NATIONAL SERVICE BILL. (Hansard, 11 December 1941)

Mr. McNeil (Greenock)
I beg to move, in page 2, line 27, at the end, to insert: with the proviso that no female who declares a conscientious objection will be compelled to transport, sell, distribute or otherwise handle intoxicating liquor. I do not propose to attempt to argue the question of what is usually called temperance. The position is plainly that in Scotland, as in many other parts of the country, there are people who hold strong and unswerving opinions about the use of alcohol. Almost any Scottish Member would tell you, that whenever industrial and works canteens have been spoken of, there has been a tide of protest directed against them. I believe that in some circles there was ill-advised talk of installing cocktail bars in the otherwise excellent hostels which the Minister of Labour has planned and set up. If there were any further talk of that, I should say that the Bill would be endangered; but even with industrial canteens and Service canteens, there will be grave fears in many Scottish homes, and presumably in other homes, that daughters may be forced to handle, dispense, or sell liquor. I ask the Minister of Labour to exempt these people from any-likelihood of being so placed or thus used. It is not merely a question of sentimentality; I am very earnest about the matter. Even if the right hon. Gentleman were not prepared to accept the Amendment on the strength of the arguments I have offered, I feel that, having listened to the Prime Minister's statement, he may be very willing to make this concession. It is plain that if we are to pass through the dark times which the Prime Minister has indicated, barmaids and barmen will be luxuries which we shall not be able to afford. In a besieged town, one may ask women to hand out loaded rifles to the defenders, but one does not ask them to fill up half-pint measures and hand them to the 1719 soldiers. I hope the Minister will accept the Amendment.

§ The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin)
The express condition of conscientious objection is stated in the Act concerning military service, and I regret that I cannot accept an Amendment extending this to other forms of occupation under this Bill; if I did so, there would be a host of things which other people would want to include under the Bill and its administration would become impossible. However, I can give the Committee an assurance, both on my own behalf, as far as concerns the canteens for which I am responsible, and on behalf of the Supply Departments and the Service Departments, that if any girl objects to working in any of the canteens where liquor is sold, it will be put definitely in the instructions that she shall not be forced to do so.

§ Mr. Woodburn (Clackmannon and Stirling, Eastern)
While thanking the Minister for his assurance, which will give great satisfaction throughout the country, I should like to ask him to go a step further and give an assurance to all those people who have apprehensions in this matter that precautions will be taken by the Department to see that, as far as possible, girls will not be forced or taken to places where they will be within range of wholesale temptation of this kind.

The Deputy-Chairman
The hon. Member is now going beyond the Amendment.

§ Mr. Woodburn
I accept your ruling, Colonel Clifton Brown. The assurance which the Minister has given will give satisfaction, but if he could give an assurance on the other matter there would be still greater satisfaction.

§ Mr. Bevin
In no case has a girl been forced into contagion with drink. I make no apology—and I am responsible more than any other member of the Government—for trying to give those who desire to have a drink an opportunity of obtaining a bottle of beer with their meals at their work. I did it deliberately, because I found that men who had to travel long distances to their homes were faced with temptation, and that disastrous things were going on. I found that in dock areas and in other places some men working overtime went out and drank far too 1720 much, which would not have been the case if they had been able to obtain a drink with their meals. The position has now been brought under control, the temptations reduced and temperance promoted.

The Deputy-Chairman
We cannot allow this discussion to continue on this Amendment.

§ Sir Robert Young (Newton)
I represent many people who are interested in this matter, and I wish, therefore, to have the position made clear. Do I understand that there will be no compulsion on conscripted women to sell strong liquor, and that a girl will not be ordered to distribute liquor if she has a conscientious objection against so doing?

§ Mr. Bevin
She will not be employed in that capacity.

§ Mr. Mathers (Linlithgow)
It might appear a little ungenerous, in view of the very handsome way in which the Minister has met this Amendment, to ask him if his undertaking could be taken further, so that it includes not only women but men, who have an equally strong objection to being purveyors of strong drink.

Mr. McNeil
May I thank the Minister for his generous and reasonable assurance? In view of what he has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Stephen (Glasgow, Camlachie)
I beg to move, in page 2, line 33, after "Force," to insert and she shall be posted for service near her home. I had an opportunity to move a similar Amendment yesterday, and the response the Government gave to it does not make me very optimistic to-day. This Amendment asks that women shall be posted near their homes. From past experience I have found that pledges during wartime are worth nothing at all. A pledge is given in the White Paper that women shall be posted near their homes, and the only satisfactory way of implementing it is to make it statutory. Pledges have been given in regard to posting women near their homes, and giving women the option to work in industry or in Civil Defence rather than in the Services, but 1721 from my experience I am not very hopeful that they will be carried out, because pledges are evidently so brittle.

§ Mr. Messer (Tottenham, South)
I cannot see how the Amendment could be worked. Once compulsory recruitment of women has been admitted, I do not see how it can be said that women shall be posted near their homes; their place of work may be outside their district. I wish to take this opportunity of bringing to the notice of the Minister the case of a married woman who sent a letter to me to-day. This woman is in the Air Force. She has a home, and her husband is serving in a submarine. Their house is near her place of work, and it has been the practice of her husband to spend his leave with her at home. She has now been sent 50 miles away, and her home will be broken up. In consequence she wants to leave the Service, but her superior officer has refused to accept her letter of resignation. She wishes to leave the Service because her convenience has not been considered. I am sure that the Minister will not encourage this sort of thing, and I ask him to study the convenience of these women by administration.

§ Mr. Bevin
The hon. Member who moved this Amendment was quite right when he said that there was little chance that I would accept it. It cannot be incorporated in the Bill.

§ Mr. Maxton (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
It can.

§ Mr. Bevin
I do not wish to indulge in any repartee.

§ Mr. Maxton
If it is practicable to make a promise in the White Paper, it is equally practicable to make that promise Statutory. You can do either both or neither.

§ Mr. Bevin
It is stated in the White Paper that a woman shall be posted near her home, as far as practicable, and we intend to carry that out so far as is possible. It would give a glorious opportunity to lawyers if we put this provision in the Bill. It would be a delightful legal point to find out what is near your home, and those who could afford legal representation would have a great advantage. I do not propose to have this Amendment introduced in the Bill.

§ Mr. Stephen
The hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) has given 1722 an instance which he thought was practicable, but evidently it is not being done administratively, so that it appears that those who are responsible are not doing what the Government have said is their wish. I am seeking to give statutory protection, but evidently the Minister thought that would introduce class bias. [Interruption.] I can see from the noble Lady's enthusiasm whose class interests would be protected by a statutory provision. It is evident that it is the class to which the noble Lady belongs which would not get any real protection from this, but working girls would probably find a certain amount of protection in a statutory provision. I am not at all satisfied with the Minister's answer.

§ Mr. David Adams (Consett)
I should like to ask the Minister whether in his judgment the Amendment would not make almost impossible the movement of certain sections from place to place, the individual items of which themselves might frequently desire to be moved from the locality in which they happen to be placed.

§ Mr. Edmund Harvey (Combined English Universities)
I beg to move, in page 2, line 38, at the end, to insert: Provided that no woman shall be liable to be required to make use of a lethal weapon, unless she has signified in writing her willingness to undertake such service. This stands on a somewhat different basis from the Amendment the Committee has just been discussing, because, while both purport to implement promises made by the Government in the White Paper, this refers to a definite assurance, while the previous Amendment referred to a promise to do what was asked as far as practicable. The terms of the White Paper are worthy of note: Arrangements will be made to ensure that women are not required to use lethal weapons unless they volunteer to do so. The word "ensure" is very strong, and there surely could be no better way of ensuring this than to insert it in the Bill. My wording may not be the best from the point of view of the Government, and I should be quite satisfied if words were inserted which would secure the same effect, but it is surely of great importance that the position of women should be made quite clear when they undertake 1723 this form of military service. There are many who would be willing to do auxiliary military service but are not prepared to undertake the use of lethal weapons. The Amendment goes in one respect further than the Government's proposal in that it suggests that it should be laid down that women must signify in writing their willingness to undertake this service. It is important that a sudden request should not be made so that women should make their decision under emotional stress perhaps in a group.

§ Viscountess Astor (Plymouth, Sutton)
Why women? Why not men also?

§ Mr. Harvey
If the restriction were for men, the same thing would apply. It is very important that a decision of that kind should be made deliberately and, in order to ensure that, it is very desirable that the decision should be given in writing.

§ Mr. Mander (Wolverhampton, East)
I find it very difficult to follow the reason for sex disqualification in this matter. If a woman can go to a gun-site and by her skill and ability act in such a way that, without firing the gun herself, she enables it to hit an enemy aeroplane, as is being done at present, I find it impossible to understand the distinction between the two. I do not believe that women desire this disqualification. I believe they will play their part to the fullest extent.

§ Mr. Bevin
We do not intend to introduce any disqualification of women to perform this service, but we have agreed, and have said in the White Paper, that we are prepared to make it a voluntary service. I am prepared to accept the principle of the Amendment, and I suggest these words: No woman who is called up for service under the principal Act shall be required actually to use any lethal weapon or to take part in the actual use of any lethal weapon unless she has signified in writing her willingness to use these weapons or, as the case may be, to take part in the use thereof.

§ Miss Eleanor Rathbone (Combined English Universities)
I do not raise any objection to the Amendment, but I should like a point cleared up. In the form in which the Minister proposes the Amend- 1724 ment it would preclude women having lethal weapons placed in their hands in case of emergency. Suppose, for instance, the enemy suddenly descends on a gun emplacement when the lives of the women who are at the instruments which they are operating may depend on their being able to defend themselves. They cannot at that stage be asked to give an assurance in writing that they want to be furnished with lethal weapons. May I recall something which happened in France? When the Pioneer Corps were sent to France the hon. and gallant Member who was in charge of one of the units was told that he must not arm them. He found himself in a tight place where the safety of the regiment in general and of these pioneers depended on their having arms. He, therefore, gave them arms, which they used gallantly. I do not want anything put in the Bill which will make it difficult to arm women when it is necessary for their own safety that they should be armed if the enemy is actually attacking the place where they are operating.

§ Mr. Messer
Surely the words that the Minister has read out disposes of that point. If the language that was used by him means anything, it means that women will not be under any obligation to use weapons unless they have already given their consent, but that does not mean they cannot use them in circumstances such as those mentioned by the hon. Lady.

§ Mr. Bevin
I am trying to deal with the obligations of a woman under the Bill, and they do not put her under an obligation to use weapons unless there is a second act on her part. That is the act of enrolment in those particular units which use lethal weapons. In order to do that she will be given a form on which she will signify her willingness to serve in those units. That is really how it will work, and it will safeguard the great feeling in the country that women who have been called up for service will not be put willynilly into combatant units.

§ Mr. Mander
May I ask for a little information with regard to the definition of "lethal weapons"? I understand that on the gun sites women are not being asked to handle lethal weapons at all. I understand that a lethal weapon is something that is fired. There are other things, of which I will not say anything more, 1725 in manipulating which women do play their part. Does the term "lethal weapons" apply to the apparatus associated with the gun?

§ The Joint Under-Secretary of State for War (Sir Edward Grigg)
The words of the suggested Amendment are: to use any lethal weapon or to take part in the actual use of any lethal weapon. I think that covers any anti-aircraft activity. I should like to assure my hon. Friend that this form is given only to those women who wish to undertake this kind of work. The women are free not to do it unless they signify their willingness in writing. All that we are doing is to remove compulsion in this particular Service.

§ Mr. Harvey
In view of the Minister's statement and the friendly way in which the Government have endeavoured to meet the point of view put forward in the Amendment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.

§ Dr. Edith Summerskill (Fulham, West)
I beg to move, in page 3, line 4, to leave out "a married woman or".
My object in moving the Amendment is to remove certain inequalities which I feel exist in the Bill: If we leave out these words, it means that all married women with children are exempted from service, but it will ensure that every childless married woman will have her case considered on its merits. All of us are agreed that women with children and heavy household responsibilities should be exempted, but the case of the childless wife is different. We have been told by the Minister that the wives of the men in the Services should not be called upon. On the face of it that is a generous concession, for we fully appreciate what the homes mean to the men in the Services. I ask the Minister, however, to examine the real position. The wife of a man in the ranks cannot live on 25s. a week, and she is, therefore, not protected by the Government. The very fact that the wife without a child has a meagre allowance means that she has no protection. Her home is not safeguarded, and, therefore, she has been conscripted into the Services or industry already. I cannot see how this Bill protects her in the least. We have not tried to safeguard her home or to look 1726 after her or the man who is fighting for her, and I cannot see, therefore, how it is logical to say that this Bill will protect her and her home. It does protect the childless wife who is already fairly well protected, because she has a sufficiency of this world's goods or can live in a reception area with her independent parents. The poor childless wife is forced to work, and this Bill does not protect her. The man in the Services cannot write to his wife and say, "Do not go into industry or the Auxiliary Forces." He knows she has got to, because she cannot survive without doing so. The Bill, however, protects the wife who is comfortably off. This is an inequality which cannot be justified and which the Amendment would remove.

§ Viscountess Astor (Plymouth, Sutton)
The Minister has said that' this is a concession to the serving man. If, however, the Government were so keen to meet his feelings, they would not have needed to be pressed so hard to give increased dependants' allowances, and they would not have put in that iniquitous thing about unmarried wives. That one mistake on the part of the Government at the beginning of the war has done more to break up real homes than almost anything else. I could give the House many instances.
What is a home? It is not a place where somebody sits waiting all the time. If a woman has children she is fully occupied. I could show the Minister thousands of letters on the subject of women without children, and they would prove to him what unfairness is likely to exist among the other women. What a nuisance women without children may become. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has any sons, but nobody's sons will be safe if, by marrying a young fellow, a woman will be able to avoid the Services. Far from breaking up homes, this will cause the most miserable homes to be created.

§ Mr. Messer
I understood the Noble Lady to say that women were all rushing to go into the Services.

