§ Considered in Committee.
§ [COLONEL CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]
§ CLAUSE 1.— (Liability to be called up for civil defence.)
§ Mr. Maxton (Glasgow, Bridgeton)I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, to leave out from "Crown" to the end of line 12.
The Deputy-ChairmanBefore the hon. Member addresses the Committee, I would point out that the next two Amendments on the Paper— in page 1,line 12, at the end, to insert:
where the condition imposed by the tribunal on such person was that he should engage in work of civil defence,and, at the end, to insert:and has accepted a condition to undertake work of civil defence,as well as the last two Amendments to this Clause—in page 1, line 14, at the end, to insert:( ) if any person liable to be enrolled for service under this Act claims that he conscientiously objects to undertake such service he shall be entitled to apply to have his claim considered by the local tribunal constituted under Part I of the Schedule to the principal Act, which tribunal shall have power to make an order granting him exemption from such service.An applicant who is aggrieved by the failure of a local tribunal to make such an order may appeal to the appellate tribunal constituted under Part I of the Schedule to the principal Act and the decision of the appellate tribunal shall be final.and in line 25, at the end, to insert:( ) if any conditionally registered conscientious objector notifies the Minister in the manner prescribed by the Minister that he desires to be allowed to continue to undertake the work specified by the tribunal as a con- 876 dition of his registration, the Minister may suspend his liability to be called up for civil defence, and may also refer the application to the appellate tribunal which may recommend that the condition of registration should continue in force or that it should be varied.can well be discussed together on this first Amendment, if the Committee agrees.
§ Mr. MaxtonThe object of the Amendment which I am moving is that the Bill should not have a retrospective effect on persons already called up under the principal Act and who are either gone into the Armed Forces or, after appearing before tribunals, have been exempted on various conditions or absolutely. If the Amendment is accepted, the Bill will apply to all men now coming forward to be enrolled in the Armed Forces and will mean that all men called up will be put either into the Armed Forces or into some branch of Civil Defence; but all those who have come up previously and have been dealt with will not have their position reviewed, and will be left where they are. Some of them may be in the Civil Defence forces, some in their ordinary occupations, doing spare-time Civil Defence work, while others may have been removed to agriculture.
All these men have had their cases fully reviewed by local tribunals set up under the principal Act, and some will have appeared before appellate tribunals. They are now fixed in positions of one sort or another, adjudged, under the principal Act, as the appropriate ones for them. If we read the Bill aright, it means that the position of every person will come again under review, and that all the work that has been done by local and appellate tribunals will be wiped out. Men may have been exempted from military service by their tribunals on condition that they carried on their own work, which might be some kind of clerical work, or on condition that they did first-aid, fire-fighting or fire-watching in their spare time. Those men will again be liable under the Bill to be compelled to come up again, and perhaps to go into some full-time branch of Civil Defence. We think that is unfair, and that all the past decisions should stand as they are and as they were decided under the principal Act.
In view of your Ruling, Colonel Clifton Brown, that several other Amendments are covered by the Amendment which I 877 am moving, I would make some reference now to the specific points in those other Amendments. The next Amendment on the Paper seeks to deal with the case in which the condition imposed by the tribunal was that the person concerned should engage in work of Civil Defence. We agree that if a tribunal has said that an appellant is entitled to exemption from military service on condition that he does Civil Defence work, and if the appellant has accepted Civil Defence work under the principal Act, he can have no objection to having it imposed upon him again by this Measure. But a man who has got exemption on condition that he does agricultural work or something of that sort is in a different position. We feel that, now, he ought not to have the old condition given to him by the tribunal taken away from him and this other condition substituted.
§ Mr. Silkin (Peckham)What would the hon. Member say about the case of the man who is asked to do ambulance or first-aid work?
§ Mr. MaxtonI would include ambulance work in Civil Defence, and I would say that in a case of exemption on the condition that a man did ambulance work in a voluntary unit, then he ought not to be taken out of a voluntary unit like the Friends' Ambulance Unit, for instance, and put into something else that he would have regarded as part of the general State mechanism. I submit that that would be interfering with the definite intention of the tribunal which dealt with his case originally. The third Amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friends is similar in effect. It also deals with the case of the man who, having had the Civil Defence condition imposed on him by the tribunal, has accepted that condition to serve in Civil Defence. But, we ask that this Measure shall not be applied to those who, having had the Civil Defence option given to them by the tribunal, have refused it and have gone to prison for refusing it, and may have done periods of imprisonment of six months or more. Are we, by this Measure, to say to such persons: "The local tribunal give you the Civil Defence option; you refused it, and you have been punished for refusing it, but this Act will compel you, in spite of all the various 878 assizes which you have had to confront and the various penalties you have had to undergo." On those grounds, I beg to move the first Amendment standing in my name.
§ Mr. McGovern (Glasgow, Shettleston)I wish to support the Amendment. At this stage we would welcome a statement from the Minister on whether or not all these classes of individuals to whom reference has been made are embraced in this Bill. I would ask: Is it fair that men who have been before these various tribunals, and some of whom have accepted the conditions laid down and honestly carried them out, while others could not, according to their beliefs and principles, accept such conditions, should again be made victims under this new Measure? The tribunals themselves, unaware that it was proposed to introduce legislation of this kind, have in most cases imposed some condition. Therefore, I take it—and I shall be glad if I am wrong —that all those people are involved in the Bill.
I have had experience of some 12 or 15 cases before the tribunals. In one case the tribunal has said to the individual, "We will grant you exemption for the period of the emergency, on condition that you remain at your present occupation as a shipping-clerk," or in another case, "We grant you exemption on condition that you remain in your present occupation in the electricity industry. "There are other cases of that description. Are those people who have been before both local and appellate tribunals and have been granted conditional exemption, in cases in which they have not been transferred from their present occupations to new occupations, to be called up now for further national defence work? Does this Bill entitle the Minister to do so? In the other cases of men who have been transferred to other occupations, a considerable number have been transferred to such work as agriculture, forestry, land drainage and land reclamation. Some have had conditions imposed for a brief period only, in regard either to fire-watching or fire-fighting. Some have had imposed upon them the condition that they drive ambulances during the period of emergency. Are we to take it that all those individuals can be and are likely to be called up by the Minister under this Bill?
879 Again, there is the point mentioned by my hon. Friend that many of these individuals have already gone through two periods of imprisonment and the State has not yet recognised their real conscientious objection. The men are doing their best by the sacrifices which they are making to impress on the Ministry and the country the fact that they are genuine objectors, although they have been turned down by the tribunals. Are these men, having done periods of imprisonment, first for failing to present themselves for medical examination and afterwards for refusing to accept the conditions laid down by the tribunal, to be called up under this Measure and exposed to further trials and imprisonments? If that is to be the case, I cannot imagine persecution going further. I hope I am wrong in my assumption—there are some things about which one is glad to find one's self wrong. But if what I have indicated is to be the position, I think it is a horrible thing that we should enact a Measure of this description and, in order that we may have a complete clearing-up of the situation in this respect, I support the Amendment.
§ The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin)This Amendment raises the fundamental principle of the Bill. I put this to the Committee as a question which has to be answered: Is Civil Defence a civilian occupation? Hon. Members by these Amendments are asking the Committee to put something into the Bill which would, in effect, convert Civil Defence, in principle, into something of a military character. We cannot accept these Amendments, nor can we be influenced by harrowing imaginations of a cruel administration. There is no evidence on which to base the claim that in the carrying out of the principal Act there has been any administration of that character in connection with the calling-up of people. Great care has been used. The short answer to these Amendments, however, is that everybody in the country is being made liable for Civil Defence, and that applies whatever may be a person's position in regard to the matters which have been raised. Therefore, the Committee must determine whether they are prepared to accept the principle that there can be conscientious objection to a civil occupation. What the tribunals have dealt with up to now is not conscientious 880 objection to State mechanism, which was suggested by the hon. Member for Bridgton (Mr. Maxton). To say that you can have a conscientious objection to the operation of State mechanism would resolve itself into turning the whole of the State into a state of anarchy. What you have been given exemption for is an objection to military service, and this Bill does not alter that.
