a pedantic way, but it is right to look at the broad idea which appears in the Clause as no doubt embodying the intentions and purposes of those who have put their names to the proposed new Clause. It assumes that the man refuses to obey an order and claims to do so on grounds of conscience, and that means that he has claimed that the tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal were wrong.
    Then the Clause provides that the matter should go, in the first instance, to a court-martial, and, I agree, I do not see how the Clause could do otherwise. Here a situation has arisen in which the man who is under military obligation has refused to obey an order. It may be that the matter can be dealt with by the commanding officer, but, clearly, all serious cases of breaches of order can or should go to court-martial. Anyhow, someone has to deal with the matter, and on the idea in the Clause, it is only to be dealt with, first of all, by military tribunals. The court-martial has to decide prima facie that the appeal tribunal set up under the Act was wrong. It has to decide prima facie that the man should be regarded as a conscientious objector although the appeal tribunal said no. The court-martial having satisfied itself that the appeal tribunal had gone wrong, it is a question of whether the man is a conscientious objector or not. It cannot be a question of whether or not he has disobeyed an order, because there is no doubt suggested about that.
    Mr. Benson: I think that the intention of the Clause is not that the matter of the conscience should be tried again, but that if a military order had been disobeyed and a penalty should follow, it should follow from the civil court.
    The Attorney-General: I think I am inclined to do more justice to the Clause than the hon. Member. The matter must be a question of whether the man is a conscientious objector because the Clause gives the court power to order work of national importance. Court-martial having decided that prima facie the appellate tribunal is wrong, the matter goes to the court, and, in effect, they are going to sit as a court of appeal on the original decision of the appeal tribunal. While appreciating that the hon. Gentleman put his case very moderately under any machinery that humanity can devise, there
    1688
    may be mistakes. There are a few even in this House, and mistakes made with the best will in the world may be of importance to the individual. But I do not think that we need anticipate mistakes of the kind which will be covered by the Clause, nor indeed did the hon. Gentleman suggest that mistakes were likely.
    Dr. Salter: We have the experience of the last War, when over 5,000 men were declared by the tribunals to be not genuinely conscientious objectors. They were tried by military tribunal and subsequently sent to prison, and the Government of the day actually had to set up a further appellate tribunal, which, constituted of judges, declared that those men had genuine conscientious objections and gave them opportunities of leaving prison and having their conditions mitigated by accepting various other kinds of service. The Government had to do that on the last occasion. The Attorney-General has said that we have no reason to anticipate that mistakes will be made, but mistakes were made on a gigantic scale on the last occasion, and there is every reason to apprehend that they may be made again.
    The Attorney-General: I am not sure that I can agree with that. The whole atmosphere in which this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be administered will not be the atmosphere inevitably created by war. What the hon. Gentleman has said supports what I have said as a matter of principle. He says that ultimately this House set up another appellate tribunal. If the House were not satisfied with the machinery at present in the Schedule, I can see a case—I do not think it would be a good or a sufficient case, but it would not be illogical—in which it might be said, "We think that one appeal is not enough, and we want a second appeal." That is not this Clause. This is not by way of a further appellate tribunal, but is the setting up of an elaborate, and, I think, an inappropriate and not a very workable scheme by which, and by indirect methods, the decision of the appeal tribunal would be reviewed, in the first instance, by court-martial, and ultimately by the court. On these grounds, I would recommend the House not to accept either this Clause or the following one.
    6.12 p.m.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I can speak with some very real knowledge of the procedure that was followed on the occasion of the last War. It may be that the conscience Clause was introduced during the period of war on the last occasion, but, nevertheless, the administration of the Act gave rise to an overwhelming sense of injustice in thousands of men who had genuine conscientious objections. I would emphasise the point that it did happen that hundreds of men were refused either absolute exemption or work of national importance because the tribunal felt that they ought to perform non-combatant service in the Army. They refused to form part of the military machine. They had deep objections on ethical, moral, and sometimes political and religious grounds, but the fact remains that there were hundreds of men for whom both the local tribunal and the appeal tribunal refused the kind of service which was deliberately laid down in the Military Service Act. Those men were taken into the Army. They refused to obey orders, and ultimately they were court-marshalled and sent to prison.
    It was because the administration had become something of a scandal that a national appeal body was set up. There were literally thousands of men who were taken from Wormwood Scrubs Prison to that tribunal and adjudicated on, and large numbers of these men passed out of prison to Dartmoor Prison, where national work was being provided for them. We are most anxious that, where injustice has been done to the genuine conscientious objector who has been caught up in the Army, he shall not be treated in a military prison but transferred to the control of the civil authorities, and that, if he is to be punished, the punishment shall take place in a civil prison. I also urge that not only should that punishment be in the civil prison, but there should be some finality in regard to the imprisonment.
    May I illustrate my argument by my own personal case? I was one of those persons whom the local tribunal declared to be an objector entitled to absolute exemption, but that absolute exemption was denied to me because it was argued that other conscientious objectors did not receive that absolute exemption and had gone into the Army. Therefore, it was decided that I should go into the Army.
    1690
    That decision was upheld by an appeal tribunal, irrespective of my past or the work in which I was actually engaged. I went before a court-martial and, being an absolute objector, I was sentenced to a period of six months' imprisonment with hard labour. I served my period of six months' hard labour and was then taken back to my regiment, given a military order, court-martialled afresh and sentenced to one year's hard labour. That sentence I also served. I was again taken back to my regiment, given another military order, refused to obey, was court-martialled again and had to go for two years' hard labour. I served the two years' hard labour and went back to my regiment four months after the War was over. I still refused to obey military orders and was sentenced to another period of two years' hard labour. In point of fact I actually served periods amounting to about three years and six months. All the time the cat-and-mouse rule operated as far as I was concerned. It was recognised all through this course that I was a perfectly genuine person. Nevertheless, I had been caught up in the military machine and the cat-and-mouse arrangement began to operate.
    I do suggest that there is some force in this new Clause. There ought to be some arrangement whereby these men, who are perfectly genuine in their opposition to war and in their opposition to being part of the military machine, should get reasonable treatment under the civil code, and that when they have paid the penalty for the crime of having a conscientious objection they should return to civil life. I agree with the Mover of the Clause that it is really absurd that the penalty in these cases for having a conscience should be as much as two years' imprisonment. If that is to be the penalty, the conscientious objector will pay. There ought, however, to be some arrangement whereby these cases could be lifted right out of the military organisation, that the punishment should be in a civil prison, with the right of review, once the man reaches the civil prison, or before, and that once the sentence has been served the man should be no longer a soldier but should return to civil life. I hope that further consideration will be given to this very reasonable Clause.
    6.19 p.m.
    Mr. Benson: I think the Attorney-General is running away from a very real

    1691
    difficulty. He suggested, what is perfectly true, that the tribunals that are to be set up will work in a very different atmosphere from the tribunals that were set up under the Conscription Act in the last War. Granted all that, does he really believe that the tribunals are going to function smoothly and without mistakes? You cannot prove a conscientious objection. It is not susceptible of proof, any more than it is susceptible of disproof. I think it is admitted that a conscientious objection is an entirely irrational point of view. [Interruption.] By that I do not mean that it is wrong; it is irrational because it is not based upon reason. Primarily it is an emotional attitude, and how is it possible to prove or disprove an emotional attitude? All that the conscientious objector can do is to state that he is a conscientious objector, and let it rest there. He may bring evidence to show that he has been engaged in pacifist work, but there are not many people who are engaged in pacifist work, and the fact that they are not engaged in such work is no evidence that they have not a conscientious objection.
    Even, to quote the adjective of the Attorney-General or the Minister of Labour, "an honest tribunal," a sympathetic tribunal is in a difficult position. It cannot test what is untestable or accept proof of what is unprovable. What about the prejudice tribunals? Does any one suggest that we are going to have tribunals set up throughout the country, in rural areas and in towns, and that all the men who will serve on those tribunals will be utterly just and balanced? There are bound to be a very large number of tribunals, just as there were during the War, which are prejudiced and are not prepared to give really serious consideration to the claim that a man has a conscience. What are you going to do in those cases? In the last War nearly half the members of the Society of Friends were in gaol. I think it is generally recognised that members of the Society of Friends have for centuries taken a very definite line on this question. You are going to have mistakes made, mistakes even by honest, sympathetic tribunals, and far more mistakes will be made by tribunals which are definitely prejudiced. What will happen then?
    The Attorney-General says that the decision of the tribunal must ultimately be
    1692
    final. Suppose the conscientious objector does not accept it as final. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) went before a tribunal during the War and the opinion of that tribunal, according to law, was final, but he did not accept it. I went before a tribunal during the War, and before an appellate tribunal. I did not accept their decision. I was sentenced to two years' imprisonment, but eventually I got before the appeal tribunal which sat at Wormwood Scrubs, and apparently they decided that I was genuine, because I was put on work of national importance. But the only difference was that instead of sewing mail bags in Wormwood Scrubs I sewed them at Wakefield.
    Are you to set up an appeal tribunal on the other side of the Army, so to say, as they had during the War? What is the Secretary of State for War going to do when the conscientious objector is turned down and he refuses to accept the decision of the tribunal as final? He will have to handle them somehow. Does he want them in the Army? Does he want these men going through the same business that occurred during the War, receiving military orders, refusing to obey them and then being sentenced by court-martial to C.B., to detention, or to 112 days in a military prison, and then coming back, and the whole process being repeated? Does he want to go through over again all the trouble there was in the regiments in the War? If he does not want that, his alternative is to accept our proposal. Our first new Clause deals with the conscientious objector who is turned down and refuses to obey orders. We suggest that he should be taken before a civil court and not sentenced by the military. Our second new Clause suggests that instead of the man being handed over to the military he should be tried not as a conscientious objector but as a man who has failed to register, and that when he receives a penalty that penalty absolves him from military service. If the man is prepared to accept the possibility of a penalty of two years' imprisonment instead of six months in the Army, I think it is a reasonable assumption that he is genuine in his objection. We have put in what is admittedly a very stiff penalty, because we know that there are men who would rather do two years in gaol than six months in military training.

    1693
    I think that is definitely a test of their genuineness. The Attorney-General and the Secretary of State for War will have to deal with these people, and I suggest that they should accept our two new Clauses which will have the effect of keeping them out of the Army.
    6.26 p.m.
    Mr. Lees-Smith: I do not want to bring the Debate to an end, because some of my hon. Friends have very valuable suggestions to make. The discussion has shown that there is here a difficulty to which the Government have not yet thought out a reply. Let me put to the Attorney-General the difficulty in which we shall find ourselves. Looking at the situation, nobody can doubt that there will be a certain number of men who will find themselves put into the Army and who will undoubtedly refuse to obey orders. They will then be sentenced under the Army Act to six months' or 12 months' imprisonment. Very probably the sentence will run right beyond their six months' service. Suppose it does not, suppose it is only a six months' sentence; then they come out of prison when the six months is over. But that does not end their service. Presumably, they will have to join the Territorial Army, and they will be part of the Special Reserve. After a few months they will be called up in the Special Reserve, and again they will receive military orders and will refuse to obey. This time the sentence may be perhaps a year's imprisonment. When they come out they will still be in the Special Reserve, and may be subjected to another military order and another year's imprisonment. A man in these circumstances, on finding himself in the Army, may be in prison for about four years, or rather more. I do not believe that the public will accept that situation. The Attorney-General has given a reply which has not met the difficulty and has not shown that the Government have yet thought out how they are to deal with this question, which must inevitably arise. I make these observations now because the Debate will continue for a short time and it will give the Government an opportunity of thinking out how they will deal with this matter.
    6.29 p.m.
    Mr. Stephen: I support the new Clause and I would stress what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman. The
    1694
    Attorney-General pointed out some of the difficulties in connection with the new Clause, but he did not give us any indication how the Government intend to deal with the problem. Obviously, there is a problem. When the machinery under the Act has been exhausted there is nothing, so far as the Government have given any indication, that is provided in the way of dealing with those who are unable to get exemption as conscientious objectors and who will refuse to carry out military orders. The Attorney-General says that it is to be hoped that in a different atmosphere and with a different tribunal these matters will not arise. It is quite obvious, since tribunals are being set up, that the Government think the problem will arise. The very fact that there are courts or tribunals indicates that there will be cases when the court will not be able to give satisfaction, and that there will be difficult cases to deal with. It is only fair to the House that the Government should give us some idea of what is in their minds for dealing with these people. I surmise that what the Government have in mind is that when the problem arises steps will have to be taken to deal with it if it becomes sufficiently great, but in the meantime there is to be no machinery provided because the Government think that if it was provided a larger number would seek to get exemption on the ground of conscientious objection. That is not really a decent way of dealing with the question. I do not think that these people should be put in a position of having to suffer a court martial in order that somebody who the Government think may have no conscientious objection should not be allowed to pass through the door of conscientious objection.
    I do not think it is fair to the military authorities. From what I know of past experience the military authorities were left with a very miserable job which they did not want to undertake. Soldiers themselves felt that they were put in a position for which the civilian authorities should have provided, and that they were given an additional distasteful task to all their other military duties. Here again it is to be left to the Army to deal with. It is not fair to the military. They have their own jobs and difficulties, and it is the duty of the civilian authority to legislate and see that provision is made for dealing with this question. I hope the Government will tell us how they are going to

    1695
    deal with people who have been refused exemption by a tribunal and who, in spite of that refusal, still refuse to carry out a military order. How are the Government going to deal with that situation? I hope the Secretary of State for War will give us an answer if they do not accept the proposed new Clause.
    6.35 p.m.
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: It has been generally admitted that the Government throughout the discussions of this Measure have shown a desire to be guided by the feelings, and particularly the conscientious feelings, of the House. Notoriously, we are dealing here with the most difficult if not the most insoluble of all questions, because the human conscience obeys no tribunal. It is its own tribunal. Nevertheless we have endeavoured to set up fair tribunals, to establish indeed a tribunal of first instance and an appeal tribunal, and clearly as has been said, the Army expects, when it receives a militiaman, to receive someone who has been through that procedure—if he goes through it at all—and who is free to be treated as all other soldiers are treated. We do not desire to have complications in the Army and to have to deal with persons who have scruples of the character which have been described. That would be a matter of great inconvenience. No one can have listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) without feeling the utmost sympathy for the experience he underwent and without being inspired by a desire to discover some means of avoiding an occurrence of that kind happening again. Certainly we do not desire that it should happen again.
    How then are we to find a means of doing justice to these genuine feelings without providing an obvious and easy means of escape for those who simulate these feelings in order to avoid an obligation which the rest of the community is to undergo? It is really quite insoluble, as I have said. The fact that the movers and supporters of this new Clause are sincere is shown by the liability under which they would place the conscientious objector to undergo two years' imprisonment if sentenced to that term by a civilian court; they are not trying to provide an easy means of escape for the shirker. They are subjecting the con-
    1696
    scientious objector to a very severe test of his conscientious objection, and the Government would certainly desire to do what they could to show their respect for that point of view.
    We had no intention of accepting the new Clauses, for the reasons given by the Attorney-General. We did not think that they were good Amendments, and we thought that we had taken every possible precaution to deal fairly with the conscientious objector. However, there still remains this peculiarly difficult type of case; the man who refuses to accept the verdict of the tribunal and declines to obey a military order on the ground of his conscience. I cannot say that the new Clauses are well drawn, and we did not desire to delay the progress of the Measure by introducing Amendments in another place. But we feel that the case made out is so important and urgent that the House would not delay the passage of the Bill if we inserted an Amendment in another place, if we can discover the proper form of words to meet the type of case in mind. We do desire to deal with the man who is prepared to go to prison rather than obey a military order because of his conscientious views, and if the hon. Member will withdraw the new Clause—it is not perfectly worded—we will consider whether before the Bill is through we can insert a proposal which will cover his desires either in this House or in another place.
    6.40 p.m.
    Mr. Lansbury: I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has just said, but I want to bring him back to the very fundamental question we have been discussing and beg him to give an assurance that he will do something. I quite agree that we cannot expect him to do it in the manner we propose, but the real thing we want to prevent is the cat-and-mouse business and any ill-treatment of a man while he is under military service. That took place very often. The Bill itself recognises the conscientious feelings of our colleagues from Ulster. None of us has any doubt as to their conscientious feelings in regard to unity with Great Britain and not unity with Southern Ireland. This is recognised in the Bill, we recognise their conscientious objection that they would rather be connected with this country than with

    1697
    Southern Ireland. As to the other point, there are quite a number of people who out of their own experience understand what an absolutist really stands for. Over and over again in one form or another people have had to take their stand on their conscience. I did not really get up to say that. I got up to ask the right hon. Gentleman that he will be a little more watertight in regard to his promise and that he will not only consider but will draft something which will prevent a man being repeatedly punished for the same offence in the way the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) has described.
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: If the House will allow me, I want to say that we will endeavour to meet this case if not in this form, at least in the spirit. If we have to introduce an Amendment in another place I hope that no objection will be taken to taking the Lords Amendments late at night and that we shall not be delayed in the progress of this Bill. I hope we may have an assurance on that point from the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
    6.42 p.m.
    Mr. Lees-Smith: I am sure that my hon. Friend will withdraw the new Clause and that when the Lords Amendments are here we will deal with them in the spirit in which the Secretary for War has now dealt with this Clause. He is setting an example as to how the business of the House should be conducted in the right way. We do not want to have further discussions when the Lords Amendments come down. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will realise that when a man has refused to obey a military order and is sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment that even then his military service will not be at an end, because he will then be called up to the Special Reserve and the same process might be repeated. I hope he will realise that it is necessary to cover that rather intricate point.
    Mr. Messer: In view of the statement of the Secretary of State for War, which is consistent with the attitude the Government have taken up on this Bill right through, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Penalties for offences.)
    If any person acts in contravention of, or fails to comply with, any regulation made under this Act and contravention of, or failure to comply with, that regulation is not made an offence under any other provisions of this Act, he shall, for each offence, be liable on summary conviction to such maximum penalty not exceeding a fine of fifty pounds as may be prescribed by the regulations.—[Mr. Dingle Foot.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    6.44 p.m.
    Mr. Dingle Foot: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This Clause deals with the punishments to be imposed for breaches of the regulations made under the Bill and to ensure that the punishments shall be laid down in the Bill and not left to be determined by the regulations themselves. This is a somewhat different type of Clause from the last one which we discussed, but again it raises a question of principle, and I hope the Government will be as accommodating on this Clause as they were on the last one. In the Bill as it now is, there is a power to make regulations and to prescribe within the regulations themselves what shall be the punishment for a breach of those regulations, and in the Bill there is no limit. If hon. Members will look at Clause 6, Sub-section (5)—a Sub-section which was not originally in the Bill, but which was inserted during the Committee stage—they will see that the Minister is given power to make regulations in order to prevent evasion by employers. Nobody quarrels with the purpose of that provision, which is to meet the case of the employer who takes a man back after his militia service and then sacks him after a few days. But if hon. Members will look at the wording closely, they will see that it is stated that the Minister
    "may make regulations for those purposes, and such regulations may make provision for the punishment of breaches of the regulations."
    There is no limit inserted in the Bill. This represents a new and, in my opinion, an entirely vicious practice which has grown up during the last year or two. It frequently happens that Statutes are passed by Parliament empowering a Minister to make regulations, although seldom do we give a power quite as wide as that in this Sub-section; but in the past Parliament has always inserted in the Bill

    1699
    a provision as to what shall be the punishment for any breach of those regulations. In the past, Parliament has always done one of two things: either it has stated in the Bill that the maximum penalty should be so much, or it has said that the Minister may annex a penalty to a breach of the regulations not exceeding a certain amount or a certain length of imprisonment; that is to say, the amount of the penalty or the kind of penalty has always been determined by Parliament and not by a Government Department. I think it is relevant to quote one recommendation of the Committee on Minister's Powers. That Committee did not deal with this particular practice, because the practice had not arisen when they reported; but they made a recommendation which I think is relevant to this matter. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour is in his place.
    I remember hearing a very eloquent speech which he made, before he was raised to his present high office, on the subject of the Donoughmore Report, when he said what an admirable report it was and that every hon. Member must agree with its conclusions. I hope that he still holds that view, because he will remember that the Committee said in most emphatic terms that the precise limits of the law-giving power which Parliament intended to confer on a Department should always be denned in the clearest terms by the Statute and that even when a discretion was intended to be conferred its limits should be defined with the utmost clearness. I hope those words still commend themselves to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour as they did a year or two ago. Of course, that recommendation has been entirely ignored in the wording in the Sub-section to which I have referred. In this case there is an absolutely unlimited discretion in the Department to impose any punishment it pleases for a breach of these regulations. There is no sort of restriction on the punishment which the Minister may impose. If he wished to do so, he could, under this Section, even impose the death penalty for a breach of the regulations; he could, if he wished, bring back the thumbscrew and the rack as a punishment for a breach of the regulations.
    There is, then, this remarkable feature. If hon. Members will look at Clause 6,
    1700
    they will see that Sub-section (1) deals with the employer who fails to reinstate a man who has come back from military service, and it is laid down that if he fails to do so, he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £50, and that the court may order him to pay to the person whom he has failed to reinstate an amount equal to 12 weeks' wages. What an odd thing it would be if an employer were liable only to a fine of £50 for a breach of the statute, and if, as might happen, he were liable to imprisonment for a breach of the regulations. I am not arguing as to what is the correct penalty—and hon. Members may take the view that under Clause 6 the offending employer should be liable to imprisonment—but certainly there ought not to be a heavier penalty for a breach of Ministerial regulations than for a breach of the terms of an Act of Parliament.
    It may be said that there is no intention of imposing a heavier penalty. If that be so, why not put it in the Bill, so that Parliament may know what the penalty is to be and what sort of punishment it is intended to inflict upon citizens of this country. I know it will be said that the regulations are to be laid before Parliament for 40 days. There are two answers to that: first, that we cannot amend the regulations, and that hon. Members will be very reluctant, I think, to reject the whole of the regulations simply because they disapprove of a particular penalty that is imposed; and secondly, that the regulations become law at once, before Parliament even sees them. Under the Bill, there is not even a provision for antecedent publicity. I think I am right in saying that the provisions of the Rules (Publications) Act do not apply. These regulations will be made and there may be a punishment, the extent of which we cannot tell, coming into effect immediately, without Parliamentary approval.
    May I briefly remind the House of the history of this practice? The first time that an expedient of this kind was proposed was in the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Bill, which came before the House in June, 1934. There it was proposed that the Board of Trade should have power to make an Order and might itself prescribe the penalty for a breach of its own Order. The Attorney-General, who was then Solicitor-General, was in charge of the Debate. He will remember that there were protests from