§ Viscountess Astor
The more I see of war the more I realise that class distinctions are not very important. The things that really matter in people have nothing to do with class. Homes have nothing to do with class. I am tired of hearing 1727 about class legislation. I am not talking to the Minister about any class, but about women. You have to face things as they are, and you see that courage, endurance and sacrifice are not characteristic of any particular class. We talk about injustice and about breaking up homes, but has the Minister any idea of the feelings of a man serving in the Forces against those who work in protected trades? A man in a protected trade brings home more money in a week than the wife of a serving soldier gets in a month. That makes for the most tremendous discontent in many homes. If the Minister would adopt our proposal he would take away a great grievance. It does not need many pebbles in your boot to make you feel miserable; this one matter is going to cause a lot of trouble. I wish the Minister understood women as much as he understood his dockers; women would then get a fair deal. I like the way he stood up for his people. He has done great things. I hope he will take my advice. Let him take advice from old married women and grandmothers, and reconsider this question of the home. The Government talk about breaking up homes, but if they were so interested in that matter they would take a little more interest in the question of uncontrolled drinking.

The Deputy-Chairman
I must remind the Noble Lady that we are not discussing the home or uncontrolled drinking, but the question of married women.

§ Viscountess Astor
The Government gave it as their argument that this proposal would break up homes. I did not start it. It was the Minister himself. If the Government were really interested in the homes—

The Deputy-Chairman
That argument must not be developed.

§ Viscountess Astor
I have no intention of developing it. I ask the. Minister please to take our advice and to let us have our Amendment.

§ Mr. Bevin
I always pay very great attention to women's advice, but I have always drawn a distinction between the women who have given me advice, so that I could give due weight to the importance of what was submitted. In this matter we have been carrying out direction orders, 1728 not as uniform practice, but having regard, even in a childless home, to the position of the man, his occupation and all sorts of things. The matter has been administered with very great care. If I were to put this Amendment into the Bill, it would not help me later to escape the consequences to say that I had taken the advice of the Noble Lady. I do not think it would be the right decision. On the question of class distinction, there is no distinction in the Bill as concerns married women between the wife of a soldier or of an officer. Both are left to volunteer for the Services and both are equally subject to direction to industry. This charge of drawing a class distinction between the officer's wife and the soldier's wife does not hold water. Both of them are in the same position. Both are subject to direction to industry if they do not volunteer for the Forces. I therefore ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

§ Mrs. Tate (Frome)
It would be a very great pity if the impression were created that large numbers of women may attempt to avoid service. I do not think that is a true picture. A number of women are married to men in the Forces who have a comfortable portion of this world's goods. The husbands may be stationed in parts of the country which are not near any munitions factory. In that case, will the wives be directed to industry? If not, a very serious injustice will be created. The Minister says that the wives of men in the Forces can be directed into industry; what happens if they follow their husbands from station to station, and are in areas where there is no industry to which they could be directed? I want an assurance that such women, in those circumstances, will be directed either on to the land or to some other full-time war service.

§ Mr. Bevin
Certainly I can give that assurance. If there is no industry in the district there is always the land, and I must get more people for the land. We do not intend to leave them idle and I do not think they would wish to remain idle. I gave some figures yesterday, showing that about 250,000 had been transferred from non-essential industries whereas about 750,000 had been unoccupied or had come from domestic service. Obviously there must be a large proportion of women who normally do not engage in any occupation.

§ Mr. R. Morgan (Stourbridge)
At the end of Clause 3 there is a reference to a married woman or a woman who has living with her a child of hers under the age of 14. I would like to ask what is the position of the illegitimate child.

The Deputy-Chairman
This Amendment relates to the children of married women only.

§ Miss Rathbone
I wish my right hon. Friend would realise that those of us who have put our names to this Amendment have really regarded this problem In a very practical spirit. Unlike every other Amendment on the Order Paper, this Amendment seeks to give him more powers than he asks for, so we hardly deserve the remark he made to the effect that he considered suggestions according to whether the people who made them were worth listening to or not. I -do not think any of us ignore the importance of the argument he put forward yesterday that there is a tremendous feeling amongst men in the Armed Forces against the calling-up of their wives. Public opinion, when it comes from that sort of source— the men on whom our safety depends— must be listened to. But if this Amendment were accepted we do not for a moment suggest that there would be a general calling-up of married women. The Minister could call up no married women at all if he liked, or no women married to men in the Forces, but he could call up, by Regulation and without binding, himself to come to the House, married women who have no children, no settled home, or are not married to serving, men. We think that is going unnecessarily far, and it is objectionable inasmuch as governments must always remember that they have not only to do justice but to seem to do justice. There has been a good deal of criticism from unmarried women who have far more serious obstacles to being called up than thousands of married women, and who find that this complete exemption from the obligation of service on the part of married women is altogether unfair. If the right hon. Gentleman would accept this Amendment he would not be obliged to fly in the face of the opinion of men in the Services who do not want their wives to be called up, but he would be able to manipulate his labour force as much as he likes and would be free, if he did not get sufficient volunteers from the married women, 1730 gradually to increase the intake whilst still doing justice to every married woman who has any sort of case for exclusion from service.

§ Mr. R. J. Taylor (Morpeth)
In regard to soldiers' wives who are to be directed into industry instead of being called up, there is one point in opposition to the idea put forward by the lady Members to-day.

The Deputy-Chairman
This Bill only calls up married women for industry. It does not call them up for the Services and industrial service is surely dealt with separately.

§ Mr. Messer
I wish to oppose the Amendment, and I think it is only right that a mere man should do so. I think the Government have done the wise thing in responding to what obviously is the desire of the Forces. I am speaking as one who has had representations from men in the Services to the effect that while they are doing what is expected of them it would be asking too much from them if their wives were called up just because they have no children at the moment. I cannot quite understand the argument about justice in this matter. As a matter of fact, if we were to attempt to wage this war on the lines of justice all of us ought to be doing very much more than we are doing. I am not so sure that we have been able to get anything like a just response from every individual in regard to his or her particular obligations. My own view is that every member of the community owes service to the community, and I should be glad if I could be assured that everybody is rendering a measure of service. I am not going to say that it should be armed service; service in the social life of the community should be demanded of everybody, and no one should be able to take refuge behind wealth or position.

§ Viscountess Astor
Or their husbands.

§ Mr. Messer
Or their husbands, if you like, but so far as the membership of this House is concerned I have not seen any lady Member who would be likely to take refuge behind her husband. Rather are they of the character of those whose husbands would take refuge behind them. But whatever may be said about the Government's breaking-up of homes, is it not an absolute fact that if the 1731 women are taken into the Army when the men are in the Army there is no home left? As a consequence, when a man comes home on leave he has to spend his leave with his own parents or with his "in-laws," and his wife has to do the same. When at the end of the war there is an attempt to resume normal home life—and in my view home life is the most important thing in this country —what sort of opportunities will these people have? They are married, and there would be some sort of anchorage if one of them were left in the home, and I hope the Government will resist any attempt to interfere with that. It has been said that even if this is put in the Bill it does not prevent the Government from refraining from taking these women, or from laying down whatever conditions they like, such as saying that wives of serving men are exempt. But imagine what the feeling of the country will be when it just does not know what is going to happen. The country has a right to know what the Government's intentions are on an important matter of this description. I am glad the Minister has taken this step, and I want to assure him that he has widespread support behind him in this matter.

§ Miss Rathbone
I beg to move, in page 3, line 4, after the first "woman," to insert: (other than a wife who has no living child and is separated from her husband by a court order or without such an order habitually lives apart from him). This Amendment is such a simple one and so plainly just that I really hope that the Minister will at last be able to accept a suggestion put from the back benches. What is the sense of extending an exemption, not extended to a single woman, to a woman merely because she has a husband if she is permanently separated from him and has no living child? To all intents and purposes her position is that of a single woman. It seems quite unreasonable to extend this exemption to her. I have tried to think what obstacle might prevent the Minister accepting this Amendment. I can only imagine one possible obstacle. He may say that it would be difficult in practice to ascertain which women are, in fact, permanently separated from their husbands. I do not 1732 think that can be true of those who hold separation orders or judicial separation orders granted by any legal court because the courts themselves can presumably supply lists of names. The only kind of separated wife whom it might be difficult to pick out would be the woman actually, but not legally, separated The worst that could happen then would be that a certain number of such women would in fact be exempted from conscription, though still subject to the requirements of calling-up for industry. The advantage would be that you would get rid of an anomaly by reason of which it could be said, "How absurd; there is Mrs. So-and-so who has been separated from her husband for years and has no children but is exempted, whereas So-and-so (a single woman) living under much harder conditions, is called up."
The Committee must remember that a Government must not only do justice but must seem to do justice. As I am making this proposal in relation to separated wives, I may say that I do not think there is a single Member in the House who has paid more attention to trying to protect separated wives than I have. There are three Acts on the Statute Book which relate to their protection which were promoted and initiated by me, two of them before I was a Member of this House, so that I know something about the subject. It is rather anomalous, after I have so often to plead here for greater protection for separated wives, that I am now urging the removal of a proposal to give these wives a form of protection which is quite unnecessary and could be avoided with no great trouble. The change would make the Bill seem more rational and just to those who are affected by it.

§ Mrs. Tate
I hope that the Government will accept this Amendment. I do not think that in practice it would be as difficult to administer as might be feared, because undoubtedly they would get a great deal of information if there were women in this position who tried to evade service. Whatever are the arguments in favour of exempting the married wives of serving men when they have homes which will be broken up, no argument of that kind can support the exemption from service of a woman who, although married, has not been making a home with, or for, her husband for an appreciable time, or 1733 who is separated from him. I should like the Minister to tell me whether under this Bill a woman who has been divorced counts as a married or a single woman. I think that is an important point. In actual law, I suppose that a woman who has been divorced, or has divorced her husband, is a married woman, but I wish to know whether, under this Bill, she is married or single. I sincerely hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.

§ Viscountess Astor
I think it is important that the Government should pay attention to this. The hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone) knows more about this than anybody on the Front Bench. Really, it is a. little tiresome to have men sit there and pay no attention.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Assheton)
I think the point which has been made by the hon. Lady is a perfectly good point, and the Government wish to meet it. The words proposed by the hon. Lady are not words which we could accept just as they are, for one or two technical reasons. I do not think it would be practicable for the Government to expect officers of the Ministry of Labour to be able to ascertain whether or not a woman was living apart from her husband, except in cases where there is an order. If she will agree, at a later stage we will put down an Amendment which will be in something like these terms: To insert after the first 'woman' the words 'not living apart from her husband under a decree or order of any Court'. I think that substantially meets the point she made. Regarding the point made by the hon. Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) I can assure her that the woman who has been divorced, if the decree has been made absolute, becomes a single woman for the purposes of this Bill, just as a widow is a single woman.

§ Dr. Peters (Huntingdon)
I wish to support the Amendment. I was glad to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary said, because I wish to point out, after being in the law for some 40 years, that if you are going to deal with these people in the way in which the Parliamentary Secretary has just suggested you cannot stop short at merely decrees in the High Court or by magistrates. There are 1734 literally thousands of cases of separation by deed and agreement. These people can as easily produce their documents or their agreements as they can produce their court orders. If the Government are going to consider accepting an Amendment on the lines suggested they should see whether it cannot be arranged to cover those separated by arrangement or deed.

§ Mr. Silverman (Nelson and Colne)
I want to speak in support of the suggestion which has just been made. I agree that it would be altogether too much to expect the Department to ascertain whether people were habitually living apart, but there is a large class of people living apart by agreement, who have, very naturally, avoided getting a court order, there being no necessity for them to do so. Their agreement is in writing, and the document could be easily obtained and that class might be included.

§ Mr. Assheton
There is a difficulty about accepting that suggestion. We are providing, by this Clause, that separated women shall no longer be exempt from this liability. It will be difficult for the officers of the Ministry of Labour to be aware of such documents. I see no alternative but to rely upon decrees and orders of the court.

§ Dr. Peters
When my hon. Friend comes to administer the Bill, he will find just the same difficulties.

§ The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams)
We are getting rather wide of the Amendment. I think we had better keep to the actual terms of the Amendment.

§ Miss Rathbone
In view of the promise which has been given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment; but I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider the suggestions which have been brought forward.

§ Miss Rathbone
I beg to move, in page 3, line 4, to leave out from the first "woman," to the end of the Clause.
This is a rather more drastic Amendment. The point is to exclude from the statutory exemption an unmarried woman who, according to the Clause, is now to 1735 be exempted merely because she has an adopted child or an illegitimate child. It seems rather dangerous to exempt a woman on those grounds. Do not imagine that this Amendment is produced in a spirit of Phariseeism, or out of a desire to drop upon any woman merely because she has an illegitimate child. If this Amendment is accepted, the Minister will be under no obligation to call up a woman with an illegitimate or adopted child, but he will be, equally, under no obligation to exempt her. I fear that the provision in the Clause, as it stands, will give rather a shock to public opinion, and will lead to illegitimate children being brought into the world and to children being adopted because women wish to avoid being called up. Everybody who has had anything to do with illegitimate children knows that the kind of woman who has produced or is likely to produce illegitimate children, is, usually, of very weak mental powers. Such a woman may get rather panicky at the thought of being called up for the Armed Forces, and may invite seduction by some likely man. I am afraid the courts will have a busy time seeing that children are adopted by the right sort of parents, for the right sort of reasons, if people believe that by adopting children they will be precluded from being called up. If this Amendment is accepted, women with illegitimate or adopted children can be dealt with by the hardship tribunals, without the Minister being pinned down by Statute in a way which seems likely to bring about illegitimacy and the adoption of children merely for the purpose of avoiding military service.

§ Mr. Assheton
I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment. I must remind the House that it is in the interests of the child, rather than in the interests of the mother, that this provision is made. We have to look after the interests of the illegitimate child just as much as those of the legitimate child. On the question of the adopted child, there is a point which will arise on an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate). When that Amendment is called I hope that we shall be able to make a suggestion which will meet the point of the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone).

§ Mr. Mander
I understand that an Amendment in my name is covered by the Amendment now before the Committee, and I propose to say something about it. It seems to me that the Clause is not as satisfactorily worded as it might be. What you will really have to consider is whether a woman has living with her a child for whom she is personally responsible, no matter whether the child is legitimate or illegitimate, adopted or otherwise. You will have cases of women looking after several evacuated children, and so doing most valuable work, and of women in charge of nursery schools. They have quite as good grounds for exemption as those women who would come under the Clause as it stands. I ask my hon. Friend whether he does not think that the words personally responsible for the care of a child living with her cover the whole purpose of the Clause better than the lengthy and more technical wording which is used?