All that the Bill does is to make compulsory the obligation to one form of civil occupation. Indeed, in principle it is no different from the essential work Orders, because the essential work Orders and the powers which the House imposed upon me as Minister of Labour, almost before I came here—before I was an actual Member of the House—say that I should exercise power to direct people. That is being carried out. I can only direct people to a civil occupation; I could not direct them to a military duty. On the Second Reading of the Bill I made it quite clear that we would not impose upon a conscientious objector an obligation to go into the Police War Reserve, because the Police War Reserve have sometimes to carry arms, and so we took it right up to the very point where the taking of life was involved. Even in regard to the Police War Reserve, of whose duties 99 percent. are civil, we would not impose that obligation upon a conscientious objector in view of the other one per cent. My answer is that this point raises the principle of whether Civil Defence is to be regarded as a civil occupation, and, in view of the fact that it is a civil occupation, I must ask for the rejection of the Amendment.
§ Mr. Edmund Harvey (Combined English Universities)I think the Minister has been perfectly logical in his attitude, but unfortunately human life is not governed entirely by logic, and, although he has made it perfectly clear that in his view and, I think, in the view of the Committee, Civil Defence is an entirely different thing from military service, yet there is no doubt that in the minds of a number of sincere men who will come under this Bill when it becomes an Act Civil Defence is so closely associated with military service that their conscientious objection is involved. We may regret that attitude, and we may think that it is entirely wrong. We may not understand it, but it is there. It is a fact. If the 881 Bill goes through in its present form, without any recognition of that fact, undoubtedly there will be a great number of cases in which the Minister, to his regret, will find that men are coming under the process of the law although they are now rendering good service to the country and want to continue to render that good service, and will, rightly or wrongly, feel themselves unable to comply with the demands of this Bill when it becomes an Act because the civil service to which they are called up is, in their minds, so closely associated with military service. I am not maintaining that that view is correct, but it is a sincere view, and should therefore be respected so far as it is possible. Surely it is in the national interest that men who are doing useful work, and work which has been assigned to them by the tribunals because of its importance and its value, should be allowed to continue in that work without being subjected to all the process which is contemplated in this Bill. It will cause friction and a real sense of injustice, not only in the minds of these men, but in the minds of many others who recognise that these men are sincere.
Therefore, I appeal to the Minister, if he cannot accept this Amendment, to accept one of the other Amendments which appear on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member who moved this Amendment or in the names of other Members, or to reconsider the matter and deal with it in an appropriate way. It is not an imaginary position that I am putting before the Committee. This morning I received a letter on behalf of a sincere body of men whose views I do not share, the Christadelphians. The committee informed me that they had placed before the Minister of Labour their position, that numbers of them have accepted agricultural work and others similar work, giving up their occupations in obedience to the injunctions of the tribunals, but that they have all along made it clear that they could not undertake specifically Civil Defence; and, therefore, if this Bill passes, they will have no alternative but to submit to the penalties of the law. We may not agree with these men in any way, but we can recognise their sincerity and also the fact that they are undertaking service of value.
There is another point which I hope the Minister will consider. This Bill does 882 not impose any obligation upon those conscientious objectors who have received unconditional exemption from the tribunals. Men whose viewpoint is exactly similar to that of these men have received from the tribunals exemption conditional upon continuing in the occupation in which they were already engaged and which was recognised as of national importance. It was a mere accident, dependent upon which tribunal they went before, whether they received conditional or unconditional exemption. The Minister proposes to impose no new obligation on all those who have received unconditional exemption. They remain outside the scope of the Bill. But men who take the identical viewpoint of these men, who are in every way comparable but who happen to have received conditional exemption, will be placed in a position in which they feel that the condition which was given to them by the tribunal has been, so to speak, filched away from them, that they have had no opportunity of appeal or of putting their point of view before any other tribunal, and that they are left to face the penalties of the law. I hope very much that the Minister will reconsider this point, and will find it in his power to make some provision by means of which all those who are called up from their positions under conditional exemption shall have some opportunity of placing their case before either the appeal tribunal or some other tribunal. I believe that if we can do that, the Bill will work in every way more smoothly and that a great sense of injustice will be removed.
§ Mr. BevinIf I may, I would like to make one correction. The Christadelphians have been mentioned, but in the letter which I received I understood that the only objection they raised was to the Police War Reserve. In that they have been met.
§ Mr. G. Strauss (Lambeth, North)I should like to ask the Minister of Labour a question which has been asked by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) but which I do not think he answered quite clearly, or, if he did, I did not properly appreciate the answer. What is the position under this Bill of those conscientious objectors who have already been before the tribunals and "have been granted exemption on condition 883 that they do some special work, such as that they become agricultural workers or carry on in their own occupations? There is a very large number who come in that category. Will they be re-examined, will they have to go before the tribunals again, and possibly be asked to give up their work on the land or their own present occupation in order to take up some other work? It is important that we should know. I think it would be very unfortunate if there were to be a further examinaation of and allocation of work to those who have already passed before the tribunals. Perhaps that is not the intention of the Government, but I think we ought to know what the Government have in view in regard to this matter.
§ Mr. MaxtonI also should like to have a proper clarification of this point. I did not find it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Probably the difficulty in answering the question was that I did not properly formulate it. I must admit that I was just a little taken aback by having my first Amendment called as the governing Amendment, because I agree with what the Minister said and with what the hon. Gentleman behind me has said, namely, that if this first Amendment was carried, it would render a large proportion of the Bill completely ineffective. That was not really my intention, and, like the hon. Gentleman behind me, I should be satisfied if I could obtain from the Minister some clarifying Clause or limiting Amendment, which would not be so sweeping as the Amendment I have just moved, to the effect that the past cases already decided should not again come under review, and that under the operation of this Bill people should not be moved from useful work which has been approved, even though it is not strictly connected with Civil Defence. Agriculture, for instance, has been referred to, and there may be other things which do not jump to the mind immediately.
It is a big change to take a man who has been given exemption on condition that he does agricultural work, or that he works in a Friends' ambulance unit, right into the middle of the recognised A.R.P. services under orders and controls whereby he has lost command of his own acts. A large proportion of the people who have been conscientious objectors and for whom I can speak most 884 directly have not the faintest objection to doing the things involved in Civil Defence. I have spoken to many, members of such bodies as Jehovah's Witnesses and the Plymouth Brethren, whose point of view I do not share and on whose philosophy I cannot get a grip, but I recognise that when a man says, "I am not taking my orders from Ernest Bevin; I am taking them from Almighty God, and from Him only, and I will go through purgatory before I obey Ernest Bevin in place of God," he is standing on a principle, and if he is prepared to stand on it, it must be accepted. It is not anarchy, as the right hon. Gentleman has said. I am surprised at his talking about anarchy. If a worker says he is not going to do so-and-so in spite of what all the bosses and what all the Governments in the world tell him, that is not anarchy. I have heard some great speeches of that kind. Ajax defying the lightning was nothing to what the dockers K.C. would defy, and we did not regard that as anarchy.
To stand on a principle you believe to be right in spite of anything that others may do is not anarchy. If a majority of the population of the country took that view, there might be a temporary state of chaos, admittedly, but when that temporary state of chaos had been passed, my view would be that we should move into a very much better social order than ever we have had before. But it is not fair to suggest that a minority of men, who hold fundamentally a point of view which is different from that of the majority, and who are prepared to stand alone and take what is coming to them—they are conscientious objectors in the proper sense of the word who have already been through the machinery set up by Parliament and have been granted certain rights by it under the operation of an Act passed by this House, should now be told by the new Minister that they have to go through it again. The new Labour Minister should not be able to say that he is not satisfied with what the stick-in-the-mud Liberal Minister did and that he is going to wipe out all the concessions granted in the old days to conscientious objectors, who are now going to be reviewed all over again and compelled to go just as far as the State says they have to go, whatever their personal views may be.
885 I want the Minister to tell me this: Is it his intention that all the cases that have already been dealt with shall be reviewed again? Is he going to start a complete review of all the cases that have already been gone over? Is he going to include in such a proceeding those who have received absolute exemption, because the view of one tribunal may be entirely different from that of another, particularly when they have now not merely military service to consider but Civil Defence service also? I want the Minister to tell us whether all the cases that have been dealt with and settled are to be reviewed, and whether the whole question has to be churned up again? Secondly, I want to know whether, when these cases are reviewed, the tribunals will still be able to do as they have been able to do in the past 12 months, namely, to send a man into some voluntary or semi-religious organisation other than the organised Civil Defence forces so long as the work they are doing is a part of the work of Civil Defence? Doing such work under different auspices makes a difference to a certain number of these people. It makes a difference to their attitude, and I should like to know whether the tribunals will still have the same rights or whether they will be limited, in their dealings with conscientious objectors, to a choice between granting absolute exemption or exemption conditional on entering Civil Defence work?
