HC Deb 26 March 1941 vol 370 cc645-71

Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. Rhys Davies

Just before I was interrupted, I was about to say that I have always conceived it my duty, whenever the occasion occurred, to try to limit compulsion by the State upon any section of the community. I have been a trade union official for 35 years, and it has fallen to my lot to do all I could to prevent compulsion by employers upon the workers with whom I am connected. Since the war commenced we have had several forms of compulsion, including conscription for the Navy, Army and Air Force, and the other day we passed industrial conscription for women. It has recently been suggested by a Select Committee of the House of Commons that coal miners might be conscripted and moved from one place to another. Now this Bill conscripts certain sections of the people for Civil Defence. I always thought that we were living in a country where people would do better work under a voluntary system than if they were compelled. I still believe that to be the case; the majority of our people will do voluntarily for their country that which they will not under compulsion.

This Bill deals with conscientious objectors, and my hon. friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) propounded a strange theory on this matter, but let us be certain that, in spite of what my hon. Friend said, the Bill puts conscientious objectors in a worse position than they were under the original Act. Although the Minister of Labour said that a conscientious objector is not to be conscripted as a policeman, if I am to read the English language the Bill means that a conscientious objector in a certain category will be conscripted to be a War Reserve policeman, and of course, if he is a policeman, he may be called upon to quell riots and break strikes. When the hon. Member talks about tribunals deciding this or that, let me remind him that in the long history of the human race no tribunal has ever been able to override a man's conscience. Men have died at the stake and have been crucified for their conscientious beliefs, and there are people in this country, I suppose, who will not submit to any tribunal or any law in a matter of conscience, whether they be Catholics, Protestants, Non-Conformists, Quakers or any other persuasion. Not very long ago I stood on a mount called Calvary where the greatest of my hon. Friend's noble race died for conscience, and not all the power of the Roman Empire could alter His attitude. He preferred to die for his conscience rather than submit to the rule of the tribunals of the Romans.

Mr. Pickthorn (Cambridge University)

He did not claim to be exempted.

Mr. Davies

If any hon. Member can prove to me that the Saviour who died on Calvary 2000 years ago would join the British, French, German or Italian armies at any time, I would never darken the door of a Christian church again. Let me, however, return to the Bill. The Bill deals with other than the problem of conscience. I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply two or three questions. First of all, when the Minister of Labour was introducing the Bill, I asked whether those who are to be conscripted for Civil Defence will be allowed to join trade unions. He replied that those who are already trade unionists and who are to be conscripted for Civil Defence will be able to retain their membership of a trade union, The right hon. Gentleman, who knows more about trade unionism than most of us, knows that that was no answer to my question. Therefore, I ask again whether these people who are to be conscripted will be entitled to form a trade union for the purposes of dealing with the conditions of their employment in Civil Defence, and not merely to continue their membership of the trade union to which they happened to belong before they were conscripted.

Secondly, we are told that this Bill rather helps the conscientious objector. What do de find? There is a possibility in certain circumstances of a penalty of two years' imprisonment and a fine of£100 as well. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary knows that the vast majority of these young men are members of the working class, and that a large number are probably mem- bers of the Labour party. What is the use of telling a young man that his position is improved when that is what he is to expect if he stands up for his principles? Without putting the matter too strongly, it seems to me that this Bill is intended to break the spirit even of the most determined conscientious objector. That is one of the reasons I object to the Measure. However we look at it, we come back to the problem of the conscientious objector.

I was bred and born and brought up in a Nonconformist Sunday school atmosphere, and I cannot help supporting these people who have courage enough to say that they have a conscience against compulsory military or any other form of service. My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) suggested that this Bill would suit conscientious objectors, inasmuch as they would not be compelled to fight, but could be accepted in the Civil Defence forces instead. Let me tell him this. If I understand these young fellows—they may be misguided, but all the world told the objectors and martyrs of all the ages that they were misguided—they do not merely object to going into the Fighting Services; they object to being compelled to do duty for the State at all. Of course, hon. Members will probably be staggered at that attitude. We do not get over the objection of this type by merely telling him that he will not be compelled to go into the Army, but that he will be compelled to go into the Civil Defence forces instead. What are the Civil Defence forces? As I have said, he may be pushed into being a policeman.

Mr. H. Morrison :indicated dissent.

Mr. Davies

I will read Clause 3 to the Right hon. Gentleman, where it states: ''A person who is deemed by virtue of Subsection (4) of the last foregoing Section to have been taken into the service of the Crown shall be deemed And then it says: if that force is the police war reserve.

Mr. Morrison

I cannot argue on the text of the Bill. I shook my head in the negative because I have no intention of calling up conscientious objectors to the use of violence to serve in the police force. It would not suit me.

Mr. Davies

Perhaps then we should get that point made clear in the Bill itself. I ask the right hon. Gentleman what it was that made it necessary to bring this Bill forward to deal with conscientious objectors. There are not many of them, and I do not know the number to be covered by this Bill—it would be very interesting if the right hon. Gentleman would tell us. I have never understood Government Departments at all on this issue. If a man is forced against his will into any one of these Services, I am almost certain he will be more of a nuisance inside than outside. The same thing applies in every walk of life. I raise these objections, not merely because of what the Bill does in itself, but because, if we pass conscription for the Forces, conscript women for industry, and conscript people for Civil Defence, I wonder how long we shall be before we shall conscript engineers, miners, shop-workers and dock labourers. Exactly the same arguments will be pressed in due course in respect of every category of the working classes I have mentioned, as has been put forward in favour of this proposal. I am sorry that I have struck what may be a discordant note in the proceedings from this side of the House, but I trust hon. Members will forgive me for saying once again that this House of Commons would not be worth calling together unless every individual Member spoke exactly as he felt; and I trust that I have done that.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay (Kilmarnock)

