Lords Sitting of 24 May 1939

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
WALSALL CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
SAINT PETER'S CHAPEL, STOCKPORT, BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD MAUGHAM): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the modification of the law relating to the administration of justice in Scotland in the event of the outbreak or imminence of war, and for purposes connected therewith; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Maugham.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

WATER UNDERTAKINGS BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT BRIDPORT: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate with amendments certain enactments relating to water undertakings; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Bridport.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (NORTH LINDSEY WATER BOARD) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WEMBLEY) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (BACUP) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (CONGLETON) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (MARGATE) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (MATLOCK) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

RESERVE AND AUXILIARY FORCES BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Calling out of Reserve and Auxiliary Forces.
(5) Section thirteen of the Reserve Forces Act, 1882, and the proviso to subsection (1) of Section seventeen of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, and subsection (2) of the said Section seventeen shall not apply in the event of the calling out of members of the Reserve or Auxiliary Forces in pursuance of an Order in Council made under this section.
3.10 p.m.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON moved to leave out subsection (5). The noble Lord said: I beg to move the omission of the subsection referred to in the Amendment, in order that one may have, I hope, a statement from the Government which will clarify the position. I understand, of course, that a subsection of this kind is essential to the general purpose of the Bill. It could not operate without it. But as this subsection stands I suggest that it goes much too far. Under the provisions proposed to be set aside for this purpose it is provided that where men are called out Parliament shall assemble within ten days, and that is one of the provisions which will be needed if this Bill is carried in its present form. It is clear that in order to achieve the purposes for which this Bill is designed, and with which I am in cordial agreement, it must be open to the Government to call up these men in a brief businesslike way, as is proposed, and to that I have no objection. But it is necessary that, as soon as may be thereafter, Parliament should be acquainted with the reasons for this action.
If this subsection is passed in its present form the whole of the Forces might be called up, and it might be, for instance, at the beginning of the Long Vacation, and no explanation would be furnished to Parliament, unless Parliament is otherwise called together in connection with the emergency, until a new Session opens. It might be three or six months before Parliament would be consulted, or even officially informed. I suggest that that is wrong, and I do not really think it is the Government's intention either. I do not suggest that this Government would designedly do a thing of that kind, but it is open to any future Government to take action of that kind and neglect to inform Parliament. I have abstained from putting down any Amendment on the Paper so as not to delay the proceedings, but an Amendment could be moved on the next stage, though I hope it will not be necessary. It was perfectly evident to me as an old Parliamentarian that when the matter was raised in another place the Minister had not been well briefed, and was not well aware of what the implications of this provision are. I hope, therefore, that having had that notice, the Government will give us some explicit statement about this provision,

155
and, if need be, insert some Amendment to say that neither they nor some future Government will be able to take undue advantage of these conditions.
Amendment moved—
Leave out subsection (5).—(Lord Addison.)
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): The object of the Amendment is to omit subsection (5), which provides that the provisions of certain sections of the Reserve Forces Act, 1882, and the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, should be excluded. On the Second Reading I reminded your Lordships that the real reason for the introduction of the measure at all was to try to alter the very antique methods of procedure which exist under the present law. My noble friend will observe that in the Preamble to the Bill we definitely state that "a situation has arisen." We are not adopting the old procedure of saying that imminent national danger or a great emergency has arisen; we are putting in the words that "a situation has arisen," so that Parliament may be perfectly aware of the intentions of the Bill as a whole. The noble Lord will realise that the Bill remains in force for a period of three years or less. If we accepted the Amendment we should really be reconstituting the very procedure which we now desire to abolish for a period of three years.
Under Clause 1 (4) any Order in Council authorising the calling-up of the Reserves and the Auxiliary forces has to be "laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made." It would, therefore, be quite possible for the Opposition, either in this House or in another place, to table a Motion of Censure if such Order in Council was issued in unwarrantable circumstances. The Order in Council, when made, must be published, and the noble Lord will have a perfect opportunity of observing what we propose to do when that Order has been made public. But he will remember that, both in this House and in another place, a statement has been made setting out quite clearly the sections of the various Auxiliary and Reserve Forces that we propose to call up, and if the noble Lord had had any objection to that procedure no doubt he would have voiced it at the proper time.
LORD ADDISON: I have not suggested any objection to what the Government
156
propose to do; it is the powers of the Executive in doing it that I am questioning. The noble Lord has referred to the words of the Preamble "Whereas a situation has arisen." Suppose the present situation is dissipated and we got into more normal times, this measure would still remain on the Statute Book, and it would be open for any Government, any day, to say that "a situation had arisen."
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (EARL STANHOPE): The Act only runs for three years.
LORD ADDISON: I know, but of course this Government will be gone long before that. The case I am considering is when Parliament will not be sitting. Suppose that this occasion arose when all your Lordships had gone away to shoot grouse after August 12, and Parliament did not sit again for some months, then a considerable interval might elapse. My contention is that there is no need to inform Parliament of the action the Government have taken within any time after that action has been taken, whereas the Statutes which are being done away with pro tem. would require Parliament to be informed within ten days. Perhaps ten days is too short a time—I am not saying it is not. It might be a month or two months; but I do say the Government ought to provide that action taken under the powers here provided shall be reported to Parliament within a reasonable period. Anyhow, I hope that the noble Earl will think it over. It is a substantial point and, with great respect, he has not replied to it.
EARL STANHOPE: I think the noble Lord is under some misapprehension. The larger part of this Bill is for the purpose of enabling us to call up a part, and possibly quite a small part, of the Reserves, and in that situation I think the noble Lord himself would not wish to call Parliament together. It would probably he quite a minor matter—some improvement in some particular part of one of His Majesty's Forces—and I think nobody in Parliament would desire that it should be called together for that purpose. If on the other hand the whole of the Reserves were called out, I cannot myself visualise a situation which would be such that Parliament would not have to be called together. Obviously it would be a situation which might even be

157
critical. I cannot visualise either this or any other Government, however little worthy it might be of the noble Lord's complete trust, not calling Parliament together in such a situation.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Reinstatement in civil employment]:
3.19 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: On the Second Reading of this Bill I gave notice that I would raise a point on Clause 2 (4), and there is a similar provision in the other Bill that we shall be considering to-day. The point I have in mind is this. As I mentioned on Second Reading, it is necessary to have some vigilance with regard to Bills such as this, for fear that clauses may be slipped in giving powers to Ministers to make regulations, and that within those regulations it may be legal to provide that the Minister himself shall decide whether an offence has been committed or not. There have been several such laws passed in recent years which have given rise to considerable animadversion afterwards. I am encouraged to think that in this case there is no such danger, but these last words of subsection (4), "with or without modifications," might possibly give a loophole. I have not put any Amend-merit down to deal with this point because I have very little doubt the Government will be able to give us a satisfactory assurance. I merely wish to raise the question of which I gave notice on the Second Reading.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I understand this matter concerns the Minister of Labour, and it is the intention of my right honourable friend to make provision to restrain employers from terminating the employment of the individuals who may be called upon to undergo this compulsory military training. The regulations which the Minister will make are, I understand, not yet completed, and I am not therefore in a position to give any indication to the noble Viscount of what they will be, but they will certainly cover the case of the employer who endeavours to throw his employee out of work immediately before being called up to perform the service which he is required to do under the terms of the Military Training Bill.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I am afraid the noble Earl has not quite met my point. I am not disputing the desirability of these regulations or the necessity for preventing evasion of the terms of the Bill when it is an Act. My point is simply this: Will the Minister have power to insert in the regulations a provision that it is for him, or someone acting on his behalf, to decide whether or not the offence has been committed without the matter going through a Court of Law? It is the question of the relationship between the Executive and the Judiciary. I presume they will have to go to a Court of Law because the words in the subsection include the expression "found guilty." A person to be found guilty must be brought before a Court of Law and not merely before an administrative tribunal, but the doubt arises because of the last words of the subsection, "with or without modifications." May the Minister make such modification as would oust the jurisdiction of the Court and enable these matters to be settled by administrative action?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I can give this assurance to the noble Viscount, that in another place my right honourable friend the Attorney-General informed a member of that House that there was precedent for this, and he gave an assurance at the same time that in no case would a penalty of more than £50 be imposed.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Still the noble Earl has not met the point. It is not a question of what the penalty will be, but whether the Minister is to decide the case or whether it is to be decided on evidence in a Court of Law.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This question is new to me, and I have not had an opportunity of considering it. I must say that for my part, speaking for myself, I take the view which the noble Lord suggested—namely, that the words "found guilty" do point directly to the operation of some legal tribunal.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I am quite satisfied with that, but when I raised the matter on Second Reading the noble Earl, Lord Munster, said it would be looked into before the Committee stage. I hope that before we reach the next stage the Lord Chancellor will be able to make

159
quite sure of this matter, and then if he is quite satisfied, I shall be quite satisfied.
On Question, Clause 2 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

MILITARY TRAINING BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Classes of persons liable to be registered and called up for military training.
(3) The Minister, if satisfied that there is good cause for so doing; may permit any person to be registered in the Military Training Register before he attains the age of twenty years, or may permit any person registered in that Register, on application made by him within the prescribed period after being so registered, to postpone his liability to be called up for military training, and in the latter case, the period of one year for which he is liable to be so called up shall begin with the date to which his liability is postponed instead of the date on which he was so registered; and where application for such permission is made to the Minister on grounds of hardship, the Minister shall, unless he grants the permission, refer the application to a Military Training (Hardship) Committee constituted under Part I of the Schedule to this Act.
(4) An applicant for such permission as aforesaid who is aggrieved by the determination of a Military Training (Hardship) Committee, and the Minister, if he considers it necessary, may, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, appeal to the umpire or any deputy umpire appointed by His Majesty for the purposes of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, whose decision shall be final; and the umpire or any deputy umpire shall, when hearing any such appeal, sit with two assessors appointed by the Minister:
Provided that if the determination of the Committee with respect to any application was unanimous, the applicant shall not be entitled to appeal to the umpire or any deputy umpire except with the leave of the Committee.
3.25 p.m.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON moved, in subsection (3), after "registered," where that word
160
last occurs, to insert "or may permit any person so registered to be exempt from his liability to be called up for military training." The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. As this Bill stands, it requires every male of the specified age to become enrolled in the manner provided in the Bill. There are no exemptions whatever—that is to say, it applies to every young man. After a man has applied to be put on the Register and has been so put on the Register, if it is felt to be undesirable that he should be on the Register, the case will be put up to the Military Training (Hardship) Committee to consider and, it may be, to postpone the calling up of the man in question. I am putting aside for the moment the question of conscientious objectors, which is dealt with under special provisions of the Bill. The point I wish to make in putting this option before the authorities is this, that we should not repeat the ghastly mistake we made in the last War by calling up a lot of young men who are much better contributing to the defence of the country where they are than by learning to "form threes," as it is now.
In a machine engineer's shop, a large proportion of the men in the toolroom will be apprentices, nearly finishing their apprenticeship. The drawing office in every big works is largely staffed by the same class of young men. I consulted a very eminent engineer on this matter, and he said: "So far as that stands at present, if all these young fellows had to go up, it would half empty our tool-room." That would be absurd. The work of big works depend on the gauge-makers; some of them more precious than rubies. Here is a man, finishing his apprenticeship to be a gaugemaker and working with the highly skilled degree of execution which gaugemakers must have. He is going to be compelled to enrol, and it may be hereafter, if a case of hardship is alleged, his enlistment will be postponed. A lot of these young fellows are keen as mustard and would not allege any hardship. Many of them want to go in and join up, just as they did in 1914. The result then was that afterwards we had to comb the Services in France to get back again a number of highly skilled men who had joined up. Often when we went to units abroad and tried to find, we will say, a gaugemaker

