HC Deb 20 March 1946 vol 420 cc1921-39

Order read for consideration of Lords Amendment.

Ordered: '' That the Lords Amendment be now considered." — [Mr. Isaacs.]

Lords Amendment considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 1. — (Release of conditionally registered conscientious objectors.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 32, at the end, to insert: (6) A direction under this section shall have effect only as respects the obligation subject to which the person in question was conditionally registered as a conscientious objector, and accordingly where he is employed in any occupation the leaving of which is subject to restrictions he shall not by reason of the direction be more favourably treated in relation to the said restrictions than wartime workers in the occupation who have not been registered in the register of conscientious objectors. In this Subsection the expression ' wartime worker ' means a person employed in an occupation who apart from war circumstances would not have been employed therein.

5.22 p.m.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs)

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The purpose of this Amendment is to secure that a direction, issued by the Minister of Labour and National Service under Clause(1) of the Bill, shall only release a conditionally registered conscientious objector from the conditions of his registration imposed by the Tribunal, and shall not release him from his employment, if the leaving of that employment is subject to restrictions under current labour controls. Thus a conscientious objector who, under the conditions of his registration was employed for example, in agriculture, would, after he had been released from his conditions under the Bill, be in exactly the same position as regards leaving his employment as any other wartime worker engaged in agriculture. The Government accepted the arguments advanced in support of the Amendment which, as it states, is intended to secure that a conscientious objector working in an occupation in accordance with the conditions of his registration, shall not be in a more favourable position, as regards leaving his employment, than a person not a conscientious objector engaged as a war worker in a similar occupation.

In these circumstances I feel that I must refer Members to a statement which I made on the Second Reading of the Bill in this House, and to explain that although that statement requires some-modification in consequence of the acceptance by the Government of the Amendment, the general purpose of the Bill remains unchanged. My statement was as; follows: It is the intention to ensure that the purpose of the Bill is not frustrated by the exercise of existing labour controls in such a way that a conscientious objector who has been released from his conditions, is tied to the work from which he has been released under the Bill. We think it is important that that should be noted." — [Official Report, 9th Nov., 1945; Vol. 415; c. 1630.] That was the statement that I made. It may be thought that the acceptance of the Amendment is inconsistent with this statement, and I agree at once that up to a certain point this is so. The inconsistency is, however, much less than would at first sight appear.

The reason which has made us more ready to accept the Amendment than we should otherwise have been, is that the labour controls to which conscientious objectors will remain subject, after release from the condition of their registration, have themselves been very substantially relaxed since I made the above statement. On 13th December last year, I announced general relaxations of labour controls, and in February announcements were made of a long list of industries which would be withdrawn from the scope of the Essential Work Orders on 15th May. Further, the whole question of labour controls is kept under constant review, and I anticipate further relaxations before long. Whereas, therefore, at the time of the Second Reading of the Bill it would have looked like a frustration of the object of the Bill to retain labour controls on a conscientious objector who had been released from the conditions of his registration as such, this is much less so at present. With labour controls relaxed as they now are, and will be, I do not feel any difficulty in providing that a conscientious objector released from his condition of registration should be in the same position as if he had not been a conscientious objector but had been a wartime worker in the same employment. In a proportion of cases conscientious objectors on obtaining their release from the condition of their registration will be at once free from labour controls. This will be the position, for example, of a conscientious objector who is employed in employment which is not scheduled under the Essential Work Order and who is over the age of 30. In other cases, for example, if he is in scheduled employment, he will, if he wishes to leave it, have to obtain permission and seek to make his case for release on its merits apart from the fact that he is a conscientious objector, just in the same way as a worker who is not a conscientious objector.

