§ Amendments reported (according to Order).
§ Clause 1:
§ General obligation to serve.
§ 1. It is hereby declared that: all persons of either sex for the time being in Great Britain are liable to National Service, whether under the Crown or not, and whether in the Armed Forces of the Crown, in civil defence, in industry, or otherwise:
§ Provided that—
- (a) the liability of any person to whole-time service in the Armed Forces of the Crown or in or with a Civil Defence Force within the meaning of the National Service Act, 1941, shall be such as may be imposed upon him under the National Service Acts, 1939 to 1941;
- (b) the liability of any person to any-other form of National Service (including part-time service in the Armed Forces of the Crown or in or with such a Civil Defence Force as aforesaid) shall be such as may be imposed upon him under Defence Regulations;
- (c) nothing in this section shall relieve any person from any liability to National Service which he would be under apart from this section.
§ LORD ADDISON moved, at the end of proviso (a), to insert "with the exception that no person engaged in agriculture shall be removed therefrom without the previous consent of the war agricultural executive committee of the county in which such person shall be working."
318§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sorry to bring this subject up again. I do so with no other motive, I hope your Lordships will believe, than the interests of the production of food. I am sure that it is unnecessary for me to say that there is no Party element whatever in this. I intend to put the case for the Amendment as briefly as I can. The decision has been taken, so it is said, to call up ten thousand men from agriculture so that this industry "shall not escape its liability," or words to that effect. Now, nobody desires that the industry should escape any liability for service; the only question is what is the best way of using the men in it. I am sure that the industry has given abundant proof in times past, and since this war began, of its desire to serve, and has shown that it has no wish whatever to escape any liability for service.
§ It is fair to say that a very large number—the figure given to me was 40,000, but it may be more—of agricultural workers were in the Territorials, and joined up straight away at the beginning of the war, and in many cases people have mourned their absence, but have recognized the uselessness of approaching the War Office to get them back. This Amendment does not relate to that subject. In addition to the men who have been lost to the Territorials, and to the thousands of others who have joined as volunteers, an enormous number of people have been lost from this industry to competitive and more attractive work, such as the construction of aerodromes, where the wages were much higher. That went on until the recent Regulations gave the county war agricultural executive committees the power to prevent men being so taken away. In addition, this industry has had an enormously increased burden thrust upon it; it has been asked to produce very much more than before, and quite rightly; but it is not common sense to ask an industry to produce many more goods and at the same time deplete its labour power. You might just as well say to the electrical industry: "We want many more electrical appliances, and therefore we will ask you to supply an extra ten thousand men from your industry to go into the Army." We do not do things in that way; what we do is to train new people to reinforce the labour power of the electrical industry. The same thing applies to agriculture.
319§ During the last year, the county war agricultural executive committees have been scrutinizing the applications for postponement of calling up, and postponements have been granted, on their recommendation, in a very large number of cases. They have weeded out men whom they still regard as essential but who might, as a paper claim exists, be called up, but they have secured their postponement also, because they are essential to the industry. The position now is that these men are all to be called up, and I am suggesting that such a step requires reconsideration, because during the last month we have been confronted with very different conditions, and every one of us who is familiar with the demands made on the agricultural industry knows that we are getting requests from the Government—and quite rightly—that there should be next year a greatly increased acreage of potatoes, of carrots, of onions and of beet. All these have been asked for during the last few weeks, I have no doubt at the instigation of the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, and it is quite right that they should be asked for. I have no doubt that there will be many more requests for increased production in the near future, over and above the gigantic effort which has already been made, because of the changed conditions of the war and of the difficulty which will present itself of increasing, or perhaps of maintaining, the supplies already expected across the Atlantic. At ail events, this is a risk which ought to be guarded against, and which is being guarded against by the agricultural industry being asked for even greater production than it has already attained.