I admit that this Amendment cuts right at the root of the Bill—Iam going to vote for it for that reason, but I recognise that the Minister could hardly accept it. I would ask him, however, to consider the point put by the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey), and to say whether he is prepared to consider, between now and the Report stage, some Amendments which will define more clearly the rights of conscientious objectors who have been dealt with in the past and who will come up in the future.
§ Mr. Silverman (Nelson and Colne)Let me admit that I think the right hon. Gentleman could not possibly accept this Amendment: it cuts away the whole principle of the Bill; and, unlike the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), I could not vote for the Amendment for that reason. I do not think that even the 886 absolutists of the last war ever said that there was nothing they would do to share in the suffering and striving of the nation. What they then said was, ''We claim the right of exemption from military service. We are not going to bargain with the thing, to compound a felony, by accepting conditional exemption; but if you give us absolute exemption, if you recognise our absolute right not to be compelled to perform military service, without imposing any condition, there are many things that we would do." The things that they would have done are very largely the things that they would be called upon to do under this Measure. Therefore, I do not feel justified in opposing the Government on this Bill. This is not a condition imposed in order to win exemption from other service. It merely imposes a civil obligation upon civilians to do civilian work.
I think the right hon. Gentleman, if I may say so, with respect, is perfectly right to reject this Amendment; but there remains the difficulty which my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey) pointed out. We have a series of tribunals, which have had imposed upon them by Statute the 'obligation of investigating what it would be right for individuals to do. These tribunals come to decisions which involve an exact analysis of the state of mind of the individuals coming before them. So the relation of the individual to the State is established by the machinery which the Military Service Act contemplated. What useful purpose would be served now by pretending that that had not been done and starting all over again? While the right hon. Gentleman could not accept this Amendment, is there no form of words that he could accept; or is there no undertaking which he could give that, administratively at any rate, these people whose rights have been determined will not be further disturbed?
§ Mr. BevinMay I help my hon. Friend? If we put these people into a privileged position, what am I to say to every other citizen in a non-essential occupation whom I have to transfer under the other Orders?
§ Mr. SilvermanIt is not suggested that they should enjoy any privilege which the State has not already conferred upon 887 them. This is not a new privilege that is being sought.
§ Mr. SilvermanI suggest not. I may be wrong, but I think others will take the same view as I am taking. It is not claimed that there should be some addition to the privileges these people have. The State has put them in this position by Act of Parliament.
§ Mr. MaxtonA Tory Government's Act.
§ Mr. SilvermanIt does not matter what kind of Government, or what kind of individual, was originally responsible. Let us not have that sort of thing. There is an Act of Parliament which confers privileges on certain persons. The right hon. Gentleman complains that we are now attempting to increase those privileges. I am trying to persuade him that that is not so. Under that Statute, the State said to those individuals, "If you can establish, to the satisfaction of a tribunal which we will set up, that there is no service that you can conscientiously render to the State at this time, you shall not be expected to render service. If, on the other hand, you establish, to the satisfaction of the tribunal, that, although you cannot render military service, there is some other service which you can conscientiously render to the State, you shall render that service. "That is really the same question as we are asking to be considered now. If we so recognise the position of the individual, and accept the decisions of the tribunals appointed by the Government for that purpose, I do not think that what is now suggested involves any addition to the privileges already enjoyed. You may say that this is a new Bill and a new kind of service. Formally, there may be, in that sense, something in that view, but in essence the thing is exactly the same; and I say that the right hon. Gentleman would be wrong to refuse to meet the point which has been raised in this Debate.
§ Mr. Messer (Tottenham, South)I agree with what has been said about the Amendment itself, that if it were carried it would strike at the heart of the Bill. But I submit that the Minister's attitude is a departure from the guarantee which was given when the original Bill was 888 passed. It will be remembered that the Secretary of State for War at that time got that Bill through the House by giving certain undertakings. Many of those undertakings concerned conscientious objectors and conditional objection. I have never been able to understand how one's conscience is affected by a condition being applied. If you object to a thing conscientiously, then, to me, the conscience is not affected by the opportunity of taking part in certain aspects of that thing. You either agree with the thing or you do not. I remember that the then Secretary of State for War, in one case, was good enough to accept the principle of an Amendment which I moved; and it was because of that agreement that that Bill went through. Is it not possible that people who have already been dealt with under that Act should be disregarded in this Bill?
Statements have been made with regard to the administration of tribunals. I have been to one or two, and I have to repeat now what I said on the original Bill. It seems to me to be a complete impossibility to find out people's consciences. All that you can do at most is to examine the evidence as to their sincerity, and even that evidence may not be conclusive. When a conscientious objector has been before a tribunal, and it has been shown that he has every desire to render some service to the community, and the examination has shown in what direction he can best serve the community, the tribunal therefore take advantage of their power under the enactment and say, "We will exempt you from military service on condition that you do this particular work. "There are, for instance, land work, afforestation and other forms of civil employment which cannot be confused or said to be part of the military machine, where the conscientious objector can feel that by giving an undertaking to take part in the work he is not surrendering his principles. But if anybody who has been before a tribunal and has as a consequence accepted a condition is now to be called up and put into certain services which might outrage his conscience, he is not being given any right now to come before a tribunal, but must go and do the work that is demanded of him.
I want to make my personal position plain. I cannot understand for a moment 889 how anybody possessed of a spark of humanity can refuse service to a stricken neighbour. You can call it Civil Defence, but when a man, woman or child is injured it does not matter whether it is the result of enemy action or anything else; it is the duty of all people to render what service they can. For a man or woman to take a stand on a supposed conscience and to refuse to render such aid is the possessing of a type of mind that I cannot understand. But it does not alter the facts. There are those whose environment has produced such an influence on their minds that one wonders sometimes whether they are entirely sane, but they hold their point of view with firmness. Such people, when it has been shown in the examination that has taken place before a tribunal that they cannot conscientiously do certain things, should not now be called upon to do them. I hope that the Minister will see the view of those who want to see the best done by the nation. I hold the view that if, as it has been termed, this is conscription for Civil Defence, I do not mind conscription if it is to include everybody. If all are made to render what services they are capable of doing in the interests of the nation, that will be all to the good, but in this instance we should see whether it is not possible to have some regard to the honour of this House. The original Act was passed as a result of guarantees given, and those who have already been through the tribunals should not be called upon again to undergo what has already been decided.
§ Mr. Silkin (Peckham)I am rather surprised at the statement of the hon. Member that his Amendment goes to the root of the Bill. I do not think it does. I think that my right hon. Friend can accept the Amendment without its very much affecting the Bill at all. The Bill is mainly for the purpose of enabling future classes of men to be called up for Civil Defence instead of for military service. The relatively few conscientious objectors really claim no great part in the matter at all. If he were so minded to accept the Amendment, I do not think that he need worry about the effect on the Bill. But I want to put the position from a business and practical point of view and to ask him whether, if he is really concerned for Civil Defence, he will gain very much by worrying about conscientious objectors. In the first place, 890 they are already presumably doing work of national importance, and they have been exempted on condition that they do such work. If you take them away from national service and put them into Civil Defence, then national service will lose, and you will have to find somebody else to do the work that they are doing. My right hon. Friend is aware that many local authorities have refused to accept conscientious objectors for Civil Defence. But now these men will be forced upon them. I wonder how it will work, and how many of the men who are already doing full-time Civil Defence will work with conscientious objectors who are to be imposed upon them. Team work is very important indeed in Civil Defence. You put men together on fire fighting or on rescue work. Some are volunteers and are doing the work gladly and freely, and others have been brought into this work. I would not like to be answerable for the results, but, speaking from the point of view of the local authorities which hitherto have not been willing to have conscientious objectors, I should feel that they will not welcome these men in their service.
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this matter very carefully indeed. Cannot he give the House an assurance that where a conscientious objector is doing a job of national importance, and doing it well and to the satisfaction of everybody concerned, he will not be uprooted and forced to do something else which he does not want to do, which the local authority do not want him to do, and which will not result in any advantage to the community? If my right hon. Friend can give the assurance that he will leave well alone and leave the man alone if he is doing his job well, I think the Committee will be satisfied, and I imagine that in those circumstances my hon. Friend might withdraw the Amendment. I think that my right hon. Friend ought to give at least that assurance to the Committee.