§ Mr. Assheton
I am afraid that the words that the hon. Member suggests are not' sufficiently precise for us to accept them. The hardship committees will look after cases such as those he has in mind.

§ Miss Rathbone
I am rather struck by the extraordinary, almost exaggerated, confidence that hon. Members seem to have in all women. I am a great believer in my sex, but the proposal of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) staggered me. Do hon. Members not realise that while those slackers among women are a small minority, such people do exist? The woman may be a particularly unfit person to look after the child. Very often the mother of an illegitimate child is a far better person to do this than having the child put to someone else. The mere fact of including an illegitimate, adopted or an evacuee child would exempt all the most worthless women of the country from military service.

§ Mr. Mander
You would have to have a date put in, obviously.

§ Miss Rathbone
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mrs. Tate
I beg to move, in page 3, line 8, after "otherwise," to insert: 1737 prior to the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-one. The Amendment is a simple one, to ensure that no one should adopt a child for the purpose of evading service. It is very important that there should be a definite date, and, while I am moving the Amendment, I wish to ask the Minister what the words "or otherwise" mean in the Bill where it says: including a stepchild, adopted child (whether adopted under the Adoption of Children Act. 1926, the Adoption of Children (Scotland) Art. 1930, or otherwise). It is most important, if we are to safeguard the interests of the children, that they should be adopted legally and properly. It is the only way in which you can safeguard their interests. If the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) had been moved and accepted, it would have brought in a class of women whom we most want to eradicate—the unsatisfactory foster mother. She was inadequately inspected before the war, and I cannot believe that she is being better inspected now. I want to ensure absolutely that no one should adopt a child for the purpose of evading service, and therefore I suggest that some date ought to be put into the Bill.

§ Mr. Assheton
This is a point of considerable substance, and we certainly want to meet the wishes of the hon. Lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate). I suggest that she should withdraw the Amendment in the terms in which she put it down and allow the Government to put down, either on the Report stage or in another place, whichever is convenient, an Amendment to the Bill providing that a woman shall not be exempt by virtue of this Sub-section from being called up for service by reason only that she has an adopted child of hers under 14 living with her if the adoption took place after the date of the passing of the Bill. I think that that would meet the point of the hon. Lady.

§ Mr. Pethick-Lawrence (Edinburgh, East)
Do I understand that there is to be no date with regard to other parts of this provisional exemption? Is there to be no date fixed for marriage or any of those things, or is the question of the adoption of a child to stand alone? Can a woman get married at any time after the passing of the Bill?

§ Mr. Stephen
Surely, you are not going to stop them from getting married?

§ Mrs. Tate
While thanking the Minister sincerely for the spirit he has shown in accepting my Amendment, he has omitted two words which I was rather willing to see included, namely, the words "or illegitimate." It would be a good thing to regard the cases of women who have illegitimate children in the future on their merits and not to lay it down that every mother of an illegitimate child is of necessity exempted. I do not in the least wish to be hard or unsympathetic or to make any censure in any way on the mother of an illegitimate child, but such cases should be examined on their merits. No one who has visited the mental colonies or the mental hospitals of our country fails to note the very tragic cases of women who come into these hospitals sometimes.

§ The Temporary Chairman
I do not think that we can discuss the question of the illegitimate child on this particular Amendment.

§ Mrs. Tate
I do not know exactly how one can go into the question of the illegitimate child except on an Amendment where the illegitimate child is specifically mentioned. It is a little hard to rule it out.

§ The Temporary Chairman
It is my duty to decide the right time when to go into that question.

§ Mr. R. Morgan
I was stopped a short time ago from raising the same point, because the Deputy-Chairman said that it could arise on the Amendment to be moved by the hon. Lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate). The question which has agitated some minds and which has been referred to by the hon. Lady the Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone) was whether it would be possible for a girl who was called up to evade service by deliberate illegitimacy. There is a point that I would like cleared up. I think the Amendment of the hon. Lady the Member for Frome which requires a date to be put in would cover all the doubts of the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities and other hon. Members.

§ The Temporary Chairman
The Committee must keep to the actual words here, but any further point can be discussed on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

§ Mr. Pritt (Hammersmith, North)
The Minister in charge of the Bill at the moment has suggested a proviso no doubt prepared by the draftsmen, and I do not like to criticise people in their absence, but why provide a long sentence in the form of a proviso which ought not to be a proviso in order to achieve an object which is quite simple? It is to the effect that an adopted child should not, so to speak, exempt its adopted mother, unless the adoption has taken place before the passing of the Act. You do not want a long proviso which necessitates keeping up the printer half the night in these times to print it. I would ask him to keep his eye instead on the words "adopted child," and that he should simply add the words "adopted before the passing of this Act." That is all you want.

§ Mr. Mander
Will the Minister deal with the point that the hon. Lady asked him about, namely, the meaning of the word "otherwise"?

§ Mr. Assheton
With regard to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt), I will certainly have a word with the draftsman. Perhaps an Amendment in another place can be incorporated in these terms. On the question of the words "or otherwise," I do not think that the point made by the hon. Lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) needs answering once the date is inserted.

§ Mr. Mander
I would ask the Minister for the meaning of the word "or otherwise" in the Bill. Surely he is able to state what the Bill means, and will he be good enough to inform the Committee what it does mean?

§ Mr. Assheton
With pleasure.

§ The Temporary Chairman
I think that this can better be done on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." Does the hon. Lady the Member for Frome wish to withdraw the Amendment?

§ Mrs. Tate
In view of the Minister's accommodating spirit, I have pleasure in asking for leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ The Temporary Chairman
The next Amendment I intend to call is that stand- 1740 ing in the name of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) and other hon. Members, and I think it will be convenient if we discuss the next two Amendments on the Paper at the same time.

§ Mr. Gallacher
I beg to move, in page 3, line 9, at the end, to add: or the unmarried sister of a serving soldier, sailor or airman, who is responsible for maintaining a home while her brother is on service, or an unmarried woman who is maintaining a home for aged parents. I would like to say, in connection with this Amendment, that in the old days, which are gone never to return, every Tory speaker was in the habit of declaring that Socialism would destroy the homes of this country. Well, we have not got Socialism, but homes certainly have been destroyed in very many cases. There are great areas where there are no homes left and from which men, women and children have been sent to various places. Everyone is prepared to testify to the desirability of maintaining the homes of the people of this country. Of course, some Members of this House have not much idea of what is home life. From the moment their children are born they are handed over to nurses, and as soon as they are of school age they are sent to schools where they are fed, clothed and educated. Their mothers do not often see them or trouble about them. There are great social gatherings in great country houses, yet there is little knowledge, so far as Members on the other side of the House are concerned, of what is actual home life.

§ Viscountess Astor
They get it in Russia, I suppose?

Mr. Gailacher
I am talking about home life in this country. Members on this side of the House have a very wide experience of home life of the people, but Members on the other side have not the slightest idea.

§ The Temporary Chairman
I do not think we ought to get in a discussion on the home life of various sections of the community. I am sure the hon. Member will address his remarks to the actual Amendment. We do not want a wide discussion on this line.

§ Mr. Gallacher
I quite agree with you, Mr. Williams, because there seems to be 1741 some objection on the other side to the simple truths I have expounded. However, everyone knows that we must do everything possible to preserve the home life of this country, and this Amendment is directed towards that end. I know of sisters of soldiers whose whole life so far has been given over to the care of younger members of the family after, perhaps, both parents have died. It must be understood that any harshness in dealing with their cases does not merely affect the woman who is keeping the home; it also affects the area in which she lives and her brothers in the Army. A great supporter of the Government at a co-operative conference a month ago proved himself to be one of the most bitter enemies of the Government because of the harshness of the treatment of his family by a particular Department. The women I am talking about often maintain the home for aged parents, and as the family grows up the tendency is for most of the responsibility to fall on her shoulders. Sons are quite content to leave the burden of looking after the old folk to these women. If these women are called up, the home is finished, and there is no possibility of the old folk being cared for. That is a very undesirable thing.
The Minister should be ready to make special provision for them. I have heard much recently about releasing men from work which women can do, and I have also heard much about the necessity for constituencies being properly represented. I suggest that if some Members do not attend the House, women should take their place. I am quite certain they would do much better at representing the constituencies of some hon. Members. To come back to the point of my Amendment, it is important to make a decision about this matter in relation to the care of children, the old folk and the home. Everything possible should be done to assist those who are left when men have been called up. These women should be excluded from the provisions of the Bill.

§ Mr. James Griffiths (Llanelly)
I gathered from your remarks, Mr. Williams, that while we were discussing this Amendment we can also discuss the following Amendment, and I want if I may to express the hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will make, if possible, a clear statement on this question. During the last two or three years we have had wide 1742 experience of the home life of this country. One Measure which we passed—that dealing with supplementary old age pensions—revealed to us an enormous amount of new knowledge about the great variety of home life in the country. There are many different circumstances and hard cases, such as those mentioned in the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), and there are others. I know that by inserting specific words some cases may be excluded. I presume that these cases will go to the hardship tribunals and be considered on their merits. If so, I urge on the Minister that when instructions or guidance are sent to these tribunals, they should be told that these cases ought to receive sympathetic consideration. In some of these cases, there is very great hardship. If girls are taken from homes in which there is somebody who depends upon them, it will become increasingly difficult to find other women to do the job. This Measure will make it very difficult. At the present time, the hardship tribunals do not grant postponement in these cases except for a maximum period of 12 months

§ Mr. Assheton
That is only in the case of business hardship, and not domestic hardship. I have announced already that my right hon. Friend proposes to reconsider the case of business hardship.

§ Mr. Griffiths
Then I take it that the hardship tribunals will be entitled to grant complete exemption in these cases as long as the girl remains in the home and performs that service. I hope the Minister will be able to make a statement on this matter which will give an assurance that there will be no hardship of this sort imposed.

§ Dr. Summerskill
I wish to support the Amendment. I feel that if the Government are consistent in the policy they have outlined of protecting the homes of the serving men, they will accept this Amendment. Surely, they will not distinguish between the married man and the single man. I think that possibly the sentiments of "Home, Sweet Home" appeal to a married sailor and a single sailor alike. When the single man thinks of home, he envisages a small home which has perhaps been cared for by an unmarried sister for many years. Perhaps the spinster sister may have sacrificed 1743 more during those years than a young bride would have done and, therefore, her case should be considered very sympathetically. As regards aged parents, if in this war we are going to recognise that certain homes are to have special protection, regard must be paid to the homes of the old people and the old-age pensioners. We all know of the single daughter who has perhaps sacrificed all her chances of matrimony—matrimony which, by the way, would have exempted her from service—in order to care for her aged parents. Because she has sacrificed these things she is now to be conscripted. I feel that she should be given very special consideration.

§ Viscountess Astor
I hope the Minister will accept the Amendment. In these cases there is one of the reasons which have led me to feel from the very beginning that it is unfair to call up all unmarried women and allow all married women to go free. As married women are not to be conscripted, I think the Minister ought to accept the proposals that have been made in this Amendment and help the spinster women who have made these immense sacrifices in the home. It would be most unfair to call them up, and I hope the Minister will take the advice that has been given to him and which has not come from only one quarter.

§ Mr. Stephen
I wish to add to the appeals which have been made to the Minister. This is a very important Amendment, as hon. Members who have had the same experience as myself will agree. I have had many letters from soldiers who have invalid wives, and in many cases one has had to try to obtain compassionate leave or the release of men from the Army in view of the home difficulties. I think it is very necessary that some such provision should be inserted in the Bill. Consideration should be given to cases where a person, who is over 14 years of age, requires special care in the home. As hon. Members know, this has never been properly taken into account. There will be many cases which will arise under this Bill, and I hope that the Minister will be able to make a concession in this respect.

§ Mr. Assheton
My right hon. Friend has made it clear from the start that he intends this question of hardship to be 1744 dealt with extremely carefully. I hope the Committee will agree that it would be very difficult to deal with cases of exceptional hardship by enumerating them in the Bill. I could give the Committee a number of cases which are just as hard as the examples mentioned in the two Amendments. I am quite certain that we should leave cases of this sort to the exceptional hardship procedure where it will be possible to give the most careful consideration to each individual case. The Committee would be unwise to put the matter on any other basis. In reply to the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), under the present regulations there is no limitation of 12 months in cases of domestic hardship, and the limitation in the case of business hardship is about to be reconsidered by the Minister.

§ Mrs. Tate
I do not think that anything in the world could have more happily illustrated the incredible inconsistency of the Government than the speech which has just been made. The Parliamentary Secretary states that each case will be examined on its merits. May I ask what possible argument can be brought forward to support the unmarried woman having her case examined on its merits only, while the married woman is to be exempt just because she is married? It is obvious what is the reason for this. It is not merely pressure from the Forces; it is because of the desire of men to uphold the belief that every possible form of suffering has been removed from the married woman. I congratulate the Government on their amazing attitude.

Mr. McNeil
Speaking as a married man, I should be very ungrateful if I did not acknowledge what the hon. Lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) has just said. I am very doubtful on this question of limitation. My impression is that hardship tribunals have consistently laid it down that deferments cannot, at any one time, be granted for longer than six months, and, in total, for a period exceeding 12 months. We accept the hon. Gentleman's assurance, but I should like to have this point cleared up. The hardship tribunals have made it quite clear up to date that they are only competent to deal—[Interruption.] I am quite aware that the Noble Lady is not very much troubled with hardship.

§ The Temporary Chairman
I think we must keep off any intimate details.

Mr. McNeil
The hardship tribunals up to date have made it clear that it does not come within their competence to discuss a permanent circumstance justifying postponement. They have said that, if there is no evidence that a case will be solved by an extension of time, it is not relevant to discuss it before the tribunal at all. In the case, for instance, of a temporary illness I have found the tribunals exceedingly willing and helpful. They have said, "Come back in three or six months." But both these Amendments are designed to cover permanent circumstances—for instance, an aged or a chronically infirm woman. I should like a direction from the hon. Gentleman on these points.