I think I can leave my right hon. Friend to deal with the questions raised by the last speaker. I prefer to take the view of the hon. Member for the Combined Universities (Mr. Harvey), who described on behalf of his own faith the very wise administration which has accompanied not only the Ministry of Home Security but the working of the Armed Forces Act, in connection with conscientious objectors in this war. I should like to put in a plea, however, for one particular body with whom I have come in contact, and that is the Friends' Ambulance Unit. These are members of the community who have been in the front line and have shown the Civil Defence Services, in many cases in their model shelters and rest centres, excellent examples of what can be done by those who do not agree with the actual prosecution of war. I hope they will be allowed to remain as a unit. I have risen to ask one or two questions, some of which have been asked already in some form or other by the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon)and the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin). I wish the Minister of Home Security had actually presented the Bill. Many of the questions that we are asking could have been answered in the opening speech, because many of the details are concerned with the actual arrangements in the Civil Defence forces rather than the question of conscientious objection, or the reservation of labour, or the balance of forces coming within the scope of the Ministry of Labour.

I should like to ask one basic question. What is the purpose of this Bill at this time? Is it the case that certain parts of the country cannot produce enough A.F.S. workers? It was known to some of us, and no doubt to my right hon. Friend, six months ago that there was a shortage. It is not for me to say where. Indeed 4,000 had to be returned from the Army, according to the Minister of Labour. I presume that meant men who were trained in this particular work, were then sent off to do I do not know what in the Army, and now have been brought back. That is not the most economical way of using man-power at the present time. I am not clear whether the hon. Member for Peckham is right. Are the men who are now enlisted under local authorities, in effect, conscripted? The hon. Member said there was no great difference between them and this new body. Perhaps my right hon. Friend could make that clear, because they will be working side by side. We have had three speakers with great experience of London but I am thinking of my own constituency, where we have a very excellent Civil Defence Force, though perhaps it has not been deeply tested yet. Are we to get another body thrown in—a sort of national mobile squad? Is that the conception? Is it not happening in some areas under the regional administration, that you have people transferred from one part of a region to another by the Regional Commissioners? Is not that mobility possible without a fresh Bill? If it is just a case of shortage of men, there are other questions that I should like to ask.

I repeat the question—for what services is this Force required? Is it mainly for the Auxiliary Fire Service? In regard to first aid and the Police War Reserve, is it not possible to have more interchangeability? In the early days we were faced with this problem in medical-aid posts and shelters. A number of people thought that the first-aid posts under the Ministry of Health could have been moved into shelters. They had been standing by for a long time and there was the difficulty of moving them from one place to another. It seemed to me that here was a case where we could have moved people who were doing roughly the same sort of work, from one part of the Civil Defence service to another. I should like to stress a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham. This service has grown up largely owing to the interest taken in it by one or two hon. Members, including the Joint Parliamentary Secretary (Mr. Mabane). I cannot profess to be one of them because I was absorbed in another Department. It has, however, grown up haphazard and bits have been added to it. It has reached a point at which we have to be extremely careful about it. It has great prestige. Ministers and others constantly refer to the valuable work of the A.F.S. Why, then, is there a shortage? Has it quite the prestige that it ought to have and will the wearing of a common uniform help or not?

Again, under whose control will this new force be? Will it be under the Minister of Home Security and at his disposal? If so, it is a slightly new development. Will there be an A.F.S. commander in charge? Will it be a national squad, compulsorily conscripted, serving with the voluntary arm? If so, a considerable number of questions will arise unless they are put on the same terms of service as those who originally joined. Will the discipline be the same? What will the age limits be? If there is an absence of training for first-aid, fire-watching and the rest, would my right hon. Friend take a little more seriously the Civil Defence Cadet Unit? I know that he has given some recognition to it in Liverpool, but it deserves more than that. It would be of great assistance if we could have people fully trained by the time they are 18 and if we were able to bring in lads, who are dying to do the job. It is no good saying that the Cadet Unit is just due to Professor Channon and the Lord Mayor of Liver- pool. They have done a great deal to bring it to its present position; Professor Channon has taken it on in addition to his other work and has worked hard 12 hours a day. But other cities are anxious to do the same thing by their youth. I should like to see one in London. In fact, I have been trying to get one started, but my evidence is that in Bermondsey and elsewhere the young people are half in and half out of Civil Defence and would be only too pleased if someone would come along to organise them. They could get their first-aid instruction from a variety of people and physical training from the police.

I think we have to see where all this is leading. I regard the four Services as on something of a level, and I should like to see some training for people in Civil Defence, because that gives them a feeling that they are doing a real job instead of an imitation job. The other night I was opening a little shelter, the first of its kind, for a club. The boys had their own "spotters" and the proceedings were very real, because twice during the ceremony we "had to postpone things as there were aeroplanes overhead. They were taking part in something which was real and not make-believe. I would ask my right hon. Friend not to wait till a city has taken the initiative—in peace time that would probably be the best method—but to send out some instructions saying that this is a good thing in itself and actively encouraging the formation of other branches of the Civil Defence cadet units.