§ Mr. BevinThe discussion up to now has evaded the fundamental principle that I laid down—and I think the whole Committee is conscious of that principle—Is Civil Defence a civilian job or is it a military job? That is the fundamental issue that has been answered. In this Bill we take the greatest care to keep it a civilian job, and I cannot admit the prin- 891 ciple of conscientious objection to civil work. I have to be straight on that. If I am not, there is not a single order that has been carried into industry that can be worked. You would have to apply conscientious objection to every man you transfer under the Order. You could not avoid the fact.
§ Mr. MaxtonWhat about the dockers?
§ Mr. BevinI would remind the hon. Member that they have no tribunal to which to go; they have no right of appeal, they have no appeal of this character. The only conscientious objection that has been carried by this House is that to military service. I must bring the Committee back to that principle. Subject to that, the rest is administrative. It is a question of common-sense administration; that is all. If the Committee wants to know what is in the back of my mind, I will say that I am not prepared to create a privileged class in this sense. I like to be quite frank about these things. Suppose there are two men in a factory, one of whom has been conditionally exempted and allowed to continue at his old job which becomes non-essential in the light of war development; suppose the other man is not a conscientious objector and is also on non-essential work. I must treat these two men on equal terms in the labour market if I am to transfer. It would mean that one man, conditionally let off, might be getting any salary, while the other would be called upon, in the national interest, because he was not a conscientious objector, to take an essential job, leaving the conscientious objector in a privileged position. I am sure the Committee does not want to place me in that position.
Now I come to the second category. These are people who have had conditional exemption but have been placed in
| Division No. 9.] | AYES. | |
| Adamson, W. M. (Cannock) | Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. | Collindridge, F. |
| Agnew, Comdr. P. G. | Bracken, Rt. Hon. B. | Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) |
| Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'd, W.) | Broad, F. A. | Courtauld, Major J. S. |
| Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh) | Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R. | Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L. |
| Anderson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. (Sc 'h. Univ.) | Brooke, H. | Craven-Ellis, W. |
| Aske, Sir R. W. | Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) | Crowder. J. F. E. |
| Assheton, R. | Burton, Col. H. W. | Culverwell, C. T. |
| Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton) | Butcher, H. W. | Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. |
| Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) | Cadogan, Major Sir E. | Davidson, Viscountess (H'm'l H'mst'd) |
| Banfield, J. W. | Campbell, Sir E. T. | Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) |
| Baxter, A. Beverley | Cary, R. A. | Davies. Clement (Montgomery) |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. | Channon, H. | Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil) |
| Beechman, N. A. | Charleton, H. C. | Denville, Alfred |
| Bellenger, F. J. | Chorlton, A. E. L. | Dobbie, W. |
| Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central) | Christie, J. A. | Douglas, F. C. R. |
| Bevin, Rt. Hon. E. | Cluse, W. S. | Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) |
| Bird, Sir R. B | Cobb, Captain E. C. | Dugdale, Major T. L |
| Blair, Sir R. | Cooks, F. S. | Ede, J. C. |
§ work analogous to this. They are what I would regard as administratively essential. I shall not move any man on essential work. For instance, agriculture is wholly reserved. I shall not move anybody from agriculture, and administratively I should not be such an idiot as to take one of these men away and create trouble elsewhere. Allow me to use my common sense. Anyone who takes a conscientious objector away from essential work and creates trouble for himself somewhere else is not a very wise administrator. In connection with the Friends' ambulance unit, nursing and hospital services, it is not my intention to disturb something which is working all right. But the power must be there. In law every citizen must be on equal terms so far as civilian work is concerned, and with that assurance I think the Committee might reject this Amendment.
§ Mr. Cecil Wilson (Sheffield, Attercliffe)The Minister said he would not move any man, but once this Bill is passed is not all the power taken from his hands and put into the hands of others, such as the Minister of Home Security?
§ Mr. BevinNo, Sir. The actual calling-up of a person has to be done by the Minister of National Service. The position of the Minister of Home Security will be the same as in other services. He will not have a man until I have allocated him.
§ Mr. WilsonDoes that apply to men who have already been allocated by tribunals?
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 200; Noes, 2.
| Edmondson, Major Sir J. | Macdonald, G. (Ince) | Silkin, L. |
| Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.) | McEntee, V. La T. | Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W. D. |
| Emery, J. F. | Magnay, T. | Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly) |
| Emmott, C. E. G. C. | Maitland, Sir A. | Smith, T. (Normanton) |
| Emrys-Evans, P. V. | Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E. | Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir D. B. (Crewe) |
| Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.) | Marnier, G. la M. | Southby, Comdr. Sir A. R. J. |
| Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales) | Martin, J. H. | Stewart, W. Joseph (H'gton-le-Spring) |
| Foot, D. M. | Mathers, G. | Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.) |
| Fox, Sir G. W. G. | Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. | Strauss, H. G. (Norwich) |
| Frankel, D. | Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.) | Stuart, Rt. Hn. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Fremantle, Sir F. E. | Milner, Major J. | Summers, G. S. |
| Garro Jones, G. M. | Molson, A. H. E. | Summerskill, Dr. Edith |
| George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | Montague, F. | Sutcliffe, H. |
| George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) | Morris-Jones, Sir Henry | Tate, Mavis C. |
| Gibson, R. (Greenock) | Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) | Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) |
| Gledhill, G. | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford) |
| Green, W. H. (Deptford) | Muff, G. | Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'th'm't) |
| Gridley, Sir A. B. | Munro, P. | Thorne, W. |
| Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) | Naylor, T. E. | Tomlinson, G. |
| Grimston, R. V. | O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. | Train, Sir J. |
| Hannon, Sir P. J. H. | Paling, W. | Tufnell, Lieut.-Comdr. R. L. |
| Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A. | Parker, J. | Wakefield, W. W. |
| Henderson, J. (Ardwick) | Peake, O. | Walkden, A. G. (Bristol, S.) |
| Henderson, J. J. Craik (Leeds, N.E.) | Peat, C. U. | Walkden, E. (Doncaster). |
| Hepworth, J. | Peters, Or. S. J. | Ward, Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) |
| Hill, Dr. A. V. (Cambridge U.) | Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend) |
| Holdsworth, H. | Pickthorn, K. W. M. | Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S. |
| Hollins, J. H. (Silvertown) | Plugge, Capt. L. F. | Waterhouse, Capt. C. |
| Hopkinson, A. | Pym, L. R. | Watkins, F. C. |
| Hunter, T. | Rathbone, Beatrice F. (Bodmin) | Watson, W. McL. |
| Hurd, Sir P. A. | Rawson, Sir Cooper | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C. |
| Jagger, J. | Reed, A. C. (Exeter) | Weston, W. Garfield |
| Jeffreys, Gen. Sir R. D. | Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury) | Westwood, J. |
| Jones, A. C. (Shipley) | Reid, W. Allan (Derby) | White, Sir Dymoke (Fareham, |
| Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth) | Rickards, G. W. | White, H. Graham (Birkenhead, E.) |
| Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. | Ridley, G. | Whiteley, W. (Blaydon) |
| Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. | Robertson, D. (Streatham) | Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R. |
| Kerr, Sir John Graham (Scottish U's) | Robertson, Rt. Hn. Sir M. A. (M' ham) | Wilkinson, Ellen |
| Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens) | Williams, C. (Torquay) |
| Lawson, J. J. | Rowlands, G. | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
| Leach, W. | Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R. | Wilmot, John |
| Levy, T. | Ruggles-Brise, Col. Sir E. A. | Windsor, W. |
| Lindsay, K. M. | Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth) | Woodburn, A. |
| Little, Dr. J. (Down) | Samuel, M. R. A. | Wootton-Davies, J. H. |
| Locker-Lampson, Commander O.S. | Sanderson, Sir F. B. | Wright, Wing Commander J. A. C. |
| Loftus, P. C. | Savory, Professor D. L. | Young, Sir R. (Newton) |
| Lyle, Sir C. E. Leonard | Scott, R. D. (Wansbeck) | |
| Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O | Selley, H. R. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Mabane, W. | Shepperson, Sir E. W. | Mr. Boulton and Mr. Young. |
| MoCorquodale, Flight-Lt. Malcolm S. | Shinwell, E. |
| NOES. | ||
| Gallacher,W. | Sloan, A. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES |
| Mr. Maxton and Mr. McGovern |
§ Mr. Pickthorn (Cambridge University)I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, at the end, to insert:
but no Member of the House of Commons shall be liable under this Act.''Almost every Member of the House who has no other function to perform more directly contributing to the war effort must very frequently hanker after something more, and must be unwilling to occupy the time of the House more than is necessary, and to-day there are very special reasons why we should not wish to take up the time of the House. Nevertheless, I think it right that someone should try to make sure that the House deliberates whether its Members ought or ought not to be conscriptable for anything short of military service. The 894 Amendment which I have moved is the only opportunity offered to the House to deliberate that question, which otherwise would go through as a matter of course without being discussed. I cannot hope at this hour, and perhaps a little because of my unattractiveness as an orator, that any very large number of hon. Members will deliberate upon that question, but I think there ought to be an opportunity for hon. Members to take that decision deliberately, and the very fact that on a subject of this sort, which, whatever else it is, is a question of some constitutional importance, it should be difficult to get the attention of more than a couple of dozen hon. Members, half of them inside the Government machine—[Interruption] — I have not counted exactly, but 895 not much less than half of them—is a reason why the House should pause before refusing to pass the Amendment.The only arguments I have heard in favour of the Clause as it stands are two. The first is the argument that Members of Parliament should show a good example. I believe that sort of argument, which is what I call a gesture argument, is a very bad kind of argument. It is almost always wrong to do something which you are not sure is the right thing to do because you feel it will be a good example to somebody else. Of that bad class of argument, this particular case is, I think, a bad example, because, in truth, the House on the whole can say, without arrogance, that it has not been regarded as setting a bad example in this sort of connection during the war. The proportion of hon. Members who have thought it proper to undertake direct military service has been as much as the public thought was proper and decent. There are other classes of Members who, apparently, do not lose their prestige with the public because they contract out of the obligation to perform war services. I am not familiar with the details, and I apologise at once if my hon. Friend on the Front Bench is going to correct me, but I am informed, for instance, that trade union officials are reserved at the age of 25. I have nothing to say to the contrary; for all I have to say, it is right that they should be; but I have not observed that anyone has argued that they will thereby lose the respect of the public.