    1701
    different parts of the Committee, and that he himself said that he could find no precedent for a provision of this kind. As a result of the speeches that were made, the present Prime Minister, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, eventually gave way. He said, on 26th June, 1934:
    "The criticism upon this paragraph has been of a two-fold character; first of all that there was insufficient recognition of the words, and secondly, that there was no mention of any maximum penalty. I recognise that there is a good deal to be said for the criticism, and although it appeared at first that there was some difficulty, I think I have now been able to get over it. Therefore, if the hon. Member is prepared to withdraw his Amendment I shall be very happy to submit to the Committee words which I think will carry out both the purposes, amend the words of the paragraph and also put in maximum penalties."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June, 1934;col. 1088,Vol. 291.]
    The point then was precisely the same as that which I am now raising, and the present Prime Minister recognised that there was substance in it. The second occasion when a provision of this sort was made was on the Merchant Shipping (Spanish Frontiers Observation) Bill, which came before the House in March, 1937, in the small hours of the morning. The Government got the provision through on that occasion, although the Solicitor-General, who was in charge of the Bill, said:
    "I know of no precedent for a Clause of this kind leaving the penalties entirely open."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1937; col. 2434; Vol. 321.]
    The argument that was then advanced was that, in dealing with the question of the observation of the Spanish frontiers, for the enforcement of the Non-intervention Agreement, we were entering into an entirely uncharted territory as far as the law was concerned, and that it was very difficult to anticipate what penalties would be sufficient. But that is not the case now. In dealing with similar offences earlier in the same Clause, there is a definite penalty of £50 stated. I cannot see any reason for not having the same provision when dealing with the later Sub-section. I urge upon the Attorney-General that these powers are entirely unnecessary here, and that there is no good reason why the House should depart from the normal and salutary practice of putting a definite maximum in the Bill. As I have said, it would be a remakable thing—and it could happen—if the penalty for a breach of the regulations were
    1702
    higher than the penalty for a similar offence which was a breach of the Act itself.
    I want to make it clear that my hon. Friends and I are not in any way defending evasion. We are not saying that the employer who tries to evade the provisions should not be punished, for we think that he should. We think it is right and proper that he should pay a heavy fine if necessary, and it might be urged with some reason that a term of imprisonment might properly be included. It is proper that there should be in this part of the Clause, as in the earlier part, a provision that he should make some amends to the man who has been dismissed up to an amount representing 12 weeks' wages. I submit, however, that it is entirely wrong that we should leave these matters open, and leave to some Whitehall Department, however conscientious and wise it may be, the determination of these matters which vitally effect the liberty of the subject.
    Sir Percy Harris: I beg to second the Motion.
    6.57 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) began by expressing the hope that the Government might be as accommodating on this new Clause as they were on the last one. I cannot quite fulfil his expectations, but I hope that I may satisfy him and that, in view of the assurances that I shall give him, he may be willing not to press the Clause.
    I agree with practically everything that the hon. Member said. I think that in his researches, which obviously have been considerable, he may have overlooked the Livestock Industry Act, and I am not sure that he has not overlooked the Eire Agreement Act. As the hon. Member very seldom overlooks anything, I think it is right that his delinquencies in that respect should be pointed out, for we rely upon him not to make mistakes and omissions of that kind in dealing with points that raise broad and fundamental constitutional issues. Quite frankly, however, I agree with the principle. I think Acts ought to contain the maximum penalties that can be imposed under regulations. This Bill is a rather complicated one, and the wording of the new Clause would not be right, for reasons

    1703
    which I will indicate. First of all, the penalty under Clause 1 is £5. Regulations can be made under that Clause as under Clause 6. The wording of the new Clause would enable a penalty of £50 to be put in the regulations under Clause 1.
    Mr. Foot: I have endeavoured to avoid that, because the wording of my new Clause is:
    "If any person acts in contravention of, or fails to comply with, any regulation made under this Act and contravention of, or failure to comply with, that regulation is not made an offence under any other provisions of this Act.…"
    I may have failed to do that, but it was my intention.
    The Attorney-General: I think the hon. Member has failed to do it, and in view of the special circumstances of this Bill—and while accepting what is, I think, a right principle—I ask the hon. Member not to press the Clause. There is also a provision as to the 12 weeks' remuneration, and the hon. Gentleman agrees that it would not be unreasonable that the regulations should also be able to incorporate that which is not strictly a penalty. I can assure him and the House that the regulations will not impose maximum penalties greater than those in the substantive parts of the Bill which deal with offences. In view of that quite definite assurance, I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press his Clause.
    Mr. Foot: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down I should like to be quite sure what the assurance is. Is the assurance that a definite maximum will be put in the Bill? If so, I will certainly withdraw the Clause. I do not want an assurance about something which is going to be done in the Regulations. If the intention is that the maximum should not be greater than £50, why should it not be put into the Bill itself, and avoid what the Attorney-General admits is a very undesirable practice?
    The Attorney-General: The assurance is that the penalties under any Regulations will not exceed the penalties in the Act. The hon. Gentleman knows the position in which this Bill is. We want to accelerate these further stages as much as possible, in another place as well as here.
    1704
    It is desirable to avoid redrafting and the insertion of an Amendment at a later stage, and I ask the hon. Gentleman and the House in the special circumstances of this Bill to accept my assurance on behalf of the Government that the penalties imposed under the Regulations will not exceed the penalties of this Bill. If, in spite of that assurance, the hon. Member presses his Amendment, I shall recommend the House to go to a Division.
    7.3 p.m.
    Mr. H. G. Williams: I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) on having raised this point. The Attorney-General has done his very best to meet him, but it is of the utmost importance that all legislation involving Regulations should be examined in the most meticulous way. I well remember a recent Debate about an offence which was going to be created because a policeman might go into a garage and charge you with an offence in your absence if your brakes were not in working order. As a result of our protests against that Regulation, it was ultimately withdrawn and amended. But on this issue the Regulations, I imagine, will be submitted to us at a very early date, and therefore the assurance of the Attorney-General is of very great value. If it were an assurance in regard to an indefinite future, it could only bind himself and the present Government, and it would not necessarily bind his successors for all time. But in view of the fact that the assurance has been given in such definite terms, and having regard to the fact that any Regulations that are to be made must be made at a very early date, the assurance is of much higher value than would otherwise be the case. The reason why I have risen is because I want to support the hon. Gentleman in the constant struggle he is making to see that our liberties are not given away by the introduction in Acts of Parliament of powers to vary the terms of the Act by means of a procedure which is something less than an Act of Parliament itself. It was only a week last Friday, in connection with the Coast Erosion Bill, that we had what in principle was an identical Debate. We carried the matter to a Division, and ultimately we won by 61 votes to 51. The same underlying principle was involved on that occasion. I think it is very important that we should not abandon our

    1705
    watchfulness in these matters, which so much concern the liberty of the subject.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

    CLAUSE I.—(Classes of persons liable to be registered and called up for military training.)
    7.5 p.m.
    Mr. Perkins: I beg to move, in page 1, line 20, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided that in the case of any such person in which to the satisfaction of the Minister and/or Military Training (Hardship) Committee it is established that immediate calling up would imperil the existence of the business which he alone carries on, there shall be accorded one year's postponement of the military training specified to enable him to make suitable arrangements for his absence from the said business."
    This Amendment explains itself. The object is to avoid undue hardship falling on a young man working for his own profit in some little business. I think every hon. Member knows from his own experience of one or two really hard cases in his own constituency. They will be very few in number, and they will of course occur only in the first 12 months of the operation of the Act. As an example of what I mean I will give a hypothetical case. A young man aged 20, whose father and mother are dead, starts on his own account in a small business, perhaps a chicken farm, perhaps a milk round, perhaps a small shop, and then suddenly in the middle of this summer he gets called up. What is he to do with his business? He cannot afford to employ someone. The alternative left to him is to sell his business, and to sell it at a fortnight's notice. The whole object of my Amendment is to give men in those conditions 12 months' warning in order that they will have time to make some arrangements for the carrying on of their business, so that the business will be there for them to go back to when they have completed their term of service.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I beg to second the Amendment.
    7.8 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having proposed this Amendment, not that we are in a position to accept it, but because it gives me an opportunity
    1706
    to make a very brief but frank statement of what the conditions would be in the situation outlined. The important thing is that the postponement that can be granted where necessary should be long enough to enable a man to make alternative arrangements for the carrying on of his work or business during the period he actually passes in the militia service. At the present moment the Minister and the hardship committee have got full discretion to grant a postponement where they think hardship would arise. The effect of this Amendment would be to limit this discretion, so that postponement could be accorded only for one year. It might be that circumstances would arise when a year's postponement would be unnecessarily long, and it might well have been possible for the man in a period of less than one year to have made alternative arrangements for the carrying on of his business. Again, it is possible to imagine circumstances when a postponement longer than one year would be desirable in order to prevent hardship to the man. I hope that, with this explanation, my hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment, bearing in mind that the interests which he represents will not be forgotten by the Government or the hardship committees.
    Mr. Perkins: After that very satisfactory statement I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    7.10 p.m.
    Mr. E. Smith: I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, after "registered," to insert:
    "or may permit any person so registered to be exempt from his liability to be called up for military training."
    The purpose of this Amendment is to empower the Minister or the hardship committee to exempt a person altogether from his military service. I shall be brief and give one or two concrete examples of what I have in mind, in order that the Minister may give consideration to them. The hon. Member who has just spoken referred to the position of small business men. In some industrial areas people have to put the whole of their savings into businesses, and in some cases when they have met with an accident, or have met with difficulties of an economic character, the carrying on of such a business depends entirely on a son, and we

    1707
    say that in cases of hardship of that character special consideration should be given. I will take just two further examples. In some cases a widow is totally dependent on her son for her maintenance, and then the Minister or the hardship committee should have power to do what is proposed in this Amendment.
    My final case is this. It is well known that people who suffer injury in industry are in a very serious position. There is a Royal Commission considering that, and with all the complications that they have to contend with the probability is that it will be years before they issue their report. During that period it will be most unfair in cases where the parents are totally dependent upon the son, to take him away in these hard circumstances. We know that the maximum amount which an injured person can draw is 30s. a week. Compensation is based on the pre-accident earnings, and in many cases, due to short time or to circumstances over which the man has no control, they have to manage on 15s. or 20s. a week. In cases of that character it would be most unfair to take the son away from a crippled father who may have been injured in the pit or in industry in other ways. Therefore, we say that special cases of this character ought to have special treatment.
    7.14 p.m.
    Mr. Price: I beg to second the Amendment.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) has referred to cases of hardship in industrial areas. I would like to refer to cases of a similar kind and just as serious which may occur in rural areas among the farming community. They may also have the further serious effect of tending towards a decrease in the production of food in this country. That is the one thing which, in the event of an emergency, we want to avoid. I have in mind such cases as smallholders who work holdings by themselves. Much more frequent is the case of a small family farmer having a son on whom he is dependent. When the son comes of military age it will be difficult for him to carry on. In view of the fact that food production is so important and of the plans which are being put forward for ploughing up the land and increasing food
    1708
    production, farmers are becoming very anxious. In my constituency recently there was a meeting at which it was discussed, and the fear was expressed that unless the hardship committees were able to deal with cases of this kind the result would not only be hardship but a decrease of food production.
    7.16 p.m.
    Mr. E. Brown: This is a similar issue to that which has just been discussed. It raises the whole scheme of the Bill. It is a very simple scheme and was decided after the most careful consideration. It was decided that there should be only three causes for exemption, namely, service in the Regular Forces, conscientious objection and failure to pass the medical board. The moment we depart from that clear principle it will not be only the hard case of the only son of a widow mentioned by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) but a whole catalogue of hard cases will have to be included. Taken separately a case could be made out for each in terms of sympathy, but to include them would destroy the whole structure of the Bill. The Government decided, therefore, to proceed not along that line but rather upon the road of postponement. This Clause proposes to give power of postponement to the Minister or the hardship committee may postpone for a period which may be six months or 12 months, or, in extreme cases, much longer. If we started to make exceptions there would be no end to the list of separate cases that might be made, and it is clear that the two things—postponement and exemption—could not work together.
    7.24 p.m.
    Mr. Ridley: The fact that in the Minister's view there might be a long catalogue of cases surely justifies the Amendment rather than disposes of it. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to look at it from this point of view. It is a sound axiom never to refuse to widen the area of exemption where hardship exists. The number of cases may be many, as the Minister seems to think, or much smaller, as I think, but however many the number, there must be some where the Minister would find it expedient to exercise authority to exempt from military service. Whether the number of cases be large or small it would be wise to have a power of exemption. In the absence of such power the Minister would surely be in an

    1709
    uncomfortable situation if he discovered a case where it was obvious that the right of exemption had been proved but, because this Amendment was refused, the Act denied him any authority to grant exemption. I know that hard cases do not make good law, but may I quote a case which seems to typify the necessity for the right to exercise this power? This case did not come to me in connection with the Military Training Bill, but it might have been constructed in order to justify my argument.
    It is a case of a family in which the father has been for a long time unemployed and is likely to be unemployed for life for health reasons. The mother has broken down under the strain and anxiety of her family experiences. There is a boy of 25 who, after service in the Regular Army, with three years in India, was discharged last June, and since then he has had three weeks' employment. Otherwise, he has been completely unemployed and is, therefore, an obstacle to the recruiting sergeant in the successful development of the voluntary system. There is another boy of 18½ who is more unemployed than employed. There is a girl of 14 who is about to leave school in order to go into employment. The only earning member of the family is a boy who will be 21 in the early autumn of this year. This Bill will, therefore, without the power to grant exemption in that special and surely exceptionally hard case, take out of that family the only earning member. It will confront them with an economic hardship which I cannot help feeling would justify a right of exemption being inserted in the Clause.
    7.26 p.m.
    Mr. Shinwell: There will be general agreement that if the power to exempt were exercised it might lead us into difficulties. All sorts of cases would arise, complications would ensue and many awkward questions would be asked in this House. It has occurred to me that there might be one way out of the difficulty. Persons who enrolled in the Territorial Force before 27th April were exempt from the provisions of this Bill. It might be properly urged upon the Government that if, in the opinion of the hardship committee, there was a strong case for exempting a person, that person might be called upon to enrol in the Territorial Force. If exemption is to be provided at one end to persons who were in the Territorials before
    1710
    a particular date, there is surely a case at the other end, on the assumption that there existed strong ground for exemption, for asking a person to enrol in the Territorial Force who might normally come under the Bill.
    That is a possible way out of the difficulty. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept it at once, but I ask him to consider it. It is imposing a serious obligation on the hardship committee if they are refused any power to exercise the right of exemption. They may be confronted with a case where it is clear serious hardship would ensue, not merely temporary hardship for six months or a year, but hardship for a long time to come, or there may be a case where it was desirable that a person should not be asked to undergo training for six months because he was engaged on work of national importance. What is the position in the case where a person is engaged on such work? If such a man appears before a hardship committee and they have no power to exempt him, what will be the position? The Minister should exercise considerable caution before he imposes an obligation on the hardship committee of being unable to exempt in any circumstances.
    7.26 p.m.
    Sir Arnold Wilson: I have on the Paper an Amendment to much the same effect and I am glad to shorten proceedings by saying what I have to say now. The words which I had on the Paper were intended to allow exemption to youths of 19 and upwards who have such financial or business obligations or are in such a domestic position that serious hardship would ensue if they should be called up for military training. The operative words are taken from the Military Service Act, 1916. That Act definitely exempted such persons. The real injustice—and it is a serious injustice—in this Bill is that such youths cannot, like others, anticipate their service. It can only be postponed. Others from 17½ upwards can anticipate their service on good cause being shown, but upon those unable to anticipate the Bill presses with cruel hardship. They have undertaken serious financial and domestic obligations from which they are unable to absolve themselves. These youths cannot be reinstated for they are in one-man businesses and their businesses will come to an end when they enter the service.

    1711
    I have been at pains to look up the early history of conscription in several foreign countries. In every case when universal military service was started pains were taken to provide plenty of exemptions during the first few years, and thereafter with ample notice, to stiffen it up. I submit we have gone too far in this Bill in making the obligation absolute and universal to an extent which no foreign country in Europe ever contemplated. The only son of a widow, the one-man business and the persons who have dependants were exempted in France, if I remember right, until 1906, and in Germany until 1912. In every case when they knocked off exemptions they gave two or three years' notice and they provided, as this Bill does, for anticipation. The proviso which I should like to see substituted would be needed for the next 18 months, and not, as the hon. Gentleman has just suggested, for the period of the Bill. The intention is to exempt young men over 19 already running one-man businesses and who have serious financial or domestic obligations. Those not yet 19 can very well anticipate their service and do their training.
    I have four cases that I should like to put before the Minister to illustrate what I have in mind. The first is that of a young man who, on the death of his father six months ago, took on his father's business as a draper. He is just over 20. He keeps the accounts, buys the stock, and manages the shop, and he is doing it single-handed and making a success of it. He could not afford to put in a manager. He has to pay the rent, he has financial obligations, and he has to interview travellers. If he is called up, he will have to close the shop. He cannot be reinstated. The maxim that "hard cases make bad law," is applicable to judges in the execution of their functions; but not to the House of Commons when it is endeavouring to produce a just law that will not create hard cases.
    The second case that I have in mind is a young man who a year ago set up in a village as a butcher. He has earned a thoroughly good reputation by not merely selling foreign meat at the usual prices, but making the very most of every animal that he takes from the local farmers and converting every part of it into its appro-
    1712
    priate delicacy—and there are far more assets to be got out of a pig than anyone has any idea of who does not live in Lancashire. He has made a success of the business, but it is a one-man business, and he does the whole thing himself. He is proud of his skill and of his clientèle. He is the very sort of person whom Members on both sides of the House admire and wish to see more of. We cannot help the growth of big businesses, whether as chain stores or as co-operative societies, but we can do what little we can in this House to encourage the young, independent man who has risked much in order to make his own way in the world, who is responsible to nobody but himself, and who is neither an insured person nor an employed person, but an independent citizen.
    The third case is that of a locksmith, with business in great blocks of flats and offices, whose proprietors occasionally want new keys. They do not want to entrust their sample or master keys to a large factory, which may employ men who are here to-day and gone to-morrow. It is a very responsible and a very honourable post to be locksmith to a large group of flats or big offices. This young man was established in that trade a year ago. He is "on his own," and he has his little shop. No Order in Council could enable the Government to pay his rent. He has his clientèle, who may send for him at all hours of the day or night, to make keys—a job which requires all his skill. He has a safe in which he keeps the master keys of the locks of the various offices. He will find that if he is called up, he has lost his trade, and he cannot get back his clientele. I submit that there is no equality of sacrifice between him and a youth who is an employed person.
    The fourth case is that of a young man on a smallholding. There are many of them, but I would rather see 30,000 of them lost in the first year if we exempt them and give the Act a good name from the start. I am thinking of the boy half-way through his nineteenth and twentieth year, who is the one hand employed on a smallholding, with his father, or with his mother, or with his two sisters or a brother. He is the key man of a business which provides a hard but honourable and an independent living for men and women who wish nothing better than to owe nothing to anybody and to be dependent on nobody. Under this Bill he

    1713
    cannot anticipate his service, as he could have done if he had been two years younger. He must abandon the job and put in a hired man for six months. Now a hired man, as every agricultural Member knows, who can be trusted to take on a job, with a mother and sister, and work in with a family as a help, and do seven days' work in agriculture, is not easily to be found, and I do not think any compensation, any system of adjustment by Order in Council, can meet such cases.
    I urge the Government, if they cannot do it now, to consider in another place whether, by being so strict, by refusing exemption to anybody except on grounds of conscience, they are not doing far more damage to the Measure in the future throughout the country than they would do by allowing reasonable exemptions on these grounds just for the next 18 months, in the interest of this particular generation, on whom the blow has fallen with such severity. My Amendment contemplated exemptions only for those who were already 19 years of age, numbering perhaps 6,000 or 7,000, possibly 10,000, who may face ruin. The Government cannot compensate them; they cannot be reinstated; they cannot find anyone to take their place; and they will lose the little niches in society which they have already carved for themselves. Are we to tell them that we will make no exemptions, that the House of Commons feels that everybody must share and share alike? Will the young man who will have a guarantee of reinstatement share and share alike with the young man who has no guarantee, who, in fact, knows that his business will be ruined? I think we shall be making a grievous mistake in so doing.
    There is the old legal maxim, "Exceptio probat legem," or, alternatively, "Exceptio probat regulum," the exception is the test as to whether or not the rule is good. The exceptions which I have indicated—and there are, of course, many other categories—suggests that the rule, as laid down in this Bill, is not a good one, and that we should give some liberty to the tribunal to exempt boys who cannot, by reason of their age, anticipate their service. We did it in the Military Service Act, 1916, and it was a complete success. The tribunals worked honestly and fairly, and although there was a considerable number of exemptions, it made it possible for the work of the
    1714
    country to go on. In the words of Ecclesiasticus, XXXVIII:
    "All these trust to their hands: and every one is wise in his work.
    Without these cannot a city be inhabited: and they shall not dwell where they will, nor go up and down:
    They shall not be sought for in publick counsel, nor sit high in the congregation: they shall not sit on the judges' seat, nor understand the sentence of judgment; they cannot declare justice and judgment; and they shall not be found where parables are spoken.
    But they will maintain the state of the world, and (all) their desire is in the work of their craft."
    It is for those that I appeal.
    7.41 p.m.
    Mr. Lees-Smith: The hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) has brought this Debate to a new proposal, or to a modification of the original proposal, on which the Government ought to make a statement and on which, if we had time to discuss the Bill in the usual way, I think the general desire of the House would be that the Government should meet the kind of case that the hon. and gallant Member has put forward. He has developed his case at considerable length, but may I state, in two or three sentences, how real and powerful his contention is? The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour has objected to this Amendment, which would give these powers of exemption for all time, and indeed, so far as all time is concerned, it will be possible for young men in the future to adjust themselves to the circumstances, because they would have, broadly, from 17½ to about 21, a long period, and it might be possible, without great dislocation, to find within it some six months for military service. But the hon. and gallant Member has put a case which undoubtedly will lead to the ruin of businesses. We are ruining businesses now, because now, on 30th June, there will be throughout the country young men called up for service, perhaps young men in their own business, or more frequently in a business belonging perhaps to a father, which depends on the young man, and he cannot be replaced. Beyond the possible power to postpone for one year, there will be no alternative method before the tribunal, and it is reasonable that such cases should be met ad hoc for one year or 18 months. The Minister of Labour ought either to meet