§ Mr. Viant (Willesden, West)
I was rather hoping that the Parliamentary Secretary would be prepared to accept the Amendment, though I agree that there may be difficulties. As he is unable to accept it, I think the Committee would like to have some idea as to the guidance that is to be given to hardship committees. On one occasion I had to correspond with the Department in a case where a young man in my constituency was being called to the Army. His aged mother was an invalid, and he had to attend to her requirements. He was in every sense of the word a nurse to her apart from his working hours.

§ The Temporary Chairman
This question of hardship has really gone very much too far. We are deciding only the question of women. We cannot have a series of illustrations of hardship cases, including men, on a very narrow Amendment.

§ Mr. Viant
I am dealing with the Amendment, and I am quoting a case even of a man who was playing the part invariably played by a daughter.

§ The Temporary Chairman
I accept that as an illustration, but I do not think it would be right for the Committee to have a long series of illustrations of this kind.

§ Mr. Viant
I only put it to show the necessity of some real guidance being given to the hardship committees. Unless some guidance is given, I fear, from my own experience, that the Committee would be unwise not to pass the Amendment. It is imperative that we should 1746 give some safeguard to those women who have to care for aged parents.

§ Mr. Gallacher
I should like to get something more definite from the Minister on this question. It is such an important matter and can have far-reaching effects among the friends and neighbours of the women and among the associates of the lads in the Army. I do not like the suggestion that these women are being treated differently from married women who are supposed to be kept free from trouble. In the class to which I belong the married women have to bear all the troubles and it would be a good holiday for them if they were to be put into the Forces. They are not the delicate blooms we see in the House. [Interruption.] I withdraw it then. I would like to ask the Minister whether he can put words in the Bill or make a statement that a particular instruction will be given to hardship committees to give special consideration to such cases and that where a claim is made good complete exemption should be given as long as the conditions obtained.

§ Mr. Assheton
May I reply to the hon. Lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate), who said that I could not think of any reason to justify what the Minister was doing? I can assure her that I can think of many reasons. One of the principal reasons is that there are two and a half million married women, the great majority of whose cases would have to go to the hardship committees if they were not exempt. It would be almost impossible for the committees to deal with applications on such a large scale. I hope that the Committee realises the Minister's anxiety to do all that is possible to meet this hardship difficulty. These committees are specially set up to deal with cases of hardship, and if we were to attempt to enumerate in the Bill various classes of cases of hardship we should find ourselves in difficulties.

§ Mr. Gallacher
Could not special consideration be given to domestic hardship?

§ Mr. Assheton
Under the present system there is no limit to the amount of postponement which the tribunals can give in a case of domestic hardship. If there have been cases where the period has been limited it is because the committee has thought it reasonable to limit it. If, on 1747 the other hand, the committee thinks it right not to limit the period of postponement it does not limit it. The Minister has power to make Regulations which will govern the principle of hardship. The Committee can rely upon the hardship committees to carry out their duties as justly and fairly as they have done in the past. I think there has been great satisfaction throughout the country at the way in which these committees have carried out their work.

§ Mr. J. Griffiths
It is difficult to put certain cases into an Act of Parliament without excluding all the others. Our impression is that there is an umpire's decision which is accepted by the committees and which was laid down by the umpire about the 12 months, to cover applications for postponement because of employment or business reasons. If our fears are found to be well grounded, will the Minister consider this provision afresh and make it open for hardship committees to judge these cases under the new Measure, without that 12 months' provision?

§ Mr. Bevin
Yesterday I gave an assurance that, in any case I was reviewing, the 12 months provision would not be taken into account. My intention is that the 12 months provision shall go in any case. As to an umpire's award, I do not remember it, and I have never come across it. I gave an assurance yesterday I would review the whole of the 12 months situation, so perhaps hon. Members will let me take it in my stride.

Mr. McNeil
Will the Minister give me an assurance that he will not exclude permanent circumstances?

§ Mr. Bevin
In so far as any circumstances are permanent.

§ Mr. Gallacher
In view of the statement which has been made I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Bevin
I beg to move, in page 3, line 9, at the end to add: (4) No woman who is called up for service under the principal Act shall be required actually to use any lethal weapon or to take part in the actual use of any lethal weapon unless she has signified in writing her willingness to use lethal weapons or, as the case may be, to take part in the use thereof.

§ Mr. Harvey
I should like to thank the Government very much for this Amendment, which will give great satisfaction in many circles.

§ Mr. J. Griffiths
I have been asked to put a point to the Minister and to ask for a reply. In the Schedule is a list of organisations, members of which are exempt from liability to be called up. What I want to ask the Minister is whether this is a list of organisations in which women are fully employed or whether they are organisations which accept women as part-time volunteers? The question is put because information is given to us that in some parts of the country—

§ The Temporary Chairman
I think we must leave that until the Schedule.

§ Mrs. Tate
When we have passed this Clause we shall have passed one of the most revolutionary Measures ever adopted in this country as far as women are concerned, and I think, in view of one or two of the speeches made in the Committee yesterday, that it is imperative that a few words should be said about the Auxiliary Territorial Service, which is the Service into which women who are conscripted under this Clause will in the main be drafted, as there is a larger number of vacancies in that Service than in any other. I think the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) made a most—

§ The Temporary Chairman
We had a very full discussion on this matter yesterday. Obviously, if the hon. Lady wishes to raise one or two points, that would be possible, but we cannot have another very full discussion on exactly the same lines as we have already had.

§ Mrs. Tate
May I be allowed to say that we were told that we should not pay attention to the rumours which go around the country about the A.T.S.? I do not believe that attention should be paid to rumours, but I think it is a great pity that people do not take the time to find out the truth. I am going to give two examples which are far more than rumours. They are definite, written allegations about the A.T.S., and with the 1749 allegations I shall give the actual truth of the story. An allegation was made that 60 A.T.S. girls were moved into a house in London with only one bath. The truth was that when the house was requisitioned there was only one bathroom in it. The owner went around saying that 60 women had been put into that house with only one bathroom, and he never troubled to find out that five additional bathrooms had been added to the house before the 60 girls were put in. Another allegation was that a large number of women had been sent home from the East, from the A.T.S., because they were pregnant. The number of women sent home from the A.T.S. in the East because they were pregnant is one, and she was a married woman. I have taken the trouble to make myself acquainted with the number of pregnancies and the number of cases of venereal disease in the three women's Services. They are so infinitesimal that they are scarcely believable, and I think it is a great tragedy that the country does not pay a greater tribute to the magnificent work done by women in all three Services and at the same time does not take a great deal more trouble to verify the facts before repeating these allegations. I can say from personal experience that the two women at the top of the Auxiliary Territorial Service will investigate, and do everything that can humanly be done to improve conditions in the Service, wherever complaints are brought to their notice. But you must verify statements and not repeat rumour.
Just one word more on this Clause. You are not only able, under this Clause, to draft women into the Auxiliary Territorial Service, but you are also able to draft them into the filling factories and into the Civil Defence Services. Before we pass this Clause, I would like the Minister to be kind enough to tell me how he justifies the drafting of women into the filling factories in dangerous areas, or into the Civil Defence Services, where they may come across the most dangerous conditions and suffer injury to life and limb, unless he is prepared to make representations to the Treasury that, if injured in such conditions, women should receive equal compensation with men for those injuries.

§ Mr. Harvey
I wish to ask for information from the Minister on two points: First, whether he would give the Com- 1750 mittee a little more explanation on the important point which was raised at Question time to-day with regard to the effect of this Measure on women students. I think it was very reassuring to know that in every case, as I understood him to say, they would be in the same position as that already accorded to men. I take it that that will mean that wherever there is a critical examination pending, there will be no interference with their student career previous to that critical examination. As regards students in general, would it be possible to make arrangements for part-time work such as in Auxiliary Nursing or similar training while they are continuing their university studies? I think that a little fuller explanation on that point would give great satisfaction, not only to students, but to parents and to the authorities at the universities.
The second point is, that I should be glad if the Minister would give an explanation as to the position under this Bill, when it becomes an Act, of members of religious orders, nuns, sisters of mercy and others who are under vows, religious workers who are undertaking whole-time religious work, deaconesses in the Church of England and the Methodist Church, and missionaries who are in some cases in this country on furlough, intending to go back, and whose societies wish them to go back, to their foreign work, but who are detained in this country temporarily because of the war. It would be of great value if we could have an assurance from the Minister on those points.

§ Viscountess Astor
I do hope the Minister will pay great attention to the question raised by the hon. Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate). I am sure he will see that it is really an unfair thing to conscript women for active service without equal compensation. I would also like to verify what the hon. Lady said about the A.T.S. Not only is it recently that they have looked into these grievances, but for over a year and a half. There has never been anything more villainous than the campaign against the morals and the state of women in the A.T.S. I went into it 12 months ago and found that it was most exaggerated. It came, not-from working women, but from some women who, as the hon. Lady said, do not want to go into the A.T.S. Many of them start these vile rumours about conditions which are not true.
1751 On this question of women students, I hope the Minister will think carefully. Someone who is instructing women students said to me the other day, "Let them be exempt until they have got their degrees; but some of them try to stay on to study dead languages and all that sort of things afterwards." She said that she was horrified at the number of people who wanted their daughters to stay on at their studies longer than they should. I do not want anyone, man or woman, in this House or outside, to get out of doing National Service. I am only sorry that the Minister did not go the whole way, and treat women as citizens, instead of as wives.

§ Mr. Stephen
In spite of the fact that the Minister has tried to meet opponents of the Measure to some extent, the Clause is still as repugnant to me as ever. This Clause brings about a revolution. I am absolutely hostile to that revolution, although there are other kinds of revolution that I could look forward to with much greater enthusiasm. If I do not go into the Division Lobby against this Clause, it will be only on the understanding that our opposition is just as great as to the other Clause against which we divided. We refrain from dividing only because of the smallness of our numbers, and to suit the convenience of the vast majority of the Committee.

§ Dr. Russell Thomas (Southampton)
I only want to ask one or two questions. I am not going to concern myself about the morals of the A.T.S., and I regret to see my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) was so hopelessly misrepresented, in the Press and elsewhere, after what he said yesterday. He said then that he had no intention of attacking the morals of the A.T.S., but only the physical conditions under which they lived. I want to refer to discipline in the A.T.S.

§ The Temporary Chairman
We cannot go into the question of discipline in the A.T.S. now.

§ Dr. Thomas
May I put it this way? Will the Minister see that these girls are called up in such a way that they will not have to face any of the domineering and bullying that they now have to undergo from the persons in charge of this organisation? I agree with the hon. 1752 Member for Springburn (Mrs. Hardie), who brought this matter up yesterday. I have seen, as she has, these masterful women—

§ The Temporary Chairman
The hon. Member has just said that he is referring to a speech on this matter yesterday, so it is certain that this question of discipline is out of Order now.

§ Dr. Thomas
In any case, I hope the Minister will bear in mind the burden of what I have already said. I think I have said enough. There is another matter, which has been brought to my notice by an outside body. Are we to take it that when these women return to civilian life they will be guaranteed reinstatement in their jobs, in the same way as reinstatement is guaranteed to men? I would like the Minister to bear that question particularly in mind. Many of these young women are very anxious about it.

§ Miss Rathbone
I agree with the hon. Member for Southampton (Dr. Thomas) that one of the questions most needing clearing up it that of reinstatement for these women after their service. I know that they are considering that point so I do not want to dwell upon it, nor do I want to say anything more on the vexed question of conditions, moral or otherwise, of the A.T.S., bearing in mind the suggestion I made the other day that, as there is much talk—most of it quite unjustified and some of it perhaps justified—it would be as well to appoint a small impartial committee to go into the matter.
The point about which I really rose to speak is to amplify what my colleague in the representation of the Combined English Universities said as to the need for a rather full statement about the position of women university students and students of technical colleges and so on under the Bill. It is really important that we should have some such statement. There was a Parliamentary Question to-day on the point, but my right hon. Friend said that the position of such students would be unchanged. Naturally, there is considerable anxiety among women who are university or training college students as to how the Bill will affect their position. Hitherto no university student has been called up, because she could not be conscripted and 1753 could not be called up for compulsory industrial service. These girls know that, as far as the men students are concerned, it depends upon the career for which the student is preparing, and that if he is a medical student or an engineering student, he is exempted, and in other cases it depends on whether the student is in his second or third year and so on. Naturally, the students and their parents keep writing to representatives of university constituencies to try to find out the exact situation. Are all students to be exempted, no matter what stage they have reached in their studies or what subjects they are taking, or is it to be, as in the case of men, that they will be allowed to finish their course if they have reached a certain stage in their studies? Will my right hon. Friend tell the Committee whether he will be prepared to make a definite statement as to where university students stand if I put down a Question next week, because there is really considerable anxiety about this matter?

§ Mr. Henderson Stewart (Fife, East)
May I be allowed to say a few words in the form of a personal explanation relating to some remarks that I made yesterday?

§ The Temporary Chairman
I think that the hon. Member's remarks were made on another Clause.

Mr. Stewart
The matter has a bearing on this Clause. Unfortunately, I was grossly misrepresented in the reports of some organs of the Press to-day and I merely want to repeat what I said yesterday—and I would like hon. Members to read my speech of yesterday—that nothing in the course of my remarks could possibly properly be interpreted as reflecting in the slightest degree or in fact as dealing in the slightest way, with the morals of the A.T.S. I was concerned solely with the living conditions under which they have to operate and I begged for an improvement of those conditions. I spoke with that object and that object only in mind and I stand by what I said.

§ Mr. Bevin
The first point put to me and which has been emphasised by the Members for the Combined Universities is the question of students. The position of women students under this Bill is not so acute as it is for men, because the men are called up at 18½. A good deal of 1754 difficulty will be avoided by the young women affected being above the age of 20. I cannot, however, make any definite statement about university students. I must be very careful to keep in the minds of the thousands of others affected the fact that I am not creating any position of privilege in this business. Everybody, it seems, is getting disturbed, but what I am prepared to do is what I have done in the case of apprentices. I will consider the case of students with university representatives, and I will try to arrive at a commonsense arrangement. I am not, however, prepared to give any definite pledges. Each case we have to deal with will be dealt with on its merits. With regard to the question of compensation, I do not think I ought to be saddled with that on this Bill.