161
we would be told: "Well he has done very well in his unit, and is very much liked by the sergeant-major, and he has been made a corporal." When we got hold of the young man we found that he was no longer a gaugemaker; he was probably a pork butcher or something of that sort. The young men were willing to be anything rather than be combed out.
That happened all over the place, and anybody who went to France on our numerous expeditions will know that what I am saying is an understatement of the fact. That will happen again. If we are considering the best way, as I am sure we are, of defending our country against possible attack, these young fellows ought not to be sent to form threes, they ought to be kept where they are. I can quite understand the Government saying: "Well, the schedule of reserved occupations is too wide." I think that is a good case; very likely it is, but it will be perfectly possible in consultation with the industries concerned to draw up a short list of these young men who ought not to be taken from their jobs because they are contributing already to the national defence where they are. Under this Bill they would be taken willy-nilly and that would be a first-class blunder. Therefore I suggest that it shall be open to the Minister, if satisfied, to permit any persons so registered to be exempt from liability to be called up.
That is the sensible thing to do. Otherwise the young man will have to be called up; then a case will have to be instituted by someone or other, perhaps his employer, that it is a matter of hardship, and the case will have to go to the Hardships Committee. Weeks and even months may be occupied in that process. That is not the way to do it. The sensible thing to do is to say: "This young man is in the classification where he is better employed in the defence of the country," and the Minister should have the power to make an exemption. Those are the reasons why I move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 11, after ("registered") insert ("or may permit any person so registered to be exempt from his liability to be called up for military training").—(Lord Addison.)
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I fully appreciate the weight of the Amendment which has been moved by my noble
162
friend, but I think that it is entirely contrary to the intention of the Bill that power should be given to the Minister to exempt persons permanently from military training. My noble friend has said that it is intended under this Bill to deal with cases of hardship by temporary postponement or anticipation. It is the belief of the Government that any advantage which might accrue from such an Amendment as the noble Lord has moved would be more than offset by the strife and dissatisfaction which would ensue as the result of relieving one class from compulsory training. With regard to the highly skilled workers to whom my noble friend refers, I understand that the War Office have got vacancies for skilled tradesmen of that kind in connection with this training, and that they will take technical workmen of this type into the Royal Ordnance Corps, the Engineers, and the Signallers, so that they will not be reduced to the admittedly ridiculous position of forming threes when they are highly skilled engineers. Of course I cannot forecast or guarantee to my noble friend whether all will find vacancies, but we hope a considerable number will, and the Ministry of Labour is or will shortly be finding out the occupations of all people registered in order to identify those who could be trained to take part in such a technical service.
LORD MANCROFT: I think we ought to come more closely to this point than we have by the answer of my noble friend Lord Birkenhead. We want to get more specifically to the point of what is likely to be the position in the event of war. I had some experience of matters of this kind during the last War, and although I have not refreshed my memory two things have passed through my mind while I sat here listening to the debate. Armstrong's people used to come to my room in the War Office in the early days of the War and say: "We want some of our skilled men back. Will you get them back for us from the Army? We want certain special men who do special work." While the War Office was trying to get these men back there were actually outside Armstrong's works at Elswick recruiting sergeants trying to get other men out of the works.
Another case that recurs to me was this. We were then very short of rifles. We had the greatest trouble to produce

163
enough rifles. Some of the men who had very high technical skill in the aligning of rifle barrels had gone into the Army from the works at Enfield and were irreplaceable. They had volunteered. We had to get these men back. Much delay and difficulty arose. The analogy between the position then and that of the present circumstances may not be a good one, but I suggest that certainly where we know that men are making special munitions for the Government those men ought to be exempted by name. They ought to be specifically scheduled in, for example, such works as Armstrongs, Vickers, Woolwich and Enfield, and men from such places should not be taken on any account however great their eagerness may be to go and fight. I therefore think there is substance in what the noble Lord, Lord Addison, has said, and it ought to be considered. I say that from my experience in the War Office during the early months of the War 25 years ago.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Is there not some confusion of thought here? This Bill is one that deals, with military training and surely the circumstances will be different when we come to war. I cannot think that so very many of these boys at the age of twenty will be so highly skilled as the noble Lord, Lord Addison, suggests, but is there any reason why they should not do their military training now? In the event of war they could, if necessary, be promptly withdrawn from the Army and sent back to their proper jobs. Surely they need not be exempt from doing military training now.
LORD ADDISON: With respect to the noble Earl he is speaking outside the point. What I say is literally true. A good many of these young men of twenty and twenty-one will be in the fifth year of their apprenticeship, just finishing their apprenticeship, and the majority of them are first-rate fellows at their jobs. I do not mind what expedient the Government adopt. It may be a useful alternative, for example, to make men in scheduled trades who are highly skilled and necessary for the production of munitions serve in the Territorials instead of taking them away for six months. That might be a good way of dealing with the difficulty. All I am suggesting to the Government when defending my procedure in the Amendment is that they should have
164
power to do this. As it is under the Bill as it stands they have no power.
The line of defence of the noble Earl who spoke for the Government is the line of least resistance. He says there would be less trouble and bother by ignoring the schedule of occupations altogether and calling these apprentices up than there would be if we began to pick and choose. I respectfully suggest to him that he has been seriously misinformed. There will be infinite bother the first week this is operated, and some of the people who will make the biggest bother will be those who are giving the best output for the Air Ministry. There is no doubt at all about it. I do hope the Government will not be obstinate. It is an entirely sensible Amendment and I hope the noble Earl will, at any rate, ask his colleagues to think over the matter between now and Report stage. If I had any chance of support in the Division Lobby I should divide on this, but I know I am in a hopeless position. I can only put forward a reasonable case—but it is right.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Is not the noble Lord forgetting that this is only the last year of apprenticeship? There is ample power in the Bill which will enable him to finish his apprenticeship.
LORD ADDISON: With great respect, that is not so. The case will not come to notice. There is no means of knowing.
LORD MANCROFT: There is also a technical or physical objection. Take the case of the manufacture of rifles, where the greatest skill of eye and hand is required. If you put into the Army a young man in the last year, even, of his apprenticeship and he is away six months, it may take another year for him to recover his delicacy of skill.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
3.42 p.m.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON moved to leave out the proviso in subsection (4). The noble Lord said: I am sorry to be responsible for so many Amendments, but this is another that is equally reasonable. If noble Lords will look at the Bill they will see that in these cases it is provided that
"if the determination of the Committee with respect to any application was unanimous, the applicant shall not be entitled to appeal to the umpire or any deputy umpire except with the leave of the Committee."

165
If your Lordships turn to Clause 3, subsection (5) you will see on page 7 of the Bill provisions relating to conscientious objectors in which there is quite a different procedure. That procedure is the same kind, more or less, as we had in the last War. There it is provided that an applicant for registration as a conscientious objector who is aggrieved by the order of a local tribunal may, within the prescribed time, appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. He does not require to get anybody's permission. He has the right of appeal. When it is this other type of hardship that is being considered, I suggest that it is quite unfair to those concerned—they may be employers in just as many cases as they are men—who wish to have a case put before the umpire, that they should not be entitled to appeal to the umpire. I can see no justification whatever for requiring that before these people can appeal they should receive the consent of the Committee which has turned down their case. It seems to me entirely unreasonable.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, leave out lines 27 to 31.—(Lord Addison.)
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: The effect of this Amendment would be that any applicant whose case had been dealt with by a Military Training (Hardship) Committee would fie entitled, if aggrieved, to appeal to the umpire. My noble friend has put his case in such a way as to suggest that this Amendment is consequential upon the Government Amendment now included in Clause 3, page 6, line 39, which provides an unrestricted appeal on conscientious objection from the local tribunals to the Appellate Tribunal. The two cases are however quite dissimilar. The conscientious objection tribunals are few in number, the cases will be limited in number, and the issue that is being tried is not one on which local knowledge is of importance. The Military Training (Hardship) Committees, on the other hand, are dealing with the issue of hardship and for proper adjudication on this issue local knowledge clearly is desirable; and there is no reason to suppose that the umpire, sitting in London, would be in a position to arrive at a better decision than the Hardship Committee with its knowledge of local circumstances. We are well aware that there is need for provision for appeal irk order that uniformity
166
may be introduced on matters of principle and that appeal is provided for under the clause as at present drafted which enables the applicant to appeal if the Committee were not unanimous in their decision, or if they gave leave to appeal.
Your Lordships are of course aware that there may be cases in which the Committee will be unanimous in rejecting a man's case, but there may be certain particular circumstances or matters of principle involved which will enable them to say that the man may appeal. The need for uniformity is also safeguarded by the Minister's unrestricted right of appeal; and if it is said that the Minister should not have an unrestricted right of appeal when the applicant has only a restricted right, I should perhaps point out that the Minister is not in any sense a prosecutor in these cases, but an impartial administrator and that his right of appeal may be exercised in the applicant's favour as well as against him. No doubt there will be very large numbers of applications for anticipation and postponement and if every applicant could appeal from an unfavourable decision from the Hardship Committee to the umpire it might well be that the umpire would be faced with a volume of work with which he could not cope. Most of it would consist of cases which had no point of principle involved in them, and would be automatically disallowed. One must not overlook also in this imperfect world the possibility of certain individuals with no good cause for postponement seeking to put off their liability by unnecessary and hopeless appeals.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The first Amendment standing in my name is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 4, leave out ("Subject to the following provisions of this Act").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: There is another drafting Amendment to this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 17, leave out ("subject to the following provisions of this Act").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Exemption of certain classes of persons.
2.—(1) No person shall be liable to be registered in the Military Training Register, or to be called up for military training under this Act, who—
(c) has, before the twenty-seventh day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, been entered or enlisted in any of His Majesty's Reserve and Auxiliary Forces or been appointed to be an officer of any of those forces; or
3.48 p.m.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON moved, in subsection (1) (c), to leave out "twenty-seventh day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine," and insert "passing of this Act." The noble Lord said: It is a somewhat hopeless enterprise upon which I am engaged, but again I am in charge of a reasonable Amendment. The Bill provides that a man shall not be liable to be called up who, before April 27, 1939, had been entered or enlisted in any of His Majesty's Reserve and Auxiliary Forces. There was a notice in the newspapers to that effect, but it broke down the following day. It has already become a law more observed in the breach because a large number of men enlisted in the Territorials the following day and it was agreed, quite sensibly, that their enlistment should stand and their service proceed. I suggest that, instead of putting into the Bill some arbitrary date, this provision should come into force as soon as this Bill becomes an Act. Then everybody would know where they were and we should regularise the breaches of the law which were condoned, quite properly, by His Majesty's Government on April 27 and 28. Anyhow, it would be a sensible procedure and in accordance with practically every existing Act of the kind, as far as I know. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 22, leave out from ("the") to ("been") in line 23, and insert ("passing of this Act").—(Lord Addison.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This Amendment seeks to let any man join the Auxiliary Forces of the Crown up to the date of the passing of the Bill instead of up to and including April 26, which was the day announced in the Prime Minister's statement regarding the introduction of compulsory military training.
168
It is the considered policy of the Government not to exempt persons who volunteered their services after the day of the Prime Minister's statement. Beyond that, I do not think I can say anything which would alter the opinions of the noble Lord; but naturally he will observe that, if we accepted his Amendment and changed the date in the Bill to that of the passing of the Act, we should have a large number of individuals coming into the Territorial Army who would then avoid having to perform their compulsory training. As this is a matter of policy, His Majesty's Government are not prepared to change it in any way whatever.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The Amendment in my name is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 26, after ("force") insert ("or been appointed to be an officer thereof").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Conscientious objectors.
(12) The regulations made under this Act regulating the procedure of such tribunals as aforesaid shall make provision for the Appellate Tribunal to sit in two divisions, of which one shall sit for Scotland, and shall empower the tribunals to take evidence on oath, and shall make provision as to the representation of parties to proceedings before the tribunals which shall include the right to appear either in person or by counsel or a solicitor or by a representative of any trade union to which they belong.
3.52 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 34, leave out ("on") and insert ("in").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON moved, at the end of subsection (12), to insert "or by a friend." The noble Lord said: This Amendment brings the proposed procedure into line with the procedure which was adopted during the last War and worked quite easily. This clause relates to procedure affecting conscientious objectors. It was found during the last War that a great many conscientious objectors