As a part of the general relaxation of labour controls, however, I have recently instructed National Service Officers to give greater consideration to applications for permission to leave made by workers seeking permanent resettlement in normal civilian employment and to workers wishing to transfer to employment in which they have skill or experience. Conscientious objectors, like non-conscientious objectors, will have the benefit of this relaxation. At the same time, I do not wish to conceal the fact that the acceptance of this amendment will mean that many conscientious objectors may be retained in their wartime employment somewhat longer than they would have been without this amendment. In view, however, of the general tendency towards relaxation of labour controls, I do not think that in all the circumstances this is unreasonable.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Hopkin Morris (Carmarthen)

The Minister of Labour quite clearly showed us that he does not like the Lords Amendment which the Government have accepted. The Bill, in its original form, as it left this House was admitted to do justice to the conscientious objector, and I think in fact it did so. Whether one agrees with conscientious objection or not, Parliament in its wisdom decided that it was going to recognise it and it recognised it in both National Service Acts of 1939 and 1942. It did not recognise conscience at large, but a certain kind of conscience, that which objected to military service, and Parliament made provision that where conscientious objection was established, certain eventualities were to follow. A large number of people were directed to various industries. If the matter had been left without this Bill, then conscientious objectors would have had no redress until the emergency came to an end, or unless special provision legislation had been provided for the position. But what this Amendment does is a serious thing Parliament, having said that a conscientious objector, legally exercising his right, could be conditionally registered as an alternative to military service, and not for any form of essential or industrial work, this Amendment seeks to alter the whole character of the Bill. It discrimi- nates against the holding of a special opinion. Worse, it discriminates between conscientious objectors themselves. An objector who was conditionally registered, but not directed to employment covered by the Essential Work Order, will be released according to his group. Why should that be so, whereas one covered by the Essential Work Order is not to be released according to his group?

This discrimination concerns, also, the right of free citizenship. That is a fundamental principle which is more far reaching than anything confined to the narrow limits of this Bill. The Minister said, "It will not be so bad as it was a few months ago, because I am relaxing the orders," and I am glad to have that recognition from him. But that is not a point of principle. The principle is that because you do not like the opinions of a certain individual, whose right has been already recognised and conceded by Parliament", you are converting the Act, which granted him exemption, into a penal Act against him in peacetime. I do not want to exaggerate the position, but that is its effect. I regret very much that the Government intend to accept the Amendment. I hope the House will not, and that we shall go to a Division. Why should not all be treated alike in this matter? That is serious enough, but upon the larger issue of the right of the subject to be treated equally before the law I hope the House will decline to agree with the Lords in the Amendment.

5.35p.m.

Mr. Basil Nield (City of Chester)

The appearance of this Amendment, and the attitude of the Minister towards it, provides a rather remarkable situation. The Amendment, to some extent, would alter the purpose of the Bill which was before this House and before a Standing Committee because, in effect, the right hon. Gentleman is asked to change the attitude which was then adopted by the Government towards the Bill. I would like to see the effect of the Amendment in practice, because I am not certain that I can agree to the observations which have just been made by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris). It seems to me that the effect of the Amendment is this: that a conscientious objector, whose condition of registration required him to take up some occupation, shall be in no better position for the purpose of release than others who were directed to that same occupation by the Ministry of Labour. I take the view that conscientious objectors themselves would not seek to be preferred over civilian workers who had been directed—

Mr. Hopkin Morris

That is hardly a fair comparison. The comparison is with those called up for military service under the two Acts of 1939 and 1942.

Mr. Nield

A bona fide conscientious objector would not be prepared conscientiously to object to this Measure because, in effect, it put him on the same footing as a civilian worker who was directed. I have always held the view that directed labour, for example, to the National Fire Service, has had a rather raw deal in the matter of release. So many men, much against their will, have not joined the Forces. But I can see the force of the argument which was advanced in another place in order to produce this Amendment. The House may recall that the principal purpose of my intervention in our discussions on this Bill was to seek to present a case for a very special section of conscientious objectors, namely, those who served with the Friends' Ambulance Unit and kindred non-combatant services, which were in forward areas of the battle during the war. I sought justice for them by trying to have inserted in the Bill a provision that those who had so served, often in distant theatres of the war, some of whom had been taken prisoners and some of whom had been wounded, should have their pre-tribunal service counted for the purpose of release. I was not successful, save to secure from the Minister an undertaking that these special cases would receive sympathetic consideration. In putting certain specific cases, have doubted whether sympathy has been shown, but I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not permit any breach of faith in that matter, because they are indeed most special cases.