§ Mrs. Tate
Oh, but—

§ Mr. Bevin
Now, now, be a good girl. With regard to compensation in factories—

§ The Temporary Chairman
I think we must keep off the question of compensation.

§ Mr. Bevin
Thank you, Mr. Williams. That is a great relief. I think that is the only effective point which has been raised, and I will now ask the Committee if they will be good enough to give assent to the Clause.

§ Mr. Harvey
Would the Minister deal with my point about nuns and sisters of mercy?

§ Mr. Bevin
They will have to be dealt with Departmentally. As with members of a variety of other religious organisations, I think we may be relied upon to apply common sense in dealing with these women. But anything I say here on religious questions must not be taken as giving any pledge or statutory right. Once one enters the realm of religion, there are so many roles one can play that it is difficult to decide which is the correct role to take.

Mr. McNeil
I want to make one point relating to my discussion with the Minister's secretary on the duration of certificates postponing service. I have taken the trouble to look up the Regulation issued by the Ministry of Labour. I have it here—No. 1541—and like the Scotsman the Minister chides me with being, I think I am quite right. No 1755 certificate is issued for any period exceeding six months at any one time, and no certificate can be issued, as I have suggested, for a period of more than 12 months in total. There is no specific extension for domestic hardship in the Regulation. Will the Minister assure us in reviewing the Regulations relating to hardship, as he promised he would, that the duration of postponement certificates is considered?

§ Mr. Bevin
I told the hon. Member.

§ Lieutenant Butcher (Holland-with-Boston)
I would be grateful if the Minister has made any decision with regard to the reinstatement of women in civil employment of women who are called to the Forces. Under the first National Service Act I think they have that specific right.

§ The Temporary Chairman
I think that is out of Order on this Clause.

§ Lieutenant Butcher
With all respect to you, Mr. Williams, this provision of the National Service Act applies in relation to women as to men. I submit that under the 1939 Act there is a definite right to reinstatement.

§ Mr. Bevin
On this point, I can say that the reinstatement Clause will apply to the women called up to the Services exactly the same as it does to the men. That is the position. I would not like it to be thought that I regard the insertion of any Clause on reinstatement in this or any other Bill on these lines as solving the problem of the obligation to the people called up.

§ Lieutenant Butcher
I am very grateful to my. right hon. Friend for saying that, as far as this Clause concerning reinstatement may be applied, all the benefits that can be achieved by it will apply to women as well as to men.

§ Sir Herbert Williams (Croydon, South)
I beg to move, in page 3, line 19, at the end, to insert: Provided that this Sub-section shall not apply to any person who has served in the 1756 Armed Forces of the Crown, and has been discharged therefrom as being no longer physically fit for war service. I feel it is very improper that we should apply conscription to people who have already done their bit and have been discharged because they were no longer fit for war service. I think that in this matter I shall receive the support of the whole Committee. On the other hand, I realise that there may be cases where a man is discharged because he is not fit for one form of military service, but may be perfectly fit for some other form of military service. I ought to say, therefore, that in moving the Amendment, I do not necessarily think that its wording is perfect. I should like to have from the Minister some general assurance that effect will be given to the underlying spirit of the Amendment, either by regulation or by undertaking, or by some Amendment on the Report stage.

§ Mr. Bevin
Although I accept the spirit of the Amendment, I do not think I can accept the words, and I do not know whether the matter can be met by regulation. I should prefer to give an undertaking, because of the difficulty of definition. The more I can avoid limiting myself by definitions, the better and the more sympathetically I shall be able to administer the Bill when it becomes an Act. Therefore, I hope the hon. Member will accept an undertaking, and if I can incorporate that undertaking in a regulation, I will do so; if not, I will incorporate it in the instructions.

§ Sir H. Williams
I realise the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty. One thing I hope is that the statement made will have very wide publicity. A very large number of people who have served have been discharged, and they now think they are free persons and able to carry on whatever civil undertaking they are engaged in. If the statement can have the widest possible publicity, it will relieve a great deal of very legitimate anxiety. I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and in view of what he has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Bellenger
I beg to move, in page 3, line 19, at the end. to insert: Provided that such a person, if called up for service with the Armed Forces of the Crown, shall be reinstated in a tank not lower 1757 than the war substantive rank which he held at the time of his withdrawal from the Armed Forces during the period of the present emergency, unless such withdrawal was due to any misconduct or any adverse report of which he has received prior notice. I wish to ensure that in cases where men, either officers or other ranks, have been discharged from the Army, ostensibly because of their unfitness, but in fact because of their age, they shall not be given a lower rank than their substantive rank when they were discharged from the Army if they are called up for service in the Armed Forces. It may help the Committee if I give a concrete example. It is the case of an officer who entered an officer training unit in 1940, and subsequently became a second-lieutenant. In the course of time this man rose to the rank of captain and commanded a battery—hon. Members will understand the nature of his work when I say that he was in command of "Z" battery. He was commended by his commanding officer and was A.1 in health. Eventually he received a letter from the Army Council telling him they would like to part with his services because a younger man was available to do his work. This man happened to be 50 years of age, and so he left the Service. Under this Bill this man is liable to be called up again, and I suggest to the Committee that he should not be placed in an inferior position by having to join the ranks. If that happened a stigma would be cast upon him.
It is not entirely a question of money. If an officer has to enter industry, he will, no doubt, have to suffer a loss of income in the same way as so many others. I suggest that it is bad for the morale of these officers and bad for the discipline of the Army, if at one moment the Army Council discharge a man from the Army, and then at the next moment call him back as a private. I can well understand the feelings of such an individual. If my right hon. Friend cannot accept my Amendment, he ought to consider the spirit of it. I could quote my own case as an illustration. I shall not mind being directed to industry, but, if I had to go back to the ranks, I should feel that I had done something wrong, and, worse, so would my comrades when they saw I had returned as a private. I am sure that my right hon. Friend does not wish to see this happen. It is an injustice which the 1758 House ought to remedy, because a man may have entered into obligations which he cannot keep up. As I say, I am not basing my case on money, but on the stigma which would be cast upon a man who found himself in this position. If my right hon. Friend cannot accept this Amendment but is willing to be conciliatory in the matter, I hope whatever orders or regulations he may introduce will be made retrospective, in view of the number Of officers who have been turned out of the Army in this way and who may be directed to return.

§ Mr. Bevin
I cannot accept the Amendment—it would cause untold difficulty— but I can give the following assurances as to the administrative way of dealing with the position. I have been in consultation with my colleagues and this is what the Government are prepared to do. In the case of an officer whose services are to be dispensed with in future for reasons other than disability or misconduct, the question whether, on ceasing to be employed, he should be kept under liability of recall as an officer or, alternatively, should cease to be a member of the Armed Forces and so become liable to be called up under the National Service Acts is carefully considered, having regard to the officer's age and ability. If there is a case for keeping him under liability to recall as an officer he is relegated to unemployment and so does not cease to be a member of the Armed Forces, Consequently he remains exempt from liability to be called up under the National Service Acts. In the case of other ranks similar considerations are taken into account. An individual whom it is desired to retain subject to recall to the colours is relegated to the Reserve and is not discharged. This procedure will be applied to all officers and other ranks without limit of age. Coming to past cases—the retrospective point, that the hon. Member has raised—at present there is a considerable number of cases of men who, after the outbreak of the present war, have relinquished their commissions or have been discharged for reasons other than disability or misconduct. Such men will, before being called up, be given an opportunity of making representations, and such representations will be considered by the Service Department concerned in consultation with the Minister of Labour and National Service. In that way I think every past and future case can be gone into on its merits. I 1759 think the declaration that I have read properly meets the point that the hon. Member raised.

§ Sir H. Williams
As I understand it, the declaration probably meets the case that the hon. Member had in mind but it is a little difficult to get the exact significance of a statement of that length. The hon. Member will, no doubt, ask leave to withdraw his Amendment and reserve his right at a later stage if necessary. There may be a Bill later on under which the age will be carried further. There is in my judgment an unnecessary drive against people merely because of the number of years they have lived People's age is measured by the number of birthdays they have had. If I may give an example to illustrate it outside the Bill.

§ The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown)
It would be better if the illustration was within the Bill.

§ Sir H. Williams
It is only to illustrate my argument. We are now getting to the ages of responsible people. A man has been discharged because he is 41 and has not got above a certain rank. He may now be liable to recall. Therefore, the question of the age at which people are forced to give up their jobs is pertinent to the Bill. When the House rises to-day the superintendent of our cloakroom has to retire because he is 65. He is perfectly fit and able and the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Works and Buildings will bring in a younger man.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
We are not discussing that. We are discussing the rank of people who have been discharged from the Service.

§ Mr. Loftus (Lowestoft)
I listened to the mover of the Amendment with complete sympathy. I know a case of an officer who served in the last war, and has served very efficiently in this, and was about to be retired on account of age but the decision was rescinded. Had he been discharged he would have been in the same predicament. I think the Minister's assurance goes a long way to meet the proposals contained in the Amendment, but, listening carefully to 1760 the first part of his statement, it seemed to mean that it was entirely selective on the part of the War Office. There is no obligation in all cases, where there was no fault of the officer concerned, which would prevent the War Office putting him into the ranks though retired as an officer.

§ Mr. Maxton
I listened to the Minister's statement with very great care. I am concerned primarily with men who are past the age. I hope the War Office will not be so stupid now as to turn men out of the Army on the ground that they are 42 when they are calling in men up to 50. That would be carrying even War Office stupidity, which we are used to, to an extreme point. I hope that in future we shall not have the anomaly of men being turned down because they are 45 while the Minister is calling in men of 50.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
That is not the point of the Amendment. It is a question of what rank the man is to receive when he is called up for the second time.

§ Mr. Maxton
The Minister has read out a statement as to the way in which the problem is to be dealt with. I gather that, as far as past cases are concerned, men who have already been discharged with commissioned rank are to be conscripted just the same as men who have never served at all, and they are to go to the ranks the same as anyone else. They are allowed to make representations. I do not think the statement says to whom. But any fellow who is conscripted between 40 and 50 has the right to make representations. These men are given nothing at all. They are entitled to something more than the Minister has read out, which means absolutely nothing at all. All they can do is to go to someone and say, "I have been in before. What are you going to do about it? Surely the Minister does not think that is treating men fairly. The majority of persons I have come across who are affected this way have been right through the last war and have kept themselves in responsibility by being on the Reserve. They went up immediately when this war broke out. Then, one day, they are told, "You are too old. There are plenty of young fellows. Away you go home." One man has been landed into most distressing economic and social conditions as the result of going up on the outbreak of 1761 the war. He is just beginning to get himself reinstated in civil life, in something like the job he threw up. Now he is liable again to serve. Such men should have the right to make representations.

§ Mr. Bevin
If we were to put officers in a privileged position under the Bill, all sorts of cases would arise of men who were suffering in various other directions. You cannot have these things perfect in war-time. I have to try and keep a balance. The arrangement under the Bill is very good, and future cases will be covered. The difficult cases are those of the past. I cannot see anything which I can put down in a Clause which will govern every class of case. The position now is a rather strong one. Instead of the War Office deciding these things out of hand, cases will he dealt with in consultation with the Ministry of Labour, which has one important power which helps it to reach agreement with the Service Departments. The Ministry decides whether the War Office shall have that man or another man. That is a very powerful influence exercised by my Department. A man's position has to be discussed, not purely by the military authorities but in the light of the manpower position and all the man's circumstances. The man will get a protection which he has not had and did not have in the last war when men were called back even after they had been wounded.

§ Mr. Bellenger
The right hon. Gentleman has gone a very great distance to meet my point. I would rather have his assurance than that of the War Office, because I feel he is trying to deal with these matters in a humane way, which is not always the case with the War Office. As far as the future cases are concerned, I quite agree that that will meet my point. I am a little bit doubtful about past cases, because if this Bill had been in force, a man would not have been discharged, presumably, from the Army on the grounds of old age, but would have been kept on. Of course, as he has gone, now he can only get back to his war substantive rank if he gets the approval of the War Office in conjunction with the Minister. However, I am prepared to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment on the assurances that have been given.

§ Mr. Harvey
I beg to move, in page 4, line 6, after "registration," to insert: or who has at any time been provisionally registered. This Amendment is designed to deal with a small number of cases of men who have been registered by the Ministry of Labour, and I hope that the Government may see their way to accept it. It deals with a very small number of cases of obvious sincerity in which the men have not attempted to evade the attention of the authorities and in some cases have actually written to the Minister of Labour to explain their position, and have subsequently undergone imprisonment.

§ Mr. Bevin
I have pleasure in accepting this Amendment and the three following Amendments.

§ Sir H. Williams
I beg to move, in page 4, line 22, at the end, to add: (2C) If any person supplies a medical certificate that he is suffering from permanent ill-health, and that his attendance for medical examination at the prescribed place would be detrimental to his health, his medical examination shall take place at his place of abode. The higher age limit brings us into the range where the number of people suffering from permanent invalidity becomes considerable, and obviously it would be very harsh to summon a man for medical examination who is totally unfit to go and later subject him to some form of prosecution because he failed to do what he was physically unable to do. I suggest that in cases such as this the man's doctor should send a certificate to the effect that attendance at the place for medical examination would be injurious to his health, and that in that case there should be a special medical examination at the man's abode to establish the fact that he was in fact unfit for military service. I hope that will be administratively possible. I also hope that my somewhat 1763 hasty drafting of this Amendment will fit into the Bill.

§ Mr. Bevin
I regret that I cannot accept this Amendment. I may say, in passing, that my hon. Friend has a great confidence in medical certificates; in my experience as Minister of Labour I have not discovered that they are always extremely adequate. I think that if I tell the Committee the present arrangement hon. Members will be satisfied that the situation is met. These are the instructions sent to the medical board and to the Department: if a person supplies a medical certificate indicating that he is suffering from ill-health and that his attendance for medical examination at the prescribed place would be detrimental to his health, the certificate is put before the chairman of the medical board, who may, if he is satisfied with the medical evidence, direct that the person shall not be summoned to attend before the medical board unless and until he is fit to go. If the method suggested in the Amendment were adopted, there would be serious practical difficulties, for we should be placed under the statutory obligation to have people examined at their place of abode. We really could not do it. We have taken the utmost care in the genuine cases of sickness. After all, we assume that medical men understand one another, and as the medical board consists of medical men, we take their advice and act upon it. I think that is a reasonable precaution against injustice.