It seems to me clear that if Members of the House are to be in any way outside any kind of obligation for war services, it ought not to be, as in that case, by administrative action, but it ought to be either by their ancient privileges or by legislation. It ought not to be at the mercy of a single Minister that administrative action should put Members of Parliament in a reserved occupation. Indeed, so far as the argument about the impression created outside is concerned, I believe that the weight is rather on my side. A considerable number of members of the public, constituents of mine, and others with whom I have talked on this subject, are inclined to think that already too high a proportion of the Members of this House devote too high a proportion of their attention to non-Parliamentary duties. I 896 consider that the House of Commons runs the risk of losing prestige because it is felt outside that too many Members put their task here at the bottom of the class. I believe there is a greater risk there than in our being accused of feathering our own nests, which is an accusation against which I consider we are already protected.
The second argument in favour of the Bill as it stands is an argument which overlaps the first, although it is a little different from it. It is the argument of the distinction between civilian service and military service. That argument seems to me to be entirely false, and the Amendment is not introducing any such distinction. That distinction exists, and it has always existed. Legislation must be by way of definite categories, and the most clearly defined category we can find is the line of distinction between service in the Armed Forces and every other sort of service. The whole of the Debate so far, I would remind the Committee who have stood it and who are now standing me, has been conducted by the contributories to it, and most conspicuously by the Minister of Labour, on the principle that Civil Defence service and military service are entirely and absolutely defined, and that it would knock the Bill sideways if it was suggested that that was not so. Therefore, I hope that I may be allowed to make that assumption too, and" to say that there is a distinction which is not invented by me or introduced by my Amendment. I would be the last to suggest, however, that that distinction represents any moral superiority on the one side or the other. There are men in the Army who are not so brave or so useful as men and women outside the Army, who may be of the utmost usefulness and have the utmost bravery. But whether or not the Army or the civilian services are the more important or the less dispensable is really as unnecessary as to debate whether a man would get on better if his head was cut off or his heart was cut out. It is not a relevant question, and we need draw no distinction between the virtue and valour of the civilian defence as against the military defence in order to pass this Amendment.
Distinction of some sort does exist. It is a distinction as old as the hills, and it is perhaps the oldest of all distinctions in politics —the distinction between mili- 897 tary service and every other kind of service, a distinction which has been emphasised by every speaker during the Debate. The nature and essence of Parliamentary functions are inextricably bound up with the distinction to which I have just drawn attention, and since the memory of man it has not run to the contrary. Our functions and privileges depend upon the essential and unequivocably old principle that when a man receives two summonses he should obey the higher of the two. In the United Kingdom the highest summons a man can receive is a summons to the King's Colours, and next comes the summons to the King's Courts, especially the summons to attend upon the King's High Court of Parliament. It is upon that that the whole of the functions and all the Privileges of this House have been built.. It seems to me it is of the utmost importance that that should not be varied without careful deliberation by the House of Commons.
Besides this point of principle, there are certain practical considerations with which I am afraid I must delay the Committee a little further. There are fewer newspapers than there were, and the newspapers which are published are smaller. Therefore the functions and discussions of the House of Commons are all the more important, and it is all the more important for Members to indulge in reading and thinking and talking with the people. This function is of greater importance than it has ever been. Secondly, there are many Members who are now on military service. That is not an argument that there should be more Members absent on civilian service, but is an argument against it. Frequently, in Debate, we have had the argument used that if there is so much of a thing, then the pass is sold and you must not argue against it. That is the most illogical of all possible arguments, and it should not be used here. It necessarily follows in war-time that a great number of Members are called away from the House of Commons —I think at present about one-quarter of the Members have been called away—and therefore the House of Commons should not pass anything to facilitate the removal of any more.
§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Mr. Mabane)Perhaps the hon. Member will 898 explain how this Bill will increase the number of Members who will be away.
§ Mr. PickthornI was just about to say that I knew the answer which would be given, namely, that if Members were summonable for one purpose it did not matter making them summonable for another. I do not think that it as a good a debatable point as my hon. Friend seems to think. The greater number of purposes for which a man may be taken, the more clearly are the chances increased that he will be taken. If that is not so, the whole argument for bringing within the scope of this Bill the class of persons referred to completely falls to the ground and loses all possible validity. It is found incompatible that service upon a jury comes within the scope of the Bill. Our grandfathers and great grandfathers often referred to the House of Commons as the Great Inquest of the nation. It seems clear to me that if it is incompatible as a jurist to come within the scope of this Bill, then a fortissimi it should be incompatible with service in this House. Of the two, it should be the Bill which goes and not the House. It is true that this Measure is only for the time being, and that it would cease to exist after the emergency. It is also true that we are doing something by Act of Parliament, and that an Act of Parliament can undo anything that has been done, but an Act of Parliament cannot cause something which is done to be as if it had never been done. I therefore invite the House to consider carefully whether there ought to be made a breach in the traditional character of Parliament and legal government in this country, and whether the advantage that there would be in it is sufficient to make it worth while that such a breach should be made.
§ Lieut.-Commander Tufnell (Cambridge)I feel that my right hon. Friend should consider this question very carefully. A Member of Parliament under this Bill will be put in a strange position. He wishes to do the best he can for his country. If military service claims him, he will join up, and, when occasion permits, he will get an opportunity of coming to the House and will be able to represent his constituents at the right moment. Many people to. whom I have talked consider that a Member of Parliament should be able to come here and put 899 his constituents' case and do what he was elected to do. Some people rather resent the idea that he should be drawing pay as a member of the Forces as well as his salary as a Member of this House. Nevertheless, I believe that, if the country demanded that he should join up for military service, that is his job, and I do not think there is a single person who would not think that the right thing to do. I am sure his constituents would think so. When the war started I asked my constituents what they would feel if the Navy were to call me back to the Service. They said they would certainly approve my position in being called back to service. On that I offered my services to the Navy if they were required. That is all right in the case of military service where a Member can come back to the House and state the case on behalf of his constituents, but in the case of a civilian job I wonder whether he is in exactly the same privileged position. It means that he would come here at the risk of upsetting the routine of the employment. The duties of a Member of Parliament are, I will not say superior, but as vitally essential and as important as any civilian job that he might be asked to perform in the interests of his country. For these reasons I ask that the Amendment should be favourably considered.