The question I want to ask is: Where there is among war workers, as defined by this Amendment, no parallel with the occupation of the conscientious objector, what will be the objector's position? If, for example, a tribunal makes it a condition of registration that a man continues to serve with the Friends' Ambulance Unit when his turn comes there is no parallel among civilians. Will he, therefore, be entitled to be released under the age and length of service scheme which appertains to the Forces?

5.39 p.m.

Mr. Sorensen (Leyton, West)

I have a great deal of sympathy with the Minister, because I know that his heart is not in the Amendment which he has recommended to the House for acceptance. It is obvious that he and his colleagues and advisers must have thought of the point in the Amendment before the Bill was drafted, and that at that time he saw no reason why the content of this Amendment should be embodied in that Bill. Moreover, in another place, I understand that it was not on the initiative of the Government representative that this Amendment was brought forward. It was only after some observations had been made in another place by opponents of the Government that there were consultations, presumably through the usual channels, and it was thought fit to draft this Amendment. I can only express great regret that such an Amendment should have arisen out of that opposition, and that the Minister should now recommend the House to agree with the Amendment. This is an instance of an undemocratic interference with the democratic decision of the House. We are elected Members of Parliament, we came to a certain decision, and, although I know there have been other instances of a graver character, this is a recent illustration of how those who are not elected can interfere with and bring pressure to bear upon elected Members of Parliament. For those reasons, I am sorry the Amendment has been recommended for our acceptance today. Whether we should go as far as has been suggested and vote against the Amendment remains to be seen, but I think we ought to put on record our great disquiet at this Amendment.

Conscientious objectors do not wish to have any preferential treatment over those who are not conscientious objectors, but it is only human and natural for them to expect their case and needs to be dealt with in a just way. I submit that this Amendment penalises conscientious objectors. It is true that there are controls over agricultural workers, and that a, large number of conscientious objectors were directed into agriculture. It is equally true that agriculture is a very honourable industry, and requires all the assistance it can secure; but the fact remains that, except for a very small minority, no one has been directed from other occupations into agriculture, except conscientious objectors. They accepted the direction, they performed their tasks well, they obeyed the law, but now they are to be penalised because they were directed into that occupation rather than into other occupations. Simply because they were conscientious objectors, they are to have an additional penalty imposed upon them. I think that they, and others who may not agree with them, but who appreciate their stand, are entitled to feel a definite grievance. The assurance which the Minister gave in introducing the Bill has now been modified out of existence. There is discriminatory treatment in this respect. Merely because a man obeyed the law and was directed into a particular occupation, he now finds that he must continue in that occupation until the controls are taken off, although he would not have chosen that occupation. There are some who have taken up agriculture as their normal job during the war, whether they were conscientious objectors or not, and they may continue. No penalty is imposed on them. I am thinking of those others whose services to the community might be very much more valuable outside agriculture than within it.

I am very glad that the Minister has given an assurance that recommendations have been made to relax the existing regulations, and that being so, we may find that some of those who are in agriculture now will be able to transfer their services into some field much more useful to the community. But that is not the basic test. The test is rather the one which I mentioned a moment ago. I hope the Government will reconsider the matter, in view of the observations that have been made, and which, I submit, have not been answered up to now. I am glad the Bill is likely to be passed today, because numbers of conscientious objectors are already well behind their brothers in the Forces. If this Bill had been brought forward and passed into law earlier, many of them would have been released. If the Bill is to be passed into law with this Amendment, I must register my criticism, indignation and regret that the Amendment has been recommended to the House by the Minister and that the assurance which he gave to the House, I am sure quite conscientiously, has now been modified so drastically.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler (Saffron Walden)