169
belonged to some sect or group which objected to military service. For instance, I remember that the Christadelphians refused to employ lawyers. They must have saved a lot of money, and perhaps not many of us have had the fortitude to copy their example! However, they were quite sincere in doing so. They would not employ a solicitor, and probably many of them would not belong to a trade union, in which case the applicant would have no way of presenting his case except presenting it himself. A large number of applicants would be quite poor and entirely unfamiliar with the proceedings of the court, and would not know how to set about it. It worked quite peaceably during the War, as far as I know, with a great number of people when a responsible friend was allowed to present their case for them to the tribunal. I am moving in this Amendment that they should have the right to appear either in person, by counsel or solicitor, by a representative of a trade union or by a friend. I hope the Government will accept at least this very humane Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 44, at end insert ("or by a friend").—(Lord Addison.)
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I fully appreciate the force of this Amendment, and I think that some provision of the kind is very necessary. In point of fact the Amendment itself is unnecessary, as the clause as at present drafted enables regulations to be made by the Minister which will admit the friend of an applicant on these occasions. The Bill was, in fact, amended in the House of Commons on the Report stage precisely for this purpose. It had previously said that the regulations might provide for the applicant to appear either in person or by counsel or solicitor or by a representative of any trade union to which he belonged, and that is the form in which the noble Lord objected to it.
LORD ADDISON: I do not object to it; I want to add to it.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I understand, but it was represented in the House of Commons that these words might be held to rule out the possibility of an applicant bringing a friend to represent him. Consequently, upon Report stage the words were amended to read
170
as they do at present—namely, that the regulations
"shall make provision as to the representation of parties to proceedings before the tribunals which shall include "—
those are the important words—
"the right to appear either in person or by counsel or a solicitor or by a representative of any trade union to which they belong."
This form of words is not exclusive, and leaves it open to provide for the appearance of a friend, and the regulations will so make provision for the friend. I hope this assurance will be sufficient for the noble Lord.
LORD ADDISON: Whether the noble and learned Lord Chancellor would support that reading of the Bill I wonder! This is an instruction to the Minister on what the regulations are to contain, and not an instruction to put in something which is not mentioned. However, if the noble Earl will give me his assurance on behalf of the Government that the regulations will include the provision for a person to be represented by a friend, then, so far as I am concerned, I will thank him and be content. Could I have that specific assurance?
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I shall be very pleased to give my noble friend the assurance for which he asks.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I may say that I have some little inclination to favour the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite. It may be that my noble friend below me interprets the text rightly and that there would be a power under the clause as it stands to include a friend as representative. But I think it is very remarkable that a large number of other kinds of representatives should be named and this general friend left out. I should have thought that most tribunals would have interpreted it as exclusive. At any rate, if there is any doubt I think the Government should put it right. If they cannot do it now, perhaps they would do it at the next stage of the Bill.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: In support of what the noble Marquess has said, I may say that it has been my experience—a very limited experience, admittedly—of definitions of this nature that if you name a certain number of people who may be interested, as in this case, you at least tend to limit the class. There seems to me no earthly reason why the

171
friend should not be added in the Bill, rather than merely specifying that he may be added by regulation.
LORD RAGLAN: Is there not this other objection, that you are making members of a trade union a privileged class? If you belong to a trade union, you are entitled to be represented for nothing; if you do not belong to a trade union, you have to pay a solicitor.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As I think your Lordships know, I am always in favour of making Acts of Parliament as lucid and certain in their meaning as possible. It is not always possible, but I think in this case it is. I must say frankly that I think it would be an advantage in the interests of certainty and clarity if the noble Lord's Amendment were accepted. In saying that, I know that I am supported by the feeling of many noble Lords. There may, however, be a question whether the words of the Amendment are exactly satisfactory, and perhaps the noble Lord will allow His Majesty's Government to put down the appropriate words to carry out this intention.
LORD ADDISON: I thank the noble and learned Lord very much, and beg leave to withdrawn the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Calling up persons for military training.
(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, every person upon whom a military training notice is served shall be deemed—
(7) Where, immediately before the time when a person is deemed to have been enlisted by virtue of subsection (2) of this section, he is a member of any of His Majesty's Reserve and Auxiliary Forces, his service in that force shall be deemed to have been duly terminated at that time.
4.0 p.m.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON moved, after subsection (1), to insert the following new subsection:
"(2) The provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, with any necessary modifications shall, by regulations to be made by the Minister, be made applicable to any
172
person called up for military training under this Act who sustains an injury in the course of his military duties."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment raises another very important matter, which I think perhaps may have been overlooked. These young men will be called up for military training for six months. Then the Bill provides that, except for good cause shown, they are to be reinstated in their employ, and there are penalties upon the employer if he fails to reinstate them. So the whole scheme of the Bill is that these young men receive this term of military training as a sort of interruption of their ordinary industry. They do not become Regular soldiers in the accepted sense. In the course of his ordinary industry if a man sustains an injury he is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act in that event; and we are all, of course, familiar with the methods of working of that Act. At this particular period in his life this young man is taken out with the idea of being put back again in the same position at the end of his period of training. But suppose that during the six months he is knocked down by a lorry in the course of his work in the Army, then he is only entitled to receive the ordinary compensation which would be payable under the military laws, which is very much less than he would be getting if he were receiving the benefits of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
In the case of a man intending to remain in the Army he will, of course, spend his time there and thereafter draw his pay or annuity, whatever it is; but these young men are in an entirely different category, and I suggest that it is not reasonable that they should be deprived of the benefits of the Workmen's Compensation Act during this compulsory interruption of their ordinary work. A very trifling premium would provide that the benefits of the Act should continue. But it might be that a young fellow taken from his work might receive injury which would incapacitate him for life from resuming his ordinary work. If he had the benefit of the Workmen's Compensation Act he would be compensated accordingly, but if he were to receive only the compensation which applied to the Auxiliary and Territorial Forces he would be in a very different position. I think it is only right that if, during the interrup-

173
tion of his ordinary occupation, he should sustain an injury, he should be entitled to the same compensation as he would have been entitled to if he had remained in his ordinary occupation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 16, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Addison.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The noble Lord's advice on the subject of the Workmen's Compensation Act is somewhat different from mine, because I am informed that by Section 33 of the Act of 1925 it is specifically stated that it does not apply to personnel in the military service of the Crown. All these young men who will come up to perform their military duty while in the Militia Service are eligible for awards under the Service Regulations if they get injured or hurt in any such way as the noble Lord suggested. Indeed, I am advised that these militiamen will be eligible for the benefits of the normal disability peace code, which is applicable to all military forces in time of peace, and taking the Service Regulations as a whole they are, I understand, a great deal more advantageous than the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925. I hope therefore the noble Lord will observe that these men are covered by the Service Regulations, and that in the event of damage to themselves either through accident or illness they will be compensated by the State.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Can the noble Earl give us one assurance? It is one thing to be eligible, but that is not to say that you will receive. You may receive an ex gratia payment at the discretion of the Secretary of State for War, who will be very likely desirous of exercising that discretion in a liberal way, or it may be at the discretion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who in Service matters takes a far less liberal view than a Service Minister is inclined to do. I speak with some sympathy in this matter, because for years I have fought what I had hoped in the end was a winning battle to get reasonable rates for members of the Auxiliary Forces under the Treasury Regulations. It may well be that the maximum ex gratia payment which the Secretary of State, with the authority of the Treasury, is allowed to give to a serving soldier of the Auxiliary or Territorial Forces is as
174
good as the legal compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, but I do not think your Lordships would want to part with this matter without something more than an assurance—without a firm statement that if a man in the course of his peace-time service meets with an injury which would give him a right to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, he will have just as firm a right to compensation under the Military Regulations. It ought not to be left as a matter of discretion. In this matter, as in all matters, the State ought to be a model employer, and it ought to give the maximum compensation which an ordinary employer has to give in the case of an accident. I should like, and I am sure your Lordships would wish, to have a firm assurance that the soldier will get it as a right and not merely as a matter of discretion, which can be exercised or not at will.
EARL HOWE: I do not want to traverse anything which the noble Viscount has said, but I want to utter a note of warning. I think we should not put the new Militia Force in a preferential position as compared with the Regular Forces.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: There is this difference between the two, that the man who enlists in the existing forces does so of his own free will, and he accepts the conditions laid down for the Army or other similiar Services. These militiamen are enlisted compulsorily, and therefore it is not right to subject them to any worse conditions than they would have had if they had remained in civil employment. There appear to be two differences between the rights of compensation under the Military Regulations and those which would accrue under the Workmen's Compensation Act. One is the question whether there is a right to compensation, or whether it depends upon the discretion of the Secretary of State or other Minister. The other is whether the amount of the award is equal in the two cases. Lord Munster has stated that, taken as a whole, the disability payments are as generous under the Military Regulations as under the Workmen's Compensation Act, but that does not necessarily mean that in every particular case where a man suffers an accident in peace time owing to his compulsory service in the Militia, he will be treated as generously—or as

175
adequately I would say—as under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Both these points deserve fuller consideration.
EARL STANHOPE: I do not think I could give the assurance that my noble friend asked for, for this reason. He knows very well that these cases vary with each individual and with each case, and therefore it is almost impossible to say that the cases which arise under the Workmen's Compensation Act and the particular cases that might arise in one of the Services are strictly comparable. I had to fight these cases years ago when I was Civil Lord of the Admiralty, and I found that when I was able to make a clear case I succeeded in getting out of the Treasury compensation which certainly was quite as good as the individual would have got under the Workmen's Compensation Act. That is certainly the intention of the Government with regard to this Bill, and I do not think I could say more than that because, as I say, I do not think it is possible to give an absolute pledge as to how cases would be dealt with, because they differ so much one from the other.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I appreciate my noble friend's difficulty; on the other hand we are still left in a difficulty. How much the man gets is one thing, and whether he is to get it as of right is another. In 99 cases out of 100 it is perfectly plain that the accident a man meets with is, to use the legal parlance, one arising out of and in the course of his employment. Where it is a doubtful case as to whether this accident arises out of and in the course of his employment, it is a matter for the County Court Judge in the case of workmen's compensation and for the Secretary of State or the Treasury in the case of a serving soldier. The assurance that I would like my noble friend to give is that where, in the opinion of the War Office, it is plainly established that a man met with an accident in the course of his employment and arising out of his employment, he will as a matter of course receive that compensation.
LORD RUSHCLIFFE: It is quite clear that there is a good deal to be said both for and against this Amendment, but I suggest that it raises a question of Privilege, inasmuch as it imposes a charge on the Exchequer. Of course it
176
may be that the Commons would waive their right.
LORD ADDISON: The case is not fully met by the assurance the noble Earl has given, because the whole intention of the Government is that the position of the man should not be worsened by compulsory enlistment. In this case I am advised by men who spend their lives in dealing with these cases—members of different trade unions—that the man's position will be materially worsened, though not perhaps where he gets a good ex gratia payment. But in the case of workmen's compensation, a man has a right and knows more or less the kind of compensation to which he will be entitled. Under the Act to which the noble Earl referred the circumstances are entirely different. That is an Act which relates to men undergoing long service in His Majesty's Forces, not to men compulsorily enlisted for a short time, and it was never designed for that purpose. I hope, therefore, that, though these words may not be the right words, the Government will at all events promise reconsideration of the matter, and see whether they cannot meet the substance of the case at a later stage of the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I say a word on this point partly because I spent many weary hours here and elsewhere in considering workmen's compensation cases? I must tell your Lordships, with great respect to Lord Addison, that I doubt very much whether he has contemplated what regulations could properly be made under this Amendment, if it were not a matter of Privilege, to make the clauses properly applicable to the cases which he has in mind. An ordinary workman is in a quite different position from a person who is a soldier serving the Crown, whether he happens to be a person training under this Bill when it becomes an Act, or whether he is in the Regular Forces. A workman who suffers some injury is generally employed at a week's notice, and he has no right to his wages after he has ceased to be able to discharge his duties and perform the work for which he was engaged. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act he can get something for so many weeks, and there are most elaborate provisions—and elaborate as they are, much more elaborate decisions of the Courts—