§ Mr. Martin (Southwark, Central)It seems to me that membership of the House is either an essential part of the war effort or it is not, and, if it is not, the Government should intimate that it is more important that we should go out and find war functions of various sorts than waste our time coming here day after day contributing, as far as we are able, in various ways to the conduct of the war. I cannot help casting my mind back to those very anxious days in May last when a number of hon. Members opposite—all honour to them—were instrumental in causing a change of Government at a very critical time in our history. When the history of the war comes to be written, I think we shall find that victory is owed as much to the action of hon. Members on that occasion as to any other single incident during the war. I cannot help feeling that such an occasion may arise again before the war is finished. To say that it is really not very important whether a large number of Members come here or not 900 and that if the older Members who are not particularly wanted care to come, they can, is not to treat the House with the respect that it deserves or to treat the war with the effort and concentration that are required. It puts a Member of the House in an invidious position to be called up by a civilian Service and to say, "I have important duties to my constituency, for the duties of a Member to his constituency are more numerous and complex now and much more urgent than before the war." To say, "I have my duties to my constituency, and I must go off and leave this job to be done by the next man," is not fair to the Member of Parliament nor to the man who has to take his place. I urge the Government not to reject the Amendment, but to consider seriously whether the House does not at this stage require something more, both in respect and in encouragement and clarification of the position that Members occupy.
§ Mr. McGovernI am rather interested in this proposal. I think that, for sheer impertinence, it would be hard to find anything worse. We understand that Members of Parliament should not be called up in the ordinary way for duties assigned to the average civilian. One would think that a Member of Parliament had something more important in life to do than the average civilian, who may have a wife and children, home, friends and his position to occupy him and to protect. At the same time, it is suggested that Members of Parliament shall reserve the right to decide when war shall take place and to order men to sacrifice their lives, but shall themselves be immune.
§ Mr. PickthornI do not think there is any suggestion that Members of Parliament should be immune from service in the Armed Forces.
§ Mr. McGovernIf I understand the proposal, it is that Members of Parliament shall not be called upon.
§ Mr. McGovernI do not care whether it is for Civil Defence or not; Members of Parliament should go through the routine through which the average person outside the House is called upon to go through. Shortly after the war started I asked a Member who was of military age whether he thought he ought to serve, and he said, 901 You are asking me a pertinent question, and I will give you a direct answer. I think Members of Parliament should be immune from service in the Armed Forces." That is an outrageous attitude to adopt. If civilians outside, many of them with conscientious objections to war, are to be called upon to serve, Members of Parliament ought to be called on in the same way. They have decided that the war is just and that it shall be fought out, and they should perform the ordinary functions that civilians are called upon to perform. One of the great arguments that we hear for the war is that Parliamentary democracy would be in danger if there were a Nazi victory, and Members of Parliament would probably find themselves in concentration camps if Hitler secured a victory. Is it to be assumed that Members of Parliament must call upon the man on the means test to defend Parliamentary government from which the Members derive social status and a certain remuneration and that they themselves are to be immune from serving?
One hon. Member said that he found that people in the country thought that Members of Parliament should attend to their duties here and that that was sufficient service. That is not my experience. My experience is that people in the country feel that not sufficient Members are in the Armed Forces or the Defence services and taking part in the risks and sacrifices which ordinary civilians have undertaken. What argument is there for a large percentage of the Members being in the House? Are we not developing a totalitarian form of government? The Whip stands in the corridor and tells Members which lobby to go into, saying," In you go, whether you like it or not. "Surely we could pass a simple Measure delegating to the Whip for the period of the war the duty of voting on all Measures so that Members need not be required to attend at all.
§ Mr. McGovernI am trying to answer the difficulties and objections that Members see to this procedure, and as there are comparatively few independent Members who decide things on their merits, the way out is not difficult. If the Minister of Labour has the power under this Bill 902 to call in ordinary civilians and to set aside decisions made by tribunals, he should have the power to compel Members of Parliament to go into every dangerous calling and occupation. Members ought to perform all the duties that we expect civilians to perform.
§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Mr. Mabane)A good many of the arguments in favour of the Amendment have either been made under a misapprehension or ought to have been made at an earlier stage. The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) seemed to be under the impression that this Bill will increase the number of Members who may be required to give service. That, of course, is not so. The Bill deals merely with the allocation as between the services of people called up. Not one additional Member of Parliament will be called up when the Bill becomes law. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) seemed to be under the impression that he might be called up for full-time duties in Glasgow. I know that he has the secret of perennial youth, but I would point out that this Bill relates only to those who come within the ambit of the National Service (Armed Forces) Act.
§ Sir Joseph Lamb (Stone)Will my hon. Friend say that there are no Members in the House of the prescribed age for calling up or that the age will not be increased later on?
§ Mr. MabaneIf it is, it will be increased for the other Services at the same time. The Bill merely relates to the allocation of people who are called up.
§ Mr. PickthornIt increases the number of Services into which they may be called.
§ Mr. MabaneBut it does not increase the number of Members of Parliament who may be called up. The hon. Member said there were two arguments advanced for Members of Parliament undertaking these duties. The first was that Members should show a good example, but he demolished that argument because he said it was a bad one. In his second argument he drew a distinction between the military and the Civil Defence services. As I listened to him, I was reminded of some comments that were made before the war when people sometimes suggested that men who joined the 903 fire service were joining an easy service. That has been proved false. The Civil Defence services have won their spurs, and no one would suggest that there should be discrimination between what are commonly called the Armed Forces and the Civil Defence services that would have as its purpose and its consequence the rating of the Civil Defence services lower in the scale of virtue and valour, as the hon. Gentleman put it. We are anxious to lift the status of the Civil Defence forces, for in them people are performing the duty of defence with a valour, vigour and skill which the whole country admires. We cannot accept the Amendment. If membership of Parliament is not to be a reserved occupation, Members cannot be excluded from the operation of the Bill.
§ Mr. G. StraussI would like to make a comment on the reply made by the Government, because I do not think it completely covers the issue. May I say by way of preliminary that my view is that it is the first duty of a Member of Parliament to attend to his Parliamentary duties? I believe that that duty comes above any other, including service in the Armed Forces, because if a Member does not attend to his Parliamentary duties, his constituency is disfranchised. It is his first duty to defend the liberties of the Realm, and look after the interests of his constituents. The only place he can do that is here. The attitude of the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) is definitely Fascist when he suggests that It is not essential for a Member of Parliament to attend to his Parliamentary work. There is no bigger service that a Member can render, anyhow in many localities, than to be constantly with his constituents, particularly during a time when his constituency is being severely raided. However, let that pass.
§ Mr. MaxtonWill the hon. Member explain a little further? He spoke of a Member being with his constituents when the constituency was being raided as being the most important thing that a Member can do. It is possible for a London Member to be with his constituents during raids and to attend to his work here, but it is not possible for Members from the North or Scotland to do those two things.
904 I face this as a personal issue of conduct. Where should I be? It is obvious that when two places are 400 miles apart I cannot be in both at the same time.
§ Mr. StraussThat may be. I put the argument that a Member is doing a national service by being with his constituents not as the only reason why a Member should attend to his Parliamentary duties first, but as an important one. If a Member is outside his constituency while it is being "blitzed" my experience shows that if he arrives there the next day and mixes among the people he is doing a very great service indeed, an invaluable service. But I agree that that big issue is not under discussion to-day. I should like to put this important point to the Government. A Member who joins the Armed Forces of the Crown is, according to King's Regulations, eligible to get leave to attend to his Parliamentary duties. I understand that leave must be granted to him not just to attend Parliament to speak or vote in the House but to attend to any of his Parliamentary duties. Any application to attend to his Parliamentary duties must be granted by the commanding officer. There are no King's Regulations applicable to Civil Defence work. A Member of Parliament who is sent to Civil Defence work may feel that it is his duty to come to Parliament to speak or vote on a certain matter, or to go to his constituents, and he may apply for leave, but the man in charge of the Service may say, "This is a little inconvenient and I cannot let you off." There is a difference which I think is very relevant to the issue we are discussing. I should like to know whether the Government contemplate some possible new King's Regulations applying to these Civil Defence Services which will enable a Member of Parliament who feels that it is duty to his constituents and to the country to do his Parliamentary work to be able to get away from Civil Defence work for that purpose. I can conceive that it would be more difficult to leave Civil Defence work than to leave the Army, say, when they are undergoing training, but I think it is most important that a Member should have at least the same opportunity to attend to his Parliamentary work when he is engaged in Civil Defence.