think the Minister's statement was rather more serious than some hon. Members have realised. As he said, he made a. general statement, in introducing the Bill, that the purposes of the Bill should not be frustrated by conscientious objectors being tied to their work. I remember that statement, and I accepted his guidance at the time. We now find ourselves in a perfectly logical position, and I do not see how we can do otherwise than accept the Amendment which has come from another place. Somehow or other, mistaken guidance has been given to the House. In logic, I can see that the Government would not desire to make the situation easier for a conscientious objector than for any other war worker who would be tied to his job on the land. Representing, as I do, a rural constituency, I would regard that as intolerable. I have desired to help conscientious objectors through this Bill, but I do not desire to place them in a better position than any man who is tied to his job on the land. Therefore, I cannot see that the Government have any alternative than to ask us to approve the Amendment.

The mistake the Government made was to make the sweeping and general statement they did in introducing the Bill. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour to think very seriously what really is the object of the Bill now, and what was the object when he introduced it. What would have been the position if there had not been this relaxation of labour control? The Minister has to escape from the dilemma by saying that he has announced a relaxation. That is the only way in which he has been enabled to accept the Amendment, because it is the only way in which he can retain any of the original objects of the Bill. Therefore, I am forced to the conclusion that when the Minister introduced the Bill, he knew he was going to relax labour control, and therefore, he knew there was something in what he said; otherwise, what he said had no foundation in fact. Hon. Members must realise that the House and the country have been misled in respect of this Bill by what the Minister originally said. Let us examine what the position would have been if the Minister had not relaxed labour control. Had this same Amendment been moved and brought to us from another place, not only would there have been the case of agriculture, but of a great many other employments as well, to which conscientious objectors would have been tied, and that would have made nonsense of the whole Bill.

I must say sharply and definitely to the Government that it seems that, in introducing the Bill originally, they were relying on proposed administrative procedure later in order to make the Bill work. That is not a manner in which legislation ought to be brought to the House. We hear of the dangers of delegated legislation, but I think this is a danger about which the House and the country should be warned; namely, that the only way in which the Minister can make this Bill work is by taking administrative action, of the need for which he may or may not have been conscious when introducing the Bill, after the Bill in order to substantiate statements which he made in introducing the Bill. That seems to be the position logically, and it is the only manner in which the Minister has been able to come in a white sheet this afternoon and ask for our indulgence and permission to let him have the Amendment. I see that the Minister is smiling, but it really does make nonsense of the Bill to make a general statement of that sort at the beginning, and then have to save from the wreck of his own inconsequent remarks the larger part of the Bill in order to bring some sense into a logical situation which arises in agriculture. It is a dilemma in which I have never been landed, and I have every sympathy for the Minister in the position in which he finds himself.

The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) went a little bit too far when he said that this is a deprivation of the right of free citizenship. The position of the agricultural worker at the present time is a very special one. The agricultural worker finds himself among the few people in the country who, owing to the shortage of food and the shortage of agricultural labour, is tied to his job on the land. That is no reflection on work on the land. It is the best work than can be done for the country, and one of the finest trades there is. The effect is that the man is tied, and I think it would be undesirable if a conscientious objector, after having received this direction, were put in a different situation from the ordinary worker, who had to do his job on the land during the war.

Mr. Sorensen

Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise the difference between the man who has had to continue in a job which has always been his, and a man who is directed, and who because it is not his normal job, is less competent?

Mr. Butler

I appreciate that point.

Mr. Hopkin Morris

May I put this point to the right hon. Gentleman? Take the case of two students who are directed to work. If one is not covered by the Essential Work Orders he can at least be free to resume his duties under this Amendment. The other man who may be subject to the Essential Work Order cannot be so released but will have to continue to work in the industry to which he has been directed. The real comparison is not with the war worker, but with the class to which the conscientious objector belongs.