One further point was raised by the hon. Member for Peckham. Is there to be a preference for particular parts of the Civil Defence services? I should like my right hon. Friend to explain that this is not just a sort of patchwork policy, but that he has the whole picture in his mind, that from his far greater vision of the whole state of the country he is convinced that this compulsory measure is needed, that it will do nothing to injure this great voluntary service, and that it is part of a larger conception of the best use of manpower and woman-power in the country. I ask that because a number of people are saying:" What does this mean? Is this another little piece added? "Civil Defence Cadet Units have an armlet and a beret, others may have some uniform —and so it goes on. The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) referred to our" rapidly shrinking liberties. "Here we have a charter of new responsibility. We are gradually entering a state where more and more things are being done for us. Someone has christened it a Santa Claus state. The time is coming when every man and woman must give back some service for the privilege of living in this country, in peace as well as war.

Mr. Pickthorn (Cambridge University)

I wish to ask a small and rather tiresome House of Commons question. I ought perhaps to know the answer, but I am not clear about it. Clause I of the Bill deals with the people to whom the Act, when it is an Act, will apply, and, leaving out the unnecessary words, it provides as follows: ''Every person who is liable under the National Service Act shall be liable under this new Act." The question which I am not clear about, falls into two parts. The first is: —Are Members of Parliament liable under the National Service Act? If they are not, then, clearly, they will not be, under this Bill, and my second question will not arise.

If the answer to my first question is "Yes," I wish to put the second question: Ought Members of Parliament to be liable under the Bill? I do not assert very positively what should be the answer to the second question. My personal inclination is to believe that the answer should be "No." When it is a question of fighting service for a man's country, any sort of fighting service, even in the humblest capacity and even in a tactical situation of the utmost insignificance, is a service of dignity and elevation which ought to come before any other service, even service of this honourable House; but I do not feel nearly so sure that that is true of any service short of fighting service. I do not want to be understood as in the least asking for exemption, or privilege for myself or hon. Members who are my colleagues, but it seems to me that either this place should be shut up altogether, or we ought to have the courage to take it for granted that service in this House is the most important of all non-fighting services and is a whole-time service, at any rate for any hon. Member who chooses to make it so for himself.

An hon. Member said the other clay: "After all, what is it that Members of the House of Commons do?" Keenly conscious as we all must be of each other's deficiencies, I think each of us ought to assume that there are matters of importance to be attended to by Members of Parliament. It would be most unfortunate if we should pass a Bill which would have the effect of making it appear that, in the opinion of this House itself, services which, however honourable and however dangerous even, must be in some sense minor service, should take precedence of full participation in the proceedings of this House, and in Parliamentary work, both when the House is sitting and when it is not sitting. There are many things which Members of Parliament should be doing, even if they are not actually in Westminster. If I may sum up without repeating myself excessively, I would be very grateful to be told the exact position at the moment and whether, if the position is that, without amendment, the Bill would apply to Members of Parliament, we may hope that the position will be reconsidered at the next stage of the proceedings?

Mr. David Adams (Consett)

I am glad of the opportunity of supporting "his Measure. I have been cordially in favour of compulsion in the matter of this service, since it was initiated. My experience in the North of England has been, until quite recently, that the work has been done by a few hundreds of persons for the benefit of many thousands, their safety, comfort and general enjoyment. There is no difficulty in having demonstrations and large gatherings to witness the labours of other people, but as for participating in the responsibilities, that is another matter. I can put those who are interested in this side of the matter in touch with any quantity of detail. The Bill arouses the criticism of hon. Members who have been declaiming against another phase of compulsion, but what is clear to anyone acquainted with great centres of population is that the voluntary system failed long ago in this matter. The complaint which I have from wardens and section leaders in regard to Civil Defence relates to their inability to give orders. It becomes a matter of politeness, supplemented by certain social amenities and advantages, and tea-drinkings. It is not a service that is carried out as if the defence of this State were involved. It is looked upon very largely as a rather pleasurable occupation for those who are local super-patriots.

Mr. Gallacher (Fife, West)

Is it not the case that the reason for the breakdown of the voluntary method is the fact that these local super-patriots have been anxious to keep out anybody whose political opinions they do not like?

Mr. Adams

In the part of England to which I refer a cordial welcome would be given to the most ardent Communist. The fact that it has been necessary to comb out the Services for persons skilled in this work clearly indicates the necessity for this Measure. I am glad to notice that it is to be termed a regional or national reserve, as persons may be drafted elsewhere. It has been one of my complaints that those who have had experience of bombing have not been brought to districts which have had no such experience. That ought to have been part of the principle and organisation of this Service, because in parts of the country that I could particularise we have still the most antiquated measures in practice, such as rescues from a four-storey building and so forth, carried out by persons who have no knowledge or experience of the modern situations arising out of an attack by the enemy. Therefore, good experience should be obtained, and those responsible at the Ministry itself ought to see that there is this exchange which is so urgently necessary at the time. The Minister has indicated a broad and generous outlook, inasmuch as those who are to be conscripted are to be adequately remunerated for their service, and proper provision is being made for injury and sickness. I am not satisfied that the sickness period should be for 13 weeks only, but probably in Committee that can be amended, and no doubt the Minister will take the matter into serious consideration by that time.

The Minister mentioned that while this will be a national force it will be loaned to the local authorities, but generally under the Regional Commissioners. I hope that nothing will be done to weaken the authority of the municipalities. They have been largely responsible for the organisation. As far as my experience goes, the Regional Commissioners have done relatively little, and we must be very careful to preserve that touch with the local community which has been so successful up to date. I see no difficulty for a considerable time to come in conscripts and volunteers working side by side. I think there will be general agreement, and a sense of relief on the part of these voluntary workers, that the conscripts have come in now and share the burden of their duties which long ago they ought to have undertaken.

