PUBLIC NOTARIES (WAR SERVICE OF ARTICLED CLERKS) BILL [Lords] (Hansard, 1 November 1946)

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)
The Solicitor-General will recall that on the Second Reading of the Bill last week, I raised two points with him. The first related to the definition of "war service" in the Clause. I fully appreciate the difficulty of precise and accurate definition. I appreciate that Paragraph (c) gives discretion in this matter to the Master of the Faculties, but I think it would be of assistance to the Committee, and possibly to the Master of the Faculties if some expression of opinion as to what is "war service" were given on behalf of the Committee, and indeed of the Government. One point which might create some difficulty for the Master of the Faculties, and which might raise questions of controversy, is whether service or work under the direction of a Conscientious Objectors Tribunal does or does 952 not count as war service within the definition. That is obviously a matter which raises difficulties, and possibly feelings. I do not know whether the Solicitor-General is prepared to say something on that question, and on the question of what other obviously important forms of war service should be considered.
The other matter to which I invited the Solicitor-General's attention was the definition of the "emergency period." I do not want to repeat the remarks which I made on Second Reading. I fully appreciate the difficulty of the interaction of this Bill with other Measures, in which the same provision has been made. It is no doubt impracticable to put an amendment into this Bill, but I would like some indication that the Government are aware of the fact that the exclusion of full-time embodied service prior to 1st September, 1939, from this computation, causes hardship, and I would like some assurance that the possibility of dealing with this hardship is being considered by the Government.

§ Mr. Turner-Samuels (Gloucester)
When we were discussing this Bill last week, I raised a matter on which I should like to have the Solicitor-General's view. The term "war service" is, of course, intended to include what, under Statute, is described as "national service," that is to say, service other than in the Forces. This Bill seeks to give to the applicant the benefit of that war service in the sense that he can ask for it to be taken into account in deciding the term that he has to serve as his apprenticeship. In other words, that term can be reduced to two years. The difficulty is that if the applicant, having got his term of apprenticeship reduced to two years, receives a call-up notice to serve in the Army for two years, the whole benefit which he should derive from the Bill would be absolutely destroyed, and, what is worse, is that if, in the meantime, he has received his articles and paid a premium, he loses the benefit of those articles because the term has been reduced to two years. He also loses the premium which he paid on the basis of two years. It occurred to me that something ought to be done about the matter and that, probably, the learned Solicitor-General can tell us that it is a matter which can be adjusted administratively, as I think is the case. 953 I do not think there is any need for an Amendment in connection with the matter and that is why I did not put one down. But I should like an assurance that this Bill will, in fact, work so as to achieve the purpose which is adumbrated in it, and which is embraced in the phrase "war service," and that where that benefit is applied, and a particular applicant's period of service or apprenticeship is reduced to two years, it will not be nullified by his getting a call up notice which would defeat the whole thing. I would ask the learned Solicitor-General to say whether he has considered this matter, and, if he has not, whether it will be taken into account and, if necessary, adjusted administratively.

§ The Solicitor-General (Major Sir Frank Soskice)
I will answer the three questions put to me in the order in which they were asked. The definition of "war service," which was the first point touched upon by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) is, of course, framed in such a way as to include those ordinary categories which one obviously regards as war service. If I am right in my recollection, I believe that in the earlier Debate the hon. Gentleman mentioned the Merchant Marine. I should have thought that men in that Service would undoubtedly be included. His criticism was really that it should not be left in the discretion of the Master of the Faculties. I feel that, in the case of service like that, there can be no real doubt as to how he would exercise his discretion and no real danger of the Clause, as it is drawn at present, operating unfairly in any particular case.
I would remind the Committee that comparatively few people are affected by this Measure. There are some 550 practising notaries and there were approximately 100 serving articles in peacetime. I am not aware that there is any likelihood of any one of them being unfairly dealt with because of the definition as it is at present worked. It has been carefully thought about and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, has been taken from an earlier Act where it has worked well. I would rather not give an answer offhand to the question he asked about conscientious objectors without considering it further, and that, I am sure, he will allow me to do.
With regard to the question of embodied service in the Territorial Army before the 954 actual outbreak of war, there, again, one is dealing with a very few people and the time involved represents an extension of a very few weeks. It would be difficult to amend this Measure without having corresponding Amendments in a number of other Acts which deal with similar problems and, therefore, I would ask the hon. Gentleman to accept the view that this Bill should stand as it is. If it were extended in the way he suggests, it would be different in a very marked degree from a number of other Acts, and it would be difficult to justify the differentiation in the case of this particular one. It would be necessary to make Amendments in a whole heap of others. Therefore, I would ask him not to press that particular point either.
With regard to the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels), I feel that he has overlooked the fact that it must be an essential condition that at least two years shall be served. I feel that he slightly misapprehended the position. There is no flaw in the Act. I considered very carefully what he said on the Second Reading of this Bill. It is designed, and expressly designed, that the public notary even if he is able to pray in aid the benefit conferred upon him by Clause I of the Bill, must, nevertheless, serve not less than two years as a clerk in apprenticeship to a public notary. That office involves very considerable experience and knowledge. In the normal course, he has to serve an apprenticeship of five or seven years according to where he practices. That period has been drastically cut down to two years, which is thought to be the minimum period in which he can acquire the miscellaneous knowledge necessary to fit him to do the work of a public notary. There are documents which he has to authenticate and prepare dealing, particularly, with our overseas trade, and a knowledge of languages and of other systems of law is highly desirable. I suggest that it is not in the public interest that a young man should be called upon to undertake that sort of work without having undergone at least two years' apprenticeship. Therefore, I feel that the Bill as it stands is satisfactory.

§ Mr. Turner-Samuels
The learned Solicitor-General is, I am afraid, under a misapprehension as to the point I made. We all agree that two years is the very least that ought to be spent in service with 955 a notary, and indeed, the very purpose of this Bill is to fit young men who have undergone war service for this office. But what I am saying is that it is not a question of reducing the period to two years, but that the benefit is lost if, in fact, that exemption having been obtained, a notice of call-up is served. In that sense, the period has to be served in the Army, and the young man concerned loses his articles and premium, and has to start all over again and serve another two years. That was the point.

§ The Solicitor-General
I think it is right that the Bill should provide that whatever service a young man does, he must, nevertheless, serve two years. That is what I was saying.

§ Mr. Mathers (Linlithgow)
May we have some information as to why the Bill does not apply to Scotland and Northern Ireland? I am sure there is a simple explanation for this. Perhaps the other Acts do not refer to Scotland either. However, I should be glad to have it on record why this particular Bill does not apply to Scotland.

§ The Solicitor-General
I think that my hon. Friend has put his finger on the right spot. I believe I am right in saying that we are dealing with Acts which do not apply to Scotland. The Scottish legislative system is different from the English in this respect, and this Bill is designed to effect alterations to the enactments in Clause 4, namely, the various Public Notaries Acts, extending throughout the century, whose application is confined to England and does not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland. As they are being amended, the Act, in consequence, applies only to England.