    1715
    the point or at any rate to answer it before the Debate concludes.
    7.43 p.m.
    Mr. Turton: I agree entirely with what has fallen from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson), and also with the speech of the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), although in so far as he talked about Territorials, I hope that, as there is an Amendment on the Paper to Clause 2, in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir E. Ruggles-Brise), it will not be necessary to deal with that side of the matter now. I rise to support the argument put forward from the point of view of the family farm. I raised this question last Friday, on the Committee stage, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said in reply:
    "Where there is only one worker on a faun, that case will be specially considered, and what arrangements can be made will be made to avoid hardship."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th May, 1939; col. 879, Vol. 347.]
    I listened to the sympathetic approach to this question that the Minister of Labour made. He said that what the tribunal would do would be to postpone such cases, perhaps for a long period, but I do not see how, by a mere postponement, you will do away with the injury that will follow to these men on family farms. I will take the instance of a man of 60 working on a farm with a boy of 20. All the heavy work on the farm is done by the young man. In many cases the old man is not fit for it. If you postpone the young man's service for two or three years it only means that the farmer is growing older and the son more indispensable. There are farms where there is never any hired labour at all. They are much too small for that and their method of farming is not conducive to the use of hired labour. The son goes on working for his father and in due course the father retires and the son takes over the farm and thus it is carried on from generation to generation.
    These family farms are to be found in various areas of the country. In the Yorkshire Dales the family farm is usual and the larger farm is the exception. The difficulty about the problem is that by taking these young men you will be
    1716
    hitting certain areas of the country. I do not seek to make out a case for the larger farms on which three or four men are employed. The circumstances in those cases are entirely different. But the small sheep farmer in the Yorkshire Dales or in Durham will be very harshly treated, unless power is given, not merely to postpone service but to exempt from service, in circumstances of special hardship. I hope the Minister will have regard to these facts and also to the speech made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on Friday in which he said that special consideration would be given to these cases and arrangements made to meet them. The only way to do it, is to exempt these young men.
    7.48 p.m.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I feel that we make a great mistake in many important Measures of social legislation by drawing our lines hard and fast, and failing to give the Minister complete discretion to deal with particularly hard cases. My first grounds for appealing to the House to support the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) is that I think the time has come when we should realise that every social Measure must involve hard cases, and that those hard cases can only properly be relieved at the discretion of the Minister. My second ground is that we are in this Bill giving every consideration to those whose consciences direct them to object to military service. Let us not have to plead guilty to the charge of treating lightly the consciences of those who would not stoop to an untruth, in order to escape from what may well mean the ruin of their life's work. This is not primarily a military Measure. If there was an acute state of military necessity, we should not limit the Measure to young men of this restricted age group. Taking the longest possible view, this is primarily a social Measure. If there was an acute state of military necessity no one would propose any sort of exemption except for extreme reasons of conscience. If this is to be a successful social Measure we are not, I submit, justified in doing great injustice in certain individual cases. Therefore, I add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin in begging the Government to reconsider their position and give complete discretion to the Minister in cases of exceptional hardship.
    7.50 p.m.
    Mr. Messer: I wish to support the request which has been made to the Minister for sympathetic consideration of these cases, by reading a letter received by me this morning. It expresses more clearly than any language I could use the difficulties and injustices which may be involved in this demand made by the State upon these young men. As far as I know, no consideration has yet been given to the case of the family which is still suffering hardship as a result of the last War. The letter is as follows:
    "Dear Sir,
    With regard to the possibility of my only son being called up for military training, may I ask you if it can in any way be possible for him to obtain exemption? He is employed at the Handley Page aircraft factory. He will be 21 years of age on 6th September next. I am totally disabled myself through the last War, having to pass my days in an invalid chair. My son has seen me only as a cripple.…I am entirely dependent on my wife, assisted by my son. His mother is greatly worried over him, and for the past 20 years they have been my only means of aid. He is a great help to her in every way, and I fear for the consequences to her if he should be called up. So it is on account of her that I should be grateful for your advice, which will be appreciated."
    I know nothing about this case except what is contained in that letter but what is happening is very clear. There is a little home of three people consisting of the father, who is a hopeless cripple, the mother and the son. The mother is not physically able to lift this man into his invalid chair or render those services which a hopeless cripple requires. It will be impossible when the boy is called up, for her to pay for other assistance. That is one of the exceptional cases. They may be few in number, but that fact does not lessen the hardship to the individuals concerned, and I think that is the kind of case in which the Minister might consider the possibility of exemption.
    7.54 p.m.
    Sir Joseph Nall: The case which has just been stated to the House is one of those which cannot fail to move the instincts and emotions of all hon. Members, and, of course, we can find many cases of the kind. That does not alter the fact that if we begin with a series of exemptions, by granting discretion to the Minister, apart from the provisions already in the Bill, to allow individuals, for reasons such as have been stated, to avoid the obligation of a by no means
    1718
    onerous period of service and of preparation for emergency, we shall open the gates to a wide series of demands which must, ultimately, produce a state of uncertainty and ill-feeling.
    Sir A. Wilson: Is my hon. Friend aware that this case could not possibly arise, except for boys who are 19 or 20 now. For all boys under 19, the case could not possibly arise. We ask merely for exemption for boys who can postpone, but who cannot anticipate their service.
    Sir J. Nall: I do not follow my hon. Friend's intervention. What I say is that there should not be exemptions of this kind, at a time of national emergency—because that is what the House has to face and what the country, I believe, is facing. In a time of national emergency it is the duty of all men to forge and wield the weapons of war, just as it is the duty of women to care for and nurse the sick and wounded and raise and nurture the next generation. [HON. MEMBERS: "For the next war."] When a Measure of this kind is before the House, the more we enable individuals to believe that by one means or another they may avoid that service to the State, which it is the duty of men to give, the more likely we are to disturb the feelings of those who find that they have no reason to make any such application.
    Sir A. Wilson: But the right of exemption was in full force in 1916 and throughout the rest of the War.
    Sir J. Nall: There were a great many exemptions in the last War which were very bitterly resented by those at the Front, and we do not want that kind of exemption again if another war should occur. But we are not dealing with war. We are dealing with peace conditions and my hon. Friend is asking the House to apply, under peace-time conditions, to a service which involves only six months' training, the rules which were applied in a time of war and which we hope will not be allowed to apply in a future war. Cases of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) must be considered on their merits, not with a view to exempting the individual from service but with a view to providing adequate arrangements to alleviate any hardship which may arise. It was mentioned in that letter that the young man was already employed in a

    1719
    civil capacity. Therefore he cannot be at home all the time to render that assistance to which the hon. Member refers. Obviously what is needed in a case like that is some assistance in the home, and not the retention in the home, of the man who is at present earning the maintenance of the home.
    Mr. Messer: The hon. Member evidently does not know what is the custom in the homes of many of these poor helpless ex-service cripples. They are lifted into their invalid chairs in the morning and remain there all day until night when they are lifted into bed.
    Sir J. Nall: No one would say that a man who is away at business all day should be exempted from a short term of military training under peace conditions, simply in order that that very necessary help should be given in the home. To say that is to raise a principle and an issue which, if extended, would enable a large number of men to claim exemption. On that ground, I urge the Minister to hold fast by the provisions of the Bill. We have hardship committees, we have provisions for considering cases of this kind, we have provision for allowances to dependants, and, as was said by the Secretary of State for War in an earlier discussion, we ought not to regard this obligation for training as something to be evaded if possible. We should regard it as the normal civic duty of the individual. Where cases of hardship arise and where the provision of help in the home is necessary, let those cases be dealt with on their merits. Do not make them the excuse for enabling individuals to evade their military obligations to the State.
    8.1 p.m.
    Mrs. Adamson: It has been refreshing to listen to the many humane appeals made to the Minister to deal sympathetically with a number of problems which will arise out of the application of this Bill, but the effect was quite spoiled by the speech of the hon. Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall). I have had many cases sent to me by constituents, and I have forwarded some of the letters to the Minister of Labour and hope that they will receive his sympathetic consideration. One case was similar to that quoted by the hon. Member for South
    1720
    Tottenham (Mr. Messer). It was the case of the only son of a disabled ex-service man. He has received 100 per cent. disability pension and the mother is quite unable to render services to the husband for his comfort and to promote his happiness and health. If the hon. Member for Hulme would realise how dependent women are in such cases upon the services of their sons he would realise that, even if the son is working all day, the mother is glad at week ends to rely on that son to wheel out his father in a bath chair so that he can get some fresh air.
    I want to emphasise a point that was made by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell). In cases of that kind, where hardship would undoubtedly ensue, is it worth while to compel young men, who would not desire to appeal for exemption on conscientious grounds, to be called up to do six months' training when they are already engaged upon work of national importance? In the case I have quoted, where the mother is dependent upon the help of the son in the home to minister to his father's comfort, and also on financial grounds, the son is already working in Woolwich Arsenal, and I think any hardship committee would say that he was engaged upon work of national importance. There are many other types of case to which reference has been made, the case of the one-man business. I have knowledge of a case where the parents have made tremendous financial sacrifices to establish their son in a business of his own and have entered into financial commitments until the business has been put upon a sound footing, and if he is called up it will mean not only ruin for himself and for his future prospects but financial ruin for his parents. I hope that sympathetic consideration will be given by the Minister to the appeals made to him from all sides of the House, and I trust that he will not embitter large sections of the community by refusing to accept this very reasonable Amendment.
    8.5 p.m.
    Captain Heilgers: We have listened to a number of moving speeches, in particular the speech by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson). I felt myself almost swept into his camp, but, like the hon. Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall) I feel that here we are dealing with a scheme which has been extremely well

    1721
    thought out, which has made no distinction between rich and poor or any parts of the community, and I believe that that feature of it should be maintained and that there should be no exceptions whatever. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) put the case for the family farmer, and either he or the hon. Member for Hitchin said he thought that all agricultural Members would support such exemptions. I appreciate that family farms do present a big difficulty, but I do not believe that those difficulties are insuperable.
    Mr. Turton: There are no family farms in Suffolk, are there?
    Captain Heilgers: We have family farms in Suffolk, though not so many as there may be in Yorkshire, but I believe that the case of the family fanner and similar cases can be met under the postponement Clause of the Bill. As far as I understand it, and I hope the Minister of Labour will correct me if I am wrong, it is intended to make full use of that Clause. There is practically no limit to the use that can be made of that provision, and to my mind it will meet those very hard cases.
    The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) put forward a proposal that exemptions might be made on condition that the man exempted went into the Territorial Army. At first sight that is a very attractive proposition, but I ask the House to remember that the object behind this Bill is to provide a reserve for the Regular Army, in order to enable it to function quickly in a national emergency. If there are too many exemptions I think it will be found that we shall get a large Territorial Army but will not create a big reserve for the Regular Army. I will conclude by saying that I believe it is far wiser to make this scheme applicable to everyone, and I certainly hope that the Minister of Labour will make no exemptions.
    8.9 p.m.
    Mr. E. Brown: This has been one of the most interesting discussions which we have had in the course of the proceedings on this Bill, and that was certain to be so from the nature of the case, but I think the course of the Debate will have confirmed everyone who looks at the purpose of the Bill in the soundness of the decision of the Government to draft the Bill in its
    1722
    present form. I was confirmed in that view by a phrase used by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) when he said that the rule would be effective. It is effective, and it is because of its effectiveness that cases such as have been put to us are bound to arise. Looking back over the discussion I notice that we have had three types of plea made to us. There was the moving and humane plea made by the hon. Member for Dartford (Mrs. Adamson), who is not the only Member who has sent me cases. I would point out that the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) is not a personal one as such but raises the occupational issue. We begin with a narrow circle. We do not know how many cases it will embrace and only experience will show. Then the circle broadens out. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton suggests that we must add to the personal factor the occupational factor. The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) goes further still. He does not put his plea either on the personal or on the occupational ground but on the national ground. He asks, What is to happen to the young man who is in an industry of national importance?
    Therefore, in this short space of time, we have had a real flashlight thrown upon the difficulties of making any breach in the general rule which, as admitted by the hon. Member for Hitchin, is effective. That is not to say that the Government have not been aware of the difficulties. My answer to the hon. Member for Seaham is that I have already told the House on two occasions that inside the group of 310,000 persons now affected by this Bill there are some 60,000 now on the schedule of reserved occupations.
    Mr. Shinwell: They will be called up.
    Mr. Brown: I know they will be called up. Therefore, hon. Members who have been submitting their appeals will see exactly where we are to be led if, in addition to allowing for the pleas put for ward by the hon. Member for Hitchin, the hon. Member for Dartford and for the most eloquent plea made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. Ellis Smith), we take notice also of the plea of the agricultural and other occupational Members, and then of the plea for those in reserved occupations, who are a fifth of the whole age-group.
    Mr. Shinwell: I do not want to be misrepresented. I did not ask that every person engaged on work of national importance should be exempted, but I did say that a hardship committee might find, in the case of an applicant for exemption, that it was a special case and that it was not desirable to take him away from work of national importance.
    Mr. Brown: I am coming to that point, but we ought to see this matter in the light of the purposes of the Bill as a whole. I am bound to see these things at their maximum before I consider what ought to be done. While the House is rightly concerned about such cases as the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) described, I suggest that there is no need for us at the moment to reach instant decisions about these matters, because the Government have already decided upon machinery under which we may be able to survey the field, not in advance of the situation but in the light of the knowledge which will be thrown upon the working of the Measure by the operations of the hardship committee. The right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) fell into an error. The power of postponement is not for one year only.
    Mr. Lees-Smith: I know that.
    Mr. Brown: But if the right hon. Gentleman will read the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow he will see that he said that it was, and I want to make it clear that it is not. The power of postponement is limited only by the duration of the Bill. Clause I says that the registration shall run from one year from the end of the postponement. I suggest that that shows that the Government, in their arrangements for hardship cases, are taking the widest possible view about these cases. Because it is a case of hardship now—take the example of the one-man business—it does not follow that a year from now it will be a hard case. It may or may not then be a hard case, because the circumstances may have changed. As I envisage hardships, in the light of our knowledge of life, there will be hardships that time will not cure, about which the House has been continuously concerned during the course of the Bill and will have to be concerned if they are on a large scale, and there will be hardships that time will cure, because the circumstances will change. I suggest that no Member would say that we ought to give a power of
    1724
    exemption in a case where the circumstances may entirely change in the course of six months or a year.
    Three modifications have been suggested. One of them has been turned down already. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) saw at once when the answer was given him that it was better to have flexibility. In some cases six months might be better than a year or a longer period might be better for all concerned. In regard to the hard cases in which anticipation is not possible, I suggest that the power of postponement gives the Government, the country and the persons concerned, the advantage that there is time, all the time we need, for the hardship to be placed before the committee, studied and dealt with, and for postponement to be given. Then, if the issue has so magnified that it must be brought to the House, the House will be able to make up its mind, not in advance, but in light of the knowledge it has had from the actual examination of the evidence and the needs of those concerned.
    We had a suggestion from the hon. Member for Seaham that we might take another power to exempt, on hardship being proved, and service in the Territorial Army put forward instead. I need only say that that seems an ingenious suggestion, but when you apply the method of the Bill, of bringing the facts to judgment in the light of the evidence, the power of postponement shows that the Government have taken the wiser course, and that if action has to be taken in the future we shall be able, and this House will be able, to take it, not after a short Debate like this, but in the light of all the facts concerned. We shall be making a very great mistake to accept this Amendment, and I cannot recommend the House to do so.
    Mr. Wedgwood Benn: The right hon. Gentleman has said that hardship would come before the House after we had had experience. On what occasion?
    Mr. Brown: What I meant to say was that if the thing was a demand it was bound to come before the House. If you are dealing with a large number of hard cases the House would be made aware of it. This is a democratic assembly and one of its joys is that a sense of hardship outside instantaneously makes itself felt inside. I have no doubt that our way is the democratic and wise way.
    Sir A. Wilson: Do we understand rightly what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that postponement may be indefinite until the end of the Bill?
    Mr. Brown: If my hon. Friend will look at Clause 1 he will find these words:
    "The Minister, if satisfied that there is good cause for so doing, may permit any person to be registered in the military training register before he attains the age of 20 years, or may permit any person so registered to postpone his liability to be called up for military training, and in the latter case, the period of one year for which he is liable to be so called up shall begin with the date to which his liability is postponed instead of the date on which he was so registered."
    That carries out exactly what I said and means that the actual power of postponement will be limited by the Bill.
    Sir A. Wilson: One further question. The right hon. Gentleman said that the matter would be reconsidered by the House and by the Government. I ask whether he is prepared to undertake that he will place before the House a proper report of the working of the military hardship tribunals and will give the House some opportunity of judging whether or not the statement that he made is to be taken seriously.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): The right hon. Gentleman has already spoken, and has exhausted his right to speak. He can speak again only by leave of the House.
    Mr. Lansbury: On a point of Order. We have had a long speech from the Minister and you have ruled that he can do so again only by leave of the House. I think we ought to have that little courtesy from whoever speaks twice.
    Mr. Brown: I am not going to speak, and when I rose before I was not making a speech but was answering a definite question.
    Mr. Lansbury: I remember Mr. Speaker Ruling that a Minister could not speak twice except by leave of the House. I am not complaining that the right hon. Gentleman did so but I am saying that you ought to maintain the right of the House to give that permission.
    Mr. Brown: If I erred I ask the House to give me absolution.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 136; Noes, 190.

    Division No. 138.]

    AYES.

    [8.22 p.m.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Garro Jones, G. M.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

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

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Mander, G. le M.

    Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    Marshall, F.

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

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Maxton, J.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Messer, F.

    Banfield, J. W.

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Milner, Major J.

    Barnes, A. J.

    Groves, T. E.

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

    Barr, J.

    Hall. G. H. (Aberdare)

    Nathan, Colonel H. L.

    Bartlett, C. V. O.

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Batey, J.

    Hardie, Agnes

    Noel-Baker, P. J.

    Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

    Harris, Sir P. A.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Benson, G.

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

    Paling, W.

    Bevan, A.

    Hayday, A.

    Parker, J.

    Broad, F. A.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Bromfield, W.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Pearson, A.

    Brown, C. (Mansfield)

    Hicks, E. G.

    Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Buchanan, G.

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Price, M. P.

    Burke, W. A.

    Hollins, A.

    Pritt, D. N.

    Cape, T.

    Hopkin, D.

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Ridley, G.

    Cocks, F. S.

    John, W.

    Ritson, J.

    Collindridge, F.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    Cove, W. G.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)

    Daggar, G.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Dalton, H.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Sexton. T. M.

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

    Shinwell, E.

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Lathan, G.

    Silverman, S. S.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Lawson, J. J.

    Simpson, F. B.

    Dobbie, W.

    Leach, W.

    Sloan, A.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    Leonard, W.

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Ede, J. C.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Lunn, W.

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

    Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Sorensen, R. W.

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

    McGhee, H. G.

    Stephen, C.

    Foot, D. M.

    McGovern, J.

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

    Gardner, B. W.

    MacLaren, A.

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

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Walker, J.

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Watkins, F. C.

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

    Thorne, W.

    Watson, W. McL.

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    Thurtle, E.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Tinker, J. J.

    Westwood, J.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Tomlinson, G.

    Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Viant, S. P.

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Walkden, A. G.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Mr. Mathers and Mr. Adamson.

    NOES.

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

    Goldie, N. B.

    Nall, Sir J.

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

    Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

    Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

    Nicholson, G. (Farnham),

    Albery, Sir Irving

    Grimston, R. V.

    Nicholson, Hon. H. G.

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

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

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

    Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

    Hannah, I. C.

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

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

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    Petherick, M.

    Barrie, Sir C. C.

    Harbord, A.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

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

    Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

    Pilkington, R.

    Blair, Sir R.

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

    Radford, E. A.

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

    Hepworth, J.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)

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

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

    Brass, Sir W.

    Higgs, W. F.

    Renter, J. R.

    Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

    Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.

    Richards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

    Holmes, J. S.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Hopkinson, A.

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

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

    Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

    Rowlands, G.

    Bull, B. B.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    Burton, Col. H. W.

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

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Butcher, H. W.

    Hunter, T.

    Salt, E. W.

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Hurd, Sir P. A.

    Samuel, M. R. A.

    Cartland, J. R. H.

    James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

    Sandeman, Sir N. S.

    Channon, H.

    Jarvis, Sir J. J.

    Sanderson, Sir F. B.

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

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

    Sandys, E. D.

    Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

    Keeling, E. H.

    Selley, H. R.

    Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

    Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Conant, Captain R. J. E.

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

    Shepperson, Sir E. W.

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

    Kimball, L.

    Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

    Cooper, Rt. Hon. T. M. (E'burgh, W.)

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

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Craven-Ellis, W.

    Lamb, Sir J. O.

    Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

    Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

    Levy, T.

    Storey, S.

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

    Lewis, O.

    Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

    Cross, R. H.

    Liddall, W. S.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Crossley, A. C.

    Lindsay, K. M.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Lipson, D. L.

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Cruddas, Col. B.

    Little, J.

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    De Chair, S. S.

    Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Loftus, P. C.

    Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

    Denville, Alfred

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

    Dodd, J. S.

    MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

    Titchfield, Marquess of

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

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V. G.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Dugdale, Captain T. L.

    McKie, J. H.

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    Maclay, Hon. J. P.

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

    Eckersley, P. T.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

    Magnay, T.

    Warrender, Sir V.

    Ellis, Sir G.

    Maitland, Sir Adam

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Elliston, Capt. G. S.

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

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

    Emery, J. F.

    Markham, S. F.

    Wayland, Sir W. A.

    Entwistle, Sir C. F.

    Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

    Wells, Sir Sydney

    Errington, E.

    Medlicott, F.

    Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

    Erskine-Hill, A. G.

    Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

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

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

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Everard, Sir William Lindsay

    Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

    Wise, A. R.

    Fildes, Sir H.

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

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Fleming, E. L.

    Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

    Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

    Furness, S. N.

    Morris, O. T (Cardiff, E.)

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

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

    Gluckstein, L. H.

    Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. Munro and Captain McEwen.