177
which determine what he is to be entitled to.
If you take a soldier, whether enlisted under this Act or a Regular soldier, he does not cease to be the servant of the Crown and entitled to his pay and allowances because he has unfortunately sprained his ankle or broken his arm. He will continue, at any rate to the end of his employment, to be entitled to his wages. If you are considering more serious forms of injury, with some considerable experience I doubt very much whether it would always, or nearly always, be to his advantage to come under the Workmen's Compensation Act and whether he would not be better off under the present system applicable to people who are serving the Crown. The whole matter requires, I venture to think, most careful consideration, in order that it may be possible for the persons concerned to ascertain whether this clause, or anything like this clause, is appropriate for the purpose which the noble Lord has in mind. Accordingly, having regard to these facts—namely, that I believe the provision to be unworkable, and that such a provision might have very serious reactions on the Forces of the Crown—I would certainly recommend your Lordships not to accept the Amendment.
I will only add that your Lordships must know—we all know—that this Bill was introduced under circumstances of great pressure and to fill a very urgent need in the circumstances of the world, and I do not suppose any of the draftsmen concerned with this measure would pretend that it was perfect or that it was incapable of amendment. The position, however, is that at present every Amendment of any substance might prevent this Bill from being passed this side of the Recess, and I would urgently suggest that Amendments which are of a highly controversial nature, as this one would be, should not be pressed now. During the three years of this Act, when it is passed, there will be other opportunities of amendment, and I have no doubt myself that more Amendments will be found necessary in the course of the next year. But at the present moment: I suggest it would be very much better that this particular Amendment should be left for some later date.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "following provisions of this" and insert "provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of the the last foregoing." The noble Earl said: The first Amendment standing in my name on this clause is consequential on the second which aims at dividing Clause 5 into two clauses. Perhaps, therefore, I might formally move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 17, leave out ("following provisions of this") and insert ("provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of the last foregoing").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.21 p.m.
LORD ADDINGTON LORD ADDINGTON moved, at the end of subsection (7), to insert "unless he is a serving Territorial, in which case he shall retain during his Militia service his Territorial rank and status and his service in that force shall be considered as continuous." The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment as a member of a Territorial Force Association and as one who served for some years in that Force. Under the Bill as at present drafted the serving Territorial on being called up has his service terminated. I do not see any provision in the Bill at present to facilitate, in such a case, the man rejoining the Territorial unit he was in before when the end of his Militia training is reached, nor does it appear that he will gain any advantage through his Militia service. The obligations of the Territorial Force seem to be quite as exacting if not more exacting than those of any force he might be required to join at the termination of his compulsory service. Therefore, as far as I can see, and in the opinion of others who are more in touch with serving Territorials at the moment than I am, there is a very grave risk that the flow of recruits to the Territorial Army will be greatly affected by this measure. I therefore urge very strongly that if the Government desire, as they do desire, that the Territorial Army should continue as an integral and efficient part of the Defence Forces of the Crown, arrangements should be made for continuity of service in the same unit.
There is also a very important point about the effect on the Territorial efficiency and long service medals. A man should be able to know he can go back to the same unit with the same

179
rank and seniority as he held before. Where men serving in the Territorial Force have taken the trouble to become efficient and have attained non-commissioned rank, advantage should be taken of the knowledge and training acquired. It is not very encouraging to undertake this compulsory training, lose your rank and stripes, and perhaps serve alongside men you formerly used to command. Of course I recognise there are administrative difficulties on that point. The important point is the return to the same unit. The Secretary of State in another place intimated that the Territorial noncommissioned officer could normally expect to return to his place in the Territorial Army in the same rank as he previously held. I should be grateful if the noble Earl who will reply will tell us how, seeing his engagement has been terminated, he will be able to do this, and whether, on re-engagement, he will not have to start again at the lowest rank and lose his seniority, however rapidly thereafter he may be promoted. I feel it would be more satisfactory if there were some definite words in the Bill regarding this possibility of returning to the same unit, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 28, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Addington.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I understand the intention of the Amendment of my noble friend is to ensure that a Territorial Force soldier, when he comes up on six months' training, shall retain his Territorial status and rank, and that his service in the Militia shall be regarded as a continuous part of his Territorial engagement. My noble friend will observe that a case such as this can only arise in relation to a Territorial who has served in the Force on or after April 27. It would be impossible for a Territorial soldier to retain his status in the Territorial Army concurrently with his status as a militiaman. I understand it is a well-known principle of Military Law that a man cannot be serving on two engagements at the same time, and it is for this reason that provision is made in subsection (7) of Clause 5 for the termination of any earlier engagement which is current when a man is deemed to have enlisted as a militiaman. Further, he could not retain in the Militia any non-commissioned rank he may have attained in the
180
Territorial Army. As I mentioned in my speech on the Second Reading, it is the considered policy of the Government that all militiamen shall be treated on an equality.
As regards the Territorial efficiency medal, that question is being examined now, and I am not in a position to give the noble Lord any definite reply to his inquiry. I can, however, say this, that it is the intention of my right honourable friend that on an individual's return to the Territorial Army, he will be reinstated into his former rank if his Militia training has proved satisfactory to his commanding officer at that time. The noble Lord will recognise, as I have said before, that it is two years before a case of this sort can come up, and that will give us ample opportunity to re-examine a position which might conceivably arise such as the noble Lord has outlined. I hope on the assurance I have given regarding reinstatement to the Territorial Army from the Militia, my noble friend will see his way to withdraw the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Do I understand that when a young corporal in the Territorial Army within the age is enlisted as a militiaman, he will there-upon be reduced to the rank of private? That may be inevitable, though I must say, I have a very great feeling of compassion for the corporal who is treated in that way. The time comes when he has passed through his recruit training as a militiaman and he is to be encouraged under part of the scheme of the Government to rejoin the Territorial Army. Are we to understand that when he rejoins he will reassume his stripes as a corporal? Is that to be an absolute pledge of the Government, subject of course to good behaviour?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Subject to good behaviour and subject to the satisfaction of his commanding officer commanding the battalion he has been serving in for six months, I can guarantee that to the noble Marquess.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: There should not be many Territorials who by the age of twenty have reached any very advanced non-commissioned rank.
EARL HOWE: May I ask the noble Earl whether it is quite clear that a man who has been serving in the Reserve Forces and is called up for his Militia

181
training or compulsory service, at the end of that time is to be discharged and allowed to go back to his former unit? Most of the units work with some sort of establishment. Supposing the unit is full up at the conclusion of his Militia service, will be still be entitled to go back to it, or what will happen?
THE EARL OF RADNOR: May I ask whether it would not be possible to impose on Territorial units, in a case like this, a similar obligation to that which is being imposed on employers, to reinstate Territorials who have been called up in the position in which they were before?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I should like to consider that point and give the noble Earl a reply during the Report stage to-morrow.
EARL HOWE: Does that apply also to the point I raised?
LORD ADDINGTON: It would be an enormous advantage from the point of view of recruiting, if we got as clear a statement as possible as to the intentions of the Government and as to what the regulations are going to be. It is true that the Territorials would actually be called up two years from now. The question of the recruiting for the Territorial Force will start this autumn, and it is important that some very clear statements and some definite regulation should be issued in order to facilitate the obtaining of recruits. I think the question of seconding should also be considered. Officers and men are at present seconded for various courses and for the Staff College, so that a Territorial could be seconded from his unit and join up automatically at the end of his training. I should like to ask whether regulations of that kind can be further considered. I do not wish to delay the matter, but I think the points I have mentioned are important and should be considered.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
That clause 5 be divided into two clauses, the first to consist of subsection (1) and subsections (8) to (12) inclusive and the second to consist of subsections (2) to (7) inclusive.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Reinstatement in civil employment.
6.—(1) It shall be the duty of any employer by whom a person called up for training to which this section applies was employed when he was so called up, to reinstate him in his employment at the termination of that training in an ocupation and under conditions not less favourable to him than those which would have been applicable to him had he not been called up, and if he fails to do so, the employer shall, subject as hereinafter provided, be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds; and the court by which any employer is found guilty of an offence under this subsection may order him to pay to the person whom he has failed to reinstate a sum not exceeding an amount equal to twelve weeks' remuneration at the rate at which his remuneration was last payable to him by the employer:
(5) If the Minister is satisfied that it is necessary to restrain employers from terminating the employment of their employees by reason of any duties or liabilities which they are or may become liable to perform or discharge by virtue of the provisions of this Act, or to make provision for the prevention of evasion of the provisions of this section, he may make regulations for those purposes, and such regulations may make provision for the punishment of breaches of the regulations, and may in particular apply with respect to persons found guilty of such breaches any of the provisions of this section relating to persons found guilty of offences under this section, with or without modifications.
4.35 p.m.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON moved, in subsection (1), after "applies," to insert "(or conditionally registered in the Register of Conscientious Objectors, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b) of subsection (7) of Section three of this Act)." The noble Lord said: Under the Bill as it stands a man will be reinstated in his employment after he has served his term under the provisions of this clause. If your Lordships will observe the words of it you will see that there is a class which is omitted from the benefit intended to be bestowed. The words are "It shall be the duty of any employer by whom a person called up for training to which this section applies." Who are the people to whom this section applies? They are the people who are called up for training and who undergo training, but if you refer back to the bottom of page 7 of the Bill you will see that there is another class. There is a class of those who are conditionally registered for the period of one year on condition that during that year they shall comply with the requirements of the next subsection.

183
Then, if you look at the next subsection, which is subsection (8) on page 8, you will see that that relates to people who are held to have a conscientious objection and who are given non-military work to do.
The whole class of those who are on the Register but who on grounds of their conscientious objection are exempted from military service as such are given non-combatant service. They are not included in the reinstatement provisions of Clause 6. The reinstatement provisions of Clause 6, as I understand them, only provide for those who serve in the ordinary way. They do not relate to those who have not undergone the military training because, under the provisions of the earlier clause, they are being put into the special category of those who are on the Register but who are exempted from military service on conscientious grounds. Yet they are taken away from their employment just in the same way as any other persons. I think it is the intention of the Government that a person who is on conscientious grounds, after proper inquiry, placed in his special class shall not be prejudiced on that account in his subsequent employment. I am quite sure that is the intention of the Government and it is only right that it should be so. But I suggest that if the Bill stands as it now is, this man has no right to reinstatement, and in order to secure that those who are conditionally registered as set out in paragraph (b) of Clause 3 (7) at the bottom of page 7 should also be entitled to reinstatement in their employment just the same as those who are on the ordinary Register, which I feel sure was intended, I move the Amendment that stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 33, after ("applies") insert the said words.—(Lord Addison.)
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: The effect of the Amendment would be to impose upon employers the same liability to reinstate conscientious objectors who have done six months' civilian training under Clause 3, subsection (8), as is imposed upon them to reinstate militiamen who have done six months' training. I am very well aware that the noble Lord who moved the Amendment has great experience of this matter, and I say to him very respectfully that we consider
184
that the obligation to reinstatement which is imposed upon employers by this Bill is a very heavy obligation and it is only one which it is possible to impose if public opinion, and of course public opinion of employers, is in favour of proper provision for reinstatement. I think it is a fact that while employers generally will be willing and anxious to reinstate the militiamen, and will be further in favour of the compulsory provisions of this Bill in so far as they relate to militiamen, the same cannot be said with any confidence in relation to conscientious objectors, and I think that to attempt to force employers against their will to reinstate conscientious objectors would be to create a state of general discontent which might very well imperil the reinstatement provision as a whole. There is one other point which I would put to the noble Lord, and that is that if the provisions were extended to conscientious objectors it might very well further embitter the feelings with which they are probably wrongly regarded in time of war. I may add that this Amendment was moved in the House of Commons and was resisted upon the ground that it was understood and accepted that employers might be compelled by legal compulsion to reinstate militiamen but that the position was quite different in the case of conscientious objectors.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
4.39 p.m.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON moved, after subsection (1), to insert the following new subsection:
"(2) Any person whose employer has failed to reinstate him in accordance with the provisions of this section, may submit his complaint to a Military Training (Hardship) Committee, and if the Committee are satisfied that the complaint is well-founded they shall advise the Minister accordingly, whose duty it shall be to institute proceedings against the employer."
The noble Lord said: The question I want your Lordships to ask yourselves at this point is what is a man going to do who has not been reinstated in accordance with the provisions of the Bill and as it is intended? In the clause to which the noble Earl has just been referring the men are entitled to reinstatement. So far as I can see, if a man is not reinstated what he can do somehow or another is to satisfy the Minister about it or take action in the Courts. How he is going to satisfy the Minister I do not quite know. There is no machinery for enabling