§ Every one of these crops which we are being asked to produce happens to be a crop which requires the employment of a great deal of labour, and, from the point of view of the national effort, it is absurd to suggest that, when we are asked to increase our acreage in respect of a large number of foods, each one of which requires for its production a great deal of labour, this is an appropriate time to take men away from the industry. The decision whether men can or cannot be spared should at least, I suggest, lie with people who know something about the business and, speaking with every possible respect, the regional boards of the Ministry of 320 Labour do not know anything whatever about it. Therefore I do not propose the Amendment in order to excuse anybody who could be dispensed with. The only question is who should determine whether this or that man can be spared. I am quite sure that the people to determine that are the people who have been appointed to be responsible for the increased production, and who know by the most careful scrutiny what is happening on every farm—namely, the county war agricultural committees.
§ For that reason I do ask the Government to be willing to let those committees scrutinize the demands for the taking away of men from the land, seeing that they are responsible under the Minister for obtaining the vastly increased output. I am sure everyone will support me in this: that there is not a member of these committees anywhere who wants to protect a shirker. All that they are interested to do is to get the increased food production which they are asked to assist in providing. That demand, I am perfectly certain, will become much more insistent during the coming spring; we all know that. Therefore I suggest that if any men at all are to be taken from the industry, this is the method of selection which in common sense and justice should be adopted. I beg to move
§
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 15, at end insert ("with the exception that no person engaged in agriculture shall be removed therefrom without the previous consent of the war agricultural executive committee of the county in which such person shall be working")—(Lord Addison).
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD MOYNE)My Lords, I think we are all agreed that the decision as to what men can be spared should be left in the hands of the county war agricultural executive committees. But surely the Government must lay down the policy and the quota, and for that reason, although we want the fullest consultation with the agricultural committees we cannot possibly accept an Amendment which would give them a power of veto over the decisions of the Government, which are entrusted to the Ministry of Labour to carry out. The county agricultural committees are agents of the Minister of Agriculture, and it would be quite contrary to any precedent, and I think impracticable in working, to give the agents of one Department a power of veto over the policy 321 which the head of that Department has discussed in the Cabinet and to which he has agreed after the fullest consideration. I have a definite massage from the Minister of Agriculture, that he has put the case of the industry for which he is responsible, that it has been very fully considered, and that he calls on the agricultural industry to accept with loyalty the decision of the Government.
I think there is really much less dividing the noble Lord from the position of the Government than appears at first sight. He told us this morning that he did not wish regional boards to decide who could be spared from agriculture because they would not know anything about the matter. I agree and for that reason the county agricultural committees have been given this task, and they have taken a great deal of trouble about it. In the case of these 10,000 men who are to be called up they have been chosen out of 80,000 cases of men under the age of twenty-five which have been individually considered by these expert committees, and I am assured by the Minister of Labour that, unless unforeseen circumstances should arise in the future, there is no thought of calling up any men from agriculture without the definite recommendation and selection of the war agricultural executive committees.
The noble Lord dealt again to-day with the question of equality of sacrifice, but I think we must in this matter ensure that all vital industries are treated according to what they can spare, and in fact agriculture has been allotted a far smaller contribution than other equally vital industries. I cannot of course give the figures in public, but I should be glad to give them to the noble Lord in private. I can only to-day give the comparison in the form of fractions. But if you take from the labour force of agriculture, as it existed on the outbreak of war, the total number of men who have gone into the Armed Forces, you will find that that fraction of the total man-power is only half, or less than half, that which you get in certain constituent industries, the fraction, for example, which represents the contribution of the engineering industry, including aircraft motors and vehicles. That is to say, half the sacrifice has been made by agriculture as compared with the group of industries which covers the production of munitions in the very widest sense. I am sure the noble Lord 322 agrees that agriculture is not really any more vital than the production of munitions, and it must, I submit, be left to the Government, acting through the Ministry of Labour, to see that the burden is fairly borne, and that no industry is called upon to make a bigger contribution than is in the national interest.
§ VISCOUNT SAMUELMy Lords, yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Addison, said that if he did not receive satisfaction from the Government on this point he would divide the House. I think, if I may venture respectfully to say so, that in war-time we should as a body somewhat deprecate Divisions, unless on matters that are really vital, or unless they are matters that do not directly concern the conduct of the war. Such are few, but they do sometimes arise—questions of post-war policy or reconstruction, or other matters of that kind. But where it is a question like the allocation of labour I think that probably most of your Lordships would rather deprecate trying to take the matter out of the hands of the Government of the day, in which it has expressed its confidence, and relegating it to some other body. It is perhaps one of the most difficult tasks that the Government have to perform in present circumstances to decide how the man-power and woman-power of the country can best be allocated, and indeed it is one of their prime duties. As heavy a responsibility lies on them in this matter as it does in the strategic conduct of the war overseas.