I think that the House has shown great tolerance to the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) in his long disquisition upon the advantages and the situation generally of the conscientious objector in the State. One would imagine from his attacks upon the Labour party as such, and particularly upon the members of the Labour party in the Government, that they had been committing some new offence against the community. But as a matter of fact the law which we as a party supported was enlightened; it was in harmony, in my judgment, with the very best thought of the present time, and all that the hon. Member complained about was the action of the tribunals. We are not responsible for the tribunals; we lament as much as he does their harshness and tyranny, which have been protested against by our Members in the House. I am sorry to say that we still have a certain complaint against the local authorities to which we have called attention in the matter of conscientious objectors. In the North, during the last three weeks, persons have been expelled from their posts because they are conscientious objectors. That is a wholly reprehensible attitude of mind, and no one has protested against it more than the Minister of Labour, who is being dragged into this conscientious objection argument against his will, and, in my judgment, without any justice whatsoever.

We are told that the new Measure may make a change for the conscientious objector. But surely the tribunal is there as before, and no conscientious objector will be called upon to undertake service to which he conscientiously objects. The situation is the same as it was under the National Service Acts. Trade unionism, happily, is to be preserved and not weakened, and that is a valuable concession. It may be objected that that makes for the creation of a labour front. I do not agree with that view. I believe in the maintenance of trade unionism; the presence of quite a number of Members of this House who are trade unionists, but who are no longer working at their trades, is of valuable assistance to the trade union movement and tends to keep Parliament in touch with that movement. Had there been any weakening of the movement in this Measure I should have been extremely sorry.

There are certain phases of the Measure which I think would be better discussed and improved during the Committee stage. Suffice it to say that I am grateful to the Minister of Labour and to the Minister of Home Security for introducing it. I do not see in it any departure from the established principles which we have laid down in the House for the purpose of winning this war. I express my personal gratitude to those volunteers who have done so much on behalf of the community since war broke out, and I am glad that those who have hung back are now to be politely invited by the State to play the part of men and women in this critical hour.

Mr. Cecil Wilson (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

I think the Minister can be congratulated on having introduced a Bill which deals with this great problem in the way he has done. At the same time, I wish one could feel that this Measure is the last piece of Totalitarianism we are going to have. We are drifting very fast towards a state of things with which we do not all agree. One is bound to recognise that it is very necessary to get rid of the difficulty over non-combatant service, particularly as, even to-day, very strong pressure is being brought to bear upon men who have been allocated by the tribunals to non-combatant service, in order to induce them to withdraw their objection to combatant service. I say that advisedly. I am glad this Bill prevents that.

There are at present between 15,000 and 20,000 men who have received unconditional or conditional exemption. If I understand it correctly, the Bill proposes that such cases are to be referred now to the local authorities. If that is so, I suggest that there is great danger, because a large number of these local authorities have defied the Act of Parliament, and have penalised conscientious objectors in their service. Such men have been cruelly dismissed, simply because they arc conscientious objectors. A case occurred, not very far from here, in which a man who has been a cripple all his life, and who might have got exemption on the ground of his disability, but who put in a claim to be registered as a conscientious objector, has been dismissed. That case by no means stands alone. If a man fails to appear for medical examination, or to carry out any of the conditions imposed upon him, he is to be penalised. That being so, will the Minister seriously consider some penalty for those local authorities which defy the Act of Parliament? If you are going to impose penalties in one case, there is surely no reason why yon should not in the other. Those local authorities have scarcely treated this matter as Parliament intended them to, and I do not know why they should be allowed to continue their defiance of Parliament.

The men who are registered are to be told the service in which they have been enrolled. There is, of course, an element of compulsion about that. Will the Minister consider giving these people a clear statement of the various forms of service which they would have a chance of performing? I think it would be infinitely better for them to have some such list or something of that sort and to have the opportunity of expressing their willingness to volunteer for these Services than simply saying, "You are to go into such and such a service." The more the voluntary principle can be applied, the better it will be, and I hope the Minister will give that matter his consideration.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison)

The House has been exceedingly friendly on the whole about the terms, purpose and general nature of this Bill, and I would like to express on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, myself and His Majesty's Government our thanks for the friendly way in which the House has received the Bill and the spirit of cooperation with which Members are animated in considering it. I am glad that this is so, because it is a matter of some urgency that this Bill should become law. Therefore, I hope very much that when we come to the Committee and Report stages the same admirable spirit will be displayed as has been displayed to-day, and that we shall get through those stages of the Bill with speed, so that we can soon have the Measure upon the Statute Book. A whole series of points, naturally, have been raised by hon. Members, and it will perhaps be well if, first, I deal as far as I can with those that have not been dealt with already. My right hon. Friend is more familiar with his Clauses of the Bill than with mine, and it will naturally be the case that I shall be more familiar with my Clauses than with his.

In the course of the discussion the point was raised both in the speech of my right hon. Friend, and in the speech of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) — who, I am sorry, is not now in his place—of the rights of persons called up for Civil Defence to continue to be, or to become members of a trade union. The position, as I explained earlier, is that a person called up can retain membership of his trade union. He can if he likes join a trade union while he is a member of the Civil Defence forces, and there are unions of which Civil Defence workers are members. Some of them belong to associations or unions which are not registered trade unions. In fact, at the Ministry of Home Security, during the time of myself and my predecessor, we have freely consulted with the Consultative Committee of Trades Unions who have members in these services, and that practice will continue, whether the personnel is conscript or voluntary in character.