§ Sir H. Williams
I do not understand the Minister's argument. He has no faith in medical certificates.

§ Mr. Bevin
I did not say that.

§ Sir H. Williams
Under existing regulations they rely on medical certificates. The medical certificate is examined by the medical board, and if they think it is all right, no examination takes place until the man has recovered. The supreme merit of my proposal is that it would expose the fraudulent doctors. You get a certificate to say that a man is unfit for examination, you proceed to his abode, examine him, and if there has been a false certificate, you are at least in a position to expose whoever is responsible. My method would have the advantage of exposing that minority of doctors who are willing, on terms, to grant a medical 1764 certificate which is not strictly accurate. Having regard to what the Minister has said about the existing practice, it seems that matters are not unsatisfactory. I hope he will be careful in these cases, the only ones I am considering, where there is permanent invalidity as distinct from temporary illness. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Silverman
I do not want to delay the Committee, but I should like a word in explanation of this Clause. I confess that I do not understand it.

§ Mr. Assheton
Clause 6 enables the Bill to be amended by Defence Regulations. It has already been found necessary to amend the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1939, by a Defence Regulation. The occasion on which it was done was to alter the constitution of the appellate tribunal. Exactly similar power to this was included in the National Service Act, 1941, carried by this House.

§ Mr. Silverman
I asked for that explanation because I could not believe that it was true. It was the only explanation I could put upon it myself. It seemed so improbable a one that I thought I would ask for confirmation from the Government. I hope that the Committee, before we part with this Clause, will realise exactly what it does. The Bill itself is revolutionary in its scope. I am not complaining of it on that account. I think it is necessary. I have not opposed it at all from its introduction until now. I thought it should have been accompanied by other things, but since that view was not agreed to, I have not done anything to impede its passage.
I think this is a dangerous Clause. Time after time the Minister has said it is better to put something into the Bill rather than have it dealt with merely by Regulation, so as to make it perfectly clear to everybody what are the limits he proposes to put on the powers this Bill gives him. If, at the same time, he 1765 adopts this not altogether unprecedented, but very dangerous, course, of asking the House to give him not merely the Bill in set terms but also the power to amend it by Regulations which the House will have no power to amend, I think we are going altogether too far. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would indicate any of the circumstances in which he thinks it may be necessary to amend this Bill by Defence Regulation. If he is going to do it only in matters of administrative detail, he seems to be taking a very large sledgehammer to crack a very small nut. If, on the other hand, he is not going to use it only for questions of administrative detail, or for questions narrow in scope, but to extend the principle of the Measure—and there is nothing in the Clause to limit his powers —in order some day to take away some of the exemptions which he has put into the Bill, I should have thought that this was not the right way to do it. Take this question of the exemption of married women, which he himself said he thought it was better to bring about through the Bill, rather than by giving an assurance or dealing with it by way of Defence Regulation. Many Members will remember the first Conscription Bill of the last war. The Second Reading was moved by Mr. Asquith. The Bill provided for the conscription of single men only. I remember that Mr. Asquith quoted an old north-country ballad: Recruit me Cheshire and Lancashire, And Derbyshire hills that are so free; But no married man and no widow's son— So no widow's curse shall go with me. The time soon came when, in spite of the widows' curses, it was necessary to extend the scope of conscription. I have no doubt that if this war goes on, as it seems likely to do, and if the difficulties do not decrease, my right hon. Friend may deem it necessary in time to remove the restriction on his powers which is contained in the Bill, and to conscript married women. Would the exemption of married women then be removed from the Bill by Defence Regulation, or would the Government feel it necessary, if this Clause is carried, to come back to the House, as they would have to do if they did not get this Clause, and ask for more powers because; of changed circumstances. If they do so, they will find the House treating the situation just as realistically as it is treating the present situation, and they will 1766 be allowed to amend the Bill with no greater trouble than they are having now in getting the Bill passed. But it would be better that the Government should make a case here rather than bringing about the change by Defence Regulation, which the House may seek to reject, but may not amend in order to provide safeguards or checks. What has my right hon. Friend in mind? I will accept his assurance upon the matter. Is the power to amend the Clause by Defence Regulation to be used only in respect of small matters, or does he want to leave the Government free to extend the Act by Defence Regulation on matters of principle, to which, I think, the Committee would very reluctantly consent? Perhaps we may be able to obtain a statement of what the Government have in mind in this Clause?

§ Mr. Assheton
I do not think that the hon. Member should really be in any very great anxiety because we are making this proposal. We have the power to do a great many things by Defence Regulations and yet we have brought forward this Bill, which in itself is an answer to the hon. Member's anxiety. He will remember that the Emergency Powers Defence Acts, 1939–1940, enable the Government to amend Acts of Parliament passed before 22nd May, 1940, by Defence Regulations. This is one of a series of Acts dealing with National Service, and it would be very inconvenient if this was the one Measure in the series which the Government were not able to amend by Regulation. I can give the assurance to the hon. Member that, if there was any intention to include married women or to raise the age above the present age of 51, the Government would come back to the House and do it in a normal way through a Bill.

§ Mr. Barr (Coatbridge)
This Clause relates to the expenses of the machinery that is being set up, and I think it would be in order if I were to give an opportunity to the Minister or to the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with this question. 1767 We know from the White Paper and from what has been said in the Debates that district man-power boards are to be set up, and in the White Paper there is a kind of skeleton of those who will constitute these boards. We have had a promise that a woman will serve in most of these cases, but I wonder whether the Minister can give any enlightenment to the Committee as to what he has in view and the kind of boards that are to be set up.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I am afraid that we cannot have a general discussion on administration on this financial Clause which authorises the money under the Bill.

§ Sir H. Williams
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This was an issue which became acute during the last war, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) will remember, because I think he first entered this House on an issue closely related to this one at a by-election in 1917 for a Midland constituency. We are here dealing with people who have obviously a particular measure of responsibility. A man may be running the village shoeshop and be the only person, and if he has to go, the business is completely destroyed. There can be no national advantage in destroying that business unless you are sure that the man who has been ordered to go will render on the whole, more effective national service, especially as certain supply needs have to be met, which fact is sometimes overlooked. On the other 1768 hand, a man may be the proprietor of a business employing three or four persons, and, as the only person in a managerial position, he may be rendering valuable service to the community. If he should have to go, the business might collapse. Therefore, the economic damage done in such a case might be much greater than in other cases. I know that in the last war the military service tribunals had powers very much greater than those possessed by the hardship tribunals in this war. I do not think that has been realised. We are now drifting back to the position of the last war. The Minister said he would scrap, up to a point, the Schedule of Reserved Occupations, and we are going back to what the military service tribunals did in the last war.
At the moment the powers of the hardship tribunals are too narrowly limited. They ought to have greater powers, and I am seeking to give them greater power to deal with this particular group of cases where hardship will arise. The people in this group must be over 41, their medical category must be such that they are not fighting fit, they must be working on their own account or, if they are employers, they must be the sole managers of their businesses. I hope this Amendment will have reasonable consideration. None of us has much time to draft Amendments these days. I drafted this one for one of my constituents, whose idea it was, and although I think he is quite good I am not certain whether it will effectively meet all cases which ought to be met or meet them in the best way. I hope, therefore, that the Minister, if he cannot accept it, will make some declaration of policy which will relieve the legitimate grievances of great numbers of people up and down the country.

§ Mr. Graham White (Birkenhead, East)
Would it not be right to say that the Minister does not contemplate that the appelate tribunals which he sets up do not have the fullest possible power to take into consideration matters such as were raised by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams)? If that is not the case I think we should have grave apprehension as to what would be the future powers which we are giving, willingly, to the Government. We on this side of the House welcome the proposal to treat each job on its merits, the sole test being the national value of the job 1769 done in relation to the man who is doing it. If the appelate tribunals which the Minister has envisaged in this Bill have not these powers in the most complete form it is time some further thought was given to the matter. The appelate tribunals will be dealing now with matters which in some ways will be of far greater consequence to industry than cases which have gone before. They will be called upon to deal with men in industry who are on a far higher level, and it may well be that the withdrawal of a single man in a high position will have an adverse result which would not arise in the lower levels of management. Hardship tribunals have been called upon in innumerable cases to reach a decision in which they were precluded by their terms of reference from taking into account the national interest. Sometimes they have refused to grant deferment on this ground. The Committee will be glad to know whether appelate tribunals will not have the fullest powers and duty to take all relevant circumstances into account in relation to the man's job.

§ Mr. Bevin
The position under the new arrangement will be this. Owners of one-man businesses, like everyone else, can apply for deferment to the district boards, but I must limit the duty of these deferment bodies to what is necessary in the national interest. I think that is vital. For instance, in the case of shopkeepers, all kinds of things arise; there have to be consultations with the Ministry of Food and others, and we have to consider whether, for national purposes, they should be deferred. If for any reason they are not deferred, but there is hardship, they can apply to the hardship committees on the ground of hardship, which becomes a ground of personal difficulty. I do not think we could get a better scheme than that, and I do not think the two things should be mixed, because it would only lead to confusion in the district boards if they were asked to take hardship into account. Hardship is a question of the individual citizen's position. National interest is a question of what is essential for the nation. Therefore, I have kept a very clear line.
The only difficulty I have had about the hardship committees, a difficulty which I have already acknowledged during the passage of the Bill, is the limitation of time in regard to business 1770 hardship. There have been many hard cases in which, if I had had the power, I might have allowed a right of appeal without the limitation. Therefore, I have already said that in the new Regulations I propose to remove the limit of time. Therefore, with regard to the two situations, I am sure the Committee will be satisfied if, first, people can make their claim on grounds of national interest to one body, and then, if there is a case of hardship on personal grounds, can go to the other body, and if postponement is granted on grounds of personal hardship, the limit of time will be removed. I think I have met the case.

§ Sir H. Williams
I think the announcement just made by the Minister is one of very great importance. In the past the whole situation has been complicated. In regard to the statement that these hardship tribunals will be free of the limitation of time, I do not think there is any need for me to press the new Clause. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

§ Sir H. Williams
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I am not a member of the legal profession, so that nobody can say I have any ground of self-interest in moving this new Clause. I think all hon. Members know how difficult it is at times to plead one's own case. Many people are very confident in doing their job, whatever it may be, but if they have to appear before a tribunal they become tongue-tied, and many a person loses his case because he tries to plead for himself. I think a man ought to be free, particularly now that we are getting into the more difficult range of National Service, to have representation so that his case can be stated competently on his behalf. The case for the new Clause is clear. I do not seek to say that a man must have legal representation, but in a 1771 great many cases people would be comforted if they knew that when their case had to be stated there would be somebody to state it for them.

§ Mr. Bevin
I thought at first that I would ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to reply on this new Clause, because it would have been very nice to have heard him opposing his own union. I speak purely as an amateur K.C. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Docker's K.C."] In that connection, I did once ask my opposite number whether he would give his union's rules, and he said they only had one, and it was that it is never worth while trying to get more than the client has got. With regard to the new Clause, I think that the hardship committees could get on better without this legal assistance.
A factor which must be borne in mind is the feeling which may be created that persons who can afford to have a barrister will get a better chance before the committees. I want there to be sympathy and understanding. When I was union secretary, I used to advise against legal representation, because I found the men got off cheaper. If a solicitor appeared, the magistrate had the impression that somebody had some money, and that was the reason for putting on a fine. The second point which arises is if there are all these barristers who can appear, ought I not to put them into production? Therefore, on both grounds, I would ask my hon. Friend not to press his Clause.

§ Mr. S. O. Davies (Merthyr)
The only virtue which I can see in this new Clause arises from what the Minister has done himself. He has seen to it that barristers or lawyers shall be chairmen of the hardship tribunals. The fact that the chairman is a barrister or a lawyer—I have reason for drawing that distinction—also has its effect. I say that because I have had considerable experience so far as tribunals are concerned. I do not think that examination and cross-examination are always of advantage, either to the tribunal or to the applicant, in carrying out the purposes of the Armed Forces Act. If an application appeals to an umpire's court, he again finds himself up against a chairman, who, in most cases, is a person with considerable experience in the practice of law. If the Minister is of the opinion that it would not be of advantage to the tribunal to have a legal representa- 1772 tive, am I not entitled to conclude that it would be a disadvantage to the applicant to appear before a tribunal whose chairman belongs to the legal profession? I hope, therefore, that in any new appointments which are made, the Minister will see that the chairmen are men with experience in industrial life, rather than experience in the legal profession.

§ Sir Joseph Lamb (Stone)
Is it not a fact that although the Minister will not permit the, representation of applicants by the legal profession, they can be represented by somebody else? Some of the applicants may be girls, and while I admit many of them can state their cases normally, they might be cowed by a hardship committee.

§ Mr. Beechman (St. Ives)
It is a fact that a friend of the applicant may appear, and it is a great advantage that somebody with local knowledge and knowledge of the case should represent her, especially in the case of an applicant who is nervous. It may happen that a friend who is a lawyer will be in a position to appear on behalf of an applicant as a friend. As it has been decided that barristers are not to have audience in this matter, will the Minister make it clear that members of the public can be admitted to the tribunals? At present the chairman has the right to decide whether the public shall be present.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I am afraid that this discussion is getting into the composition of the tribunal. That is not in the Clause before the Committee, and we cannot discuss the chairman and other members.

§ Mr. Bevin
May I make the point clear? It is true that any person appearing before the hardship committee can be accompanied by a friend and that that friend may be a member of the legal profession. I have many times found friends among the legal profession and they have helped me out of lots of trouble What we must avoid in the hardship committees is the introduction of the whole paraphernalia of legal representation, with all the delay and everything it leads to, which might cause a development bad for the applicant and in the end perhaps very costly.

§ Mr. Silverman
Although I am a member of the trade union, I think there is a 1773 great deal to be said for my right hon. Friend's point of view. The last thing we desire on such committees is the atmosphere of a court of law, with two sides fighting a thing out. Can my right hon. Friend say anything about the position on appeal? Sometimes questions are referred to an umpire from hardship committees. There the considerations are different, because the umpire is concerned not so much with individual cases as with the regulation of principle.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
This new Clause deals with the tribunal only and not the umpire.