Mr. Butler

I was about to enter into the realm of the argument of the hon. Member for Carmarthen and of the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen). They both have a substantial point. Vis-à-vis the other conscientious objector, the man retained in agriculture has a grievance, but the agricultural worker who has to stay on the land would have a grievance if the conscientious objector were permitted to leave his job on the land. This is the dilemma according to the lucid and pellucid arguments of the hon. Member for Carmarthen. Vis-à-vis another conscientious objector, this man would have a grievance. As I interpret the Minister's argument, his position is that there would be an even worse grievance if the man on the land felt that the conscientious objector could be taken away from that employment before he himself was permitted to leave. Therefore, as I see it, this Amendment must be accepted, because that greater grievance is rather more serious than the grievance between one conscientious objector and another.

I must confess, however, as I said in my opening remarks, that the biggest grievance is the one the House has against the Minister himself. The conscientious objector and the House have been misled as to the original object of the Bill. That is a very serious fact, and one which the Parliamentary Secretary should attempt to clear up when he replies. In logic, the position between one conscientious objector and another is not now as fair as it was when the Bill was introduced. The only way in which this can be remedied is for the right hon. Gentleman to continue with his relaxation of labour controls and, perhaps, subject to your discretion, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—since I do not want to launch into the subject at this hour—it would be convenient, on another occasion, for the Government to tell us what further relaxation of labour controls they intend to introduce. Are they or are they not going to introduce a relaxation of labour controls in agriculture?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The right hon. Gentleman should not expose the Minister to such a temptation.

Mr. Butler

The point I wanted to make was that when the right hon. Gentleman introduced his Bill he must have known that he was going to relax labour controls, otherwise he would not have made that special statement on the introduction of the Bill. Has he in his. mind a further relaxation of labour controls? If so, we should be told now because we should then know whether the acceptance of this Amendment was important or not I must ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us frankly when he replies on this occasion what they have in their minds on the subject of future controls.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Again I must point out to the right hon. Member that the Parliamentary Secretary will only be allowed to speak on the Amendment before the House and therefore cannot answer such a question.

Mr. Butler

I must apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but, with all respect to your Ruling, I did not want the House to be put in the invidious position in which we were before, namely, that in order to make sense of a Bill, the Minister" has to relax labour controls. If we are not taken into the confidence of the Government on this subject the Minister and his henchmen may find themselves in an odious position for the second time, and if they delude the House a second time the consequences for the Government may be fatal. I will not pursue the matter further in view of your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I would ask that the Government should "come clean," and tell us what they have in mind for the future of this type of control, so that we shall know what is the likelihood of duration of this kind of Amendment, and what its lasting effect is likely to be.

5.56 p.m.

Professor Gruffydd (University of Wales)

I desire to add only one or two words to what has already been said. I agree with the opening remarks of the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler) as to the character of the Amendment. This is not an ordinary Amendment to a Clause; it is an Amendment that makes nonsense of the whole Bill. It is not something we can accept because it does not matter very much; it is going to destroy the whole meaning of the Bill. I shall not go into the merits or dements of the Amendment itself but should like to point out something which I think has not been discussed in any of the speeches made so far. We are dealing not with a person who has been ordered to work under the Essential Work Order, but with a conscientious objector who is a different kind of person altogether. If this Amendment is accepted by the House, is the conscientious objector —when the time comes for his group to be released—to be relieved of obligations under the Essential Work Orders or not? Unless he is he will be free under the provisions of the Bill. It does not matter what happens because, as I see it, he can be kept longer only under the Essential Work Orders. We are asking in the original Bill that the conscientious objector should be released from the result of his conscientious objection and not of any obligation he has under the Essential Works Order. I do not think that hon. Members who have spoken so far have kept these two things separate.

5.59 p.m.