As I indicated in the course of an intervention earlier, the fact must be faced that this is a disciplined service and, therefore, things that can happen in industry, at any rate in peace time, cannot be contemplated as happening in these vital public services in the midst of war. Everybody understands that; and, of course, separate considerations do arise in the case of the police, which is a highly disciplined force. When a man has joined the Police War Reserve and is already a member of a trade union, it has been laid down that we do not wish to interfere with the continuation of that trade union membership. Other matters were raised at the same time, but they will, I think, arise later.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Camber well (Mr. Ammon) put to the Government a series of points for their consideration. He asked what numbers we contemplated calling up? If he does not mind, I prefer not to give any indication of the figure, but let me put the point in this way, because other questions have been put which rather bear upon it, including the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. D. Adams) — who is also not in his place—whether the voluntary principle had broken down. The hon. Member rather implied that this Bill was an admission of the failure of voluntary recruitment. I do not admit that for one moment. I think the amazing success of this Civil Defence force on a voluntary basis is one of the greatest things in history. It is an astonishingly large force and when my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council was Lord Privy Seal and started the active stages of recruitment for this great army, I very much doubt whether he assumed that he would get as quickly as he did such an enormous number of people into this great force. It was organised by local authorities, associated with the Regional organisation. I suppose this force numbers between 1,500,000 and 2,000,000. In addition, we have the fire bomb fighters and I am not sure whether, if we were to add these fire bomb fighters, we would not have a Civil Defence army of about3,000,000 in this country, all voluntarily recruited.

There are also the voluntary parties in the industrial establishments in their passive defence organisations. It is an amazing achievement of voluntary service based upon public spirit and when I think of the cheap dictators of Europe with their cheap talk, trying to put before the world the ideas of British degeneracy, that the British spirit has broken down and of the inability and incapacity of democracy to be alive and defend itself, I say that the existence of this vast voluntary army of Civil defence people is a devastating and conclusive answer. British democracy, so far from being degenerate is live, vigorous, on its feet, is proud of itself and will so remain.

I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Consett, who was not up to his usual standard of cheerful optimism. In fact, he was a little on the dreary side. This Bill has not been brought in because the voluntary principle has failed; it has been brought in because circumstances have changed, and pressure upon manpower is becoming acute. There is pressure upon the supply of men for the Armed Forces and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, in association with the Supply Ministries, is conducting a campaign for men and women for war factories. There are also all the other diverse claims upon the energies and labour of our people. But there is difficulty in certain parts of the country in filling some of the gaps which have arisen in the Civil Defence army and, therefore, we are at the point when we must exercise compulsory powers, not in order to provide enormous numbers of people, but to fill certain gaps which must be filled. As far as I can see, the numbers we shall require to conscript under this Bill will represent a relatively small percentage of the Civil Defence Army.

It will not be a very large number, but it will be the number essential to fill up gaps that must be filled if the organisation is to function in a proper way. Of course, it will be realised that a very large proportion of the Civil Defence services of 3,000,000 or more is part-time, voluntary, and unpaid. I do not want to say a word or do a thing that will kill the spirit of voluntary, unpaid public service. The democracy of our country owes a great deal to it, and our democracy will be a poor thing when nobody will do anything for the public interest unless he gets something out of it. I have travelled about the country, to South Wales and to Durham, for instance, poor areas where the people have had a rough time and where poverty has been the rule rather than the exception. I have seen there a Civil Defence organisation based, as to quite 90 per cent. of it, on unpaid voluntary service. That is to the credit of the public spirit of those areas and other areas of the country, including great rural tracts of the country. I am proud that this is so. The last thing that the Government would wish is that this Bill should in any way have the effect of casting discredit on the voluntary principle limiting future voluntary service, or undermining the great spirit of voluntary public service to which the country owes so much.

We want this Bill merely for the purpose of filling up the gaps in the full-time Civil Defence services in the light of the highly co-ordinated, but highly competitive, time in which we live as far as the demand for labour power is concerned. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is living a great life, with plenty of worries because of the competitive world in which necessarily he lives, with the varied demands for labour power of one sort and another. He has to do the best he can to give us all what we want, and to keep us sweet and happy and himself alive. I hope he succeeds as time goes on. Therefore, when my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell asks whether we are not starting a conflict between the voluntary principle and the principle of compulsion, my reply is that I do not think we are. I think that the two will live together happily in what is becoming the great civic army of the nation to protect the people against aerial attack and deal with its consequences. To the question whether we shall eat into the reserved occupations, my answer is "No." My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour from time to time reviews the Schedule of Reserved Occupations. Once he has decided upon the reserved occupations, clearly one service cannot eat into them, for otherwise the reservation would be destroyed.

Mr. Lindsay

Are the Civil Defence services on the same footing as the other services?

Mr. Morrison

Yes, they are on the same general footing. All the Civil Defence Services are not now wholly protected, but many of them are, and my right hon. Friend is always willing to consider claims on their merits. With regard to the preference which a person who is called up may have for the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, Civil Defence, and, if for Civil Defence, for which part of it, I understand that the Ministry of Labour will make the very best provision they can— and certainly we would wish to co-operate to that end—to give the potential compelled recruit the widest possible choice. Clearly, if a man wishes to be in the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, or Civil Defence, if we can conveniently put him where he would like to be, it is common sense and in the national interest so to do. The same applies within the various branches of Civil Defence. But it may be that the people who want to go into a given service will be more than that service wants; then, it will be too bad, but we shall have to put the men somewhere else. As far as it is administratively practicable to respect a preference, we would wish to do so.