    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. J. J. Davidson: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 27 to 31.
    I trust that we may expect yet another concession in regard to this Clause.
    1728
    I understand that the Chancellor of the Duchy is to move an Amendment that will give, in the case of the other tribunals, what we are now asking in the case of the hardship committees, and,

    1729
    if it can be extended in the one direction, we think it might also be extended to the hardship committees, which, we are all agreed, will have to deal with questions of very great difficulty. I think the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour will realise that those questions will be very involved. They will include the question of the conditions in the homes of the young men who desire to appear before the hardship committees, and other varied questions, such as the amount of income coming into the household, the condition in regard to health of the dependants of the young man, and his conditions as regards income, expenditure and employment. The Government are placing on three members the heavy responsibility of deciding these questions, and they are leaving this loophole whereby a committee can prevent a young man from making an appeal against their decision.
    I suggest in all humility, as a backbencher on this side, that the one thing the Government have to fear in regard to this Bill is a feeling that the man's right of appeal against the decision of any committee is being taken away. That is a feeling that must be guarded against, and, therefore, I ask the Government to give this question their most careful consideration. It would create no difficulties for the Government, because they have already provided that, where the decision is a two-to-one decision, the right of appeal is extended to the man. This proviso, in my opinion hurriedly and mistakenly inserted by the Government, merely states that, where the decision is unanimously against the young man, he shall be debarred from making any appeal. We have maintained continually in the legislation of this country that one of the most important things is the right of the subject to appeal from the decisions of such committees as these. I think hon. Members opposite will realise that I am not asking that any steps should be taken to facilitate anyone in evading his responsibility. I am asking that the Government shall accept their responsibility, and that, if they decide to set up these hardship committees, each consisting of a chairman and two members, they shall not prevent even one person from having an opportunity of appealing as prescribed in the Bill itself. They must recognise that these committees will have to decide questions of hardship or of economic
    1730
    conditions in the young man's home—conditions of rent, income and poverty such as call for the greatest measure of consideration. I trust that nothing will be done to prevent a young man from making an appeal as prescribed in the Bill itself.
    8.35 p.m.
    Mr. R. J. Taylor: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I think it is a very reasonable request. I can imagine that the hardship committees will have a very difficult task to perform. Having all the varying shades of hardship to determine, a committee may, with the greatest of good will, make a unanimous decision that leads to injustice. I have heard in this House very often, especially from legal Members, that it is necessary not only that justice should be done, but also that it should appear to be done. That is what we are asking. A young man who appeared before one of these committees should be satisfied that he has had a full and fair hearing. Many of us on this side are very conversant with tribunal? and examinations of various kinds. In regard to compensation, there would have been a revolution in this country long ago had we not had the right to appeal to some higher authority after examinations had been conducted, with the most meticulous care, and an adverse decision given.
    It seems to me that there is an analogy for this Amendment in the court of referees which deals with unemployment insurance claims. If the decision of the court of referees is unanimously against the application, the chairman may grant the applicant the right of appeal to the umpire, and, even if the chairman and the rest of the court are against him, his union, if he is a member of a trade union, has the right to appeal on his behalf, while, failing all these possibilities, the insurance officer, if he believes that a wrong decision has been given—even if the decision is against the applicant—has the right to appeal to the umpire on behalf of the applicant. I think that is a perfect analogy. The Amendment does not seek to interfere with military training, but it does seek to establish that there shall be that impartial weighing of evidence and the balancing of shades of hardship, so that when the final decision is given, whether it be for or against the applicant, he can be satisfied that at least he has had a full and impartial hearing.
    8.41 p.m.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) suggested, the Government have given way on a number of Amendments in response to arguments advanced from both sides. It is our desire to use the knowledge of the House in order to get the best possible Bill. But that would be no argument why we should give way on an Amendment of this kind, which I believe cannot be justified. The hon. Member for Maryhill cited the analogy of the local tribunals. It is true that the Government, on the Committee stage, accepted a suggestion from the other side, allowing an unrestricted right of appeal both to the Minister and to the appellant, but it would be a confusion of thought to identify the situation in regard to the hardship committees with that in regard to the local tribunals. The local tribunals are few in number: there are not expected to be more than a dozen covering the whole country; they are to deal with a limited number of cases—and cases in respect of which no local knowledge is necessary. It has indeed been argued, with some force, from the other side that local knowledge on the part of the tribunals might well be not an advantage but a danger.
    But quite a different situation applies in the case of the hardship committees. Instead of being 12 of these, there will be 120. They will deal with many cases; and people who want either to anticipate or postpone their service are fully entitled to come before the committees, no stigma being attached to them for doing so. In this case local knowledge is essential—or highly desirable. The exact situation of the individual and the difficulties of his own trade are so important that it is desirable that the committee should be fully seized of them. It cannot be claimed that the umpire in London is generally speaking better qualified to decide whether a man has made out a case than the local committee. It is, however, true that provision is made for an appeal, both by the Minister and the appellant. There is a right of appeal for the man himself if the decision of the committee is not unanimous or if leave is given to appeal. The hon. Member who seconded the Amendment, in dealing with the unemployment insurance position lost sight of the fact that the committee can give leave to appeal to the umpire, even though the decision of the committee has
    1732
    been unanimous. In addition, there is the provision whereby, if the hardship committee are not unanimous, there is a full right of appeal for the individual. The constitution of the hardship committees is such that no hon. Member need fear that an unfair decision is likely to be arrived at. There is a chairman of high legal attainments, who would generally be a chairman or deputy-chairman of a court of referees, and two other members: one drawn from an employers' panel and the other from a workers' panel. The hon. Member feels, and some other hon. Members may feel, that allowing the Minister the right to appeal and not giving the same right to the applicant may be unduly weighing the scales in favour of the Minister. This, however, shows a misunderstanding of the part to be played by the Minister in this matter. He is not a partisan in any sense of the word. He is not anxious that the just claims for a man to be given privileges because of hardship should be withheld. He is an independent administrator, with no bias one way or the other. The Minister is not anxious that a particular decision should be reached unless it is justified on the facts. The hon. Member opposite stated the case of the unemployment insurance law, and pointed out that the insurance officer was in a position to appeal if he thought that a question of principle was involved. In precisely the same way, if a question of principle is involved here, the Minister can appeal.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: There is also the question of the right of appeal if he is not sufficiently satisfied that the case is being properly conducted.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That leads me to my second point. My right hon. Friend is not going to appeal in a whole variety of cases, but is more likely to appeal if a question of principle is involved. There will be over 400 committees—not 120, as I inadvertently Stated just now. If there was a full and unfettered right of appeal, without any regard being paid to whether or not a hardship committee was unanimous, it might mean that the umpire would be flooded out with a host of appeals, many of which might be frivolous, and a large number, if not most of them, would involve no question of principle at all. I hope that I have made the position clear and that the House

    1733
    will see that, there is a real difference between the situation here and the situation with regard to the local tribunals on which we were prepared to give way two or three days ago.
    Mr. Silverman: When the Government were considering the corresponding provision with respect to the tribunals, they agreed to alter the original idea, and, instead of leaving a conditional right of appeal, make it an absolute right of appeal, and I think that there is an Amendment on the Paper to carry out that pledge. Will the Minister tell us the difference between the two cases?
    Mr. Buchanan: Is it not proposed at least to give the trade unionist the right that he has under Unemployment Insurance? Also under the Unemployment Insurance Act a person appearing before the court can say, "I am not going on with my case because the court is not fully constituted. There ought to be three people in this court, but there are only two present and I am not going on with it?" The workmen's representative may be absent.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is in order in asking questions, but he must not attempt to make a speech.
    Mr. Buchanan: Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell me whether the applicant has the right to say, "I refuse to go on with the case because there is not a fully constituted court, and I ask that my case shall be put back until there is one."
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: By leave of the House, I would like to deal briefly with the three questions which have been asked. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) was here while I was speaking, but I am afraid he must have profited very little by the observations I made. I devoted the first two or three minutes of my speech to explaining the difference, as we see it, between the tribunals and the hardship committees. To the second question of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), the answer is that the same principle will apply as that which applies in a court of referees. This must be a fully constituted court. There must be a chairman and two members present, or it is not a fully constituted court. He also asked whether I was not in error in having failed to point out to the Com-
    1734
    mittee that a trade union has the right to appeal from the court of referees to the umpire if it so desires even if the decision may have been unanimous. It is right that he should point that out, although, of course, I did not deliberately omit to mention it. The courts of referees in general are concerned with industrial matters in respect of which trade unions have special knowledge and responsibilities. The arguments in favour of allowing the right of appeal on the part of trade unions from decisions of courts of referees are well known to industrial Members of this House, but there is very little analogy between that situation and the one we are now discussing. When no particular industrial problem is involved, everybody should be treated alike.
    8.51 p.m.
    Mr. George Griffiths: I am rather surprised at the attitude that the Government are again taking up on this question. If I understand the Parliamentary Secretary properly, the main reason why the Government object to deleting this proviso is that there will be too many appeals, and, I would add, too many who will be likely to get off. That is really the prime reason why they are opposing this Amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary stated that the Minister has the right to appeal, but that the individual, who is directly affected, has not that right of appeal. Does the Parliamentary Secretary think that the Minister will appeal if the case goes against the man and not against the Ministry? He will not appeal there. The Minister will not appeal to shield the individual man, and yet he has the right to appeal if the decision of the court goes against the Minister taking the man. The Parliamentary Secretary stated that there is a distinction between the tribunals and court of referees, and that there will not be as many conscientious objectors coming before the court of referees as there will be cases coming before the hardship committees. That will be a question to answer later on. Neither he nor I can assume that there will be far more cases in one section than there will be in the other. Some of us have had something to do with courts of referees in more ways than one. I have sat on one side of the referee with someone else sitting on the other side. The chairman of a court of

    1735
    referees has the power to refuse an applicant the right of appeal to the umpire unless he belongs to a trade union. I am surprised that the Government are not prepared to delete this proviso. I will read it:
    "Provided that if the determination of the Committee with respect to any application was unanimous, the applicant shall not be entitled to appeal to the umpire or any deputy umpire except with the leave of the Committee."
    If it is a unanimous decision the man cannot appeal to a higher court, and yet representatives of the Government have been saying for a fortnight "We want to give everybody, as far as this Bill is concerned, a fair crack of the whip." A man is not getting a fair crack of the whip in any circumstances if he is not allowed to appeal against these three people in the court of referees, and unless we get a different decision from the one which the Minister has given, we shall go into the Division Lobby against him.
    Mr. Benn: If the Minister gives us an affirmative reply to the question which I am about to put, I shall have nothing further to say. Is it proposed that the Minister shall issue general directions to these 400 committees as to the general way they are to conduct their proceedings? Does the Minister say "yes"?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The right hon. Gentleman must allow me to say "yes" or "no" in my own way. The answer is, "No."
    Mr. Benn: That settles the question. No general instructions are to be given to these 400 committees as to the general way in which they are to conduct their business. The answer is, "No."
    8.56 p.m.
    Mr. Tomlinson: I listened to the Minister's argument for the rejection of the Amendment, and I cannot understand why the Government feel that it cannot be accepted. Anyone with a knowledge of the working of the tribunals or the committees knows that the principle which is here outlined does not work to the advantage of the individual who comes before them as an individual. When it is suggested that the Minister is standing in this relationship as an individual who is not predisposed one way or the other,
    1736
    I do not understand his position. Surely, the assumption in the Bill is that the Minister wants all the men he can get, and the hardship committees have been set up for the purpose of determining the amount of hardship which has to be established before such a person can be excused. If the committees come to a decision, and it is a unanimous one, I suggest that the individual against whom the decision has been given must have the right of appeal, otherwise he will always feel that he has not been given, as has been pleaded for, a fair crack of the whip, particularly when it is suggested on the other hand—and this argument he has not answered that the Minister has a right of appeal against the decision. Everything that the Minister suggested as being the case with regard to the applicant is also the case in regard to the Minister. All the facts and circumstances are taken into consideration, and yet the Minister is to be at liberty to appeal against the decision given, even if it be unanimous. If it is right for the Minister to have that appeal it is equally right for the individual, who is more concerned than the Minister.
    Let me say a few words about the appeal that is provided for even where the decision is not unanimous, that is, provided the committee give the right of appeal. During the last three months I have filled in seven applications to the chairman of a court of referees, asking for the right of appeal where the individual has no right of appeal, because they were not in organised trade unions, and in seven instances during those three months the right of appeal has been refused, and there is no redress. A committee comes to a decision, even though it is not unanimous, and then there is an appeal to the chairman of that particular committee which has come to the decision, asking for the right of appeal? Can hon. Members imagine that it will be granted? Every reason given to us to-day for turning down the applicant is a reason for refusing the right of appeal, and unless the Government accept the Amendment the provision made, which is intended to remedy what must have been in the minds of the Government as a potential grievance, is not worth the paper on which it is printed.
    8.59 p.m.
    Mr. Lewis: Have any of the hon. Members opposite stopped for a moment to

    1737
    reflect what they would do if any one of them was appointed an umpire, and this Amendment had been carried? Such a man would find himself in an awkward position. He would have put before him a whole series of appeals, and in every case he would know that the facts had been investigated by a strong local tribunal. The chairman of that tribunal, as we have been reminded, would be a man of legal experience, sitting with two members drawn from strong panels of people with industrial experience and experience of working conditions. That local tribunal, with all its local knowledge, would have decided that there was no case of hardship. If one of the hon. Members opposite found himself umpire in these circumstances, does tie not think that he would find it very difficult to overthrow the decision of that local committee? Surely, in the great majority of cases there can be no doubt that the opinion of the hardship committee would be upheld. Therefore, I suggest to hon. Members that what they are asking for is not, as they might think, something of great value to a great number of people, but, on the contrary, something which, if
    granted, would very likely be of very little value. On the other hand, it obviously is open to the objection that if you flood the umpire with a great number of cases, which he has to examine, you must increase the risk of the more difficult cases, where the hardship committee found it difficult to make up their minds and in the end were not unanimous, would not get the full attention they deserved. Examined from that point of view, it seems to me that the case for the Amendment falls.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: All that the hon. Member has said as to what would take place in regard to these hardship tribunals and the umpire takes place now almost every day, and has taken place for many years, with respect to the courts of referees and umpires in London, precisely in detail as the hon. Member has described.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 200; Noes, 130.

    Division No. 139.]

    AYES.

    [9.4 p.m.

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

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

    Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

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

    Cross, R. H.

    Hepworth, J.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

    Albery, Sir Irving

    Cruddas, Col. B.

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

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

    De Chair, S. S.

    Higgs, W. F.

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

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Denville, Alfred

    Holdsworth, H.

    Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

    Dodd, J. S.

    Holmes, J. S.

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

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

    Hopkinson. A.

    Barrie, Sir C. C.

    Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V. G.

    Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

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

    Dugdale, Captain T. L.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Beechman, N. A.

    Duncan, J. A. L.

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

    Blair, Sir R.

    Eckersley, P. T.

    Hunter, T.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Ellis, Sir G.

    Hurd, Sir P. A.

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

    Elliston, Capt. G. S.

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Emery, J. F.

    James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

    Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)

    Entwistle, Sir C. F.

    Jarvis, Sir J. J.

    Brass, Sir W.

    Errington, E.

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

    Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

    Erskine-Hill, A. G.

    Keeling, E. H.

    Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

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

    Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

    Brown, Rt. Hen. E. (Leith)

    Everard, Sir William Lindsay

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

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

    Fildes, Sir H.

    Kimball, L.

    Bull, B. B.

    Fleming, E. L.

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

    Burton, Col. H. W.

    Furness, S. N.

    Lamb, Sir J. O.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Gluckstein, L. H.

    Levy, T.

    Cartland, J. R. H.

    Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

    Lewis, O.

    Channon, H.

    Goldie, N. B.

    Liddall, W. S.

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.

    Lindsay, K. M.

    Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

    Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

    Lipson, D. L.

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

    Grimston, R. V.

    Little, J.

    Cobb. Captain E. C. (Preston)

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

    Conant, Captain R. J. E.

    Guinness, T. L. E. B.

    Loftus. P. C.

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

    Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

    Lyons, A. M.

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

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Cox, H. B. Trevor

    Hannah, I. C.

    MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

    Craven-Ellis, W.

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Critchley, A.

    Harbord, A.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

    Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

    Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

    Maclay, Hon. J. P.

    Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Magnay, T.

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Maitland, Sir Adam

    Remer, J. R.

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

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

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

    Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

    Madlicott, F.

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

    Rowlands, G.

    Titchfield, Marquess of

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

    Turton, R. H.

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

    Russell, S, H. M. (Darwen)

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

    Salmon, Sir I.

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

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

    Salt, E. W.

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

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

    Samuel, M. R. A.

    Warrender, Sir V.

    Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

    Sandeman, Sir N. S.

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Munro, P.

    Sanderson, Sir F. B.

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

    Nall, Sir J.

    Sandys, E. D.

    Wayland, Sir W. A.

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

    Schuster, Sir G. E.

    Wells, Sir Sydney

    Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

    Selley, H. R.

    Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

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

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Shepperson, Sir E. W.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Snadden, W. McN.

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

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

    Petherick, M.

    Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

    Pilkington, R.

    Storey, S.

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

    Radford, E. A.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Major Sir James Edmondson and

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Captain McEwen.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Parker, J.

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

    Groves, T. E.

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Pearson, A.

    Adamson, W. M.

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

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

    Hardie, Agnes

    Price, M. P.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

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

    Pritt, D. N.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Hayday, A.

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Banfield, J. W.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Barnes, A. J.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Ridley, G.

    Barr, J.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Ritson, J.

    Bartlett, C. V. O.

    Hicks, E. G.

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    Batey, J.

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)

    Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

    Hollins, A.

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Benson, G.

    Hopkin, D.

    Sexton, T. M.

    Bevan, A.

    Isaacs, G. A.

    Shinwell, E.

    Broad, F. A.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Silverman, S. S.

    Bromfield, W.

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Simpson, F. B.

    Brown, C. (Mansfield)

    John, W.

    Sloan, A.

    Buchanan, G.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Burke, W. A.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Cape, T.

    Kirby, B. V.

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

    Charleton, H. C.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

    Stephen, C.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Lawson, J. J.

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

    Collindridge, F.

    Leach, W.

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

    Cove, W. G.

    Leonard, W.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Daggar, G.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Thurtle, E.

    Dalton, H.

    Lunn, W.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Tomlinson, G.

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Viant, S. P.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Walker, J.

    Dobbie, W.

    McGovern, J.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Watson, W. McL.

    Ede, J. C.

    Mander, G. le M.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Marshall, F.

    Westwood, J.

    Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

    Maxton, J.

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

    Messer, F.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

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

    Milner, Major J.

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Foot, D. M.

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

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    Gardner, B. W.

    Nathan, Colonel H. L.

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Garro Jones, G. M.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Noel-Baker, P. J.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Paling, W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. Mathers an Mr. Whiteley.

    9.8 p.m.
    Mr. Silverman: I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, at the end, to insert:
    "(5) The Minister may make Regulations to provide for enabling parties to proceedings
    1740
    before a Military Training (Hardship) Committee or before the umpire or any deputy-umpire to appear either in person or by a representative of any trade union to which they belong or by a friend."

    1741
    I do not know whether the Minister is prepared to help the House and save a little time by indicating now what many of us hope is the case, that he is prepared to accept the Amendment. It is the same as one which has already been accepted in the case of the tribunal, and whatever distinction the Minister thought might exist as between a tribunal and a committee in the case of a conditional or unconditional right to appeal, it is extremely difficult to see why a man who applies for exemption on conscientious grounds should have the right to be accompanied by counsel, solicitor, or his trade union representative, or a friend, while the man who is applying for a postponement of his period of service should have to appear alone before the committee. I should have thought that it was impossible to establish any distinction between the two cases, and I hope the Minister will be able to grant the same concession in this case as he did in the other.
    Mr. E. J. Williams: I beg to second the Amendment.
    9.10 p.m.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am afraid I cannot accept the words of the Amendment, but it is our intention to accept the principle. Under Clause 12, as the House will see, the Minister has power to make regulations with regard to the procedure of the hardship committees, and it is proposed that these regulations shall provide that an applicant, whether before the hardship committee or later on before the umpire, may appear in person or by a trade union representative or by a friend. We are having discussions as to the exact and appropriate words to describe what a "friend" is, and that is making it a little difficult to accept the Amendment, but I can assure the hon. Member that we are in sympathy with the idea.
    Mr. McEntee: Will some information be sent to the man that he has this right? Otherwise he will read the Bill and know nothing about the regulations.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We will consider that point.
    Mr. Stephen: Will he be able to be represented by counsel before the umpire? Under the Unemployment Insurance Act he can, and I presume he will, have the same right in this case.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have given the House an indication of what it is proposed to bring forward in the regulations, and I cannot add anything to it at this stage.
    Mr. Pritt: If there is any difficulty about drafting a description of "a friend," surely words stating that a lawyer should be regarded as "a friend" are sufficient?
    Mr. Silverman: In view of the assurances which have been given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    9.15 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 3, line 23, at the end, to insert:
    "10. For the purposes of this Act the time at which a person attains any relevant age shall be deemed to be, according to the law in force elsewhere than in Scotland, as well as according to the law in force in Scotland, the commencement of the relevant anniversary of the date of his birth."
    I regret having to move this manuscript Amendment, but I think that when I have explained it, hon. Members will realise that it merely produces the results which, everyone has already anticipated. It deals with the question of when a person attains the age of 20 or 21. I think everybody will have assumed that the person attains the age of 20 or 21 on his birthday. That is the law in Scotland, and in this case, with regret, I admit that I think the law in Scotland has been more in accord with general common sense than perhaps the law in England. It may be that the law of England diverted from what seems to be common sense for benevolent reasons, but under the law of England, in certain cases, it has been held that a man who was born on 20th June, for example, 20 years ago attains the age of 20 on 19th June. One of the cases arose under a will, where a man was to get certain benefits if he attained the age of 25. He died the day before his birthday, and the court held that he had attained the age of 25, although he had not lived into his birthday. They arrived at that conclusion by a somewhat, artificial application of the doctrine that the law disregards part of a day. They, might have disregarded it the other way, and said that he died the day before he did. However, we think that the Scottish principle is the best one, and undoubtedly it is what everybody understands by the phrase "attains the age of 20". The matter has come up before, and in the

    1743
    National Health Insurance Act, and I think in other Acts, there are provisions similar to this to assimilate the law of England to the law of Scotland, and to provide that a person attains a particular age at the beginning of the day on which he was born. The Amendment I have moved makes a provision which, I think, deals with this matter in accordance with common sense and understanding.
    Mr. Denville: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend how it is possible for any man to die the day before his birthday?
    9.19 p.m.
    Sir Irving Albery: I rise with a considerable amount of trepidation, and I very much regret that some of my hon. and learned Friends who have been present during a great part of the Debate are not here to deal with this Amendment. As a layman, I am little versed in the law, but I did not like the manner in which my right hon. and learned Friend moved this Amendment. The laws of England are already fairly complicated, and I am not at all enamoured of the idea of assimilating the laws of England to those of Scotland. We have a law in England in this matter already and apparently it has already been interpreted in England, and I cannot see any justification for altering the interpretation which at present exists. The whole matter is obviously a very trivial one in practice, and I must apologise for rising to debate the matter. I have done so only because, unfortunately, there are not present any of my hon. and learned Friends who would certainly have taken up the point which the Attorney-General made if they had been present. I hope that when I sit down somebody who is much better versed in the law will not allow the Amendment to pass unchallenged.
    9.20 p.m.
    Lieut.-Commander Agnew: I am not at all well versed in the law, but I fully comprehended the Amendment moved by my right hon. and learned Friend. I think we should now pass on to the next business.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Exemption of certain classes Of persons.)
    9.21 p.m.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I beg to
    1744
    move, in page 4, line 25, at the end, to insert:
    "or
    (e) is the subject of an order or imposition under the Lunacy and Mental Treatment Acts, 1890 to 1930, or is being detained in pursuance of Section twenty-five of the Lunacy Act, 1890, or as a criminal lunatic or in pursuance of an order made under the Criminal Lunatics Act, 1884, or is undergoing treatment as a temporary patient under Section five of the Mental Treatment Act, 1930, or is a person placed in an institution or a certified house, or under guardianship, under Section three of the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, or is the subject of an order under Section six, eight, or nine of that Act, or is under supervision provided under paragraph (b) of Section thirty of that Act, or is an inmate of a home approved under Section fifty of that Act, or is the subject of a notification under Sub-section (2) of Section fifty-one of that Act; or
    (f) is certified by a local authority, as defined by the Blind Persons Acts, 1920 and 1938, to be registered as a blind person under arrangements made by the authority under those Acts."
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has already explained the purpose of comparable provisions for Scotland, and I need not detain the House at any great length. The purpose of this Amendment is to exempt from the obligation to register persons who are under care as mental defectives and persons who are blind.
    Amendment agreed to.
    9.23 p.m.
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I beg to move, in page 4, line 42, at the end, to insert:
    "and for the purposes of this Sub-section a person shall be deemed to have been accepted before the said date for service in one of His Majesty's reserve and auxiliary forces if he offered himself before that date for such service and has been accepted by the competent authority not later than one month after the passing of this Act."
    In the course of the discussions on the Committee stage, the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) related what seemed to be a sad case of a man who had in fact applied to enter the Territorial Army before 27th April who had not received an answer to his letter, and who, therefore, would seem to come without the scope of this Bill, although he had made every endeavour to enlist in the Territorial Army before 27th April. We found on inquiry that, at the time the hon. Member was making his speech, this man, on whose behalf he spoke, was in fact a member of the Territorial Army; but nevertheless, an undertaking was