Mr. Benn Levy (Eton and Slough)

I had not meant to intervene in this Debate, but it raises a principle of such importance that I want very briefly to add my voice to those of hon. Members who have protested against acceptance of the Amendment. I should like to take up the argument advanced by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler), who said that he now found himself in a logical dilemma because he would, by rejecting this Amendment, be in the position of advocating an advantage for the conscientious objector over the civilian worker. That seems to me to be a purely superficial and logical dilemma, because in fact, as has just been pointed out, the conscientious objector is not a civilian agricultural worker—he has been put into the category of a Service man not in the Services. By the same token, he is liable for release under the same conditions. The soldier, when he is released, is not subject to re-direction, and therefore it seems to me" quite unreasonable that the conscientious objector, when his date for release comes, should in effect be subject to re-direction.

I do not believe there is in this House any real prejudice any longer in this year of grace against the conscientious objector. Many of us know how rigorous and difficult, and burdensome, was the life that the conscientious objector led during the first world war under the "Cat and Mouse Act," and the tremendous endurance that was required to go through with it. Although those rigours have been diminished during this last war, it still needs a great deal of courage always to swim against the tide. So I feel, if there is any prejudice left, even in a vestigial form, in anyone's mind, that it should not influence them in their vote on this particular Amendment. The conscientious objectors are a small minority and, as such, it is up to this House to make a special effort to see that their interests are safeguarded.

6.2 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards)

A very cogent case has been put against us this afternoon from both sides of the House. I am not complaining about that. The first thing that has to be recognised is that if the purposes of this Bill are to be passed on to the conscientious objectors, we must have it as quickly as possible. Already, some 20 odd categories, had they been in the Army or the other Services, would have been released, but conscientious objectors up to Group 25, in some cases Group 30, are still held to their positions because of our delay in passing this Bill. Therefore, the question of speed is the factor which must weigh in our minds. The second point is this: it seems to me that the general purpose of this Bill has not been correctly understood. It is to relieve the conscientious objector of his liability under the National Service Armed Forces Act. It was not to make him a free citizen or to take from him his obligation as a citizen; it was merely to take from his shoulders the shackles imposed under the National Service Armed Forces Act. The Bill, as put forward, in our minds provided for that purpose, as was explained to the House. The matter went to the other place, and there this anomaly was pointed out, that you could have two school teachers, one in agriculture because of direction, and the other in agriculture because of the condition imposed by the tribunal.

Mr. Sorensen

Is there any instance at all of a teacher being directed to agriculture, who was not a conscientious objector?

Professor Gruffydd

That is the question I wanted to ask:

Mr. Ness Edwards

Perhaps in cases where school teachers, at the time they were called up, did not satisfy the medical category which would entitle them to go into the Armed Forces. My information is that some of them were directed to agriculture. However, we will put the school teachers aside and take two other men from the same walk of life, the same profession. They go into agriculture, one as the result of direction, the other as the result of the condition imposed by the tribunal. What was said in the other place was this, that the one ought not to be released from his civilian obligations before the other, and that argument has been accepted. The consequence is that we find ourselves now in this position, that unless some other action is taken in those cases in which conscientious objectors are in industries which are controlled, the purpose of the Bill could be thwarted.

How are we to face this dilemma? We must be fair to the directed worker and we must be fair to the conscientious objector. Yet we must not give to the released conscientious objector a greater measure of civilian liberty than we give to another person who has been directed to the same form of employment. Therefore, as my right hon. Friend has indicated, for a large field of employment controls have been taken off, and it comes down mainly to the question of those who are engaged in agriculture. In those cases instructions had already been issued that in the case, for instance, of the directed workers to agriculture who had gone from their ordinary employment into agriculture and who have been therein for a number of years, their cases would fall to be considered by the National Service Officer, and they would be entitled to put their case forward to be released from agriculture in order to be restored to their normal walk of life. Now it is proposed that in those industries in which conscientious objectors are now engaged and which are the subject of control, which is a field that is becoming more and more limited, as I have said before—

Mr. Sidney Marshall (Sutton and Cheam)

May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether it is not a fact that no conscientious objector was directed into an essential work job, because it was very obvious that he not merely objected to military service but would have a conscientious objection against being put into an essential work job?