There has been some misunderstanding—and I make no complaint about it—as to who are the employers and directors of this new personnel. They are deemed under the Bill to be in the service of the Crown. That brings to them some slight advantage, but it also brings the disadvantage that they can be moved about at the will of the Minister of Home Security to any part of the country. If they are so moved, they can obtain a subsistence allowance; but they are deemed to be in the service of the Crown. As regards their day-to-day employment, they are posted to a given local authority, and wherever possible to the local authority where they live. Technically they go into the employment of that local authority, but they are in the service of the Crown, although they are subject to direction and discipline in precisely the same way as any other member of the Civil Defence Forces—that is to say full-time volunteers. Their basis is the same except that, if for reasons of strategy or need, it becomes expedient to move them to any part of the country, I can move them and so can the Regional Commissioner. That is the only difference.

It may well be that other existing full-time volunteer personnel may wish to acquire this status of service under the Crown. Indeed I hope that that will be so. I rather want this service to become civic and local as well as national in character. It may well be that they will wish to transfer to the service of the Crown. We shall encourage that, because it gives more mobility, and the more mobility I get the more I shall like it. I do not think those who are outside the Military Service ages can do so, although I shall be delighted if I find that I am wrong. I imagine that there will be some pressure from these people as time goes on, and to meet their wishes, further legislation would be necessary. As far as I am concerned I am quite sympathetic to the idea. In the course of time we shall make this a Crown service in co-operation with local authorities, and without damaging the local spirit, or rights of local authorities. Any penalties for disobeying an order, or leaving with- out permission, will be penalties provided according to the civil code. These men will not come under King's Regulations or military law; they will be under the civil authorities.

If I utilise the services of some of them —I am not sure about it, but I merely contemplate it as a possibility—as a regional mobile reserve, it will be a limited number, and they will be always ready to go here and there according to the needs of the situation. If so, they will be, in fact, and in substance, and all the time, in the service of the Crown under the jurisdiction of the Regional Commissioner. If we create a national reserve these men will be in the service of the Crown under the Minister of Home Security. The Bill will permit that to be done. It is a developing service which has to be thought over anew as time goes on. One wants adaptability and mobility. The charm, the fundamental value of this organisation, which my right hon. Friend the Lord President fashioned, bringing in the local authority, the Regional Commissioners and the State, is its adaptability.

My hon. Friend the Member for Peck-ham (Mr. Silkin) raised some points. He, like others, has considerable experience of this matter from the angle of the local authority. He raised the point whether in the case of conscientious objectors, there could not be an appeal from a hardships committee to some form of appeal tribunal. This is Ministry of Labour business and I cannot give an answer or I might be in a demarcation dispute with my right hon. Friend, but the point will have been noted. I am sure my right hon. Friend will give it consideration and, no doubt, communicate with the hon. Member.

As regards returns from the Army, it is not contemplated that men will be sent to the Army one week and a few weeks after transferred to Civil Defence. There have been some returns from the Army owing to the fact that in earlier days men were taken out of Civil Defence because it was thought they could be dispensed with. That was in the quieter days when there was much foolish and nonsensical thinking about Civil Defence. Some people thought that, because things were quiet, they would always be quiet. I hope they recognise now when they hear the noises, that they were wrong. We have got back a good many of those people who in many cases in the light of experience ought not to have been taken out. Under this Bill, it will be the normal thing that, if a man goes into the Army, Navy, Air Force or Civil Defence, he will stay there. I will keep in mind—indeed we have acted upon—the point raised by the hon. Member for Peckham, whether in particular grades there might be a surplus of Civil Defence personnel as well as a shortage in others. The Regional Commissioners have been instructed to watch that and, if we find such cases, it will be our duty to reduce them, or transfer the surplus to some other branch of Civil Defence. With regard to billeting, I recognise that when an industrial worker is transferred, his earnings may be substantially more than the fixed earnings of these men will be. These men will not be able to stand a landlady profiteering much, but we will watch it in the light of experience—no doubt the Minister of Labour has some experience—and,if necessary, we will take action on the point. I am sure the House would support us in taking the view that the worst thing in the world that any landlady or lodging-house keeper could do, would be to exploit men who are engaging in this splendid service for the country.

Another hon. Member referred to Clause 3 (1), paragraphs (e) and (f), and he thought that perhaps paragraph (f) was not necessary. I am afraid it is. Again, I want elasticity and mobility. We have now, for instance, the categories of A.F.S., ambulance, rescue parties and decontamination service. Suppose I found that one service had not enough to do and another was not full up with work and wished to merge them, the men being trained in doing both things. In that case it would be a "further duty" upon the members of that service. It would be further training and a further qualification. It is necessary to have that kind of thing as well as movements from one local authority to another. I have noted what my hon. Friend said about uniforms. I have no objection at all to what he said. He and I were in a struggle a long time ago, and so was my right hon. Friend, about uniforms for ambulance people. He had his troubles then, as I know now. I have to be careful how far I go, but I am bound to say, having seen—after they had been washed twice—some of the uniforms supplied to the fine women in the ambulance service, I am not too proud of them. I would like these people to have uniforms that really arc uniforms and which really give them that esprit de corps, self-respect and status that we want. I only ask in that respect that they should not be treated less beneficially than the Home Guard who got uniforms straight away without any trouble.

The hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey) raised a number of points which directly or indirectly affected conscientious objectors. One point, which was also in the mind of the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Wilson), was that there are some people, in the Society of Friends, for example, and others, who arc already dangerously serving the country in some ambulance unit or another and in some voluntary way are tied up with the Civil Defence organisation. I cannot give firm undertakings about any of these cases; indeed, I think they are a matter for the Minister of Labour; but I should think that if it be the case that these people are already engaged in vital national service of that kind, that it is necessary that it should be done, and that in a broad spirit it is really part of the public service, I should consider it to be my duty to be sympathetic on the point which the hon. Member raised. I cannot go beyond that. We will take the point into consideration, and, I hope, not unsympathetically. With regard to what was said about medical examinations, I do not think that it arises unless a man resists the operation of the law. If he is ordered to be medically examined and he does not submit to it, proceedings will follow and he will probably be fined or sent to prison.