§ Mr. MabaneCertainly the custom of the Services will be followed; but I would say that in many cases Members in the Army and the Navy are not in places from which they can as conveniently come to the House as in the case of Members in the Civil Defence Services.
§ Mr. PickthornThe hon. Gentleman says that the custom of the Services will be followed. Perhaps he will answer another question. I am told that there is an Army Council Order instructing commanding officers not merely to give leave but to allow any of their subordinates who may wish to do so to be absent indefinitely upon waiving their pay. I should like to know whether that is so, and if so whether it is going to apply to these Services. If that is so does it not whittle the thing down until what we are claiming is a kind of false principle, with nothing practical in it, because I would point out that the amount of work that is going to be got out of Members of Parliament in this way is going to be infinitesimal.
§ Mr. MabaneI do not know whether there is such an instruction as the hon. Member refers to.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Mr. HarveyI beg to move, in page 1, line 25, at the end, to insert:
( ) if any conditionally registered conscientious objector notifies the Minister in the manner prescribed by the Minister that he desires to be allowed to continue to undertake the work specified by the tribunal as a condition of his registration, the Minister may suspend his liability to be called up for civil defence, and may also refer the application to the appellate tribunal which may recommend that the condition of registration should continue in force or that it should be varied.This is a very much more limited Amendment than the one we were discussing some time ago. In spite of the reassuring words of the Minister of Labour, I still believe that it is of great importance to have a safeguard of this nature in the Bill itself. My right hon. Friend showed himself very broad-minded in his statement about the way in which he will carry out the administration of this Measure. He assured us there was no intention to take away conscientious objectors from useful work on the land, or in a hospital or an ambulance unit, and it is encouraging to have that assurance, but, after all, we are making 906 an Act of Parliament, and we have no safeguard in the Measure itself that the type of administration will always actually be carried out. We may not always be dealing with the present Minister of Labour, and even under the best of Ministers and the ablest of Departmental officials there may be mistakes and errors. A conscientious objector who is already doing useful work in accordance with the decision of a tribunal ought to have some right of appeal to be allowed to remain in that work rather than be called up to a service which he feels unable to render. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider his decision as to putting into the text of the Bill some safeguard of this character. It is not merely an imaginary position with which he is faced. He spoke in an intervention about the Christadelphians' attitude. I have referred to the letter which was sent by members of that body to him about a week ago, and there, I find, it is clearly stated that they have objected all along to Civil Defence work. They do not object to doing civil work like land work, and large numbers of them have left their own occupations to undertake it, but they would feel the strongest objection to being called upon to become members of a Civil Defence force. They are only one group out of a number of people who will be affected, and there can be no doubt that if there is no provision of this kind in the Bill cases will occur which I am sure the Minister wants to avoid, cases which will lead to a very real sense of injustice not only as far as the individual concerned is affected but also in a much wider circle.
§ Mr. BevinI regret that I am unable to accept this Amendment. These Amendments seek to turn a Civil Defence question into a military one. If I accepted the Amendment, what would be the position of men who have gone into Civil Defence because of conscientious objection? Immediately you said that Civil Defence was a military matter you would bring before the tribunals every man who had already taken that Civil Defence work and had satisfied his conscience. They would want to come back and have their cases considered all over again. If you put the tribunals into the Bill you imply that we are not dealing with a civil occupation. An hon. Member 907 shakes his head, but I assure him that it is so.
§ Mr. MesserIt does not seem a sound argument.
§ Mr. BevinIs there any sound argument in any of it? People have said that my attitude is not logical, but you cannot introduce the rules of logic into conscientious objection. Not even the hon. Member for Bridgton (Mr. Maxton) can do that. I can assure hon. Members that the undertakings given will be carried out, whether I remain in this office or not. I have confidence that the Department will not go back on them. I cannot put into the Bill the implication contained in the Amendment.
§ Mr. Gallacher (Fife, West)Will not the Minister arrange this matter in such a way that all people who are entitled to it will have some hope of release and of carrying on their lives m as normal a way as circumstances allow? If someone has a conscientious objection to doing a particular work and refuses to do it, is he to be sentenced and imprisoned, as happened in the last war? Leaders in the Labour movement are strongly opposed to that condition of affairs, and some effort should be made to put it right. I cannot accept the Minister's argument that to provide an opportunity for those who do not want to do Civil Defence work will raise the whole question again for those who are already doing that work. Those who have gone into Civil Defence with a clear conscience are aware that other objectors are not prepared to do so. If some opportunity were given for those who refused because of their conscience to do Civil Defence work, that could not affect those who are already in Civil Defence.
I am troubled about another case. I have had a letter from a Minister about one of my colleagues who has been put out of one of the Services for expressing opinions which his officer and others did not like. I do not know whether he will go into Civil Defence, but if he does, and expresses opinions again which authorities in the Civil Defence service do not like, I wonder whether he will be pushed out of Civil Defence. What is to happen in a case like that? I am satisfied that the Minister's argument has no basis when he suggests that those who 908 are already doing Civil Defence work with a clear conscience would not remain there with a clear conscience if the Amendment were accepted.
§ Mr. MaxtonI am sorry that the Minister has not seen his way to accept this very moderately drafted Amendment. I cannot see what his difficulty is. He says that he cannot see any logic in it, but it is only his slavish desire for logic that makes him reject it. Logic cannot be employed in this matter, which is concerned with right and wrong. Logic has nothing to do with right and wrong; right and wrong are higher matters. I have listened to what has been done at the tribunals, where young fellows have been taken step by step to a logical absurdity by members of the tribunals, who have then said that the applicants had not a genuine and real conscience. The Minister appears to be falling into exactly that attitude. He says, "If I leave the general grounds of this Bill, I at once say that it is a military Bill for military service, whereas it is a Bill for civilians, parallel to my power to transfer workers from one industry or part of industry to another."
It is not the same as that; otherwise the Minister could carry out the object of the Bill by the use of his existing powers instead of coming here to ask for ne[...] registrations. It is something different. Admittedly it is not military service, but it is somewhere between the two. The Minister must recognise that he cannot stand hard and fast on the principle that he has laid down. I do not know what the reason may be, but he stands at that Box and says, "I must not depart from this principle, or I shall be on the slippery slope that will land me into all sorts of difficuties" The Minister will be in difficulties whatever he does. He has to examine this matter, not from the point of view of what will cause difficulty for him, but from the point of view of what is fair and square and what will meet the needs of the community. The community has needs in this matter. He has to try to meet the needs of individual objectors, who are a very small minority. I do not think he will give away anything at all of his basic principle if he accepts the Amendment. He will be strengthening it.
The Minister is saying that he will be able to call upon people for Civil Defence 909 just as the war Ministries are calling upon people for fighting purposes, but in the same way that the Services have laid down machinery by which citizens who object on conscientious grounds may make application not to participate, so the Minister can quite well say that he is prepared to recognise some exceptions. The service Ministers recognise exceptions, but very few. Very few people have asked to be regarded as exceptions, while out of the few who have so asked only a minority have been recognised. The Minister, if he thinks that this is an important matter, can quite logically recognise that there may be individuals who feel that they cannot do this type of work, and who want to be safeguarded from being compelled to do it. The Minister can concede the principle of this Amendment not only not giving away, but actually reinforcing, the principle which is already well-established. I propose to support the Amendment in the Division Lobby.
§ Mr. Logan (Liverpool, Scotland Division)What would you do if they all wanted the same class of employment?
§ Mr. MaxtonI have already answered that point on the previous Amendment. One can conjure up the conception of a revolutionary state in this country, and one would have to cope with that revolutionary state when it arose, but at the moment we are not contemplating such a position. We are safeguarding the interests of a minority against the big masses.