Mr. Benn Levy

It depends on the conscientious objector.

Mr. Ness Edwards

I am talking about the conditions made by a tribunal in order that a man might have his name put on the register of conscientious objectors—

Mr. Sidney Marshall

rose—

Mr. Ness Edwards

As I have only a short time at my disposal, I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman. We propose, under the powers now given by this Bill, in order to give effect to the original purpose of the Bill, that there shall be a progressive relaxation to men who, in civilian circumstances, are in the same position as conscientious objectors. That is the only way in which we can safeguard the purpose of this Bill

To come back to the point was making when I was interrupted, every man who has been away from home and from his normal occupation for a number of years, should have the right to submit his case for release and permission to go back to his normal occupation and to be resettled. Conscientious objectors will have the same right. Under Clause 1 (2) of the Bill, the Minister has the right to release con- scientious objectors from the conditions of their registration if he is satisfied that their use in the national service can best be served by giving them their freedom and returning them to their normal occupation.

There was the other point, which was made very forcibly, about the difference in the treatment of the conscientious objector who is in a controlled industry and one who is in a free industry. There is discrimination there, and we can only get over it by the machinery I have described. However, it is not limited to conscientious objectors. After all, that discrimination is a common discrimination in our general life. We have men in controlled industries and men in uncontrolled industries, and the discrimination between conscientious objectors is no greater than discrimination between workers in civilian industry generally. We are not perpetrating any penal conditions on conscientious objectors by accepting the Lords Amendment. What it means is that we must take extra administrative action in order to give full effect to the purposes of this Bill. In regard to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Nield), I want to repeat the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend. That undertaking will be fully implemented. I think those are most of the points which have been raised in connection with this Amendment and I am content to leave it there.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies (Montgomery)

This Amendment raises a most important point of principle, and I hope full opportunity will be given for its proper discussion. I have rarely heard a Minister more uncomfortable in commending an Amendment to the House than the right hon. Gentleman was this afternoon. Let me say a word also to the Parliamentary Secretary. We know how eloquent he can be. He used all his eloquence in defence of an Amendment, which he certainly would not have supported originally. I wonder what he would have said in the old days when he sat on this side of the House, if this point had been raised, especially if it had come down from another place. His first point was that conscientious objectors at present are penalised, that we have to try to release them from those penalties as quickly as possible, and that the speedier the Bill becomes law the better for the conscientious objector. I have never heard from those benches such a wonderful defence of appeasement. The easy way to get a Measure through, apparently, is to agree with what your opponent puts forward.

The point which the Parliamentary Secretary made in answer to the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler) was that the Amendment will work but only in this way and that machinery will be introduced through the Ministry of Labour. The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden very rightly asked him to tell us, before we agreed to this Amendment, what is the extent of that machinery. The Parliamentary Secretary was quite right in saying that the origin of this is found in the National Service (Armed Forces) Act of 1939 when all under a certain age were made liable to conscription. But there were Sections of that Act which gave exemption from service to persons having conscientious objection to service. The comparison with that class can only be made with the Servicemen. An hon. Member quite rightly said that it was desired to give equal treatment to the conscientious objector and the Serviceman and that the conscientious objector should not be given an extra privilege nor penalised. Servicemen are the people who have to be compared with the conscientious objectors and the question has nothing whatever to do with the civilian who is outside the Act altogether.

Under this Bill as it was originally drafted by the Government and commended by this House, they were placed on an equal footing with the Serviceman. In another place they say that if, perchance, the conscientious objector has been directed as a result of his refusing. service, into some work subject to the Essential Work Order, he shall be kept there although the same class of Serviceman is released. Is not that a penalty put on the conscientious objector as against the Serviceman? [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to hear cheers from the other side of the House because I am sure this is a point that they would have been making and a point to which they would have given effect—

It being a Quarter past Six o'Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 6, further Proceeding stood postponed.