    1745
    given from this Box, and we have endeavoured to comply with it in the letter as well as in the spirit. There may, in fact, be cases where a person endeavoured to enlist, and was not successful in doing so, and therefore, we propose to provide for the purposes of this Sub-section that a person shall be deemed to have been accepted before the said date if he offered himself before that date and was accepted by the competent authority not later than one month after the passing of this Act. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman and hon. Members opposite will agree that I have fully implemented the undertaking I gave.
    9.25 p.m.
    Mr. Silverman: I think I may say at once that what the right hon. Gentleman proposes to do fully implements what he undertook at an earlier stage would be done. But, while thanking him for that, may I say he has not correctly related the facts of the case which I gave? They were indeed somewhat important, because in that case the man had applied long before any question of conscription had arisen in anybody's mind, and had been informed by the regiment to which he applied that he was accepted and need not worry, and therefore he did not make any further application. But after the principle of conscription had been accepted by this House he got a letter from that regiment, when it was apparently too late for him to do anything further about it, saying that he could not after all be accepted. However, it is quite true that at the moment I was speaking in this House he had already received a communication from the regiment in question, which put the matter right. I am very glad that that is so, and that the right hon. Gentleman has been able to put others in like case in as happy a position.
    Mr. Maxton: I do not quite follow. Do I understand that a man who has applied and been refused will be accepted?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: No, he must have complied with the directions given by the competent authority.
    Mr. Maxton: I am not particularly interested in it, but it happens that I had a letter on this very subject yesterday from somebody who had applied for admission into the Territorial Army and was turned down. Do I take it that he is liable in the ordinary way, and that this
    1746
    Amendment makes no difference to that person at all?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I think the Amendment makes it clear when it says:
    "and for the purposes of this Sub-section a person shall be deemed to have been accepted before the said date for service in one of His Majesty's reserve and auxiliary forces if he offered himself before that date for such service and has been accepted by the competent authority not later than one month after the passing of this Act."
    If he complies with the directions he will be deemed to have been accepted.
    Mr. Maxton: Then if for some other reason he has been refused he cannot be accepted, or even be deemed to be accepted.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Conscientious objectors.)
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, in page 6, line 39, to leave out from the beginning to the end of the Sub-section.
    This Amendment is to carry out a pledge given on the Committee stage that there should be an unrestricted right of appeal to the Appellate Tribunal for the applicant as well as for the Minister.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, in page 7, line 7, to leave out "them," and to insert "it."
    This is purely a grammatical change.
    Amendment agreed to.
    9.30 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 7, line 35, after the second "the," to insert "sworn."
    The noise of the wheels of the tumbrils is already beginning to sound in our ears, and I realise that I shall serve everybody's interest best if I get my Amendment out of the prison quickly, so that other persons who may also have some slight hope of escape may be able to join me in freedom later on. Therefore I would appeal to the Treasury Bench in the words that Marmion used just before his death:
    "Few words are mine to spare,
    Forgive and listen gentle Clare."
    This Amendment deals with the way in which the information is to be brought before the tribunal when it is alleged that a person who has been given exemption on conscientious grounds by the tribunal has

    1747
    proved himself unworthy of it. After all, he is a person who has once proved his case, and this information may be brought before the tribunal by any person. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour said in Committee that he hoped we were going to achieve conscription without persecution, and it is to secure that end that this Amendment is moved. We ask the Treasury Bench to agree that where this man who has once proved his case is again to be brought for trial it should be upon some seriously submitted statement.
    I hope that the right hon. and learned Attorney-General, if he is going to reply, will feel that less than a sworn statement ought not to be accepted. Undoubtedly there will be a very great deal of bad feeling, as there was on the last occasion, by people who are not exempted towards those who are. My own recollection of the Army in the last War was that nearly every conscript then was regarded as a conscientious objector, that is, all conscripts coming from the depots in France up the line were occasionally greeted with the statement, "Here comes another lot of Conchies." I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will realise the kind of feelings that are likely to be aroused. I want to report to him the case of a lady who came to give evidence at the police court, and went into the witness box and was handed the oath. She read it and after repeating the words, "The evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," she said: "With all those limitations upon me I would prefer to say nothing."
    I am quite sure that no one wants cases to be brought before these tribunals on mere tittle-tattle by mere busybodies, by persons who appoint themselves as private inquiry agents, and generally behave as what are known in plebeian circles as Nosey Parkers. I cannot speak on my second Amendment, because I understand it is not to be called from the Chair, but one of the best ways to prevent the tribunals from being burdened with frivolous and unnecessary informations is to secure that the person who is going to lay the information should know beforehand that it will have to be sworn, and that he will have to accept all the responsibilities that follow when he makes a sworn statement.
    Mr. E. J. Williams: I beg to second the Amendment.
    9.35 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: No one dislikes more than I do accusations which are based on tittle-tattle and are actuated by improper or malicious motives. On the other hand, I do not think that there is necessity for this Amendment or that it would be wise to insert it. Everybody desires, of course, that no action should be taken on irresponsible tittle-tattle. On the other hand, everyone desires that if conditions imposed by the tribunal are not observed the tribunal should have information with regard to it. As the Clause is drafted the tribunal have to be satisfied upon the information, and if they have any reason to suspect that the unsworn information comes from a possibly suspect source or requires further testing, they can make their inquiries and can, if necessary, under the powers which they will undoubtedly have under the regulations, put a person on oath to substantiate the information which he has given. This information will not lead to any action except a rehearing before the tribunal, when the validity of the information will be tested. It would be a pity to say that no one could give information to the tribunal unless he went and made a sworn statement before a commissioner for oaths. The tribunal on information given them can themselves inquire into it and can, if necessary, put the person giving the information on oath. In some cases the information may come from an obviously untainted source, although not in the form of an affidavit. In certain cases it would put an unnecessary burden on the tribunal and might prevent people giving perfectly bona fide evidence which the tribunal ought to have before them in order that they might consider whether they should follow it up by inquiry.
    Mr. McEntee: Do I understand that the tribunal will have the right, if they so desire, to put a witness on oath?
    The Attorney-General: Yes, but the tribunal do not act unless they are satisfied on the information. For instance, they may get a letter, and if they know that there is nothing in it they will not be satisfied, but they can give the person the chance to give, if necessary on oath, the information he gave in his letter, and to answer any questions.
    Mr. McEntee: Will they have that power under the regulations?
    The Attorney-General: The Bill says that the regulations may confer powers to take evidence on oath, and it is intended that they shall have the power to put any witness they desire on oath.
    Amendment negatived.
    9.39 p.m.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, in page 8, line 1, to leave out "on an," and to insert
    "after being satisfied that the ground of his application was established, they had power to deal with him on his."
    Under the Bill, if a conscientious objector fails to fulfil the conditions he must appear once more before the tribunal and go through the process through which he has gone already. If the Bill is kept as it is, there would be power for the tribunal on the second hearing to put the conscientious objector on the military register without qualification. That is not our intention. The insertion of the words in the Amendment will have the result that if he is put on the military register after a second hearing he will be put on for non-combatant service.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, in page 8, line 32, to leave out "may," and to insert "shall."
    By this Amendment the regulations "shall" give the tribunals power to take evidence on oath, although it will still be open to them to hear evidence that is not on oath.
    Mr. Ede: I would like to ask the Attorney-General on the point I raised on the previous Amendment whether it will be possible for a person to lay information before the tribunal direct, and can the tribunal at that stage put him on oath before they call up the objector for rehearing?
    The Attorney-General: I think that is clear, because under the Clause the tribunal have to be satisfied before reporting to the Minister. If they think the letter, or whatever it is, is unreliable, they will not be satisfied. Within their powers it seems to me perfectly clear that they can say that unless the person who wrote the letter is prepared to repeat the
    1750
    evidence on oath they will not be satisfied, because they cannot compel him to do so and they will not take any more steps.
    9.42 p.m.
    Mr. Messer: I understand that what the Amendment does in effect is to carry out the intention that was stated in the Debate in Committee, when there seemed to be some misunderstanding as to what the permissive part of the paragraph intended. In other words, it appears that those responsible for the drafting were not very careful about their grammar and were apparently under the impression that the verb "may" governed the noun "tribunal," whereas it governed the noun "regulations." This Amendment, I take it, puts that in order.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is so.
    Amendment agreed to.
    9.43 p.m.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, in page 8, Line 33, to leave out "provide for enabling," and to insert
    "make provision as to the representation of."
    This and the next Amendment provide for the clearing up of one or two difficulties, one in particular, which were raised on the Committee stage. As it is proposed to amend the Clause, the regulations shall provide for the representation of the parties before the tribunal, and this shall include the right to appear in person or by counsel or solicitor or by a trade union representative. The tribunal may also allow the parties to be represented by anybody else whom they think proper in a particular case. During the discussion some doubt was expressed lest, by naming certain persons for whom the regulations shall provide, other people were thereby excluded. This point was much in the mind of the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley, and we have done our best by the changed wording of this Clause to meet his doubts. Although certain people must be named in the regulations, other people can be asked to attend if the court think fit.
    Mr. Lansbury: When making the regulations, I suppose they will take into account allowing a friend other than a member of the trade union to appear?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly. The regulations may provide for the presence

    1751
    of anybody whom the tribunal thinks it desirable to hear.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 8, line 34, at the end, insert "which shall include the right."—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

    CLAUSE 4.—(Medical examination.)
    9.46 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 9, line 37, to leave out:
    "by order authorise the taking of such steps,"
    and to insert:
    "make such orders (including orders for his arrest and detention)."
    This Amendment deals with the case of a person who has failed to comply with the requirement of a notice under which he should attend for medical examination. The nature of the Amendment, I think, might aptly be described as one to make sure that a spade is called a spade and not disguised beneath vague and somewhat ambiguous words. Under the Clause as drafted, if the court finds that a person has failed to comply with this requirement, it says that they
    "may by order authorise the taking of such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the requirements."
    That means that they may order compliance. It is better to be perfectly explicit about this matter, and as that was the original intention of the Clause, this Amendment makes it clear.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 9, line 38, at the end, insert:
    "or otherwise to secure his attendance before a medical board or consulant examiner, as the case may be."
    In page 10, line 16, leave out "from," and insert "beginning with."—[The Attorney-General.]

    CLAUSE 5.—(Calling up persons for military training.)
    9.48 p.m.
    Mr. Maxton: I beg to move, in page V line 16, after "months," to insert:
    "or such shorter period as may from time to time be considered desirable."
    It seems to me that this is an Amendment that the Minister might accept. As I read the Bill, I gather that the Minister and the Army Council will be compelled
    1752
    to keep these militiamen under training for a complete period of six months. There is no option of keeping them for a shorter period, even supposing it were found that a shorter period achieved all that was desired, and the Minister would not even be able to release the militiamen at the expiration of, say, five months and a couple of weeks. I will not attempt to teach the Secretary of State for War his work. Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), I will quote "Marmion" and say I do not propose to
    "…beard the lion in his den,
    The Douglas in his hall."
    This is a matter more for the military expert than for me, but I do not think anyone can say that a six months' period of training is the necessary period and that experience might not show that three months, or four or five months, were adequate for the purpose. At least I would certainly like to see the Minister armed with the option to reduce the period of proper training below the six months, which, as I understand it, is made statutory and obligatory, not only on the militiaman, but on the Minister and the Army Council as well. I hope the Minister will see the reasonableness of the suggestion.
    Mr. StephenI beg to second the Amendment.
    9.50 p.m.
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: The period of training has been fixed at six months, but the hon. Gentleman wishes to make it shorter by any
    "period as may from time to time be considered desirable."
    Mr. Maxton: By the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: By me. It is very kind of the hon. Gentleman to wish to confer discretion upon me, and as he said he was not inspired by any military motives or military knowledge, but simply that it would be a kindly and charitable thing if I had this discretion, I would prefer to leave it to be fixed by Parliament. Six months is the shortest period considered desirable. It compares very favourably, from the point of view of length of time, with all other countries, or at all events European countries, where compulsory military service prevails. There the period is very much longer than six months.
    Mr. Maxton: In Switzerland?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: No, not in Switzerland, but there the obligation continues throughout a man's life, or at any rate till over the age of 60. We have adopted a very moderate scheme, which is in consonance with the national character for compromise, and we are only exacting six months' continuous service with a subsequent obligation of a minor character over a period of four years. I do not think you could train the soldier conveniently in less than six months, and as the hon. Gentleman has left it to my discretion, I would ask him to withdraw his Amendment.
    9.53 p.m.
    Mr. Lees-Smith: I do not regard the comparison which the Secretary of State has drawn with Continental armies as one which can be sustained, for although Continental armies are conscripted for two years, it is well know that their training is completed in a very much shorter period, and the conscripts are kept for the remaining period because that is the way in which those countries main-
    tain their standing armies. The right hon. Gentleman has said that six months is accepted as the minimum period needed for training a militiaman, but that is not the universal view in his own Department. There is a large number of well-known officers now serving in the Army who hold that four months is quite sufficient under modern conditions, and some have put it as low as three months. Therefore, I can quite understand the prevailing military opinion coming to the conclusion that this period is longer than is necessary, and in these circumstances I see no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should tie his hands in order to commit himself to a period which is not even now accepted by everyone, or even, I should say, by more than barely a majority, as the necessary period. This Amendment would give him a free hand, and for that reason I think he ought to have accepted it.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 130; Noes, 237.

    [Division No. 140.]

    AYES.

    [9.55 p.m.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

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

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

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    Nathan, Colonel H. L.

    Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

    Groves. T. E.

    Naylor, T. E.

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

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Noel-Baker, P. J.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Hall, J. H. (Whiteshapel)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Banfield, J. W.

    Hardie, Agnes

    Paling, W.

    Barnes, A. J.

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

    Parker, J.

    Barr, J.

    Hayday, A.

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Batey, J.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Pearson, A.

    Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Banson, G.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Price, M. P.

    Bevan, A.

    Hicks, E. G.

    Pritt, D. N.

    Broad, F. A.

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Bromfield, W.

    Hollins, A.

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Brown, C. (Mansfield)

    Hopkin, D.

    Ridley, G.

    Buchanan, G.

    Isaacs, G. A.

    Ritson, J.

    Burke, W. A.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    Cape, T.

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Charleton, H. C.

    John, W.

    Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Jones, A. G. (Shipley)

    Sexton. T. M.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Silverman, S. S.

    Collindridge, F.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Simpson, F. B.

    Cove, W. G.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Sloan, A.

    Daggar, G.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Dalton, H.

    Lawson, J. J.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Leach, W.

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

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Leonard, W.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Leslie, J. R.

    Stephen, C.

    Dobbie, W.

    Lunn, W.

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

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

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

    Ede, J. C.

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Thurtle, E.

    Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

    McGovern, J.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Tomlinson, G.

    Foot, D. M.

    Marnier, G. le M.

    Viant, S. P.

    Gallacher, W.

    Marshall, F.

    Walker, J.

    Gardner, B. W.

    Mathers, G.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Garro Jones, G. M.

    Maxton, J.

    Watson, W. McL.

    George, Major G. Lleyd (Pembreke)

    Messer, F.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    Milner, Major J.

    Westwood, J.

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Montague, F.

    Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Mr. Adamson and Mr. Anderson.

    NOES.

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

    Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

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

    Goldie, N. B.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

    Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

    Peake, O.

    Albery, Sir Irving

    Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.

    Peat, C. U.

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

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)

    Grimston, R. V.

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

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

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Petherick, M.

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Apsley, Lord

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

    Pilkington, R.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

    Procter, Major H. A.

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

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Radford, E. A.

    Barrie, Sir C. C.

    Hannah, I. C.

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

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

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Beechman, N. A.

    Harbord, A.

    Rankin, Sir R.

    Blair, Sir R.

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Bossom, A. C.

    Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

    Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

    Remer, J. R.

    Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Brass, Sir W.

    Hepworth, J.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

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

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

    Higgs, W. F.

    Rowlands, G.

    Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

    Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

    Holdsworth, H.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Holmes, J. S.

    Russell, Sir Alexander

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

    Hopkinson, A.

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Bull, B. B.

    Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

    Salmon, Sir I.

    Burton, Col. H. W.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Salt, E. W.

    Butcher, H. W.

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

    Samuel, M. R. A.

    Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.

    Hulbert, Squadron-Leader N. J.

    Sandeman, Sir N. S.

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Hunter, T.

    Sanderson, Sir F. B.

    Cartland, J. R. H.

    Hurd, Sir P. A.

    Sandys, E. D.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hutchinson, G. C.

    Schuster, Sir G. E.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.

    Selley, H. R.

    Channon, H.

    Jarvis, Sir J. J.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Jennings, R.

    Shepperson, Sir E. W.

    Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

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

    Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

    Chorlton, A. E. L.

    Keeling, E. H.

    Smithers, Sir W.

    Christie, J. A.

    Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

    Snadden, W. McN.

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

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

    Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

    Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

    Kimball, L.

    Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

    Colman, N. C. D.

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

    Spens. W. P.

    Conant, Captain R. J. E.

    Lamb, Sir J. O.

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

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

    Lancaster, Captain C. G.

    Storey, S.

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

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

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

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Cox, H. B. Trevor

    Levy, T.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Craven-Ellis, W.

    Lewis, O.

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Critchley, A.

    Liddall, W. S.

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

    Lindsay, K. M.

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

    Lipson, D. L.

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

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

    Little, J.

    Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

    Cross, R. H.

    Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

    Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Loftus, P. C.

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Cruddas, Col. B.

    Lyons, A. M.

    Titchfield, Marquess of

    Davison, Sir W. H.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    De Chair, S. S.

    MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

    Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Denville, Alfred

    Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

    Turton, R. H.

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Dodd, J. S.

    Maclay, Hon. J. P.

    Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

    Doland, G. F.

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

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

    Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V. G.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

    Magnay, T.

    Warrender, Sir V.

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    Maitland, Sir Adam

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Dunglass, Lord

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

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

    Eckersley, P. T.

    Markham, S. F.

    Wayland, Sir W. A

    Ellis, Sir G.

    Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

    Wells, Sir Sydney

    Elliston, Capt. G. S.

    Medlicott, F.

    Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

    Emery, J. F.

    Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

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

    Entwistle, Sir C. F.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Errington, E.

    Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

    Erskine-Hill, A. G.

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

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

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

    Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Everard, Sir William Lindsay

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

    Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

    Fildes, Sir H.

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

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Fleming, E. L.

    Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

    Furness, S. N.

    Munro, P.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Nall, Sir J.

    Captain Dugdale and Major Sir James Edmondson.

    Gledhill, G.

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

    Gluckstain, L. H.

    Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

    10.5 p.m.
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I beg to move, in page 11, line 18, to leave out from "that," to the end of line 20, and to insert:
    "the provisions of the said Section thirty limiting the places at which militiamen may be called out for such special courses of training to places within the United Kingdom, shall, in relation to persons deemed by virtue of this Sub-section to have been so called out, be construed as including references to the Channel Islands."
    The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) will remember the point here dealt with. For the purpose of calling up the man this Act applies only to the United Kingdom. We may desire to send him to Northern Ireland if his battalion happens to be there, and, similarly, as we have a battalion in Guernsey, he may desire to join his own battalion there rather than become affiliated to another, and we wish to allow him to go to the Channel Islands for that purpose. This will be a convenience both to the military administration, because we have only a limited number of battalions, and to the man. For instance, the Royal Irish Fusiliers are now in Guernsey, and if a man could not join the battalion of his choice he would have to be sent to some other battalion. Guernsey is not a far distant place, and therefore no inconvenience is done.
    Amendment agreed to.
    10.6 p.m.
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I beg to move, in page 12, line 21, to leave out "military."
    The object of this Amendment is to remove an unnecessary word. The word "military" appears often throughout the Bill, but it does not happen to be necessary here, because Regular Forces are Regular Forces and it is not necessary to describe them as military.
    Amendment agreed to.
    10.8 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel Macnamara: I beg to move, in page 13, line 22, after "time," to insert:
    "unless, being a serving Territorial, he has twice in the two annual returns immediately previous to his militia service, been passed as efficient by his Territorial unit, in which case he shall retain, during his militia service, his Territorial status and rank and be consdered and described as a Territorial militiaman attached to the Regular Army."
    This is an Amendment which stands in the name of about 50 hon. Members, in-
    1758
    cluding myself, from all parties. Under the Bill as it stands Territorials who have joined the Territorial Army after 27th April will be conscripted in the same way as anybody else. Territorials have no objection to that, naturally; but, according to the Bill, when in future the Territorial is conscripted he will lose his Territorial status and his rank, and the effect of the Amendment will be that he will retain his Territorial status and rank. A Territorial can join at the age of 17, and it is quite possible in the Regular Army, and also in the Territorial Army, for a man in three years to earn a rank—lance-corporal, corporal, or in some cases even lance-sergeant or sergeant. Under the Bill as it stands if a corporal of Territorials is conscripted at the age of 20 no recognition whatsoever is to be paid to his previous Territorial service or to the rank which he holds in that Army. It is to be taken away from him and he has to start again at the bottom, possibly alongside recruits who are the very men whom he has been commanding before in his own unit, which is certainly going to make his position extremely difficult.
    Some people have advanced the idea that the Officers Training Corps should come under the same category, but I would like to point out that the Officers Training Corps are a pre-military training body, whereas the Territorials are an Army with exactly the same status as the Regular Army, that is to say they take an obligation to serve the country in time of war. Those of us who are supporting this Amendment feel most strongly that if a Territorial corporal is good enough to go to war as a corporal there is no reason why he should not retain that rank during his six months' military service. I think that feeling is general on all sides of the House, and it is certainly very strong throughout the whole Territorial Army. We hope that my right hon. Friend, who probably above all War Ministers has recognised the status of the Territorial Army by promoting major-generals, and so on, will recognise it in the case of corporals, lance-corporals and, possibly, sergeants too, because what is the use of recognising Territorial major-generals if we do not also recognise Territorial corporals. The feeling is extremely strong about this matter, and I should very much like my right hon. Friend to make us a concession in this respect.
    10.12 p.m.
    Major Whiteley: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I do not want to delay the House by further discussing the merits of this Amendment, which have been clearly put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Lieut.-Colonel Macnamara), but I hope very much that the Secretary of State will be able to make some concession in this direction. There is a very strong feeling on the matter in all parts of the House. One recognises the necessity of making the administration of this Bill as easy as possible, and it is clear that the Clause which we are discussing is inserted in order to make the administration easy, but in pursuing that very desirable end it may be that, quite inadvertently, the claims of the Territorial Army have not been given their full weight. The Secretary of State said the other day that it is desirable that all militiamen should start level. That is an excellent proposal provided that, in fact, they are level, from a military point of view, but I would remind the House that some of these men when called up may have done two years' service, may have been at camp for a total period of a month, may have done courses for another month, may have done 100 drills a year—many Territorials do that. Is that training of so little account that they should be put on a level when called up with men who have done no training at all?
    Some recognition, some encouragement, should be given to men who have put in such service. I suggest that it is to the advantage of the Territorial Army that this encouragement should be given, that this will-to-succeed should be recognised. Also, I think it is to the advantage of the Regular Army when they call up these militiamen to get men who are to some extent trained. It has been suggested that when men have been called up they will be quickly tested and those who have previous service will be put into special classes. That will take a couple of months, and it seems desirable that that time should be saved. Credit should be given to the Territorial Army for the training which they have already given to these men, who should be put straightaway into special formations where they can do more advanced training.
    The other point concerns a man probably with three years' service, a sergeant.
    1760
    He has got his uniform, but he is called up. He hands in his kit and says goodbye to it, and Sergeant Jones of, shall we say, some famous county regiment, becomes Private Jones of a Regular battalion. He has no promise whatever, so far as I am aware, that he will have the opportunity of going back to his own unit on the conclusion of his six months' training. It is fair to say that the Army appears to be the only employment which is not to be compelled to reinstate its employés after they have done their six months' training. Would it not be an encouragement to these men if they knew that when they left they could go back to their units and to their own rank? I put very much stress on that point, and I hope that the Secretary of State will see his way to provide that service shall be continuous. I would remind him that the total compulsory service consists of four years, and that these men will already have started their four years, and that they will have completed two years of it. It appears to me only common sense that it should be counted all as one engagement.
    The only other matter relates to the Territorial efficiency medal, which is very much valued by Territorials. At present a break in Territorial service means that service before the break cannot be counted as service for the medal. No doubt the Secretary of State will vary the Regulations so that that state of things will no longer hold good.
    10.16 p.m.
    Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: I rise to support the plea that has been made, and I hope that the Minister will consider the matter. I commanded a Territorial brigade during the War and I know how strong is their esprit de corps. It is as strong as in the Regular Army. I have lately seen some of the old Territorials in my county, and one of them said: "I have always promised you that as soon as my son is 17 I shall put him into the regiment, but if he has done service, is he going to lose during the six months when he is a militiaman whatever rank he may get, the benefit of his efficiency, his 30 days' training and his fortnight's camp?" As one of my hon. and gallant Friends has pointed out, these things are rightly the subject of strong feeling in the Territorial Army. When I was commanding

    1761
    my Regular regiment we often had Territorials, non-commissioned officers and men, attached to us for training. The Amendment asks that these yeomen or Territorials, when they do their six months' training, should be attached in their rank and with their uniform. In the old days N.C.O.'s and men of the Territorials were often attached to a Regular regiment for a three or four months' course. They served in their own uniform and rank. Why cannot it be done now? I ask the Secretary of State for War to accept this Amendment, whatever his regular advisers at the War Office may say. I was once a brass-hat myself, but I never had the respect for them that I had for the Service when I was with my own regiment and with my Territorial brigade.
    10.19 p.m.
    Captain Sir Derrick Gunston: With a certain amount of diffidence I rise to oppose the Amendment. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will not think that in doing so I wish to disparage the Territorial Army, but I do not think that this Amendment would, if accepted, benefit the Territorials. I am sure that it would strike at the whole basis of this militia scheme. It would be fatal if at this hour we were to allow any system of differentiation to creep in. I appreciate, as we all do, the great work done by the Territorials, and one of my hon. Friends has just said that it is a pity that a Territorial who is efficient, should, when called up for the militia, take his first six months' training from the very beginning. I have met many Territorials who have told me that they would like to go back and get again a thorough grounding. I believe that the foundation of a soldier is the thorough elementary grounding that he gets on the barrack square. If he were to retain his rank, he would never get quite the feeling of the private in the militia. What would be his position with regard to other non-commissioned officers, Regulars who are training? I think it would be found that he would be neither Regular nor militiaman, and you might lose the whole spirit of what the Bill intends. It must be remembered that during the last few years some Territorial units have been very full and efficient, and it has been very difficult for anyone in them to get a stripe. In other branches of the Territorials, on the other hand, which have not been so full, stripes
    1762
    have been easier to obtain. If a man who, although an efficient Territorial, had not been promoted because his regiment was full came into the militia and had not a stripe, the other militiamen would wonder why he had not got it, and there would be a differentiation against him.
    Surely, if previous military training is worth while, and I believe it is, you could not give special treatment to a young Territorial and withhold it from a senior member of an O.T.C. I am not pleading, and I will never plead, that the O.T.C. should have any preference, nor do I think that the Territorials should have any preference, I believe that their previous military training will make them stand out, and that they will get promotion as time goes on. They may be selected for officer-producing companies because of their previous training. If their previous training is worth while, they will come to the front; if it were not worth while there would be no object in their going on in the Territorials.
    When it is found that those who have been in the Territorials tend to rise rapidly in the new militia, that will be a great encouragement to men to join the Territorials before they do their militia service. As time goes on, the Territorials, no doubt, will be filled in many cases by those who have gone through the militia, and these will be the non-commissioned officers of the future. Even if this concession were granted, it would only apply to a very small number. I think it is important, if this Measure is to be what we hope it will be, that there should be no differentiation at all, but that all the men should start equal. I believe so much in the efficiency of the training of the Territorials that I am sure that those who have gone through that training first will rapidly rise. For these reasons I hope the Secretary of State will not accept the Amendment.
    10.25 p.m.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I have a very high regard for the training of the Territorial soldier, having been attached to a Territorial regiment at the beginning of the last War. The point has been raised that the reinstatment which is implied in this Amendment is not promised to the Territorial soldier in the same way as it is to the civilian employé. I think that when that is examined, it will be found to be a rather unfair way of putting it. The

    1763
    non-commissioned officer is not, in fact, employed by his commanding officer, but is regarded by his commanding officer in a very different way. It has been said that it is better that a Territorial should maintain his rank, in order to have something to show for the service he has done, but a rather awkward situation may occur if he retains his rank and uniform while serving in the militia and finds himself, as a sergeant, under the command of a corporal. I believe that supporters of the Amendment have an entirely false conception of what this six months' training means. I look upon it as being like the courses of training that some of us had when we went through Hythe. It is a specialised course, and if it is looked at in that light the feeling that there is unfairness will be removed.
    Lieut.-Colonel Macnamara: One does not have one's rank taken away when one goes to Hythe.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think that that again is putting a false interpretation on this matter. Officers of different ranks who are lumped together are often under the command of officers who are their juniors in rank. It is that position that will be maintained in regard to the militia. Although, with all the admiration that I have for the Territorial Army, I cannot see that this Amendment would enhance their status by one jot, I would like to see some recognition given to these men. Would it not be possible to evolve some method, by giving a small badge or mark to be worn on the arm of the Territorial who has done 12 months service, so that the distinction will not be great? He would be able to carry the mark of the Territorial regiment of which he was proud, during his period of training with the militia, which he would also be proud to undergo.
    Lieut.-Colonel Dower Lieut.-Colonel Dower rose—
    Mr. Davidson: On a point of Order. Is it in accordance with the traditions of the House that, when the Guillotine is operating, so much time should be devoted to arguments from one side of the House, and the Opposition should not have an opportunity of having their Amendments dealt with?
    Mr. Speaker: I am certainly not conscious that that is the case.
    10.29 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I cannot see why these men should have a special mark. I have found in my own experience that some of the finest soldiers are the young soldiers. We feel very strongly on this point, and to say that these men are bound to win their spurs again is not enough? Why should they have to? These men have given a great deal more than 100 drills a year. They have won their spurs, and they deserve to have them. I agree that my right hon. Friend has done more for the Territorial Army than any previous Secretary of State for War has done. Let him show that he supports the voluntary system by seeing that these fellows are recognised and made instructors or put in a specialised class, so that the voluntary system will survive when the compulsory system is long dead.
    10.31 p.m.
    Sir J. Nall: I want to support the proposal on grounds which have not been mentioned by my hon. Friends. It is obvious that when several hundred men begin their training at a depot, the Army to-day is not in a position to provide a full complement of non-commissioned officers. Therefore, whoever is in charge of the training centre or depot and is faced with an influx of 100 or 200 men whom he does not know will have to find some means of selecting at least a proportion of those men for some sort of noncommissioned rank. The obvious thing in these circumstances is that those who have already non-commissioned rank should be those to whom that rank should be allotted during the period of training. It is only common sense that when maybe 100 or 200 men attend the depot to begin their six months' training, those who already have had experience and have been promoted to lance-corporal, corporal, sergeant or lance-sergeant should be selected for that rank in order to assist in that training. It is not only common sense from the military point of view that they should assist in the training at the depots, but common justice that those who volunteered in advance of their liability to be called up under the Act should be given the advantage of whatever rank they may have obtained before they were so called up. I hope that my right hon. Friend, even if he cannot insert the actual terms of the Amendment, will be able to give the

    1765
    House some assurance that the spirit of it will be observed, and that those who have for a year or more before their calling up devoted their time to training in military matters shall have the advantage of that initial training.
    10.34 p.m.
    Lieut.-Commander Agnew: The position of the men in the Territorial Army is that they are not asking to hold rank above those who are for the time being their fellow militiamen while they are doing their militia service, neither are they asking to receive extra pay on account of any rank which they may have achieved during their time in the Territorial Army, but they are asking from the Secretary of State for War, in appreciation and as a mark of the regard he has for the Territorials, that, when they come out of the militia, they shall be restored to the position and rank which they formerly held when in the Territorial Army.
    10.35 p.m.
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I have listened with great attention to what has been said by hon. Friends who have such close acquaintance with the Territorial Army, and having listened, I am not sure that the statement with which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Lieut.-Colonel Macnamara) opened the Debate, namely, that this proposal has a widespread support in this House, is substantiated, nor am I satisfied that it has universal support in the Territorial Army. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Brig.-General Brown) said that he hoped that I would not listen to my Regular advisers. I do not know why I should not listen to them, because no body of men has been more sympathetic to the Territorial Army, to which they have given a great deal of attention. But I have also Territorial advisers. One of the reforms to which my hon. and gallant Friend called attention was exactly the reform of introducing into the War Office a number of Territorial advisers, and, naturally, I have consulted them.
    I wish to be as sympathetic and as understanding as I can be towards the point of view of my hon. and gallant Friends who moved and seconded the Amendment. Let us see what the Amendment means and whether they really desire that it should be carried hi this form. Here is a Bill which imposes upon every citizen in Great Britain between the ages of 20
    1766
    and 21 a period of six months' service. That applies to rich and poor, skilled and unskilled. There are men who will come into this service who have a trade and have been trained, and who have a profession. They will not be distinguished from their fellows, as they might well claim to be. They are not going to be given any special rank or rate of pay. Similarly, there are men who have served in officers' training corps, and have given a considerable period of their lives to military training, and there are those who will join the Territorial Army. What we have to settle is a principle. Is there going to be equality or not?
    Mr. Gallacher: There is not.
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I do not know what there would be if the hon. Member had his way, but it is the desire of the Government to secure complete equality of conditions during this period of service. What is the hardship of which my hon. and gallant Friend is complaining? Every one is exempt from this service who has previously served or is serving in the Regular Army. Any one who has done six months service in the Regular Army is exempt. Every one who was in the Territorial Army before the 27th April is completely exempt. Therefore, the men whom my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cockermouth (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) described as having worked hard at Christmas, at Easter, and who have attended camp, are not these people who are affected. They are in the Territorial Army. His Amendment can apply only to persons who joined the Territorial Army after the 27th April last. He then says that if these people for whom he pleads have in the two annual returns immediately previous to their militia service, been passed as efficient, they shall retain throughout their militia service their Territorial status and rank, and be described as Territorial militiamen. Therefore, this limited class of persons, who in two years' time will be qualified, are, two years from now, to be described not as militiamen but as Territorial militiamen. In the course of the next two years we shall have ample occasion to consider their case, if it be a case. I agree with what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thornbury (Sir D. Gunston), that if in two years' time they have acquired this great efficiency, they will be able to

    1767
    demonstrate it and will be advanced in their training with all due speed.
    Lieut.-Colonel Macnamara: The point is that these men are working for their status and efficiency now, and will be working during the next two years, and it is not much inducement for them to work for it if they are to have it taken away on being conscripted.
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I am dealing with the point fairly. These men cannot be affected for two years. They will have one year and eleven months in two years; very few will have done two years, because they would have to join at least before they are 18 years of age, and anyone who joins the Territorial Army at 18 years of age will not get this distinction, will not retain his rank, under the Amendment. Therefore, the very anomaly which the hon. and gallant Member desires to avoid will be created, and two men in the same battalion will not have the same treatment when they are called up for their compulsory military service.
    Lieut.-Colonel Macnamara: The Amendment refers to two annual returns; and it is possible to get two annual returns in 18 months.
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: It really does not matter what period you take. The fact is that either you have to say that anyone who has served in the Territorial Army shall retain his status or not. You do not want to add to distinctions in the Territorial Army itself. If a man does his best to get himself efficient before he joins he will have this advantage, but why should he retain during the period of his service any rank which he may have enjoyed, if these men are going to be on an equality? Suppose he is a non-commissioned officer. If a man is going to wear a sergeant's stripes during his period of training he must exercise the functions of a sergeant;
    Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. Anstruther-Gray: An officer or a non-commissioned officer attending a course at Hythe or Netheravon wears his stripes and rank all the time, but he does not exercise any official command.
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: This is not a course. This man will be joining his regiment and he will pass through exactly the same
    1768
    gradations as anybody else. If he is efficient and distinguishes himself from his fellows, he will get rapid advancement and will go to a special course. What I can understand is a desire that in his subsequent period of service he should gain some advantage from his Territorial service. I can understand that, and, indeed, the Bill provides that he gets an advantage because he is allowed to count that previous service towards his subsequent service. I answered in the affirmative a question to-day as to whether any Territorial non-commissioned officer being called up for service could normally expect, provided his commanding officer was satisfied with him, to return to his place in the Territorial Army with the same rank that he had attained. During the hiatus the man will have the advantage of this additional training, and if he is efficient he will be pushed on to a special course and then return to his previous rank, and he may indeed have an advantage because we intend to select officers of the future from these militiamen, and providing a man can justify himself upon his merits he may return as an officer, which I think is much better. It has been suggested that if these men cannot retain their rank they should be given a special badge during their militia service. I am advised that this, instead of rendering them popular, would render them unpopular, but I am quite ready to consider any suggestion. We have to remember that there is such a thing as public opinion and to consider whether if we allow them this distinguishing mark, they may not be rendered unpopular.
    Nevertheless, if that really be the view of the Territorial Army, I am prepared to consider that proposal; but we have two years in which to consider it, since the proposal could not in any event operate for two years. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friends who have moved the Amendment will not consider that I am dealing unsympathetically with it. I have taken what advice I could. It is true that representations have been made to me by my hon. Friends in the House on behalf of this Amendment, but equally representations have been made against the proposal. In the circumstances, I think it would be wiser to give this scheme a chance of getting on its feet on the basis of equality. We are not tied to this particular scheme and I should be quite

    1769
    ready to consider during the next two years—or if not me, then my successor will be able to do so—what adjustments it may be necessary to make. I do not think my hon. and gallant Friends wish necessarily to press the Amendment to a Division; it could not in event be accepted now, because a man cannot serve in His Majesty's Forces on two engagements at the same time. He could not be described as a Territorial militiaman; he could be described as one or the other, but he must definitely be in one force or the other.
    Amendment negatived.
    10.47 p.m.
    Mr. E. Brown: I beg to move, in page 13, line 30, to leave out from "himself," to the end of the Sub-section.
    This is a drafting Amendment. The words which it is proposed to leave out are unnecessary.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Reinstatement in civil employment.)
    10.48 p.m.
    Mr. Silverman: I beg to move, in page 15, line 12, at the end, to insert:
    "(2) An employer shall not be deemed to have discharged his obligations under this Section unless the person reinstated in employment with him as this Section requires is allowed to retain, that employment for a period not less than the period during which he was employed by that employer before being called up for service under this Act, or for three months, whichever period be the greater:
    Provided that it shall be a defence to any proceedings under this Sub-section that the person so employed was dismissed for serious and wilful misconduct."
    I suppose that there is no part of the Bill on which there has been more unanimity than there is in the desire of hon. Members to ensure that the men who are called up under the Bill shall not lose their employment when they return to civil life. I think I am right in saying that hon. Members in all parts of the House, no matter what may be their views with regard to other aspects of the matter, are agreed that whatever steps can be taken to secure that, shall be taken. I have moved this Amendment in order to do something to make the undertaking in the Bill something more than an empty form of words. I assure hon. Members that if the Clause is left as it is now, there will be no protection at all for the great majority of the men
    1770
    who are called up for military training. The great majority of these men will be employed on contracts of service that are weekly, or less than weekly, and the only obligation which the Clause imposes on the employers is an obligation to reinstate the men on terms of employment that are not less favourable than the terms on which they were employed before they were called up. If those terms were weekly terms of service, they can be completely performed.
    I assert that there is no manner of doubt about this. They can be completely performed if the man is taken back into his employment, works one week, and at the end of that week is given either one week's notice or a week's wages in lieu of notice. I challenge the Minister, who appeared to doubt it last time, to say whether he still stands by that opinion. I know that the Minister was inclined on the last occasion to meet that point by saying that he had in the Clause taken power to make regulations to prevent evasion. He had indeed done that. I quite grant that he has under the power he has taken complete power to deal with evasion. But the same act cannot be at one and the same time a performance of a contract, a performance of a statutory obligation and also an evasion of that contract of employment, or an evasion of that statutory obligation.
    And once it is established that the employer has given the man everything that he was legally entitled to under his terms of service, he has established fulfilment of contract, and no power in the Minister to deal with evasion will help m the least. Indeed, if the Minister were to attempt to deal by regulation with this as though it were a kind of evasion, he would, I am certain, find his regulation declared ultra vires by the courts on the ground that what was here being dealt with was not an evasion of the contract at all. The principle of the Amendment is that you can protect the man only in one way, that is, by securing that when he is reinstated in his employment he shall, subject to good conduct, retain that employment for a reasonable period after he goes back to civil life.
    I should be perfectly ready to accept from the Minister an assurance that he would accept that principle at some other stage of the Bill in any form that he would prefer, but I have no doubt—and I think he himself has no doubt now—

    1771
    that, unless something of the kind is done, this Clause, upon which so many hopes have been built, and which the Government has held out as being a promising security for the man in his employment, is a complete fraud, completely useless, completely illusory. While it would he a very cruel thing to take these men from their jobs and not provide for them to go back to their jobs, it is impossible to pretend that you have afforded them a security. All this elaborate machinery of prosecution, fine and compensation will not catch any employer outside a lunatic asylum.
    Mr. R. J. Taylor: I beg to second the Amendment.
    10.55 p.m.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think the hon. Member is unduly pessimistic. I do not believe that this Clause will work out in the way he anticipates it will if his Amendment is not carried. He places no reliance whatever, not only on the very real safeguards in the Clause, but also on the character of the vast majority of employers; I have no reason to believe that they will evade this clause. Nor does the hon. Member pay much regard to public opinion, which will certainly act as a deterrent against employers who try to evade their obligations. If the Amendment were carried, an employer would be obliged
    to keep a man in employment for three months after his militia service even though he might have been on terms of a week's or a month's or something less than three months' notice. In our view, it would be impossible to do more for the militiaman than to make certain that he does not suffer through being called up for service, and that he is put back into the position in which he would have been if he had never been called up. We cannot go further than that and put him in a preferential position to the great body of wage-earners.
    Whatever the merits of the hon. Member's proposal, I believe there are very few cases in which it would need to be applied. I do not think that he realises the full strength of Clause 6, not only in Sub-section (1), where reinstatement is provided for, but also in Sub-section (5), which will enable my right hon. Friend to provide for any instances that may occur of employers trying to evade their responsibility. If we are satisfied as a result of experience that fair reinstatement has not been given, my right hon. Friend certainly intends to make regulations which will try and mitigate that evil. I do not believe that in practice the hon. Member's fears will be justified.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 128; Noes, 338.

    Division No. 141.]

    AYES.

    [10.59 p.m.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

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

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

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

    Frankel, D.

    Lathan, G.

    Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

    Gallacher, W.

    Lawson, J. J.

    Ammon, C. G.

    Gardner, B. W.

    Leach, W.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Garro Jones, G. M

    Leonard, W.

    Banfield, J. W.

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    Leslie, J. R.

    Barr, J.

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Lunn, W.

    Batey, J.

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Benson, G.

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Bevan, A.

    Groves, T. E.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Bromfield, W.

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    McGovern, J.

    Buchanan, G.

    Hall, J. H. (Whiteshapel)

    MacLaren, A.

    Burks, W. A.

    Hardie, Agnes

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Cape, T.

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

    Marshall, F.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Hayday, A.

    Mathers, G.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Maxton, J.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Messer, F.

    Collindridge, F.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Milner, Major J.

    Cove, W. G.

    Hicks, E. G.

    Montague, F.

    Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

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

    Daggar, G.

    Hollins, A.

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

    Dalton, H.

    Isaacs, G. A.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Jagger, J.

    Noel-Baker, P. J.

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Paling, W.

    Day, H.

    John, W.

    Parker, J.

    Dobbie, W.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Pearson, A.

    Ede, J. C.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Price, M. P.

    Pritt, D. N.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Watson. W. McL.