Mr. Harvey

I think that my right hon. Friend misunderstands my point. It is that repeated imprisonments for the same offence might occur in connection with failure to register and with observing other conditions. We might get the same position which arose during the last war, when a man was court-martialled and imprisoned five or six times for what really was one offence, that is, refusal to undertake military service.

Mr. Morrison

As I see it, Parliament would impose an obligation for service and, leading up to that service, there would be a requirement for registration and medical examination. If a man failed to observe the law in that respect proceedings would follow and he would be fined, or imprisoned, or both. In due course he comes out of prison—if he went in—but the law continues to operate. He is still required to register or submit to medical examination, and if he does not he commits a new offence. I am afraid that is all I can say. That is the provsion in the Bill and that is the way in which it would work.

Mr. Maxton (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

The old "Cat and mouse" business.

Mr. Morrison

The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) paid a well-deserved tribute to this very wide range of public services. As to his question whether a man called up for specifically Civil Defence can transfer to the armed services, the answer is "No." If he expressses a preference when called up we will do what we can for him, but in the end someone must decide what is necessary in the interest of the best use of manpower. In Cheltenham, where the hon. Member says the great bulk of those in the Civil Defence Services are unpaid, I should imagine, if that is so, that there will be little change; but if a shortage arose then under a new Defence Regulation, not under this Bill, we can exercise compulsion for part-time voluntary service if we wish to do so. Therefore, the whole field will now be covered, not only full-time service but part-time service as well. As to who is to decide what quota is to be allotted, that will be a matter for mutual agreement between the Ministry of Labour, the various Service Departments and the Ministry of Home Security.

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) in his interesting speech asked, Why the delay? That is always a relevant question on every Bill. I think I have in part explained it on the basis that the voluntary service principle has been enormously successful, and that only in recent months with the developing labour shortage, that we have come up against difficulties. If I am asked frankly whether, when the Government brought in the Bill for compulsory military service at the beginning of the war, it would not have been logical to have included these provisions in that Bill, so as to get a decision on compulsion over the whole field of what are all essentially Defence Services—because this Civil Defence is as important as the Army, Navy or Air Force—I think there is a great deal to be said for the view that Civil Defence should have been included at the time. But, on the other hand, the voluntary principle has worked with great success until these more difficult days have come.

Existing Civil Defence full-time voluntary personnel will not be conscript. They will continue to be volunteers, with this reservation, however, that we have in existence various "freezing Orders," as they are called, under which they cannot leave the employment they are in. Having voluntarily joined they cannot voluntarily leave. So the voluntary principle and conscription are mixed. But those volunteers will not be conscripts within the meaning of this Bill. They will not be called up under this Bill, because they are in the service. With regard to the position in Kilmarnock, we shall not throw in a national unit there. In so far as it is necesary to put some of the new men into Kilmarnock, when they are there they will be within the jurisdiction of the burgh of Kilmarnock, in substantially the same way as the other Civil Defence personnel.

In regard to the grades that are to be called up under the Bill, the proposal is first to fill vacancies in the Auxiliary Fire Service, wherever possible by local men who have expressed a preference for that Service. Next will come the filling of vacancies in the Police War Reserve, and after that in the first-aid and rescue parties, according to need, there always being a preference for local men. If we find that we have to go on to other services in the Civil Defence army, we shall do so, as and when it may become necessary or expedient. The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) asked whether Members of Parliament are liable. The answer is that Members of Parliament were liable under the principal Act and that therefore they are automatically liable under the Bill. The position is that they are liable to be called up, but I gather from my observation of the House that commanding officers in the Army, Navy and Air Force are always considerate to Members of Parliament and endeavour to give them oppor- tunity to perform their Parliamentary duties. We shall be no less considerate to them; but, legally, there is no doubt about their being liable.

Mr. Pickthorn

Under the Bill?

Mr. Morrison

Yes, under the Bill. They were liable for military service under the principal Act, and they are therefore liable under the Bill. I think I dealt with the points raised by the hon. Member for Consett. I agree with him about the preservation of local associations, and I assure him that I shall do all I can in that respect. I have dealt also with the point raised by the hon. Member for Attercliffe as to choice of service. We shall do everything we can to facilitate that. I think I have now dealt with the principal points raised. If I have left anything out, I express my apologies.

Mr. Rhys Davies

Would the right hon. Gentleman deal with the point I raised?

Mr. Morrison

I am afraid that the hon. Member was not in the Chamber when I dealt with it. I think he will find, when he consults the record, that what I have said meets his wishes.

Mr. Silkin

Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about opportunities for promotion?

Mr. Morrison

It is a subject of discussion in a number of quarters, and there are two views about it. One view is that equality of payment gives a good democratic flavour. It is curious how these things come up now and again. In the days of years ago there was a certain gospel preached, and we were charged that we wanted to make everybody alike by paying them all the same. There are people now who think it is right to pay all those in the Civil Defence Services the same, whether officers or not, because there is a good democratic touch about so doing. They feel that it will spoil what I may call the "family-party" feeling and the social equality that there is in these Services if you introduce payment for rank. On the other hand, we pay for rank in the fire brigade and in the rescue service.

There are strong arguments in favour of payment for rank and to the man who is putting his best foot forward. I am sure that they all do so, of course, but you can sometimes get your foot an inch or two more forward it you try very hard. A man may feel that if he gets greater responsibility he can get another shilling or two a week, and there is a lot to be said for it from the point of view of a career. There has been no decision about the matter. It is only a subject of discussion. I can assure hon. Members that I will consider the matter. There are various views about it, not only as between State Departments but as between Regions. All people do not take the same view on the point.