§ Mr. Silverman
I should have thought that the umpire was a tribunal. He has to decide a question on arguments and evidence. I wonder whether there is any machinery to enable each side of a question to be argued before the umpire, where different considerations apply from those which apply when the facts of a particular case are being considered. Before the umpire it is a question of relating one decision to another, working out a principle and applying past cases. Ought there not, therefore, to be the right of legal representation before the umpire?

§ Sir H. Williams
I feel that the sense of the Committee is against me, but that does not mean I am entirely convinced. Most of us in this House, because of our experience here and elsewhere, are able to appear for individuals. I have many time represented people before the House of Lords Pensions Tribunal. In nine cases out of 10 I have succeeded in getting for people pensions which the Ministry of Pensions had refused. I did that not because I was a clever person but because I was accustomed to handling facts and seeing what are the decent points in an argument. I have seen constituents of mine burst into tears and completely unable to state their own cases. Some people are lucky and may be able to have a friend to represent them, but others may have friends who are just as tongue-tied as they are. Let it not be thought that because a chairman is sympathetic you get justice. You do not get justice unless a case is properly stated. Most people are unable to state their own cases. I want to put it on record that in these matters, especially as the tribunal hears a great number of cases, they get after a time an instinct whether a case ought 1774 to be turned down, like the scientific departments of the War Office and Ministry of Supply who think that every invention sent to them must be wrong because they have had such a lot of bad ones. In the end a tribunal gets that feeling, and unless a case is stated adequately great injustice is done. I do not think that the fact that an applicant can take a friend is good enough.

§ Sir Harold Webbe (Westminster, Abbey)
I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I think that the object of the new Clause is self-evident. We all recognise that the lowering of the calling-up age which is consequential on this Bill affects in a particular way young men who are engaged on a course of training for their future occupations. The imperative need which the country has of their services means a break in their careers at a critical and important time. I am anxious to secure that that break shall be made at some definite point in their training, and not be left to be determined by the pure accident of the date of their birth. I acknowledge with gratitude the concession which the Minister has already announced in connection with this matter. University students, for example, who are in their first year are, subject to appeal to a tribunal, to be allowed to complete the academic year in which they would otherwise be called up. That concession is limited to students in their first year, and I find it difficult to see the reason for that limitation. There are in the universities a number of young men who, presumably because they were of rather more than normal ability, were admitted to a university at a young age—17½ or a little less. These young men have completed one year of their course. They are now nearly a third of the way through their 1775 second year. At the end of it, they might look either for one of the special wartime two-year degrees or to passing the first part of their university examinations. Under the Regulations as they now stand, and as I understand they are intended to stand, these young men will be called up for service in January next. It seems a tragedy that, for the sake of two or three months, they should virtually have wasted the four terms they have already spent at the university. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to extend this principle of completing the academic year to students who have completed more than three terms; that is to say, the second year students as well.
As regards apprentices, the position is rather more difficult but of much less magnitude, because so many apprentices in the engineering industry are to be allowed to continue their apprenticeship. In their case and in the case of young men serving articles for professional examinations, I am sure there must be definite stages in their training at which the break could be made with the minimum of damage. I therefore ask the Minister to consider sympathetically this limited class of persons. I am sure their number is very small, and that the check to the flow of man-power, if my suggestion were adopted, would be inconsiderable. The benefit to the individuals and to the State would be very great. If the Minister is unable to accept this proposed new Clause I hope that he can give me an assurance that such cases will receive very sympathetic consideration from the hardship committees.

§ Mr. Pickthorn (Cambridge University)
I do not wish to discuss the general question of whether undergraduates ought to receive any more or less deferment than they receive, or to pose as speaking with the authority of the universities, which I have no sort of right to do, but I think this is the appropriate occasion upon which to ask a question which ought to be asked before this Bill leaves this House. It is certain that considerable numbers of undergraduates will be allowed to continue their education to a certain point, or, if they are not undergraduates, a considerable number of schoolboys will be allowed to become undergraduates in certain branches of study—medical is the obvious one, as 1776 well as engineering and physics. There are others. What is uncertain and is left to the discretion of the Minister is, Shall any of the literature branches in any of the universities continue to have a supply of what is their raw material, boys coming up from school?
I do not ask the Minister to give a categorical reply now to that question, but I ask him this: He made a promise upon an earlier Clause, in connection with women. In some respects women are better off—if it is to be better off— as their conscription age comes 18 months later. I would ask the Minister to extend the assurance he gave us in regard to women and to promise us that the final decision, whatever it may be, shall be taken at the ministerial level—by the Minister himself, after consultation with university burgesses and with the other Ministers mainly concerned. Obviously the Board of Education would have something to say, and the War Office, the Air Ministry, the Colonial Office and the India Office are all very much concerned. It seems to me a matter of considerable importance, if the war is going on for some years yet—and none of us dare assume that it is not—that it should be settled as a question of policy, and not merely as a matter of administrative convenience inside the Ministry of Labour. It should be settled as a question of policy after having given every Minister concerned an opportunity of thinking about it and after having given the Parliamentary representatives of the Universities an opportunity of advising them. I hope this is the appropriate moment to ask for some such assurance.

§ Mr. Bevin
I am unable to accept this Clause. In fact, there is no need for additional powers at all. All the powers necessary to deal with this problem now exist, and it is a matter of the decisions to be arrived at from time to time. In reply to the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), this question cannot be made a matter of absolute policy during a war, as is evidenced by the many Bills we have had to carry in the course of the war, and it is no use deceiving anybody with the idea that it can. We do not know what is going to confront us from time to time. As far as is humanly possible we try to met the convenience and the wellbeing of the citizens, taking all factors into 1777 account. The arrangements which have been arrived at were, I understand, concluded after discussion with the Vice-Chancellors of the respective Universities, and I shall continue to consult them as we have hitherto done. I can assure the hon. Member that the decision will be taken by me as a Minister, even if all the consultations are not carried out by me personally. After all, I cannot attend to all the deputations who want to see me. I therefore think that in regard both to apprentices and students it is better to leave it as a flexible administrative question and deal with it on its merits rather than to make it a rigid policy as the hon. Member proposes. I therefore hope the Amendment will not be pressed.

§ Mr. R. Morgan
I would like to put a simple question to the Minister. In a case like the one I have here of a student who went to a University on the unwritten understanding that he would be able to do a sufficient number of terms for a wartime degree, could he have his calling-up notice deferred for the necessary time, say four terms, to complete his course?

§ Sir H. Webbe
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

§ Mr. Woodburn
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I should be glad to hear that the Minister is going to cover this, if it is not already covered in the Bill. If it is covered, we should like to hear where it is covered.

§ Mr. Barnes (East Ham, South)
Before this point is finally dealt with, because it has occurred on more than one occasion on the Committee stage of this Bill, I should like to submit to the Minister this point. Under the original Act, employers had this liability imposed upon them in the case of men being called to the Colours, and in many instances they have 1778 replaced this type of labour by female labour on a temporary basis. Now, if an obligation is to be placed upon the employer to re-employ a girl or woman called up under this Bill, he will have the responsibility of providing two positions, or providing two persons with employment, when only one position is actually involved. I think it would be quite wrong to convey a general impression, or to allow a general impression to travel abroad, that every person called up under this Bill will be re-employed if it represents a dual responsibility. I hope that the Minister will take that point very carefully into consideration before any further statement is made on this matter.

§ Lieutenant Butcher
I hope, before the Minister comes to dispose of this point, he will bear in mind, as the previous speaker said, that young men called up for service under the earlier Act have been replaced by young women who may be liable for service under this Act, and there are thus two people eligible to return to the same job. While that must be borne in mind, it is proposed, as the Minister said in his Second Reading speech, to draw from certain industries, certain concerns such as banks and insurance companies, men of administrative experience of the age-group between 40 and 50. It is those people who will have the greatest possible difficulty in returning to civil life. It is no great difficulty or hardship for a young man of 20 if he finds himself without a job, because he is young and adaptable. Elderly men trained in bank or insurance company work, and transferred under this Bill, must receive the utmost consideration which the House can provide in this Bill. In response to a question which I raised at an earlier date, the Minister said that there was something more in the nature of a social obligation rather than reinstatement under the Act. I hope the Minister will realise, as the previous speaker said, that it is possible that there are firms which will have this obligation of reinstatement attaching to two or three people who have occupied one post. On the other hand, there are likely to be firms which have no obligations attaching to them at all, and whose growth is following upon, and consequent upon, the war. I am sure that this House is united in not being prepared to accept, at the conclusion of this war, a large 1779 amount of unemployment. We are eager to learn what is in the Minister's mind on this point.

§ Sir J. Lamb
I should like to go a step further. Some of these businesses will have become non-existent or partially non-existent, while some will have extended considerably. It will be impossible for all of them to provide places after the war for those who have been employed by them. This may appear to be good law, from a sentimental point of view, but good laws, if they cannot be administered, become bad laws. I hope that the Minister will be careful about accepting this Clause.

§ Mr. Evelyn Walkden (Doncaster)
I wish to sound a note of warning from the industrial field, and particularly in respect of the distributive trades. I fail to see how the distributive trades can possibly give such an undertaking. I received a statement from a large employer in my division, only this morning. He impressed upon me that 66 per cent. of his main staff in the grocery department is substitute labour, consisting of women taking the places of men. Obviously, you cannot guarantee the same job to two or three persons. I hope that not only will my right hon. Friend not be disposed to enter upon a sex war, but also that he will not precipitate us into an industrial war.

§ Mr. Silverman
Every Member will be more than sympathetic to the principle of this Clause, but I beg the Committee to be realistic. The protection that it seeks to confer is the protection that we put into the National Service Act. A great many of us pleaded very hard that that protection was illusory. That view was strenuously contested, but we have lived to see the Minister of Labour say to-day that we were perfectly right. The protection which this Clause seeks to extend to new cases was devised for people who were taken from their jobs, for a short time, in peace conditions. This proposal is something quite different. People are being taken away from their jobs in war conditions, when no one can foresee, not merely when they will come back to civil employment, but what the circumstances of the State will then be. To put a responsibility of this kind, which is unascertainable, upon a number of people, who may themselves be suffering 1780 from the effects of the war would be the cruellest thing in the world, because it would be giving people an assurance of security, by Act of Parliament, when you know that that assurance is perfectly illusory. I agree that the world will not be prepared to tolerate, after this war, the economic misery and tragedy which followed the last war, and which led us into this war. But the responsibility cannot be put by Act of Parliament upon the shoulders of a number of individuals who happen to be employing labour at this moment. The responsibility will lie with this House, and with the community generally, and I would like to hear the Minister assure us that the Government recognise their responsibility, and that they will give people a real, and not an imaginary, security.

§ Mr. Assheton
This question of reinstatement is a very difficult one. My right hon. Friend has already had something to say about it to-day. If the hon. Member who. moved the Clause wants to ensure that reinstatement rights are given to women and to men of over 41 who are called up under the National Service Acts the answer is that they already have such rights, and that, therefore, there is no need for a new Clause. [Interruption.] They have such rights under Clause 14 and Section 10 of the existing Act.
The point made by the hon. Member and other Members is a very important one indeed. The Minister said that the rights granted in this Bill were rights "for what they were worth." He did not try to persuade the Committee that they were worth very much. He has stated, if not on the Floor of this House, certainly on another platform, that he is examining this matter with the very greatest care and consideration at the present time. He has not yet been able to find any adequate solution to the very difficult problem which has been raised. He feels that it is more a matter of general social obligation than something which can be put into the terms of an Act of Parliament and I am afraid that that is as far as it is possible for him to go on the points raised by hon. Members.

§ Mr. Woodburn
I realise the difficulties, but we are now told that, even at the best, it can only be a promise. Is there any difficulty, therefore, in giving a 1781 promise to people if it is of some consolation to them? A promise to people on one side of the Act will have just the same value as a promise given on the other side of the Act. The point made that an employer can duplicate and triplicate jobs when men come back is a substantial one. Even if we have the promise of protection such as has been given to one set of people who are being called up, is such a promise to be refused to another? It is given only to the military service section and not to the other classes. I can see in these times of danger that there may be more danger in looking after fires than there is in being even in the military Forces, and you should give a promise to everybody on equal terms.

§ Mr. Assheton
The Clause of the hon. Member does not cover it. He wants an Amendment which will give an obligation to reinstatement in the case of all civilian work. In any case, I do not see much advantage in extending these promises. We all know their weakness and I do not accept the suggestion of the hon. Member that there is no harm in making such promises.

§ Mr. Woodburn
In view of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

§ Sir J. Lamb
I beg to move, in page 5, line 19, at the end, to add: 11. Members of the Women's Land Army. 12. Members of Women's Auxiliary Police Corps. What is the position of these two corps with regard to this Bill? I am referring to the women in the Women's Land Army and excluding from my argument other women who are employed in agriculture either as relatives of the occupier of the farm or as employees on the farm. I am told that the Women's Land Army includes no fewer than 20,000 individuals, and those who work on the farms bring the figure to approximately 100,000. That takes no account whatever of the seasonal workers on the farm. The Bill, when it becomes an Act, may possibly cause, unless we are very careful, the removal from agriculture of people who have been available for seasonal work. 1782 We have to be careful to see that no injury is done to the two services mentioned, particularly the Women's Land Army, under this Bill. I hope the Minister will make a statement as to the position of these two forces under the Act. Are they reserved or has the status of these two forces altered in any direction? If they have to register they will have the right of appeal, but is it necessary that that should be so? There will be a tremendous amount of time wasted.

§ The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown)
I do not think the question of whether they are on or off the list can be discussed now.

§ Sir J. Lamb
I want them in the Schedule. I think we ought to have a statement as to why they are not in the Schedule. How do the members of these two forces differ from those who are in the Schedule? There is a good deal of feeling among them about their being excluded.

§ Mr. Assheton
I can assure my hon. Friend that neither the members of the Women's Land Army nor the members of the Women's Auxiliary Police Corps will be called up. The reason why they are not put into the Schedule to this Bill is a technical one. The Schedule to the Bill is to put women into exactly the same position as men. The Schedule to the original Bill exempts men who are members of the Armed Forces of the Crown and these are female members of the Armed Forces of the Crown analogous to them. My hon. Friend will not find that the Police Force is an exempt service and, therefore, it would be wrong to exempt the Women's Police Corps.