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Stephen, C.

    Westwood, J.

    Ridley, G.

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

    Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

    Ritson, J.

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

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpath)

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Sexton, T. M.

    Thurtle, E.

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    Silverman, S. S.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Simpson, F. B.

    Tomlinson, G.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Sloan, A.

    Viant, S. P.

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Walkden, A. G.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Walker, J.

    Mr. Anderson and Mr. Adamson.

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

    Watkins, F. C.

    NOES.

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

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

    Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

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

    Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.

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

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

    Cox, H. B. Trevor

    Guinness, T. L. E. B.

    Albery, Sir Irving

    Craven-Ellis, W.

    Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

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

    Critchley, A.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.

    Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.

    Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

    Hammersley, S. S.

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

    Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

    Hannah, I. C.

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

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

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Cross, R. H.

    Harbord, A.

    Apsley, Lord

    Crossley, A. C.

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

    Assheton, R.

    Cruddas, Col. B.

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

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

    Culverwell, C. T.

    Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sufton)

    Davison, Sir W. H.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

    Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

    De Chair, S. S.

    Hepworth, J.

    Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

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

    Denville, Alfred

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

    Balniel, Lord

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Higgs, W. F.

    Barrie, Sir C. C.

    Dodd, J. S.

    Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Doland, G. F.

    Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.

    Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

    Donner, P. W.

    Holdsworth, H.

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

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

    Holmes, J. S.

    Beechman, N. A.

    Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V. G.

    Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

    Bennett, Sir E. N.

    Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Bernays, R. H.

    Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

    Howitt, Dr. A. B.

    Blair, Sir R.

    Dugdale, Captain T. L.

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

    Blaker, Sir R.

    Duncan, J. A. L,

    Hulbert, Squadron-Leader N. J.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Dunglass, Lord

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Eckersley, P. T.

    Hunter, T.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

    Hurd, Sir P. A.

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

    Brasken, B.

    Ellis, Sir G.

    Jarvis, Sir J. J.

    Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)

    Elliston, Capt. G. S.

    Jennings, R.

    Brass, Sir W.

    Emery, J. F.

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

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Emmott, C. E. G. C

    Keeling, E. H.

    Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

    Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

    Entwistle, Sir C. F.

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

    Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

    Errington, E.

    Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Erskine-Hill, A. G.

    Kimball, L.

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

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

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

    Bull, B. B.

    Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Burghley, Lord

    Everard, Sir William Lindsay

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

    Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

    Fildes, Sir H.

    Lancaster, Captain C. G.

    Burton, Col. H. W.

    Findlay, Sir E.

    Latham, Sir P.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Fleming, E. L.

    Leigh, Sir J.

    Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.

    Fox, Sir G. W. G.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Caine, G. R. Hall-

    Fremantle, Sir F. E.

    Levy, T.

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Furness, S. N.

    Lewis, O.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Liddall, W. S.

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

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Lindsay, K. M.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

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

    Lipson, D. L.

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Gledhill, G.

    Little, Sir E. Graham-

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

    Gluckstein, L. H.

    Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

    Channon, H.

    Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

    Lloyd, G. W.

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Goldie, N. B.

    Loftus. P. C.

    Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

    Gower, Sir R. V.

    Lyons, A. M.

    Chorlton, A. E. L.

    Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.

    MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

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

    Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

    Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

    MacDonald, Rt. Han. M. (Ross)

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Colville, Rt. Hon. John

    Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

    Cenant, Captain R. J. E.

    Grimston, R. V.

    McKie, J. H.

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

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Maclay, Hon. J. P.

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

    Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

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

    1774

    1775

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

    Magnay, T.

    Rankin, Sir R.

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Maitland, Sir Adam

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Mander, G. le M.

    Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

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

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

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

    Markham, S. F.

    Remer, J. R.

    Thomas, J. P. L.

    Marsden, Commander A.

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Thomson, Sir J. D. W

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

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

    Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

    Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Medlicott, F.

    Repner, Colonel L.

    Titchfield, Marquess of

    Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Train, Sir J.

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

    Rothschild, J. A. de

    Tree, A. R. L. F

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Rowlands, G.

    Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

    Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Mitcheson, Sir G. G.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

    Turton, R. H.

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

    Russell, Sir Alexander

    Wakefield, W. W.

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

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Walker-Smith, Sir J.

    Moreing, A. C.

    Salmon, Sir I.

    Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

    Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

    Salt, E. W.

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

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

    Samuel, M. R. A.

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

    Sandeman, Sir N. S.

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

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

    Sanderson, Sir F. B.

    Warrender, Sir V.

    Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J

    Sandys, E. D.

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Munro, P.

    Schuster, Sir G. E.

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

    Nall, Sir J.

    Scott, Lord William

    Wayland, Sir W. A

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

    Seely, Sir H. M

    Wedderburn, H. J. S.

    Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

    Selley, H. R.

    Wells, Sir Sydney

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

    O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

    Shepperson, Sir E. W.

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

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Palmer, G. E. H.

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

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

    Patrick, C. M.

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Peake, O.

    Smithers, Sir W.

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

    Peat, C. U.

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Wise, A. R.

    Petherick, M.

    Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Pilkington, R.

    Spent. W. P.

    Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

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

    Wragg, H.

    Porritt, R. W.

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

    Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

    Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

    York, C.

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Storey, S.

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Purbrick, R.

    Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

    Radford, E. A.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

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

    Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and

    Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Captain McEwen.

    It being after Eleven o'Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 10th May, successively to put forthwith the Questions on Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given, and the Question necessary to bring to a conclusion the proceedings on the Bill.

    CLAUSE 9.—(Information to be furnished by education authorities.)
    Amendments made:
    In page 18, line 2, after "purposes," insert "of Section one."
    In line 3, leave out Sub-section (2).—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

    CLAUSE 10.—(Power to provide for consequential matters.)
    Amendments made:
    In page 18, line 11, at the end, insert:
    "(2) Any Order in Council made under this Section may provide for the continuance of any provisions contained therein after the expiry of this Act; and any such Order may, while this Act is in force, be varied or re-
    1776
    voked by any subsequent Order made in like manner as the original Order."
    In line 12, leave out "such an Order," and insert:
    "any Order in Council proposed to be made under this Section."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

    CLAUSE 14.—(Interpretation.)
    Amendments made:
    In page 19, line 37, leave out "and."
    In line 39, at the end, insert:
    "'United Kingdom' has the same meaning as in the Army Act."
    In page 20, line 31, leave out from "only," to the end of the Clause.—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

    CLAUSE 15.—(Power to apply Act to British subjects ordinarily resident outside Great Britain.)
    Amendments made:
    In page 21, line 3, leave out from "subjects," to "who," in line 4, and insert "who have not attained the age of twenty-one years, and."
    In line 18, leave out from "that," to "any," in line 22, and insert:
    "the Minister shall not by such regulations as aforesaid impose an obligation to register upon any person who is, under the provisions of any Act in force in any part of His Majesty's Dominions outside Great Britain a national or citizen of that part within the meaning of that Act, or who is a person belonging to any such part of His Majesty's Dominions, or to a British Protectorate, a mandated territory, or."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

    CLAUSE 16.—(Power to extend to Isle of Man.)
    Amendment made: In page 21, line 27, at the end, insert:
    "and upon this Act being so extended, references therein to Great Britain shall be construed as including references to the Isle of Man."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

    CLAUSE 17.—(Duration of Act.)
    Amendments made:
    In page 21, line 40, leave out "at any time while this Act is in force."
    In page 22, line 8, at the end, insert:
    "or the operation of any provisions of an Order in Council made under Section ten of this Act with respect to which the Order provides that they shall continue after the expiry of this Act."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

    SCHEDULE.
    Amendments made:
    In page 23, line 20, after "Minister," insert:
    "In appointing members of such tribunals the Minister shall have regard to the necessity of selecting impartial persons, and."
    In line 28, at the end, insert:
    "In appointing members of the appellate tribunal the Minister shall have regard to the necessity of selecting impartial persons, and."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]
    Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    The House divided: Ayes, 337; Noes, 130.

    Division No. 142.]

    AYES.

    [11.17 p.m.

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

    Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.

    Duncan, J. A. L.

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

    Caine, G. R. Hall-

    Dunglass, Lord

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Eckersley, P. T.

    Albery, Sir Irving

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

    Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

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

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

    Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

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

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

    Ellis, Sir G.

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

    Channon, H.

    Elliston, Capt. G. S.

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Emery, J. F.

    Apsley, Lord

    Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

    Emmott, C. E. G. C.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Chorlton, A. E. L.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Assheton, R.

    Christie, J. A.

    Entwistle, Sir C. F.

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

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Errington, E.

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

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

    Erskine-Hill, A. G.

    Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

    Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

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

    Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

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

    Colville, Rt. Hon. John

    Everard, Sir William Lindsay

    Balniel, Lord

    Conant, Captain R. J. E.

    Fildes, Sir H.

    Barrie, Sir C. C.

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

    Findlay, Sir E.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

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

    Fleming, E. L.

    Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

    Cooper, Rt. Hon. T. M. (E'burgh, W.)

    Fox, Sir G. W. G.

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

    Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.

    Fremantle, Sir F. E.

    Beechman, N. A.

    Cox, H. B. Trevor

    Furness, S. N.

    Bennett, Sir E. N.

    Craven-Ellis, W.

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Bernays, R. H.

    Critchley, A.

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Blair, Sir R.

    Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

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

    Blaker, Sir R.

    Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

    Gledhill, G.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

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

    Gluckstein, L. H.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Cross, R. H.

    Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Crossley, A. C.

    Goldie, N. B.

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Gower, Sir R. V.

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Cruddas, Col. B.

    Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

    Bracken, B.

    Culverwell, C. T.

    Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.

    Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)

    Davison, Sir W. H.

    Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

    Brass, Sir W.

    De Chair, S. S.

    Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

    Denville, Alfred

    Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

    Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

    Dodd, J. S.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Doland, G. F.

    Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

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

    Donner, P. W.

    Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Bull, B. B.

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

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

    Burghley, Lord

    Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V. G.

    Guinness, T. L. E. B.

    Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

    Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

    Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

    Burton, Col. H. W.

    Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Dugdale, Captain T. L.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Hannah, I. C.

    Marsden, Commander A.

    Shepperson, Sir E. W.

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

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

    Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

    Harbord, A.

    Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Medlicott, F.

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

    Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

    Smithers, Sir W.

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

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

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

    Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Hepworth, J.

    Mitcheson, Sir G. G.

    Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

    Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

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

    Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

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

    Spens, W. P.

    Higgs, W. F.

    Moreing, A. C.

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

    Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

    Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.

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

    Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

    Holdsworth, H.

    Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

    Storey, S.

    Holmes, J. S.

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

    Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

    Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

    Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Munro, P.

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

    Howitt, Dr. A. B.

    Nall, Sir J.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

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

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

    Hulbert, Squadron-Leader N. J.

    Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Hunter, T.

    O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Hurd, Sir P. A.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Hutchinson, G. C.

    Palmer, G. E. H.

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

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.

    Patrick, C. M.

    Thomas, J. P. L.

    James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

    Peake, O.

    Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

    Jarvis, Sir J. J.

    Peat, C. U.

    Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

    Jennings, R.

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

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

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Titchfield, Marquess of

    Keeling, E. H.

    Petherick, M.

    Train, Sir J.

    Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

    Pilkington, R.

    Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

    Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Kimball, L.

    Porritt, R. W.

    Turton, R. H.

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

    Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Walker-Smith, Sir J.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

    Purbrick, R.

    Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

    Lancaster, Captain C. G.

    Radford, E. A.

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

    Latham, Sir P.

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    Leigh, Sir J.

    Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Warrender, Sir V.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

    Rankin, Sir R.

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Levy, T.

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

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

    Lewis, O.

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Wayland, Sir W. A

    Liddall, W. S.

    Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

    Wedderburn, H. J. S.

    Lindsay, K. M.

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

    Wells, Sir Sydney

    Lipson, D. L.

    Remer, J. R.

    Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

    Little, Sir E. Graham-

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

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

    Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

    Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Lloyd, G. W.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

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

    Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Loftus, P. C.

    Rothschild, J. A. de

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

    Lyons, A. M.

    Rowlands, G.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

    Wise, A. R.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Russell, Sir Alexander

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Salmon, Sir I.

    Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

    Salt, E. W.

    Wragg, H.

    McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

    Samuel, M. R. A.

    Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

    McKie, J. H.

    Sandeman, Sir N. S.

    York, C.

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

    Sanderson, Sir F. B.

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Sandys, E. D.

    Magnay, T.

    Schuster, Sir G. E.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Maitland, Sir Adam

    Scott, Lord William

    Captain Margesson and Lieut.-

    Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

    Selley, H. R.

    Markham, S. F.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Colonel Kerr.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Bevan, A.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

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

    Broad, F. A.

    Day, H.

    Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

    Bromfield, W.

    Dobbie, W.

    Adamson, W. M.

    Buchanan, G.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

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

    Burke, W. A.

    Ede, J. C.

    Ammon, C. G.

    Cape, T.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Frankel, D.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Gallacher, W.

    Banfield, J. W.

    Collindridge, F.

    Gardner, B. W.

    Barnes, A. J.

    Cove, W. G.

    Garro Jones, G. M.

    Barr, J.

    Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    Batey, J.

    Daggar, G.

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Benson, G.

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    1780

    1781

    Groves, T. E.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Sloan, A.

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    McGovern, J.

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    MacLaren, A.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Hardie, Agnes

    Mainwaring, W. H.

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

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

    Marshall, F.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Hayday, A.

    Mathers, G.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Maxton, J.

    Stephen, C.

    Henderson, J, (Ardwick)

    Messer, F.

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

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Milner, Major J.

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

    Hicks, E. G.

    Montague, F.

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

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

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Hollins, A.

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

    Thurtle, E.

    Isaacs, G. A.

    Noel-Baker, P. J.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Jagger, J.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Tomlinson, G.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Paling, W.

    Viant, S. P.

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Parker, J.

    Walkden, A. G.

    John, W.

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Walker, J.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Pearson, A.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Watson, W. McL.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Pritt, D. N.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Westwood, J.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Lathan, G.

    Ridley, G.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Lawson, J. J.

    Ritson, J.

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Leach, W.

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    Leonard, W.

    Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Leslie, J. R.

    Sexton. T. M.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Lunn, W.

    Shinwell, E.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Silverman, S. S.

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Simpson, F. B.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton.

    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  RESERVE AND AUXILIARY FORCES BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  RESERVE AND AUXILIARY FORCES BILL.

    CLAUSE I.—(Calling out of reserve and auxiliary forces.)
    11.28 p.m.
    Mr. Lawson: I beg to move, in page 3, line 14, to leave out Sub-section (5).
    I pointed out on the Second Reading of the Bill that the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be asking more than he had led the House to believe that he would. He told us that the object of this Bill was to abolish a lot of antique methods and to enable the Government to speedup the calling-out of the troops. But this Sub-section which I wish to leave out seeks to set aside two Sub-sections of other Acts, which laid down that whenever the forces are called out and embodied the Government must call the House together within 10 days. That has been the practice in order that Parliament should keep a firm hold upon the forces and on the actions of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman said that the substitute for the abolition of this system was laid down in Sub-section (4) that:
    "Any Order in Council made under this section shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made."
    1782
    That is a certain safeguard, but the terms are very wide indeed; and, in fact, the condition that the regulation shall be laid as soon as may be after it is made may mean anything. What is the need for this sub-section? We on this side of the House agree with the Government that it is necessary to abolish some of the antique methods that have been laid upon the Government in calling the Forces together. In certain circumstances it may be necessary to act speedily and without too much noise. That right is given to the Government, and we cannot understand why, having that right in other parts of the Bill, the Government should want to get rid of the sub-section which gave Parliament its proper place in respect of the Forces by ensuring that it should be called together within 10 days.
    I pointed out on Second Reading that it would be possible to have a Government, probably out of touch with the opinion of many hon. Members, that would put the bit between their teeth, and embody the Forces, and, in fact, snap their fingers in the face of Parliament. I do not expect that that will take place, but the old safeguard of calling Parliament together within 10 days was designed to avoid such an eventuality. It was not the Members of a Labour Government that laid down that condition. The safeguard was agreed to by the older Parliamentarians as being a very strong point in constitutional law. We should

    1783
    like to hear what justification the right hon. Gentleman has for the inclusion of the sub-section which we desire to delete. I see that he has an Amendment down which says definitely that the Bill shall expire at the end of three years, but I shall be obliged if the right hon. Gentleman, on this particular point, will tell us what is in the mind of the Government and give the reason for the insertion of this sub-section. Having looked carefully at the Bill, I and my hon. and right hon. Friends cannot see any reason for its inclusion.
    11.34 P.m.
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I hope that I shall have no difficulty in satisfying the hon. Gentleman on the point which he has raised. He agreed that the Government felt that it was desirable to reform antique methods, as he called them. He agreed that it was desirable that the Government should be in a position to act speedily. Therefore, these are purposes which are common to us both. The case, as I explained to the House on the Second Reading of the Bill, was that before you could call out the Reserves of the Army and the Air Force and before you could call up and embody the Auxiliary Forces, you had to have a Proclamation and a declaration of great emergency, and the informing of Parliament of the occasion. Air these processes put this country at a disadvantage comparable with other countries. In other countries they are in the habit of mobilising their forces either in whole or in part, without any public attention being called to their action. They can proceed simply and, if you will, stealthily, whereas, under the procedure which the hon. Member has described as antique, we have to make great play of our intention, and perhaps cause disquiet at home and retaliation from abroad.
    While the hon. Member agrees that we have a common purpose, I hope he will realise that his Amendment would virtually reconstitute the whole procedure which we are desiring to abandon. I am sure that that is not the intention that he has in view. He wants to know why we do not inform Parliament. That is his point. This Bill says in the Preamble, that whereas a situation has arisen, it is necessary that this reformed procedure should be put into operation quickly, etc. The Bill in itself declares the occasion. It is a substitute for the old procedure.
    1784
    It says, in effect, that we are living in such times and are likely to live in such times for three years. [Interruption.] Yes. It is possible that we may be living in such times for three years. We have lived in them for the last three years. It says that we are now living in such times—let us hope they may be temporary—as to make it desirable for the Government of the day to be able quickly to mobilise its Reserves and call up its Auxiliary Forces without a Proclamation, without the announcement of the occasion to Parliament, without any public discussion, in order that we may be quickly put upon an equal footing with the action taken in foreign countries. Those are the whole purposes of the Bill. I do not think there is any difference between the hon. Member and us. I hope that he and those for whom he speaks will recognise that active steps are being taken to achieve our common object, and that no action will be taken that will remove the virtue of the Bill or undermine the object which we have in common.
    Mr. Lawson: When the Forces have been called up and everything is complete, the law at present says that Parliament must be called together within ten days. What is there against calling Parliament together after the troops have been called up? The whole world will know. There can be nothing hidden about it. I could understand taking steps to avoid making a noise about it before or when it was about to be done.
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I think I can satisfy the hon. Member on that point. The reason why Parliament had to be informed under the old procedure was because it was contemplated that by mobilising the Forces we were passing from a state of peace to war. In those days it was a slow and deliberate process. Now it is not. The preparations were then made in a more leisurely way. You said that Ruritania was mobilising its army or Arcadia was mobilising its fleet, and therefore that we had to do the same. We do not want to be in that position to-day. We do not want to explain to the public. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite who are actuated by the same motive as ourselves would not take a different course.
    Miss Wilkinson: We are a little puzzled. Are we to understand that we are in a

    1785
    state of war now, and that there is no need to adopt this procedure?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I do not quite follow the hon. Lady. The preamble of the Bill says:
    "Whereas a situation has arisen in which it is necessary that His Majesty should be empowered, whenever the service of members of His reserve and auxiliary forces is urgently required for ensuring preparedness for the defence of the realm against any external danger, to call out for service such of them as may be needed."
    I never said that we are at war, although I have heard it said by hon. Members opposite, and I do not dissent from the view, that we are in a state between war and peace. We are in a state when it is desirous that the executive, whatever its political complexion, should be able to act quickly in the interests of the country.
    Mr. Benjamin Smith: Granted the necessity for facilities for mobilisation, does that connote that the country in fact is mobilised without Parliament being called?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: It does not mean that at all. We are taking the necessary precautions for ensuring the defence of the Realm against external dangers. The next war will certainly not be declared by us, but one of the precautions we should have to take would be to call out the anti-aircraft defence, and it would have to be taken quickly. In the old-fashioned method there was an exchange of notes, an ultimatum and a formal declaration of war. I am afraid they are not very fashionable nowadays, but the equivalent of a state of emergency is declared in the Preamble of the Bill. It is a matter of the protection of our country and as our objects are not dissimilar, I hope there will not be any difference about the procedure to be adopted.
    11.44 p.m.
    Sir Hugh Seely: I agree entirely with the Secretary of State for War that this is the most important part of the Bill. We must give power to mobilise without having to adopt the cumbrous method we had to go through before, and which did undoubtedly cause alarm and was liable to be interpreted in other countries as something which was far stronger than anything they themselves were doing at
    1786
    the time. Everyone agrees that at the present time we must have this power. There is, of course, the question of the House being called together shortly afterwards. I think the whole House wants the Government to have power to summon the reserves in the same way as any other country, with a different form of government, can do, in order to prepare our defences; but nevertheless, there was before the safeguard that no mobilisation could take place without Parliament being called. A great deal of unrest must be caused by the idea that this immense power, which before was in the hands of the King, is now to be given to the executive, and that this can be done when Parliament is not assembled. I think the Government might go a long way towards meeting this point. If this action is to be taken, clearly Parliament ought to be called together. If it could be made clear that Parliament could be called when this action was taken, I think that would go a long way towards meeting the point of the Amendment.
    11.47 p.m.
    Mr. Garro Jones: I think everybody in the House is prepared to give to the Government in these days the necessary rapidity and secrecy for the mobilisation of our forces, but we do not wish to give more than the rapidity and secrecy which are necessary. As far as the element of rapidity goes, nothing is gained by the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman has put in this Bill, because he is merely substituting an Order in Council for a Proclamation. As far as the element of secrecy goes, that is affected only by the necessity to call Parliament together within ten days, which is being abolished in order to obtain the element of secrecy which the right hon. Gentleman seeks to obtain. If this Bill is allowed to pass in its present form, we are repealing Section 13 of the Reserve Forces Act, 1882, which states that if Parliament is not already sitting when the Proclamation is issued, it shall meet within ten days. We are also repealing the proviso to Sub section (1) and Sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907.
    Sub-section (2) has a further rather extraordinary provision which the Minister has not yet explained to the House. It says that when the first class of the Army Reserve has been called up