185
him to satisfy the Minister. He can, of course, write letters or get a Member to put questions in the House of Commons, and generally make himself as troublesome as he can, but there is no means of enabling him to satisfy the Minister that he is entitled to reinstatement and has not been reinstated. I suggest that that is putting a man in an impossible position, an entirely unfair position. If he belongs to a powerful union, his union will champion his cause for him and I do not expect there will be any difficulty in such cases. Difficulties will not arise with big responsible employers accustomed every day to deal in conference with employees and their unions. The trouble will occur in small cases where there are one or two or perhaps three men employed with no union to defend a man or state his case. The man himself will not know how to set about it. He probably knows nothing about consulting lawyers and in many cases will have no money to enable him to do that. There should be some machinery provided whereby a man can establish his case. That is what my Amendment seeks to do.
We have set up in an earlier part of the Bill bodies called Military Training (Hardship) Committees which will consist, I believe, of experienced referees and others accustomed to advise the Ministry of Labour in industrial matters. One of those Committees is just the kind of body to which a man ought to have access if he wants to establish a case that he is entitled to reinstatement and has not been reinstated. It seems to me that the Hardship Committee, having already experience of all this group of problems, is the body to deal with such cases. If the Committee find that a man has a case no doubt it will report to the Minister and action may be taken. Then subsection (5) of Clause 6 will mean something. As it stands I suggest that it does not mean anything, because I do not see how the Minister is ever going to be satisfied. In order to provide means for satisfying the Minister or otherwise, I suggest that these claims for reinstatement should be considered by a body experienced already in dealing with that class of case and that it should report to the Minister its findings.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 24, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Addison.)
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I can quite understand the motive of the noble Lord in moving this Amendment, but we do not think there is any reason for interposing the Military Training (Hardship) Committee in these proceedings The Hardship Committees are appointed under Clause 1 (3) of the Bill to deal with a specific matter—namely, applications for anticipation and postponement of liability for military training in cases where hardship is alleged. We think it is unnecessary to bring these Committees into the administration of the reinstatement clause and indeed to do so would probably only cause a delay in the proceedings. The Minister will be prepared to institute proceedings in proper cases against defaulting employers on application at the Ministry of Labour. If the present Amendment were accepted it would mean that the Minister would never take proceedings unless and until a Hardship Committee had reported, which would only cause delay. It is also always possible for the employee, possibly with the assistance of his trade union, to take proceedings against the employer.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I, on the question of the construction of the Bill, say a word or two which I think will probably remove some of the doubts entertained by the noble Lord, Lord Addison. In Clause 6 (1) certain rights are given to a person called up for training who is not reinstated. He would be entitled at once, on the employer refusing to take him back without any reason, to apply to the ordinary petty sessional court to enforce a penalty and to obtain also a sum equal to twelve weeks' remuneration at the rate at which his remuneration was last payable by the employer. His right to do that is not conditional at all. He can do it, subject to his having a case, at once. The effect of this Amendment would be that he could not take any such steps unless, as I understand the Amendment, he went to the Military Training (Hardship) Committee and induced them to say that the complaint was well-founded, and then the Committee would advise the Minister to institute proceedings.
I cannot think that that is really the object of the noble Lord. He has referred to subsection (5) as if that subsection had something to do with the man's rights under subsection (1). I can assure your

187
Lordships that in my confident opinion that is not a right view of the Bill. As I have said to your Lordships, this Bill was drafted rather hurriedly and it was thought that the provisions in the first four subsections might not cover all the cases of injustice which might possibly be suffered by a refusal to reinstate a man in his old employment. It was for that reason thought necessary to insert subsection (5), to enable the Minister to make regulations by which the net might be tightened and it might be made more difficult for an employer who desired to evade his duties to do so. It is only for that purpose. That subsection is intended simply and solely for the purpose of making regulations to tighten the net. Subsection (1) is quite apart from that. A man who has a grievance is not in the least bound to satisfy the Minister of anything whatever. It is true that if he requires assistance in bringing an action he would have to apply, as the noble Earl who has just spoken from these Benches has explained, to the Ministry of Labour for assistance, but he has a right to go straight away and enforce his claim. I venture to think that probably the noble Lord will come to the conclusion that in these circumstances the Amendment need not be pressed.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: It might be a convenience for the militiaman on discharge to be issued with one of those little buff books which those of us who have been soldiers remember so well. That will show him very clearly what he ought to do and to whom he should apply in case he has any difficulty. It is merely a matter for regulation, but it would make matters a little clearer for him. In fact even the form might be included rather than put on him the onus of going to petty sessions or even consulting his trade union about it.
LORD ADDISON: I confess, of course, to being influenced by the advice given by the noble and learned Lord; but while the form of the Amendment is, I think, open to some objection on the technical grounds which he alleges, that does not do away with the good grounds for an Amendment of this kind. The fact is that the men who will be suffering in the cases I am describing will not as a rule have a powerful union to support them. The
188
provisions will relate to the thousands of men in a one-man business or employing a few people, or to a man who is not in a union at all. I am sure the noble and learned Lord Chancellor will agree that such a man would be very apprehensive about taking a case even to the petty sessions. Anything relating to the law appals him; he wants something simple and something he can understand.
EARL STANHOPE: A penny-halfpenny letter to the Ministry of Labour.
LORD ADDISON: That is what I was coming to. I have great regard for the machinery of the Ministry of Labour: it is entitled to, and I think receives, great public respect. If the noble and learned Lord Chancellor will tell me that he will put in the regulations something that will instruct these men that in the case of a grievance or a non-reinstatement they can go to a Ministry of Labour Exchange and receive advice on what they ought to do about it, or how to set about getting their wrongs attended to, and get a buff form or some other coloured form to tell them what to do about it, I am perfectly content. But I think that something ought to be undertaken to put these men in this large class of cases—it will be a considerable class—in the way of obtaining their rights as intended by the Government under the Bill. If the noble Lord will give us some such pledge as that, I shall be more than content.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I must say I think the noble Lord opposite is rather hard to please. The Government have done their best to please him, and have always shown in these debates an acute sense of the necessity of seeing that nobody is ill-treated under the provisions of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord Chancellor has pointed out that the Bill was made in a great hurry.
LORD ADDISON: That is very true!
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In fact, it was not necessary to point that out; it was quite evident on the face of it. But he also said most candidly that there would have to be regulations, and indeed he foreshadowed even an amending Bill as a possibility. But my noble friend opposite who spoke above the Gangway said just now that he thought that probably some little handbook might be composed in which the rights and remedies of

189
the militiaman might be set out. Those are all matters for regulation, and the Government have shown that they are most willing to issue regulations to get over the little difficulties which hasty drafting may have involved. I am sure the noble Lord ought to be satisfied with that.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
4.54 p.m.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON moved to leave out subsection (5). The noble Lord said: If I wanted a justification for this Amendment, it would be found in the speech of the noble and learned Lord Chancellor a few minutes ago. He said that the Bill had been hastily drafted, and so did the noble Marquess who has just spoken. I am sure they are right, and anybody who reads this subsection will need no further convincing. Quite frankly, I have not the faintest idea what it means. It is, I think, supposed to relate to cases where men are dismissed after the announcement of the Act and before they are called upon to register. I understand that there have been quite a number of cases of that kind by certain unworthy persons, where, therefore, the duty of reinstatement will not apply. I understand it was to do something—I am not quite sure what—with regard to that class of case that this subsection was designed. If I had any party of voters in the House I should have divided on the substance of the last Amendment, because I am quite sure that the case ought to be met. I think the noble Marquess was very sanguine. I did not detect that we got the pledge that he wants and that I want. I do not think the noble Earl gave us a pledge.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: "Reasonable regulations." You may be quite sure.
LORD ADDISON: I am very glad to hear those terms from the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, and accept them as a pledge. But if the subsection is to remain in the Bill, I move the Amendment standing in my name in order to elicit some statement of what it means, what is going to be done about it, and its object. It begins by saying, "If the Minister is satisfied "—that is, the Minister of Labour. I do not know how he is going to be satisfied or who is going to satisfy him. Anyhow, it is to restrain employers from terminating the
190
employment by reason of certain things. I want to know what he is going to do, what he has in mind, how he is going to be satisfied, and who is going to satisfy him. That is all. I really will not be exacting, as the noble Marquess alleges. I think we are entitled to have some notion of what he is going to put in these regulations, and what the Government are going to do or aim at doing. It is on that account, in the hope of eliciting some statement on those lines, that I put down the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 14, leave out subsection (5).—(Lord Addison.)
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I quite appreciate that in a Bill hastily dratted, as this has been, it is necessary for the Minister to have power to make regulations which cover the previous four subsections of this clause. There may be, and probably are, gaps in these four subsections, and you will need, or may need, some general powers in order to make them function. But it also seems to me that this subsection creates, first of all, an entirely new offence. If the Minister is satisfied that it is necessary to restrain employers from terminating the employment, then he may make regulations, and such regulations may make provision for punishment. I do not know if it is quite proper that the Minister should be able to create a new offence, with punishment attached, by regulations which, if I understand aright, must be laid before Parliament and are the subject of negative procedure: they have to be laid for forty sitting days, or something of that sort. These regulations might be made at the beginning of the Summer Recess, during which time nothing can be done by Parliament and it cannot object to the regulations, and people may be fined or even imprisoned on account of the regulations put forward by the Minister under this Bill. I do not know whether the noble Lord would be prepared to answer that question as well.
EARL STANHOPE: I am rather surprised at my noble friend for thinking that the Government are anxious to go behind the back of Parliament on every occasion and wait until just before a long Recess in order to produce their regulations. I can assure him there is nothing of that kind in our minds.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: It might happen.
EARL STANHOPE: Well, it might, but we cannot deal with all the possibilities which might occur on this or any other Bill. We have to deal with what I think the late Lord Haldane called "the reasonable probabilities." The real difficulty about this is that it is difficult to put in an Act of Parliament all the various cases which might occur. We therefore prefer to keep it as flexible as possible, by putting these matters under regulations. If those regulations do not go quite far enough the Minister will have -power to amend the regulations and make them stronger if necessary. I think noble Lords opposite will recognise many ways in which the employer who desires not to play the game may escape the provisions of this measure. The employer might, for instance, dismiss a man a week before the date on which he is to be called up, or it may be made difficult for young men of about eighteen to get employment because of their likelihood of being called up. Such matters can be met by regulations. What is more difficult is the case of the employer who takes a young man back again, and complies with the Act in that way, and then a week or a fortnight later dismisses him upon some paltry complaint. That is what we want to deal with in our regulations, which cannot be dealt with in an Act of Parliament. That is the whole essence of the matter, and I hope that the Committee will realise that we are trying to be reasonable about this, and to meet a very difficult question in the only way which we think is adequate to meet it.
LORD RAGLAN: You are putting a very heavy burden on the courts of summary jurisdiction already, and if they have got to interpret these Acts of Parliament in the light of regulations their position may become almost impossible.
EARL STANHOPE: I hope the noble Lord is entirely wrong. My hope and belief is that the number of employers who are not going to play the game is extraordinarily few.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
5.3 p.m.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I would like to raise a point on the general question of reinstatement which I think is of considerable interest and difficulty. With the general principle of compelling em-
192
ployers to reinstate those of their employees who have been called up I am in entire agreement, but I find it rather difficult to see how, in a great number of cases, it is going to work satisfactorily in practice. Lord Addison, in moving a previous Amendment, mentioned that probably the person who is going to be an offender is the small employer, and undoubtedly that is so, because he will have a very much greater difficulty. I am thinking more particularly of the small employer who employs from one to three hired men, and more particularly still those in country districts, such as the small shopkeeper or blacksmith, or the small farmer who employs boys perhaps straight from school or very soon after. When the time comes that those boys have to be called up, and the employer has to replace them with somebody else, that somebody else will know that he has only got the job for six months, because his predecessor has to be reinstated. In those circumstances the small employer will find it difficult to get somebody to take on the job for that short time. Equally he will have to dismiss that person at the end of six months in order to reinstate the man who has gone away.
My own conclusion is that the difficulty first of all of getting individuals to take the place of those who have gone away for six months, and also the dangers inherent in a £50 fine and three months' sentence for failure to reinstate, will be such as to compel employers in these categories of small employers to employ nobody but those who are over conscription age. The difficulty which seems to attach to the small employers will inevitably react upon the employee. These small employers will find it necessary in their own interest only to employ those who have passed the conscription age, and that will leave us with the scope for employment between the school-leaving age and the Militia age very much reduced in those smaller employments. So far as the country districts are concerned, if my surmise is correct, it will still further accelerate the drift from the country to the town. I say nothing about the larger employers. They have plenty to come and go on, and will have no difficulty, but I would like to know from the Government whether they have considered this particular difficulty which I have men-