§ Sir J. Lamb
I feel that there will be great satisfaction with that statement and as a consequence I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Barnes (East Ham, South)
I do not think we ought to permit the Third Reading of this Bill to pass without at 1783 least offering congratulations to the Minister of. Labour on the successful way in which he has piloted this very difficult Bill through the House. I think the discussions and issues that have been raised serve to emphasise the difficulty of administration of the Ministry of Labour, particularly in war-time. With regard to the provisions of the Bill itself, the House has had ample evidence that it represents additional and far-reaching disturbances of the homes and lives of the citizens of this country. But as with previous efforts that we have called upon the community to make, I feel confident that the people of this country will accept these new obligations with grim willingness, recognising that they are necessary to win the war. It would, however, be idle to ignore that during the Debates on the Bill and the Debates that led up to it, there has been reflected an increasing concern on the part of hon. Members—and we have to appreciate that through their associations hon. Members tap a very wide section of opinion and experience in the country—that the Government should use these further powers with greater efficiency than they have generally shown in these matters in the past.
Certain broad issues have arisen, and it is desirable that, before we part with the Bill, they should be finally emphasised for the consideration of the Government. We fully appreciate that all kinds and all sections of the national effort must be mobilised, not only for the purpose of achieving success, but achieving that success as rapidly as possible. The Debates on the Bill have indicated a feeling that industrial property, control and management, as well as man-power, should receive the earliest and direct attention of the Government. In this Bill, we see a departure from the policy which the Minister of Labour and the Government have followed since the beginning of the war, that of the wholesale reservation of categories of labour. I should like to make one or two comments on the implications of the machinery that will be required in dealing with this new examination of man-power. The Government are committing themselves wholly— and I think it is very desirable—to the obligation of placing the human personnel more carefully and more effectively into those positions for which their age, sex, or capacity fit them. I do not feel that 1784 our experience in the past 12 months indicates that that has always been the governing purpose of the Government's administration so far.
The next thing which I think the consideration of this Bill has brought out is the problem of management in the field of production. The House has readily given the new powers to the Government, but I think it would be a grave mistake to assume that the readiness with which these powers have been given represents the view that the mere extension of compulsion over the man-power and woman-power of the country is sufficient of itself. The more we extend the principle of compulsion, the greater the obligation on the Government to use every person so compelled in a way that will contribute the greatest effort to our common purpose. The grave departure on which we have now embarked in applying compulsion to the women of this country should remind us that grave social consequences may flow from this departure. Standards of family life, the mother's intimate supervision over her children, affect all the standards of conduct in our civilisation much more than compulsion applied to adult men.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend fully appreciates the implications and the potential dangers of this situation, and that he will administer his powers not only with firmness but with understanding. Every request which the Government have made to the House of Commons has been readily granted, and yet, on reflection and surveying the war situation, I do not feel that on the battlefield or in the field of production they have given the nation a return for these powers and opportunities. I believe that the reactions to this Bill disclose the beginnings of that anxiety, and I sincerely trust that the Government will take note of the expressions which have been made in the early stages of this Bill, and that they will apply themselves to the efficient prosecution of this war, realising that the country cannot indefinitely give its services, unless the Government turn these powers into victory on the battlefield.

§ Mr. Maxton (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
I only rise to say that the antagonism which I and my hon. Friends have demonstrated to the whole Measure is maintained on its Third Reading. I am not blaming the Minister for having introduced this 1785 Bill, I understand this is a matter of high Government policy. I believe that grave mistakes are being made, and that these mistakes will be of tremendous consequence for the nation. We will not divide the House, but I feel that there is tremendous opposition to this extension of compulsion and bringing women into the battlefield. If you cannot win without your women, lose. I believe that there is tremendous opposition to bringing boys of tender years and men of 50 years of age into the military machine. To bring all these people into the ambit of the war machine by compulsory methods is, from our point of view, a very great mistake. As I say, we do not intend to divide the House, but that is not because our antagonism to the Measure has been diminished in any way.

§ Mr. Graham White (Birkenhead, East)
It is said with a great deal of truth that in a democratic country the Government cannot go further than the opinions of the people. I think that in war-time it might not be a bad thing if the Government did take that risk, but in this case they are running no risk. This Bill brings the Government into line with the overwhelming majority of the people—it is a Bill to bring everyone to their battle stations so long as this conflict lasts. My hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, South, (Mr. Barnes) made some reference to anxieties in regard to the legislation which this House is granting to the Government and I am bound to say that I share some of his apprehensions.
The administration which will follow the Bill is of far greater consequence than the Bill itself. When I look at the constitution of the appellate tribunals I am by no means convinced that they will carry out their responsible duties—I hope they may—to the best advantage. They are being appointed in the main from the existing machine and, as the right hon Gentleman knows full well, the personalities of the existing machine were not trained for that purpose. But he has to use the best materials that he has and the best machine that he can. As he has power by Order-in-Council to amend this legislation I trust that, if he finds that the appellate tribunals are not working with complete satisfaction, he will not hesitate to amend them and bring in men of experience who may not be on them at present.
1786 When the Bill has been in operation for some time we shall, I hope, reach a stage of complete mobilisation. We must bear in mind at this stage and afterwards the lessons that have been derived from Germany, where, I admit, conditions are very different. I do not think we can have an army of that kind in this country. But when we are completely mobilised bottlenecks and difficulties may arise in industry which may be of great consequence, and I want to be sure that there is some machine which he may be able, in extreme necessity, to use without undue delay and without great formality to release men for the opening up of a bottleneck or any emergency that may arise. The Bill has the support of my hon. Friends and myself and we hope that the administrative machine which will have to carry it out will be equal to the heavy responsibility which Parliament has placed upon it.

§ Flight - Lieutenant McCorquodale (Sowerby)
I should not like the Bill to leave the House without someone on this side expressing his appreciation and congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on the skill and care with which he has handled the Measure. I think he can go home to-night knowing that he has accomplished one part of his task well, and also knowing full well that to-morrow he will be starting on the much bigger and more important job of putting the Measure justly and fairly into practice.

§ Mr. Barr (Coatbridge)
I should wish that the Minister would give us, if he thinks it wise, and if he is in a position to do so, some further information in regard to the district man-power boards which are being set up. It has been said that a woman will be on each of these boards especially for questions connected with women. I wish to give the Minister this opportunity, because there is a good deal of interest outside the House in regard to the machinery and in regard to procuring those who will be most helpful, most experienced and best able to fulfil these functions. I, and I think many others, would like the right hon. Gentleman, if there is time, to give us some fuller information on that subject.

§ Lieutenant Butcher (Holland with Boston)
I want to congratulate my right hon. Friend, not only upon the way in which he has conducted the Bill through the House, but upon the strict and fair 1787 way in which he has endeavoured to meet all the difficulties which the Bill brings and will impose on many classes of the community. In receiving congratulations on his handling of the Bill in Parliament he is also entitled to a little congratulation on the administrative arrangements he has made to deal with the people who will be brought under the operation of the Measure. There is no doubt that the hostels that he has encouraged in conjunction with other Ministers are very good. I have seen them and I do not think they can be improved upon. I think, also, that during the last six months the A.T.S. has made enormous strides. Whether the credit for this goes to my right hon. Friend or to the War Office I do not know, but there have been very good brains and competent women at work in selecting the right kind of officers for taking care of the A.T.S. The House, in imposing these additional burdens and hardships on new classes of the community, can feel that all possible steps have been taken to mitigate the hardships that might arise.

§ Mr. David Adams (Consett)
I should like to add my congratulations to the Minister for the urbane way in which he has met the criticisms directed against this Bill. Never has a Measure of a more revolutionary character, affecting almost the whole citizen life of the nation, been presented to Parliament. The Minister has met the situation in a manner which has earned the admiration and gratitude of all sections of the House. There is only one question which I think it is desirable to raise, and that is with regard to reinstatement in civil employment after the war. It greatly concerns large numbers of people, and I think it might be possible, either by Order in Council or by other measures that the Minister may devise, to give an injunction, if not a command, to employers of labour where they have to replace labour which has been called up that new labour shall be employed in a temporary way. That method is pursued by the municipalities; since the war began no engagements have been made except on the understanding that they are of a temporary character. If that could be done it would relieve a great deal of the anxiety that large numbers of individuals and families feel as to what will happen at the end of the war, The Minister has told us of the dubiety 1788 which he feels and which we must all feel as to whether the pledges regarding reinstatement can be carried out. Part of the difficulty might be resolved on the lines I have indicated.

§ Mr. MacLaren (Burslem)
Listening to the last speech, one almost feels the sense of unreality and lack of appreciation of the situation in which we find ourselves. Men are asking to be reinstated in a job when this war is over. Would to God I knew what a world this will be when it is over or that anyone in the House knew. On the last occasion when I intervened it was to ask the House whether it was too late to try to retrieve the situation in Europe before the youth of Europe rushed like Gadarene swine to their destruction. Events took their own course. To-night, there is passing out of this House a Bill for the conscription of the mankind of this country in a bloody enterprise all over the earth.
Some hon. Members opposite are flattering their consciences to-night, as you can hear reiterated in the bouquets passed to the Minister, that they are blameless and that, in fact, they are fulfilling the function of loyal statesmen by perfecting this Measure. To-night we are seeing the fruits of the conduct that has been carried on upon that side of the House for the last 20 years or more. This thing that we are witnessing, the enchainment of our youth in military bondage, the conscripting of cur children, boys and girls, and our womenfolk, is the inevitable consequence of the political activities of those who have held power in this country for the last 20 years. Little did you think of this when you rushed headlong into tariffs in 1931 and when I alone—for which I take no credit—pleaded with the Tories opposite, "Do not do this thing, because, if you rush into tariffs, you paralyse international trade on this earth and, as sure as day follows night, there will be a war the like of which mankind has never known." You ran into the "Aye" Lobby to the sound of the little tinkling bells, because you thought you were beginning a new order with your new tariffs against the foreigner; little did you think that you were beginning a new era of international hatred. Little did you think, after your Ottawa Conference, when you prided yourselves that you were going to make the British Empire into a closed shop 1789 against the earth—[Interruption.] I think these are appropriate cogitations at this moment, but let me come to the Bill. [Laughter.]
You may laugh. I see no laughter about this Bill to-night. You laughed when I used to warn you before; you laugh that our homes should be decimated; you laugh that the women of this country are entering this new era in the history of our country. I see no laughter in all this. I see the Bill as a result of all those economic causes. Is it not pathetic that one is in danger of being laughed at for reminding hon. Members that, because they sowed these seeds in the past, the Bill became inevitable?
I have nothing to say against the Minister for bringing in the Bill. Too often has it been the case in the past that Ministers of the Crown, instead of being masters of economic forces, have become the mere marionettes of those forces. We are witnessing such a situation to-night. Scarcely an hon. Member in this House is not, in his heart, ashamed of the Bill and would rather a thousand times see us preparing for a new world than preparing for a holocaust. Yet, inevitably, they are driven by the economic forces which are making them complete this farce to-night. It is inevitable, and I blame no man for it. It must be done. When once the undertaking had been entered into and we had to face the most efficient military machine in the world, many of you were innocent that it was as efficient as it proved to be. Not infrequently did I hear "Call Hitler's bluff." By heaven, you have got Hitler's bluff to-night when you have to enchain the youth, and the aged of both sexes in this military bond. All I ask is that, witnessing this Nemesis, because that is what it is, the men who come to this House and those who send them here will see that not infrequently they pursue political policies in pure innocence, without fully grasping the implications of their actions. They rush into these deadly enterprises such as we are now completing here today.
I could not allow this Bill to pass without this comment. It is on the conscience of all of us, in assenting to this Bill, openly to confess that some of us have failed in our duties, to make an open act of contrition and hope that, 1790 whatever comes out of it, one thing will be remembered. During the Debates on this Bill on the Committee stage, we were told not infrequently, when the question of women arose, to look how the Russian women were rising and fighting. These are my last words on conscription. If any man went to his home to-night and found it had been burgled, it would not be necessary to conscript him to defend it, because it is his own. Why did the Russians rise to a man to defend Russia? Because it is their country, but because you have in this country a landless people, you have to conscript their bodies to defend it. If this land had belonged to the people of Great Britain, this Bill would not have become necessary. After this Bill becomes law there is left upon this House an obligation. Now that we are conscripting the people of this country to defend it, we cannot escape the logical conclusion of our actions. If the common people of this country have been conscripted to defend the land of England against Hitler, it is the bounden duty of this House, by declaration or some other action, to restore the land to those who to-day are standing as a barrier between Hitler and that land and its present owners.
We can do nothing to stop the Bill. We can only make these reflections on its passage and sadly comment on the tragedy of human folly which made this inevitable, if certain economic circumstances reigned before. At least we can make a resolution that, if we survive, we do not intend to witness what we have had to witness in the past, namely, that those who had gone out to defend the centre of this mighty Empire gradually found their way on to the edges of the pavements, displaying their medals, playing instruments and begging for charity. I hope that, on the contrary, we shall act as honourable men, and take it upon ourselves to see to it that those who have gone through the perils of defending the bastions against foreign invaders shall not be beggars after this, but that we shall make them in fact and not in fancy citizens in their own land and not landless beggars in their own country.

§ The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin)
I want to express my thanks to those who have supported the Bill, to the House for the way in which its passage has been facilitated, and to those who 1791 have co-operated with me in this very difficult task. I would like to say to the hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mr. Barr) that while the point he raised does not arise on the Bill, I will give him all the information he requires at a later stage. In conclusion, let me say that I do not think that anyone can handle this legislation, or carry it through, or administer it with a light heart. It is a grim job, but we, at this stage, cannot undo all the things that have happened prior to this day. All we can do is to fight it out to preserve all those things that are worth preserving. As I said in the Debate last week, I knew from the day when the Prime Minister asked me to take office that I would have to face to-day. I was 1792 under no delusion as to what the cost in man-power and effort might be. But I always take the view that if you take a job on you must see it through. I believe that the spirit of the country is undaunted at this moment and would not tolerate any statesmen who would not carry their burden through to final victory.