Mr. Lindsay

Will the right hon. Gentleman encourage the cadet movement?

Mr. Morrison

I do not want to be too dogmatic about it, as there are various views. Some people feel reluctance about urging young people of 16 years of age to do this work, as it may be dangerous. On the other hand, there is the spirit of youth, and I do not want to damp it down. The Liverpool experiment has been exceedingly successful and very valuable. We have a problem about messengers, and youth would be exceedingly useful there. Therefore, we do not discourage it. However, I will think about the matter again.

In conclusion, I would say that my right hon. Friend and I are very grateful

Division No. 8.] AYES.
Adams, D. (Consett) Davies, Clement (Montgomery) Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.
Adamson, W. M. (Cannock) Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil) Hely Hutchinson, M. R.
Albery, Sir Irving Dobbie, W Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Ammon, C. G. Dugdale, Major T. L. Hepworth, J.
Anderson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. (Sc'h. Univ.) Dunn, E. Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Ede, J. C. Hill, Dr. A. V. (Cambridge U.)
Beaumont, Hubert (Batley) Edmondson, Major Sir J. Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Bellenger, F. J. Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.) Holdsworth, H.
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central) Elliston, Captain G. S. Hopkinson, A.
Benson, G. Emmott, C. E. G. C. Horabin, T. L.
Bevan, A. Entwistle, Sir C. F. Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Bevin, Rt. Hon. E. Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.) Hume, Sir G. H.
Bird, Sir R. B. Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) Hurd, Sir P. A.
Blair, Sir R. Everard, Sir W. Lindsay Jagger, J.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. Foot, D. M. Jeffreys, Gen. Sir R. D.
Bossom, A. C. Fremantle, Sir F. E. Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Boyce, H. Leslie Garro Jones, G. M. Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R. Gibbins, J. Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Brooke, H. Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley) Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Burke, W. A. Gledhill, G. Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Butcher, H. W. Glyn, Sir R. G. C. Lathan, G.
Cadogan, Major Sir E. Gower, Sir R. V. Leslie, J. R.
Campbell, Sir E. T. Granville, E. L. Levy, T.
Cary, R. A. Green, W. H. (Deptford) Lewis, O.
Charleton, H. C. Gridley, Sir A. B. Lindsay, K. M.
Cocks, F. S. Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Lipson, D. L.
Colman, N C. D. Grimston, R. V. Lloyd, Major E. G. R. (Renfrew, E.)
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith S.) Gritten, W. G. Howard Loftus, P. C.
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L. Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Islington, N.) Lyle, Sir C. E. Leonard
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W. Mabane, W.
Culverwell, C. T. Hannah, l. C. MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

to the House for the helpful and sympathetic way in which this Bill has been received. On both points—the provisions about conscientious objectors and the development of this great Civil Defence army—I think we, as British people, can be rather proud of the way in which we have handled these things. We have exercised degrees of tolerance and understanding which are all to the credit of the spirit of our people, and the development of this great Civil Defence force has been a great achievement. They have done great things, and they are already beloved of our people. They have not got the long traditions of the Army, the Navy, the Air Force or of the police, but the Civil Defence army is an army of ordinary common-or-garden British people. There is no great military training or discipline behind them. They have had to stand up to great shocks, to great attacks, to terrible physical danger and the sight of dreadful things. I am proud to be at their head. In the name of the House and of the nation, I thank them all for what they have done. I believe that this Bill is another milestone in the development of that great force, and I ask the House to give us the Second Reading of this Bill with speed and good wishes.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 176; Noes, 4.

McCallum, Major D, Radford, E. A. Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (Northwich)
Macdonald, G. (Ince) Rankin, Sir R. Stuart, Rt. Hn. J. (Moray and Nairn)
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F. Rathbone, Beatrice F. (Bodmin) Summers, G. S
McKie, J. H. Reed, A. C. (Exeter) Sutcliffe, H.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees) Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury) Tate, Mavis C.
Magnay, T. Reid, W. Allan (Derby) Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Maitland, Sir A. Richards, R. Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'th'm'tn)
Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E. Rickards, G. W. Tinker, J. J.
Mander, G. le M. Ridley, G. Tomlinson, G.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J Riley, B. Touche, G. C.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens) Walkden, A. G. (Bristol, S.)
Milner, Major J. Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R. Walkden, E. (Doncaster)
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth) Ward, Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S Salt, E. W. Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Schuster, Sir G. E. Watkins, F. C.
Mort, D. L. Scott, R. D. (Wansbeck) Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Nall, Sir J. Scott, Lord William (Ro'b'h & Selk'k) Westwood, J.
Noel-Baker, P. J. Seely, Sir H. M. White, Sir Dymoke (Fareham)
Owen, Major G. Shute, Col. Sir J. J. Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)
Paling, W. Silkin, L. Wilkinson, Ellen
Peake, O, Silverman, S. S, Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Pearson, A. Smith, E. (Stoke) Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Perkins, W. R. D. Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly) Woodburn, A.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W Smith, T. (Normanton) Woolley, W. E.
Pickthorn, K. W. M. Southby, Comdr. Sir A. R. J. Wragg, H.
Power, Sir J. C. Stewart, W. Joseph (H'gton-le-Spring) Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Price, M. P. Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Pym, L. R. Strauss, H. G. (Norwich) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.
Mr. Munro and Mr. Boulton.
NOES
Buchanan, G. Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey, W.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Gallacher, W. Sloan, A. Mr. Maxton and Mr. McGovern.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for the next Sitting Day. — [Major Dugdale.]