§ Mr. MesserI desire to express my gratitude to the Minister for his assurance that he will not disturb those who have already been allocated by the tribunals certain types of work, but I want also to put this logical point to him. When he says that he will not disturb those who have already undertaken conditional employment, what logic is there in doing that administratively and not legislatively? If it is logical to do it by administration, there is no reason why it should not be done by legislation, because the right hon. Gentleman will not always be the Minister of Labour. I am sorry for that, but it is a fact. When the original Bill went through, we had certain guarantees, and those guarantees are being departed from. Any assurance which the Minister gives we must accept, but why is it that a tribunal decides that 910 certain appellants should do certain types of work? It is because the man who appeals has submitted his case, and, on consideration of the evidence submitted, the tribunal say, "You have shown that you have a conscientious objection to taking life, but you have not satisfied us by that evidence that you have a conscientious objection to war, and, therefore, we give you an exemption on condition that you do a certain type of work not remote from the war." If a conscientious objector who has that condition imposed upon him is called up, it is clear that all that the tribunal have been doing is to examine the evidence which has been deduced to satisfy themselves that the evidence which might apply with regard to conscience has gone. The Minister of Labour can then put that man into any Civil Defence work he likes.
Although the Minister says that he cannot see how anyone can have a conscientious objection to Civil Defence, and although I confess that I cannot, I have to admit that other people can, and they are the people who hold that view. It is not for me to say that because it is an unreasonable view it is not sincerely held. Anyone who has dealt with people who are really conscientious objectors knows just what it means to them. Latimer and Cranmer went to the stake for conscience, but it was a ridiculous thing in the eyes of the people who burned them. There was the case of a famous man who said in a loud voice, "The earth is flat" but who, in a quiet voice, said that it was round all the same. He would have died for his conscience. I am asking that the machinery, which has determined by virtue of this process of examination of evidence that a man may hold a conscientious view which justifies his being given a certain type of work, should be applied to others. I do not want to get into the realms of logic. The most illogical thing was the passing of the Military Service Act, with its conditional provisions with regard to conscientious objectors. We should do the best we can in the interests of the nation, and if we are to do that, it is only wise to recognise that a conscientious objector who says he does not mind doing afforestation will do it much more efficiently than if he is made to do something to which he has an objection. I hope 911 that the Minister will keep local authorities in mind in this respect. I am a member of a local authority which has carried a resolution to the effect that conscientious objectors shall not be discharged but shall be given leave of absence without pay until the end of the
| Division No. 10.] | AYES. | |
| Adams, D. (Consett) | McGhee, H. G. | While, H. Graham (Birkenhead, E.) |
| Buchanan, G. | Messer, F. | Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe) |
| Dobbie, W | Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey, W.) | |
| Gallacher, W. | Silverman, S. S. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES. — |
| Hardie, Agnes | Sloan, A. | Mr. Maxton and Mr. McGovern. |
| Harvey, T. | Stoke, R. R. |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. | Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) | McCorquodale, Flight-Lt. Malcolm S. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Cannock) | Ellis, Sir G. | Macdonald, G. (Ince) |
| Agnew Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. | Emery, J. F. | McEntee, V. La T. |
| Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B 'k' d, W.) | Entwistle, Sir C. F. | McKinlay, A. S. |
| Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh) | Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.) | Magnay, T. |
| Aske, Sir R. W. | Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) | Mainwaring, W. H. |
| Assheton, R | Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales) | Maitland, Sir A. |
| Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton) | Fletcher, Comdr. R. T. H. | Mander, G. le M. |
| Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) | Foot, D. M. | Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. |
| Banfield, J. W. | Fox, Sir G. W. G. | Molson, A. H. E. |
| Barnes, A. J. | Frankel, D. | Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R. |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. | Fraser, Capt. Sir Ian | Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) |
| Beaumont, Hubert (Batley) | Fremantle, Sir F. E. | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) |
| Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central) | Garro Jones, G. M. | Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) |
| Bevin, Rt. Hon. E. | George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | Mort, D. L. |
| Blair Sir R. | George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) | Muff, G. |
| Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. | Gibson, R. (Greenock) | Nail, Sir J. |
| Boulton, W. W. | Gledhill, G. | Naylor, T. E. |
| Bower, Comdr. R. T. | Glyn, Sir R. G. C. | O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H |
| Boyce, H. Leslie | Green, W. H. (Deptford) | Paling, W. |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose) | Grenfell, D. R. | Parker, J. |
| Brass, Capt. Sir W. | Gridley, Sir A. B. | Peake, O |
| Broad, F. A. | Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) | Peters, Dr. S. J. |
| Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R. | Grimston, R. V. | Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W. |
| Brooke, H. | Guest, Lt.-Col. H. (Drake) | Plugge, Capt. L. F. |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith) | Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W. | Pym, L. R. |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) | Hannah, I. C. | Radford, E. A. |
| Butcher, H. W. | Hannon, Sir P. J. H. | Rankin, Sir R. |
| Cadogan, Sir E. | Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) | Rathbone, Beatrice F. (Bodmin) |
| Campbell, Sir E. T. | Henderson, J. (Ardwick) | Rawson, Sir Cooper |
| Cary, R. A. | Henderson, J. J. Craik (Leeds, N.E.) | Reed, A. C. (Exeter) |
| Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) | Hepworth, J. | Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury) |
| Charleton, H. C. | Hill, Dr. A. V. (Cambridge U.) | Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham (St. M.) |
| Chorlton, A. E. L. | Holdsworth, H. | Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead) |
| Christie, J. A. | Hopkinson, A. | Reid, W. Allan (Derby) |
| Cluse, W. S. | Horsbrugh, Florence | Richards, R. |
| Colfox, Major Sir W. P. | Howitt, Dr. A. B. | Rickards, G. W. |
| Collindridge, F. | Hume, Sir G. H. | Ridley, G. |
| Colman, N. C. D. | Hunter, T | Robertson, Rt. Hon. Sir M. A. (M' ham) |
| Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) | Hurd, Sir P A. | Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens) |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Jagger, J. | Rowlands, G. |
| Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L. | Jeffreys, Gen. Sir R. D. | Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R. |
| Craven-Ellis, W. | Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) | Ruggles-Brise, Col. Sir E. A. |
| Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. | Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) | Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth) |
| Culverwell, C. T. | Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. (Stl'g & C'km'n) | Sanderson, Sir F. B. |
| Daggar, G. | Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth) | Savory. Professor D. L. |
| Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. | Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. | Scott, R. D. (Wansbeck) |
| Davies, Clement (Montgomery) | Kerr, Sir John Graham (Scottish U's) | Selley, H. R. |
| Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil) | King-Hall, Commander, W. S. R. | |
| De la Bère, R. | Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Shepperson, Sir E. W. |
| Denville, Alfred | Law, R. K. | Silkin, L. |
| Doland, G. F. | Lawson, J. J. | Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W. D. |
| Douglas, F. C. R. | Leach, W. | Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly) |
| Drewe, C. | Levy, T. | Smith, T. (Normanton) |
| Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) | Liddall, W. S. | Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir D. B. (Crewe) |
| Dugdale, Major T. L | Little, Dr. J. (Down) | Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor) |
| Dunn, E. | Locker-Lampson, Commander O. S. | Southby, Comdr. Sir A. R. J |
| Ede, J. C. | Loflus, P. C. | Stewart, W. Joseph (H' gton-le-Spring) |
| Edmondson, Major Sir J. | Logan, D. G. | Storey, S. |
| Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.) | Mabane, W. | Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (Northwich) |
§ war. That authority is badly in need of stretcher-bearers, and the conscientious objectors should be given an opportunity of stretcher-bearing.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 14; Noes, 216.
| Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) | Tufnell, Lieut.-Comdr. R. L. | Wilkinson, Ellen |
| Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F. | Wakefield, W. W. | Williams, C. (Torquay) |
| Summers, G. S. | Walkden, A. G. (Bristol, S.) | Willink, H. V. |
| Summerskill, Dr. Edith | Walkdan, E. (Doncaster). | Wilmot, John |
| Sutcliffe, H. | Walker, J. | Windsor, W. |
| Tate, Mavis C. | Ward, Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir K. (W'lwich, W.) |
| Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) | Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend) | Woodburn, A. |
| Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford) | Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S. | Woolley, W. E. |
| Thorne, W. | Watkins, F. C. | Wootton-Davies, J. H. |
| Tinker, J. J. | Watson, W. McL. | Young, A. S. L. (Partick) |
| Tomlinson, G. | Wells, Sir S. Richard | Young, Sir R. (Newton) |
| Touche, G. C. | White, Sir Dymoke (Fareham) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES |
| Train, Sir J. | Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R. | Mr. Munro and Mr. Whiteley. |
§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Ordered, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." —[Mr. James Stuart.]
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.