HC Deb 18 May 1939 vol 347 cc1657-66

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 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 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 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 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- 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 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 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.