193
tioned. not only from the point of view of the small employers but from the point of view of the social results which seem likely to follow.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: I would like to support what my noble friend has said, and more particularly with regard to the small agricultural employer. In the case of the large industries there is no difficulty, because there is always a flood of workers going in and out, but when you get these small people in the country, and particularly the farmers, it is going to be a problem. I would like to suggest for the consideration of the Government whether anything in the nature of a small local pool could be arranged, either at the district council office or elsewhere, by which the men coming back from their Militia service, if they could not be found employment by their original employers, should be given employment of a similar nature by some other employer. The onus of course would have to lie upon the original employer, but it seems to me there would always be a certain number of vacancies. The men coming back will do so more or less at the same time and in the same volume as other men are going to be called up for their service. There will, or ought to be, just the same number of vacancies, and if some system of pool were devised it would be easier to say that if a man could not go back to Farmer A he could go to Farmer B, who was just losing a man, and could there perform the same services as for his original employer.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: I only want to ask the Government this question. Supposing that a young man is shortly going to be called up for military service, and it is the intention of the employer not to retain those services, at what point is it possible for the employer to give that young man notice without committing a breach of the Act?
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: I would like to add to what has been said about the difficulties of agriculture in this country, a word as to the difficulties in Scotland. They are there accentuated, because the agricultural servant in Scotland is employed on a yearly engagement, and if a man approaches the time of life when he may be called upon for military services in the Militia, if he happens to be a married man
194
it will be extremely difficult for him to get employment of any kind, because either the farmer will have to employ him and keep the cottage for the wife and get no benefit from the man's labour for six months, or he will deprive himself of the employment of the man altogether. The result, I think, will inevitably be what Lord Radnor has suggested—that men of that age will find it extremely difficult to get employment of any kind. It is important from that point of view that the Government should if possible accept the suggestion made by the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, and adopt some method of that kind for meeting this difficulty.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I fully understand the point raised by the noble Earl behind me and other noble Lords, and I think that we must accept this as one of the evil consequences of compulsory service. I have no doubt that the Ministry of Labour will consider very sympathetically such proposals as have been put forward by my noble friend opposite for a pool of unemployed, though I think that the men would have to be jacks-of-all-trade. But no doubt that could be worked out, and I am quite sure the Ministry of Labour will be sympathetic either to that or other ideas of that kind. The Government at the moment have not any immediate scheme for dealing with the question which the noble Viscount raised.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I am sorry that the noble Earl should give so determined an answer to me. It seems that those who have been responsible for the Bill have not had time properly to consider these details. I do not know whether he has any knowledge of what is done in other countries, where perhaps this problem may have been more acute than it is here.
EARL STANHOPE: I can assure my noble friend that the Government have given a very great deal of consideration to this matter. I was hoping to get some guidance from him as to how the difficulty should be met. Frankly I do not see a way out at present. I think the difficulty is common to all countries which have compulsory military training, and somehow, after a time, these things seem to settle down and to sort themselves out without regulation from the Government. I do not see any great difficulty in this country, because the complaint is

195
made that it is by no means easy to find fully qualified men to stay on the land. I cannot see farmers saying that because a young fellow has to go and take six months' training he will not employ that man at all, or will not engage him up to the age of twenty. I think he will take him whenever he can get him. The same applies to Scotland. There we recognise there is a great difficulty, where men are taken on for twelve months. If we are going to take them in the armed forces for six months, what is going to happen about the other six? I admit we have not found a solution of that question, but I think it will be solved, because farmers will be so anxious to get this labour that they will manage in the best way they can, and so help the Government and themselves.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I agree that there is no way out of the difficulty at the present time, but of course if the Bill had been conceived on a different basis, and an attempt had been made to reproduce some features of the compulsory service during the War, these difficulties would have been faced; I do not know whether they would have been satisfactorily dealt with, but they would have been faced. I do not think it is possible to do that at the present moment, but during the War those who had good reasons could go before the tribunals and ask for exemption. That is only permitted under this Bill in the case of conscientious objectors. But there was no such limitation in the old days, when anybody who had a very hard case was heard, and, if he proved his case, was exempted. The particular case that Lord Radnor has put was dealt with over and over again—the man who was shown to be necessary on a particular small farm. He was exempted in great numbers. I do not mean to say that the system worked without difficulty, but it did work, and I feel quite certain that as time goes on some such arrangement will have to be made. If, which God forbid! it should be necessary to use these troops ultimately for fighting purposes, with perhaps a long-term war lasting two or three years, something of course would have to be done to meet all these difficulties. I have great sympathy with the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, but I do not think it is possible to put that in the Bill at the present time. This is an
196
emergency Bill, and has to be treated as such.
EARL STANHOPE: May I remind the noble Marquess that it is not quite the same situation as in the War? We are only dealing with men who are twenty to twenty-one years old, and therefore we are not dealing with the case of the skilled herdsman and shepherd who is perhaps the linch-pin of the whole farming business.
On Question, Clause 6 agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 12 agreed to.
5.18 p.m.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: An Amendment has been handed in by the noble Lord, Lord Addison, to the new clause which is now to be moved by the noble Earl, Lord Munster, after Clause 12. It is to leave out in the noble Earl's Amendment the words "as soon as may be after serving the sentence imposed upon him" in subsection (1), and to insert "and the remainder of the term of imprisonment to which he had been sentenced shall be remitted."
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, after Clause 12, to insert the following new clause:
Discharge of prisoners claiming to be conscientious objectors.
".(1)—If any person undergoing a term of imprisonment of six months or any greater punishment imposed on him by a Court-Martial in respect of an offence committed while he was undergoing a special course of training which he was required to undergo by virtue of subsection (2) of Section five of this Act, claims that the offence was committed by reason of his conscientiously objecting to undergoing military training or to obeying any order in respect of which the offence was committed, then he may apply in the prescribed manner to have his case considered by the Appellate Tribunal constituted under Part II of the Schedule to this Act, and that tribunal shall, whether or not it finds that the offence for which he was sentenced was committed by reason of such a conscientious objection as aforesaid, have power to recommend to the Secretary of State that he be discharged from the Army Reserve as soon as may be after serving the sentence imposed upon him, but if the tribunal finds that the said offence was not committed by reason of such a conscientious objection it may order him to undergo immediately after his discharge from the Army Reserve the like training and subject to the like conditions as if he had been a person ordered to comply with the requirements of subsection (8) of Section three of this Act so however, that the period for which he is requited to undergo such training shall be specified in the order

197
and shall not exceed six months from the date of his discharge from the Army Reserve.
(2) If any person ordered under this section to undergo such training as aforesaid fails to comply with the order, or while undergoing such training is discharged therefrom for serious and wilful misconduct, he shall be guilty of an offence and be liable on conviction thereof by a court of summary jurisdiction to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding two years.
(3) Upon receiving from the Appellate Tribunal a recommendation made under this section that a person be discharged from the Army Reserve, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to arrange for his discharge accordingly."
The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to implement a pledge which was given in another place by the Secretary of State for War, dealing with conscientious objectors who may be called up for military service, and in relation to a repetition of what was known in the Great War as the cat-and-mouse treatment. I had hoped that the Amendment which I now move would meet the points which were raised by the noble Lord opposite. Perhaps I might quite briefly explain the purpose of this new clause. When a tribunal is satisfied that a man is a conscientious objector who would object in principle to doing any military training, even of a noncombatant character, the tribunal will presumably not force him to be registered on the Military Training Register at all. Cases, however, might occur in which a man placed on the Military Training Register will either refuse to obey his calling up notice, or else, having obeyed it, will then refuse to carry out an order to do certain work given to him by the competent military authorities. In the former of these two cases, he will be liable to be tried either by Court-Martial or a court of summary jurisdiction under Section 15 of the Reserve Forces Act for absenting himself without leave.
In the ordinary course, he would be reported to the police as an absentee and left to be dealt with by a court of summary jurisdiction. He would after that be handed over to the military authorities in custody, and if thereafter he refused to obey a military order he would be in precisely the same position as a man who had joined up of his own volition and had refused to obey a military order. He is liable on conviction by a Court-Martial to a term of imprisonment up to two years. If the sentence is six
198
months or more, your Lordships will observe that the new clause provides that the man, if his refusal to obey was on the ground of conscience, may apply to have his case considered by the Appellate Tribunal, who may recommend to the Secretary of State that he be discharged from the Army after he has served his sentence whether the man's plea of conscience is admitted or not. If the Tribunal does not admit the plea of conscience, it may order the man, on completing his military sentence, to undergo civilian training for a period not exceeding six months. I hope I have explained the clause sufficiently to the noble Lord to enable him to withdraw the two proposed new clauses standing in his name.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 12, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Munster.)
LORD ADDISON: I want in the first place to thank the noble Lord for his new clause and for the substantial measure in which he has met the points intended to be raised by the two proposed new clauses standing in my name. On that ground I would like to express my appreciation and say I do not propose to move these two new clauses. But there is a serious defect in his clause to which I would call attention. If the Committee will look at the new clause, it will see that cases will go to the Appellate Tribunal, and there are two classes of case. In the one case, the tribunal will find that there was a conscientious objection and that the man, on the ground of conscience, had declined to obey the order in respect of which he had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment. In the other case, they are not satisfied it was conscience. As to that class of case, the Amendment to the Amendment which I am moving does not propose to make any alteration; but in the case where the tribunal has found that the offence was committed by reason of conscientious objection, I suggest that it is very unjust that the man should thereafter, when the court has found that it was conscience which was actuating him, be compelled to undergo the remainder of a sentence to which the court, by its very verdict, considers he ought not to have been sentenced.
Therefore I suggest that in these cases where the tribunal finds a man is really conscientious, and on that account should