    1787
    on permanent service, the Army Council shall within one month embody the Territorial Force, unless in the meantime both Houses of Parliament have sent an address to His Majesty praying otherwise, and have had an opportunity to do so. We are in this position, that when the Reserve Forces are called out, Parliament must meet within ten days and the Army Council is entitled to call up the Territorial Forces—in fact, must call up the Territorial Forces—within one month, unless Parliament decrees otherwise. That is the actual legislative position. What I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman is, why is it necessary to substitute for that timetable the safeguard that the Order in Council made under this Clause shall merely be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made? Surely, it is not required to give the element of secrecy.
    We have already seen that the element of rapidity is not improved, but even the element of secrecy cannot be maintained beyond a short period. If we were to mobilise the Fleet and the Army, surely the whole world would know about it, not in a week or a fortnight, but within, say, three weeks or a month. We want to make provision to ensure that Parliament shall be called together as soon as that calling together does not give away to prospective enemies the steps that have been taken to prepare this Realm against danger. Why is the Minister not willing to make the Sub-section provide that any Order in Council shall be laid before Parliament within a fortnight, or three weeks or one month, after it is made? I have no authority to speak for my hon. Friends, but I am certain that we should not press this Amendment if the Minister would do as we suggest. To leave Subsections (4) and (5) as they stand means that Parliament need not be called together for 12 months. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give us three weeks at any rate. Within that time nothing would be lost.
    11.51 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I hope that the House will not allow the Minister to get away with the attitude which he has adopted this evening. We have just voted him an Army that within three years will consist of 800,000 men, in addition to the Regular Army and the Territorial Force. When
    1788
    the three years have elapsed—it is the period for which this Bill runs also—he will be able to call out and have in the field, if his estimate is justified, at least 1,250,000 men. I can think of no previous House of Commons that would have allowed the Executive the power to call out and have mobilised in the country that number of men without stipulating at what time Parliament should be informed that action had been taken. We live in days when parliaments have disappeared very suddenly, and I can well see the Government calling out this Army and not troubling to call Parliament together; and even this Parliament disappearing. We have been told about the haste to make war, but, after all, it is sometimes necessary to remember that people are not very quick to make peace. The hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely) brought that point before the House, but his constituency is still at war with Russia over the Crimean War which was made on Russia in the name of Great Britain, Scotland, Ireland, and Berwick-upon-Tweed. The peace was made in the name of Great Britain, Scotland and Ireland. Berwick-on-Tweed forgot to make peace.
    It is highly desirable that in these two matters of peace and war Parliament shall be called together. I cannot imagine that while the right hon. Gentleman is the Secretary of State for War the Army will ever be mobilised without publicity. The illustrated papers will at least have his photograph penning his signature to the Order-in-Council, or ringing up Aldershot to inquire whether things are going all right. I am also sure that any publicity there is will reach foreign countries before it reaches this country, if we are to judge by the standard set by the incident on the "Royal Oak." I sincerely hope that the Minister will realise that it is very important that Parliament should be called. Even he, an ex-Liberal, ought to regard this matter seriously.
    11.55 p.m.
    Mr. A. V. Alexander: We understood from a conversation on the Front bench that there was to be some statement about a concession, but if that is not so we must insist on our points. I agree with my hon. Friend who has hinted that the retention of this Subsection in the Bill without any guarantees from the Government is something which is really sinister in our democratic institutions, and every Member

    1789
    of the Opposition will be entitled to go to the country and say it. It is deliberate and sinister. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may think that very funny, but let them see what it means. Here we are in a state in which the Government say we are not at war but that we are in such a position of external danger that they must have powers to call up these forces, and they want to deprive Parliament of a specified period in which it shall be notified of their action. It may be that, having called them up, the Government will not call Parliament together at all, and we may be without Parliament for the whole period of three years, with the people of the country being subjected to control in that way. [Interruption.] It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to interrupt, but he ought to have the brains to see that if we pass the Bill in this way we are making a channel for a dictatorship to come in a night.
    That is the real position. The Government are taking power to call the forces together permanently and they are simply putting in the Bill a general phrase that they will notify Parliament "as soon as may be." That is no guarantee at all. Does anybody think that the people who passed our legislation in 1882 had no regard for this sort of thing? The suggestion of the Secretary of State that that old machinery was only put into operation if a state of war were declared is wrong. There have been mobilisations before when there was only a danger of trouble arising. That has been done by Proclamation, and Parliament has been notified if it was sitting; if it was not sitting it was called together by a similar Proclamation. This seems to me to be deliberately done by those who are behind the War Minister to enable them to put this Bill into operation and to be able to obtain complete control of the country without any consultation with Parliament whatever. If the Secretary of State meant what he said a moment ago in private conversation he should give us a guarantee now. Otherwise we are entitled to tell the country that the Government are deliberately obtaining statutory powers for purely sinister ends.
    11.59 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: Reference has been made to a private conversation which took place on the Bench. I think it is right to say that my right hon.
    1790
    Friend did not fully appreciate what the hon. Gentleman opposite said—
    Mr. Pritt: What a funny conversation if one side did not understand what the other side said!
    The Attorney-General: It is not the first. I only wanted to say that we had no intention of doing what the hon. Gentleman opposite thought we were doing, but my right hon. Friend was not clear that the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that there should be an undertaking that Parliament should be called within a certain period if it was not sitting at that time. My right hon. Friend thought he was referring to the time within which an Order can be laid if Parliament is sitting. If Parliament is sitting it is to be laid as soon as may be. It is clear, if anyone studies the old Acts, that they envisaged a somewhat more leisurely transition from a period of peace to a period of emergency with which our forefathers were familiar. That was before the days of railways and the telegraph.
    Mr. Garro Jones: That does not arise at all.
    The Attorney-General: My point on this Bill is that the situation envisaged has already happened, and therefore the recital in this Bill recites the state of affairs in which it is necessary to have these powers. The point is where, if an Order in Council is issued under this Act, even though it may be only calling up a comparatively small number of men, the Act should provide that Parliament should forthwith be summoned, if it was not then sitting, with all the publicity that that would involve. Obviously, that would defeat the whole purpose of the Measure. If Parliament was not sitting, instead of having a Proclamation, you would have all the publicity of Parliament being called together for the special purpose of laying the Order in Council before it. The vital question as to the circumstances in which the Government should call Parliament together when an emergency arises, and Parliament is not sitting, is one which goes far beyond the scope of the present Bill and one on which people may hold very different views, but so far as this Bill is concerned, you would defeat its whole purpose if you compelled all the publicity of a re-summoning of Parliament.
    Mr. Garro Jones: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman—
    The Attorney-General: There may be—
    Mr. Garro Jones: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will not listen to our case.
    The Attorney-General: I have listened to what has been said, whatever the hon. Gentleman may think—[Interruption]—and I notice that he finds it very difficult himself to listen to what others are saying. I am suggesting to the House that to insist on the summoning of Parliament, supposing Parliament were not then sitting, when any Order in Council was made under this Measure would defeat the whole purpose of the Bill, and—
    Mr. Alexander: Absolute nonsense.
    The Attorney-General: The right hon. Gentleman thinks it is absolute nonsense, but I think it is the plainest common sense. There may, of course, be occasions when Parliament is in recess—we have had experience of them—when it might be quite right and proper to call Parliament together. That might happen quite independently of anything contemplated in this Bill, but that is a wide question which falls to be considered on broad and general considerations.
    Mr. Alexander: Why does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree to consider the point with regard to the calling of Parliament, if it was not in session, that it should be done within 21 days or whatever the period might be fixed at? That would give us what we want.
    The Attorney-General: Yes, that would give the right hon. Gentleman what he wants, but in my opinion it would defeat the whole object of the Bill. I will not repeat the argument again, because the House has already had my views on it and it has already had the right hon. Gentleman's views on it.
    12.5 a.m.
    Mr. Pritt: Throughout the Debates on this Bill and on the Bill that preceded it the Government have, on the whole, shown a desire to meet hon. Members on this side of the House and to understand the points that have been put to them, and they have generally conducted the Debates very much better than has
    1792
    often been the case. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General, with the best of motives, of course, has done everything he could completely to ruin that atmosphere, and has talked more nonsense in 10 minutes than it is customary to hear in this House in two hours. He has not apparently understood what we have been saying. I accept his word that he has been listening to what has teen said. We accept entirely the principle that we do not want to defeat the purpose of the Bill. Let us see what it is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests would defeat the purpose of the Bill. I take the position that Parliament is not sitting at the time, because if it is sitting, the question does not arise. The forces will be summoned fairly rapidly, with such moderate secrecy as can attend such things nowadays. Two days after they have been summoned, the fact will be announced in every newspaper in Europe; four days later there will be discreet mentions of it on the back page of the "Times"; and seven days after that the British Press in general will know.
    What will be the position of Parliament at that time? If it is not a discourteous thing to say, Parliament will be on a string. It will have been adjourned in such a way that it can be called together by Mr. Speaker, if the Government desire it to be so called. No one supposes that in the next two or three years it will ever be safe to send Parliament away with a definite adjournment to some future date without some provision for calling it together again, and there will often be reasons for calling it together again. It is suggested that it would defeat the whole purpose of the Bill, which is to get the forces together and ready for an emergency without too much delay and without too much publicity, if, many days after the whole of Europe knows what we have done, Parliament is then called together. I suggest to a House that is supposed to consist of intelligent persons. [An HON. MEMBER: "NO."] I might agree to that about some hon. Members. To suggest that, is really to deny to whomsoever says it and to his listeners any claim to ordinary common sense.
    12.9 a.m.
    Mr. Spens: What the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) has just said would apply if only large forces were to be called up, but

    1793
    it does not apply to the calling up of small forces. This procedure enables a slow, gradual mobilisation to take place, and in the first instance only a small group may be called up, which may not become known, either to the Press or to the world in general, but it would have to be done by Order in Council, and if the Amendment were carried, Parliament would have to come together in 21 days or whatever the term might be, and the whole thing be made public, whereas the mobilisation might not go forward except by very gradual steps. Therefore, this procedure does enable a slow mobilisation to be undertaken, without any publicity, and does enable us to do something which a democratic country might require to do in a way that could easily be done in a dictator country. The moment there is any large-scale mobilisation it becomes public property, and nobody imagines for a moment that if Parliament were in recess at the time that it would not be called together.
    Mr. Alexander Mr. Alexander rose—
    Mr. Spens: No, I cannot give way. There is not much time. I say that this procedure is really in our interest. There is nothing undemocratic in it in the long run. It does enable us to call up one small group or class without having to make it public to the whole world that we have taken that precautionary step. That is the whole point, and therefore I suggest that the action of the Government is not so stupid as the hon. and learned Member opposite supposes.
    Mr. Alexander: The hon. and learned Member has talked about a time when Parliament is not sitting. Does he contemplate that if the gradual calling up by Orders in Council goes on that Parliament will not be informed?
    Mr. Spens: The procedure requires it to be.
    Mr. Alexander: Then what is the possible objection to calling Parliament together within 21 days and telling them what has been done?
    Mr. Spens: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot see my point I cannot help it.
    Mr. Benn: On a point of Order. Would you tell us for our information exactly at what time this House is to be gagged? This is a novel form of pro-
    1794
    cedure. We are under the guillotine but no one knows at what hour the knife is to fall.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): At 12.28.
    12.12 a.m.
    Mr. Foot: It seems to me that the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) has failed entirely to meet the arguments which have been put forward. Even if there were only a gradual mobilisation, even if only a few men were called up, that fact would be well known. The notices would go out to every district; the news would spread and become known to the local press; it would be broadcast throughout the country; and, as the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) said, it would be known all over Europe in a day or two. It is not a question of informing Parliament but of giving to Parliament an explanation of why that step had been taken. If this Amendment goes to a division my friends and I will certainly vote for it, for this reason: Throughout our history our great constitutional safeguard has been Parliamentary control of the Army and the Executive. We pass an Army Annual Act each year in order to keep constant Parliamentary control over the Army. To-night it is proposed to abolish that particular safeguard. Under the plea of emergency legislation a great many of our ancient safeguards are being done away with.
    12.14 a.m.
    Mr. Benn: One aspect of this matter has not yet been dealt with. I understand that the Bill is required because the Government think that the present state of affairs is such as to necessitate them possessing this power. With that we all agree. But the moment this Bill is passed the power under it will reside in them and what is to prevent them from using the power they will have under this Measure to call up the Army in order to break a strike? In a few years' time there will have come under training 800,000 boys. By calling up one class, or perhaps more than one, it will be quite possible to break any industrial action that is contemplated. Perhaps some Minister will explain how we are to be protected against the use of this power in the same way as it was used by M. Briand in France during a rail-

    1795
    way strike, and as it has been used on the Continent on many occasions for the same purpose. I know it will be said that the Government have taken this power for use in case of external danger, but it is only the Government who have to be satisfied that it is external danger, and I am sure the Government would easily satisfy themselves on that point if they saw that by calling up the reserves they could paralyse any industrial action taken by the trade unions.
    12.15 a.m.
    Mr. Lawson: I purposely moved this Amendment—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has spoken once.
    Mr. Lawson: With the leave of the House I would say that in moving the Amendment I explained that we did not want to vote against the Bill or hinder the Government, and I was very moderate in the statement which I made. I expected that that spirit would have been responded to. The right hon. Gentleman is bound to know that the Bill embodies the Forces permanently. Section 12 of the Reserve Forces Act is very definite that when they are called up they are called up permanently. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has really seen what are the implications of suspending the operation of Section 13. I expected, particularly in the light of the discussion, that we would be answered in like spirit as we had been on this side in respect of the other Bill. Is it impossible now for the right hon. Gentleman to give us a satisfactory answer on this point? The section says:
    "As soon as may be."
    Why not limit that to 21 days? That would satisfy us, I am sure. It would put a limit to the time the Forces could be called up without ignoring Parliament. I cannot imagine anyone on either side of the House not seeing the danger of this thing. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman find some words to meet this point so that we can be quite sure that, in rough and ready words, we are not being done down, while being asked to perform an act necessitated by the nation's position at the present time. Subsection (4) says:
    "Any Order in Council made under this section shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made."
    1796
    Why not make it "laid before Parliament within 21 days"? Surely the Government can do all they want with speed and secrecy without hampering themselves, and give a guarantee at the same time.
    Mr. Magnay: I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that Subsection (4) is governed by the Clause which, in Subsection (1) says:
    "During the continuance in force of this Act, His Majesty may by Order in Council authorise the Admiralty and the Secretaries of State respectively to call out for service all or any of the members of His reserve and auxiliary forces, if satisfied that their service is urgently required for ensuring preparedness for the defence of the realm against any external danger."
    There is no provision, as has been suggested in this discussion, for breaking strikes. The Forces cannot be called out for that purpose.
    12.19 a.m.
    Mr. Davidson: The hon. Member who has just intervened has not listened to much of the Debate or otherwise he would understand that our principal point is that of the Secretary of State retaining complete power, under the Clause, to call up Reserves and Auxiliaries when Parliament is not sitting and without definite intimation as to when the representatives of the constituencies shall be informed. I want to ask the Secretary of State: What is a man called up under these Orders in Council to say to his employer? Is he to say: "Look here, I'm going to leave you for some time. I don't know how long for, and I can't tell you anything about it. It's a State secret but—I am just leaving"? I want to know definitely from the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Secretary of State for War whether such a man will have issued to him a special statement about what he is to say in those circumstances. Speeches have been made from this side because my hon. Friends regard this as one of the greatest breaches ever made in our Parliamentary life and one of the greatest attacks on our constitutional rights. I trust that all Members of the Opposition will back up those speeches by going to the constituencies and saying that they voted against those breaches taking place.
    12.22 a.m.
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I do not want to take a course which would deceive the

    1797
    hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson). If we were to say that Parliament must be called together within 21 days of the issue of the Order in Council, that would be an indication that the kind of emergency with which Parliament is giving us power to deal under the Bill could always be confined within 21 days and that it would be safe within 21 days to come to Parliament and give reasons why we had mobilised in whole or in part. You do not necessarily, under the Bill, mobilise the whole of your Forces. You may have to mobilise some small fraction. I hope, as has been stated, that the purpose of hon. Members on the other side is at one with ours, and that they understand it is necessary for a Government in these days, even a democratic Government, to have powers with which to defend themselves.
    I will give the hon. Gentleman another reason. One might be operating under the Bill by Order in Council issued before Parliament was dissolved. Therefore to accept his statement about calling Parliament together within 21 days would be to deceive him because it would not be necessary to call Parliament together. I prefer to be candid with the hon. Gentleman and with the House, despite the fear which is being kept up by hon. Members on the other side that the purpose of the Bill is not merely to enable the Government of this country, during the continuation of this state of affairs, to take prompt and effective action to defend the country against external danger.
    12.25 a.m.
    Mr. Benn: The War Secretary has told us that this Order in Council might be
    made while Parliament is still sitting. Then why should it not be made "as soon as may be"? The Minister intends to make the Order while Parliament is sitting and not reveal it to Parliament at all. That is what he said.
    12.26 a.m.
    Mr. Pritt: If the anxiety be, as I understand it is, that it would be detrimental to have to call Parliament together within 21 days of the beginning of an emergency, which might last some time, does not that consort very ill with the fact that if an Order in Council were made in June, the Order would have to be announced to Parliament "as soon as may be," and thus the results which the Minister has said might follow the summoning of Parliament within 21 days would be almost as terrible—I say "almost" because of the effect that calling Parliament would have—if Parliament were told within seven days?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: It is not the emergency which would be communicated to Parliament, but the Order in Council. In that case, if you have only to lay the Order in Council before Parliament and not tell Parliament the reasons for it, the same thing would apply if Parliament were sitting.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 204; Noes, 69.

    Division No. 143.]

    AYES.

    [12.28 a.m.

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

    Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

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

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

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

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

    Cruddas, Col. B.

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

    Bull, B. B.

    Doland, G. F.

    Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.

    Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

    Donner, P. W.

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

    Butcher, H. W.

    Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V. G.

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    Apsley, Lord

    Cartland, J. R. H.

    Dunglass, Lord

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Eckersley, P. T.

    Astor, Viscountess Plymouth, Sutton)

    Channon, H.

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

    Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Balniel, Lord

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Ellis, Sir G.

    Barrie, Sir C. C.

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

    Elliston, Capt. G. S.

    Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

    Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

    Emery, J. F.

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

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Beechman, N. A.

    Conant, Captain R. J. E.

    Entwistle, Sir C. F.

    Bossom, A. C.

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

    Errington, E.

    Boulton, W. W.

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

    Erskine-Hill, A. G.

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.

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

    Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)

    Craven-Ellis, W.

    Everard, Sir William Lindsay

    Brass, Sir W.

    Critchley, A.

    Fleming, E. L.

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

    Fremantle, Sir F. E.

    Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

    Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

    Furness, S. N.

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Magnay, T.

    Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

    Gledhill, G.

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

    Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

    Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

    Markham, S. F.

    Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

    Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

    Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

    Spens, W. P.

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

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

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)

    Grimston, R. V.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

    Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

    Mitcheson, Sir G. G.

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

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.

    Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Hammersley, S. S.

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

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

    Hannah, I. C.

    Morris-Jonas, Sir Henry

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

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

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Harbord, A.

    Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

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

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Nall, Sir J.

    Thomas, J. P. L.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

    Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

    Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

    Hepworth, J.

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

    Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

    Higgs, W. F.

    O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

    Titchfield, Marquess of

    Holdsworth, H.

    Palmer, G. E. H.

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Holmes, J. S.

    Patrick, C. M.

    Turton, R. H.

    Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

    Peake, O.

    Wakefield, W. W.

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

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Walker-Smith, Sir J.

    Hulbert, Squadron-Leadar N. J.

    Patherick, M.

    Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

    Hutchinson, G. C.

    Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

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

    James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    Jarvis, Sir J. J.

    Ramsay, Captain A. H. M

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

    Jennings, R.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Warrender, Sir V.

    Kimball, L.

    Rankin, Sir R.

    Waterhouse. Captain C.

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

    Rayner, Major R. H.

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

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Wells, Sir Sydney

    Lancaster, Captain C. G.

    Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

    Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

    Latham, Sir P.

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

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

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Remer, J. R.

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

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

    Levy, T.

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Liddall, W. S.

    Rowlands, G.

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

    Lipson, D. L.

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

    Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

    Salmon, Sir I.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Loftus, P. C.

    Salt, E. W.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Lyons, A. M.

    Samuel, M. R. A.

    Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Sanderson, Sir F. B.

    Wragg, H.

    MeCorquodale, M. S.

    Sandys, E. D.

    Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

    Scott, Lord William

    York, C.

    McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

    Selley, H. R.

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    McKie, J. H.

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

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

    Smithers, Sir W.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Captain Dugdale.

    NOES.

    Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

    Jagger, J.

    Ritson, J.

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

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Ammon, C. G.

    John, W.

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Sexton, T. M.

    Buchanan, G.

    Kennedy, RL Hon. T.

    Silverman, S. S.

    Burke, W. A.

    Lawson, J. J.

    Simpson, F. B.

    Cellindridge, F.

    Leach, W.

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Daggar, G.

    Leonard, W.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Dalton, H.

    Lunn, W.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Stephen, C.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    McEntee, V. La T.

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

    Dobbie, W.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    Mander, G. le M.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Ede, J. C.

    Maxton, J.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Milner, Major J.

    Tomlinson, G.

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

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

    Watkins, F. C.

    Foot, D. M.

    Nathan, Colonel H. L.

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Garro Jones, G. M.

    Noel-Baker, P. J.

    Williams E. J. (Ogmore)

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    Paling, W.

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Hayday, A.

    Pearson, A.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Pritt, D. N.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Ridley, G.

    Mr. Mathers and Mr. Adamson.

    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

    It being more than one hour after the conclusion of proceedings on the Military Training Bill, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 10th May, successively to put forthwith
    1800
    the Questions on Amendments moved by the Government of which Notice had bee given, and the Question necessary to bring to a conclusion the proceedings on the Bill.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Reinstatement in civil employment.)
    Amendment made: in page 4, line 12, leave out "applicable to him when he was," and insert:
    "which would have been applicable to him had he not been."

    CLAUSE 3.—(Simplification of procedure for obtaining possession of land taken under Defence Acts.)
    Amendment made: In page 5, line 43, leave out from "nineteen," to the end of the Sub-section.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Power to provide for consequential matters.)
    Amendments made:
    In page 6, line 16, at the end, insert:
    "(2) Any Order in Council made under this section may provide for the continuance of any provisions contained therein after the expiry of this Act and any such Order may, while this Act is in force, be varied or revoked by any subsequent Order made in like manner as the original Order."
    In page 6, line 17, leave out "such an Order," and insert:
    "any Order in Council proposed to be made under this section."

    CLAUSE 6.—(Duration of Act.)
    Amendments made:
    In page 6, Line 42, leave out "no longer" and insert "shall then expire."
    In page 7, line 14, leave out "the validity of."
    In line 15, after "done" insert "or omitted to be done."
    In line 15, after "thereunder" insert:
    "or the operation of any provisions of an Order in Council made under section four of this Act with respect to which the Order provides that they shall continue after the expiry of this Act."—[Sir V. Warrender.]
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Twenty-one Minutes before One o'Clock.