199
be struck off the Register altogether, it is quite inequitable that he should continue to serve the term of imprisonment to which, according to the verdict of the court, he ought not to have been sentenced. What would happen if my Amendment was approved? It would make no difficulty in the administration of the clause, nor would it make any difficulty on the point raised by the Lord Chancellor about adding a new clause to the Bill at this late stage. I therefore propose, if it is in order to do so at this stage, the Amendment to the Amendment of which I have given notice—namely, that the words in subsection (1), lines 17 and 18, "as soon as may be after serving the sentence imposed upon him," be left out, and the following words inserted, "and the remainder of the term of imprisonment to which he had been sentenced shall be remitted." That is to say, he does not have to wait until he has finished his sentence but can be immediately put on the Register of Conscientious Objectors. That would mean that the remainder of the term of imprisonment to which he has been sentenced will be remitted. I beg to move in that form, and I hope the noble Earl will accept the Amendment as clearly just.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
Lines 17 and 18, leave out ("as soon as may be after serving the sentence imposed upon him") and insert ("and the remainder of the term of imprisonment to which he had been sentenced shall be remitted").—(Lord Addison.)
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: May I ask one question on this new clause? The noble Earl who moved did not explain why it should be limited to cases where a man has been sentenced to imprisonment of six months or any greater punishment. Supposing in a precisely similar case a smaller penalty is imposed—say of one month—why should this clause not operate in such a case?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: As I understand the manuscript Amendment which the noble Lord has suddenly sprung upon us—
LORD ADDISON: With great respect to the noble Earl, I put it in as soon as ever I could, and it appeared on the Paper last night.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I will not labour that point, but it is the first I had seen of the Amendment which the noble Lord has moved, dealing with a somewhat difficult question. As far as I am able to understand it, the effect would be to enable the Appellate Tribunal to remit the remainder of a sentence of imprisonment inflicted on a man by a Court-Martial. In the first place the sentence has been passed for disobeying a military order, and the Court-Martial is concerned with the maintenance of military discipline. The fact that there may have been grounds of conscience for the disobedience does not in any way affect the seriousness of the offence from the point of view of discipline, and as far as I can see there is really no need for any remission whatever. In the second place, it would be improper to make a sentence of a Court-Martial subject to review by a civilian tribunal. It has been the essence of the Government's Amendment that it does not impair the powers of the military courts, and care has been taken in drafting this Amendment to observe this principle. I hope therefore the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD ADDISON: I am sorry to have to express my profound dissatisfaction with the reply of the noble Earl. It does not meet the point at all. This is not a case of maintaining military discipline. We all recognise that that has got to be maintained. In the case to which my Amendment relates, a man is found to have acted from conscientious motives, and he will be put out of the Army altogether as soon as his sentence is served because the tribunal has found he acted from conscientious motives. The contention I am advancing is that, the tribunal having found the man acted from conscientious motives, it is clearly inequitable that he should continue in prison for an unnamed period after the court has come to that conclusion. He ought to be removed from prison straight away and taken out of the Army altogether, as they intend he should. It is not a casual finding—it is the finding of the court that the man acted from conscientious motives. It is quite wrong that he should continue to be in prison after that verdict has been arrived at, and, if necessary, I shall divide the House on this if only one other person will vote for me.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know what decision His Majesty's

201
Government will come to on this Amendment, but I think, if I may say so, that the noble Lord opposite uses rather exaggerated language. He says, in effect: "Here is a man in regard to whom after he has been in prison it is found that his conscientious objection existed at a time prior to his sentence, and that if that had been realised by the original tribunal he would not have been sent to prison at all; therefore he ought now to be discharged." That may be so. I feel the full force of the noble Lord's argument, but the finding that a person is imprisoned unjustly does not happen only in these cases; it happens very often in our experience in civil life. Then, of course, you go to the Home Secretary and get the matter put right by the power of the Prerogative. That would be used in this case. I do not know what particular Minister he would go to. It is clear the man should not be kept in prison after he is found to be unjustly there. That would certainly be set right in the ordinary working of our system. It would be set right in ordinary civil life, and it would be set right here.
Supposing a man were convicted by a court of an offence in civil life and put in prison, and it was discovered when the sentence was being served that the grounds upon which the conviction had taken place were not really sustainable, of course he would be released from prison immediately by order of the Home Secretary. I do not see why the same sort of principle should not be employed here. I do not know who the relevant Minister would be, whether he would be the Home Secretary, but that is a detail. It seems to me that it would be an administrative act which would follow naturally from the situation the noble Lord suggested. I think he puts the case much too high.
LORD RAGLAN: There is this point which I think ought to be considered. A person supposed to have conscientious objections might want to go into the Militia for the sole purpose of upsetting discipline there. In that case I think he might very properly be sent to prison and kept in prison.
LORD ADDISON: May I point out to the noble Lord that we are dealing here with a person who has been tried by a court and with a verdict that has been given by that court. I would not want
202
to defend a mere obnoxious person. This is a case where a man has satisfied the court that he acted from conscientious motives and that he ought to be discharged from the Army and put upon the Register of Conscientious Objectors. It is quite outrageous to suggest, after a court has come to that conclusion, that His Majesty's Government should deliberately ignore that decision and that the person should still continue in prison. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), if I may say so with respect, has not read the clause. If what he wants were the clause I should not have moved this Amendment; but the clause provides exactly the opposite. It provides that after the man has been found to be innocent by the court he is still to continue in prison. That is wrong; it must be.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Surely this is a matter which in practice is dealt with by the Secretary of State for War continually? You constantly find—and I have had experience of this not infrequently myself—after a Court-Martial sentence has been duly promulgated, that something comes to light subsequently which shows that the Prerogative, the right of clemency, should be exercised, and the man should be released or his sentence reduced. It is a function which the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State for Air exercise continuously, and exercise with the greatest care, and, in proper cases, with the greatest promptitude. It is quite inconceivable that if, in fact, under the procedure laid down in this Bill, it is found that a perfectly genuine mistake has been made by the Military Tribunal, the Secretary of State for War would not set it right immediately and order a man to be released. With great respect I suggest that it would be utterly wrong to produce a new appellate tribunal which would be a sort of appeal court from a Court-Martial, and would set aside the decisions of Courts-Martial. That is really what the noble Lord is proposing.
LORD ADDISON: No.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: If the noble Lord is not proposing that, then I am perfectly certain that what he wishes will be simply met by the regular procedure under which the Secretary of State of a Military Department proceeds—namely,

203
that when it is found that the decision of a Court-Martial ought to be varied or set aside by reason of facts which come to light subsequently, then the Secretary of State will do that. Thus the noble Lord's case is entirely met.
LORD ADDISON: I am sorry indeed to be so troublesome, but the noble Viscount, with great respect, has not read the clause. He cannot have done so. The Secretary of State would not be able to do it if we pass this clause in its present form. The man has to continue in prison until he has served the remainder of his sentence, and it is not open to the Secretary of State to let him out. He might have been sentenced to two years or three years, and he might perhaps have to remain in prison eighteen months after the sentence was first imposed, and if this clause remains in its present form the Secretary of State is prohibited from doing what the noble Viscount suggested he would do.
LORD CRANWORTH: I find it very difficult to understand these two points of view, but surely it does say so here—"as soon as may be after serving the sentence imposed upon him," which indicates to the ordinary lay person that nothing happens until he has completed the sentence that has been imposed upon him. I must confess it would appear to the ordinary person to cut out the possibility of that being done which would certainly be done in the ordinary course of events, which is the course that has just been mentioned. I find it very difficult to think this has not crept in by a mistake.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord opposite has accused one of your Lordships of not having read the clause, but, speaking for myself, with great deference to him, I am in some doubt whether he has himself, and the reason is this. With great respect I do not think that he has appreciated the real meaning of the little words in this Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Munster. The man in question has already had two opportunities of relying upon his conscience, and has been, we will assume, twice turned down. He then begins to serve under the conditions in a special course of training, and while there, to take a simple case, he refuses to obey
204
an order, and is sentenced to imprisonment for a term of six months or more. Now we come to the words: stating that he may then apply to have his case considered by the Appellate Tribunal mentioned in the Schedule,
"and that tribunal shall,"—
these are the words that I think the noble Lord has not appreciated—
"whether or not it finds that the offence for which he was sentenced was committed by reason of such a conscientious objection as aforesaid,"
have power to do something. I am going in a minute to remind your Lordships what he can do.
But the tribunal of appeal is told quite distinctly: "We do not want you to find one way or the other that this man has conscientious objections; it may be that they are not really conscientious, and that he is simply a person of such an obstinate frame of mind"—a person whom we have all met in the course of our lives—"that, having been ordered to do a special course of training he says, 'I won't.' possibly with an epithet." It is under those circumstances that the tribunal has power to do something. What is it the tribunal has power to do? No power to do anything by itself at all. It has power to recommend the Secretary of State to do something. The Secretary of State then exercises his discretion and says: "Having regard to the facts of this man, and what I have been told about him by the Appellate Tribunal, we do not want him in the Army. When he has served his sentence he may go out, and he will be discharged altogether and will have no subsequent duties for the subsequent two years." That is what the clause means. What happens, supposing he is successful before the tribunal and the tribunal makes this recommendation to the Secretary of State, is that the Secretary of State simply makes an order: "When you go out you need not come back, we do not want to see you again."
What happens as regards sentence? This clause is not intended to deal with sentence in the least. I fully accept what the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said with reference to the Secretary of State for War. I do not conceive, and I tell your Lordships that I do not believe it is so, that this clause which empowers the Secretary of State to act upon a certain recommendation, in any way affects the

205
rest of his powers as Secretary of State for War. I am convinced myself that if he came to the conclusion that two tribunals have made an error here, that the unfortunate person in question was one of those people who really and truly have conscientious objections, and that therefore, although two tribunals had decided against him, he never ought to have been taken on, the Secretary of State would have complete power to say: "I will remit the rest of the sentence because it is one of my powers as Secretary of State for War." I believe that is a complete answer to the noble Lord and I hope, therefore, he will be satisfied. If he is not satisfied, I am perfectly willing to say that before to-morrow I will undertake to consult other people on the question and see if they have any doubt as to my statement of the legal position being correct. If it is incorrect something can be done to put the matter right.
LORD ADDISON: I cannot, of course, enter into a legal argument with the noble and learned Lord, but I am not satisfied at all. The court may have found that the man was a bona fide conscientious objector. The fact that other tribunals have made a mistake has nothing to do with it. The point is that the court may or may not find that he is a conscientious person acting conscientiously. I am only talking of those occasions on which they do so find. In those cases I suggest, notwithstanding what the noble and learned Lord says as to the powers of the Secretary of State for War, that if we pass this clause as it stands it would provide that the Secretary of State may discharge him from the Army Reserve as soon as may be after serving a sentence. I suggest that the Secretary of State in these cases ought to be entitled to discharge him straight away, and that the man should not continue in prison.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord wants the man to be discharged from prison, and he can be.
LORD ADDISON: I want him to be let out of prison because it is found he ought not to have been sent there. I am not satisfied a little bit. As this clause stands it may mean that a man whom the tribunal thinks innocent will continue to be imprisoned. I accept the assurance of the noble and learned Lord that he will
206
look into the matter and that if that is so he will have it altered.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord must not misunderstand me. I am not saying if the noble Lord is dealing with a case where the tribunal has found that the man has a conscientious objection, I am going to alter the clause or suggest its alteration. All I said is that if I find, after consideration, that the Secretary of State cannot remit the sentence because of something in the clause as it stands, then I will see that something is done, but I am satisfied for the moment that he can and that he will do it in proper cases.
LORD ADDISON: With that definite assurance I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to the proposed new clause, by leave, withdrawn.
5.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I raised the question whether if this procedure is right when a sentence has been passed of six months imprisonment or longer, it would not be equally right, the whole of the other circumstances being the same, if the sentence was for a shorter period. I do not know whether it would be convenient to have that answered now or whether the noble Earl in charge of the Bill would prefer that it should remain over until to-morrow.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the answer is that if a man is undergoing a term of, say, fourteen days C.B.—which I think is a punishment people have heard of in connection with military offences—it would be idle to give him leave to go through all the machinery of this clause, because it would be impracticable to get a decision of the tribunal before he had served his sentence. In that case I venture to think that the whole of this machinery would be too much for a trivial effect. It may be if he is undergoing a less term some other step will have to be taken with regard to him, but I think the clause really is only intended to provide machinery for a case in which an application to the Appellate Tribunal, mentioned in Part II of the Schedule, would be the adequate machinery for dealing with such a case. I repeat that you have to remember that the man has twice been decided against. If he cannot obey a short

207
term order that he shall do something when the law of the land is that he is required to do it, I do not think if some slight penalty is imposed he has cause to complain. In the case of a serious offence, and a serious term of imprisonment, this clause in my belief affords him all the proper relief to which he is entitled.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: The sentence which he is serving is not the matter which has been brought before the Appellate Tribunal. He is not appealing to be released from prison or detention when he has been sentenced to fourteen days. The purpose of this appeal is to secure his discharge from the Army. The actual length of the sentence does not therefore arise. I can understand when a person before beginning training had appealed according to the procedure under the Act to be exempted as a conscientious objector and been rejected, and on appeal had been rejected again, it might be said: "The matter is settled. Once you are in the Army, you must do as you are told." That is not what the Act will say under the new clause now being proposed by the Government themselves. They say that in spite of all this there is still to be a recourse to the Appellate Tribunal, which may give discharge—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In what case?
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: In the case where he has been sentenced for a military offence and claims that he has refused to obey for conscientious reasons. Very well; then the Government say: "We lay down that in such a case the matter should be reviewed again"; and if it is found that that is so, or that the man is so contumacious that he is not worth having as a soldier, then a recommendation may be made to the Secretary of State to discharge him from the Army altogether, and he will thereupon be discharged. But there is this strange provision, that this shall only apply if a Court-Martial sentences a man to six months or more. In such a case the Court-Martial, wishing to avoid all this procedure, would obviously sentence the man only to four months or five months. There may be some reason for this provision, but I do not know what it is. At first sight it does not seem to be reasonable in itself. I would ask the
208
Government why a sentence of six months should open up all this procedure and a sentence of four months should not do so.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Some people seem to have conscientious objections on the brain, and seem to think that conscientious objectors ought to be treated with far more care and far more lenience than any other offenders against any law whatever.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: That is not my view.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It seems to me that this is the case of the noble Viscount. Here is a man who says that he has conscientious objections against military service. He has been before two tribunals who have found that they were not genuine objections, and he has therefore become a militiaman for six months. He is given a perfectly proper order by his military superior, or something of that sort, which he declines to obey. I venture to think, if the sentence is severe, the reason for the clause which is now before your Lordships is good. If he suffers some quite minor penalty, that is his own fault. I cannot see why, under those circumstances, a man who has been held not to have true conscientious objections and who from mere obstinacy does something of this kind should not have to suffer some quite minor penalty, if I may say so, in order that discipline may be maintained. For those reasons I think the clause before your Lordships is quite sufficient for the Government to move for the benefit of these contumacious people.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: The noble and learned Lord has given a most effective answer against the clause.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Not at all. I say that if the penalty involved is serious it may be considered; but has the noble Viscount no appreciation of the difference between a light penalty against which there can be no appeal, and a serious one in regard to which justice requires that something should be done?
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I say that in this case the question of principle is not affected by the length of the sentence. What the Lord Chancellor is now arguing is that if a man commits some sort of crime in order to show his conscientious objection—commits some grave act of

209
violence for which he must be sentenced to six months—then he can go to the Appellate Tribunal and perhaps be discharged from the Army. If he makes his protest in a milder form, for which it would not be possible to sentence him for more than fourteen days, one month or two months, then he is to have no appeal. Frankly I must say that the answer given by the noble and learned Lord is wholly unconvincing. My own motive in this matter is not in the least that which he has attributed to me. I have not been concerned with the case of the conscientious objector. I am only anxious that we should have sensible legislation.
LORD RAGLAN: Surely it is obvious that, if a man prefers six months' imprisonment to six months' training, he can have it that way if he likes.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13:
Regulations and Orders.
13.—(1) The Minister may make regulations regulating any matter of procedure under this Act.
5.56 p.m.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON moved, in subsection (1), after "make," to insert "draft." The noble Lord said: I am sure that the noble and learned Lord Chancellor would support this Amendment, which is to provide that the regulations made under the Bill shall be draft regulations. As the Bill stands, Clause 13 says that:
"The Minister may make regulations regulating any matter of procedure under this Act."
These regulations have then to lie on the Table of the House, and so on. If the debates which we have had on Amendments which have gone before show anything to the concurrence of all sides, it is that this Bill was hastily drafted and that Amendments may be required very soon. I think that is certainly true: both statements are undoubtedly correct. That means, therefore, that the regulations, especially those relating to the exceedingly difficult case which will be dealt with under subsection (5) of Clause 6, that of failure to reinstate, which I am sure will be exceedingly difficult for the Minister of Labour to devise, should in the formative stage of this legislation clearly not be in their final form when they are put
210
before Parliament. They should be draft regulations and subject, as the subsequent Amendment in my name, which is of course consequential, provides, to alteration by Parliament.
I remember that in the early days of the Act setting up the Unemployment Assistance Board it was provided that the regulations should be submitted and they should not be altered—not even by a single comma. The country was put to very great inconvenience in consequence: the whole of the regulations had to be redrawn, and for some considerable time, several months, nobody knew where he was and the operations of the Unemployment Assistance Board were in entire suspense. That was all because Parliament had no power to amend the regulations. All that I am suggesting here is that, in view of the character of the Bill and of the discussion we have already had to-day, the regulations that are made under the Bill should be draft regulations and consequently subject to amendment or alteration by Parliament.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 22, after ("make") insert ("draft").—(Lord Addison.)
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Subsections (2) and (3) as they stand provide that the Minister may make regulations which shall come into force at once, but as a protection they must be laid before each House so that Parliament may have an opportunity for a period of forty days of Session of considering the regulations, and if either House resolves that they should be annulled, they become void for the future. The main objection to this Amendment is that it is vitally necessary that the Register of men liable to be called up for military training should be made immediately after the passing of the Bill—that is to say, should be made within a week. Before the Register can be made it is necessary, as your Lordships know, to make statutory regulations under Clause 1. To lay the regulations in draft before Parliament, as proposed by this Amendment, would involve a delay which would be very difficult to contemplate.
LORD ADDISON: May I ask the noble Earl whether the Government will accept an Amendment on the Report stage excluding the word "draft" from application to Clause 1 but leaving it applicable to other proceedings?
EARL STANHOPE: A young fellow might be discharged in order that his employer might escape liability to reinstate.
LORD ADDISON: Regulations dealing with these exceedingly varying questions ought to be subject to discussion, and the question of reinstatement is one of the most difficult in the whole Bill.
EARL STANHOPE: I quite agree, but the point is that we want to stop the gap, and for the few employers who are not playing the game the Government want to have regulations available at once, even if they are not in the best form. While you have only draft regulations, you have nothing on which you can take action.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule:

SCHEDULE.

  PART II.
  The Appellate Tribunal.
  The chairman shall be a person who is or has been a barrister, member of the Faculty of Advocates or solicitor of not less than ten years standing nominated in the case of the division for England by the Lord Chancellor and in the case of the division for Scotland by the Lord President of the Court of Session.
  LORD SNELL LORD SNELL moved, in the final paragraph of the Schedule, to omit the words "who is or has been a barrister, member of the Faculty of Advocates or solicitor of not less than ten years standing." The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to consider the question as to whether it is necessary that a trained lawyer, a barrister or a solicitor, should be the person to preside over this Appellate Tribunal. It is in every way desirable that the chairman of these tribunals should be a person of informed and balanced mind, but he need not of necessity be a trained lawyer, and so far as I know it might be difficult to find a sufficient number of trained lawyers to undertake these duties. For myself I would, of course, prefer a trained lawyer as a chairman, than that the chairman should be a person of narrow and prejudiced mind. If the Lord Chancellor will forgive me, there are quite a number
  212
  of people who in regard to conscientious objectors have a minimum of knowledge of the workings of the human conscience. As between the two I should prefer a lawyer. Yet, on the other hand, I do not believe you need to restrict this to lawyers, because I believe there are quite a number of people of balanced and impartial mind who would do the work equally well. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 26, line 8, leave out from ("person") to ("nominated") in line 10.—(Lord Snell.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am happy to say, on behalf of the Government, that this Amendment is agreed to. I would mention that my noble friend the Marquess of Salisbury proposed something of the sort when we were discussing this matter before, and I considered very carefully the question whether any such Amendment was desirable, both as regards local tribunals and as regards the Appellate Tribunals. I ascertained that a great many persons thought that in the local tribunals it was desirable there should be a lawyer, and accordingly the clause stands as drawn. The chairman of such a tribunal must be a County Court Judge in the case of England, or a Sheriff or Sheriff-Substitute in Scotland, and on the whole I think the feeling of another place, so far as I have been able to gather it, is favourable to that being left unaltered.
  With regard to the Appellate Tribunal, on consideration I am in favour of the view that the persons to be nominated as chairmen of those tribunals should not necessarily be lawyers. The question that will arise before those tribunals is of course not one of law at all, but one of common sense and appreciation, if I may use that much abused word, of psychology. On the whole I can imagine many people, some of them I may say members of this House, who would be better chairmen of that tribunal than any lawyer whose services can be obtained at the present time. The Amendment does not rule out a lawyer, or somebody who has acted as a High Court Judge, if he can be obtained, but it leaves to the Lord Chancellor in England, and the Lord President of the Court of Session in Scotland, a perfectly free hand in nominating the best persons available in the two countries for carrying out the

  213
  responsible duties in question. I would only add this, that as the clause originally stood it might be thought to contain a hidden slight on County Court Judges, because it might be thought that County Court Judges and their tribunal—namely, the local tribunal—were going to be overruled by barristers and solicitors of not less than ten years standing, by no means superior in rank or dignity to the chairman of a local tribunal. That apparent slight is removed, incidentally, by the Amendment, and I hope your Lordships will accept it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hope your Lordships will allow me to express my thanks to the noble and learned Lord, and also to the noble Lord opposite, for having adopted a suggestion which found its place in some of my observations the other day on the Second Reading. I do feel that the issues submitted to the Appellate Tribunal are not capable of legal definition, and therefore it is wise that the discretion of the Lord Chancellor should be completely unfettered. He may, of course, be able to appoint a first-rate Judge of the type who will not be too much of a legalist, but if not he should be able to appoint a first-rate layman in his place. Of course the argument used applies in a minor degree to the local tribunal, but I am too grateful to the noble and learned Lord to find any fault because he has not extended logically the concession to the lower tribunal. But there no doubt might be difficulty in finding enough competent laymen as chairmen of the lower
  214
  tribunals. At the same time I hope that perhaps before the Third Reading of the Bill the Government might even reconsider that point. Let me just repeat that I do not suggest that they should never appoint a County Court Judge, but that it should be open to them not to appoint a County Court Judge; they should have that discretion. I do not want to be exigeant as the Frenchmen say in trying to drive a hard bargain, but I ask them to consider whether they would not be happier if there was a complete discretion as to who the chairman should be.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

PEERS AND THE OFFICIAL SECRETS ACTS.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Select Committee:

M. Salisbury,

M. Crewe,

E. Radnor,

L. Bp. Winchester,

L. Snell.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past six o'clock.