All would agree that the county agricultural executive committees should be called into consultation when it is a question of deciding whether such-and-such men within their area should be sent, but the noble Lord suggests that they should not only have the right of being consulted, but also have the right of decision. We might have, if this Amendment were carried by this House, a situation in which the Government, including the Minister of Agriculture, are agreed that 10,000 men could legitimately be supplied from the agricultural industry, and the war agricultural executive committees might arrive at a series of decisions all over the country which would only give 5,000, 1,000, or none. In other words the Government of the country—the Cabinet as a whole—might decide one thing, and the war agricultural executive committees might decide the opposite. It appears to me that 323 that is not a situation which this House would desire to establish. Consequently I sincerely hope that the noble Lord will not press the House to divide. For my own part, if I am called upon to vote, I shall feel I have not sufficient information before me to make me a judge as to whether there should be 10,000 or less, or whether the war agricultural executive committees would be the best bodies to decide these matters. On the whole, having expressed, as noble Lords on these Benches have expressed, general support of the Government, it would only be if the case were very clear and very urgent and definite that I should be disposed to vote against them.
§ LORD ADDISONMy Lords, I am sorry if I seem to be an obstinate person. I really am not unusually obstinate. I am guided by my reason. I may say, in regard to the contention of the noble Viscount below the gangway, that I am very much influenced by any judgment that he may express, but it is not a question in the least of lack of confidence in the Government. The noble Lord, the Leader of the House, knows it is not—not a bit. It has nothing whatever to do with confidence in the Government. It is simply a question of administrative machinery. We are not challenging their decision to call up more men from any particular industry. What are the actual facts? The actual facts, I am afraid, do not support the contention of my noble friend Lord Samuel. The Government have put into the hands of various committees attached to the Ministry of Labour this particular decision. I may not be right in calling them regional committees, but I think they are. If such committees say that this or that man is not to be called up, he will not be called up. The Government have put the decision into the hands of a particular body—namely, the particular committee associated with the Ministry of Labour. I contend that that body is not the appropriate body to express an opinion on these matters. That is all. It is not, I repeat, a question of confidence in the Government in the least. It is a question of what is the sensible and practical way of administering this law. I suggest that the machinery which I propose is the right and sensible machinery to use.
I am very sorry if my colleagues think I am unduly obstinate, but this is a matter 324 of first-rate importance. I would not say that agriculture is more important than other industries—they are all important—but it is in a very critical position. In the interval between the last war and this, it has been deprived of 250,000 men. It has been asked to produce an unthinkable increase in its output, and every one of us who is in touch with the realities of the case knows very well—I shall not say that it is impossible, but that it will be unthinkably difficult for it to increase the food supply it is being asked to produce if a large number of essential men are taken from it. I do hope the House will express an opinion on this matter. I am well aware that we shall not carry the Amendment, but I do hope that a number of noble Lords will be willing to support me, because I know very well that a demonstration of an effective character will be very potent in securing the proper administration of the law. I am very sorry I cannot withdraw.
§ LORD MOYNEMy Lords, I cannot hope to turn the noble Lord from his purpose, but I do want to make the matter clear beyond any misunderstanding, because he again speaks as if the selection of the men is going to be in the hands of the local man-power board. That is not so. The selection of the agricultural cases to be called up is delegated to the county war agricultural executive committees. They will review the cases and hear the representations of farmers. I only want to make it quite clear that that is the case, and that there is a very special responsibility put on the county war agricultural executive committees in this matter.
§ LORD TEVIOTMy Lords, I did support the noble Lord, Lord Addison, yesterday in regard to this Amendment, but I feel I cannot do so to-day, particularly in view of the explanation given by my noble friend Lord Moyne. Also I have taken the trouble to make inquiries as to what the procedure has been in the past with regard to these very questions. I find that the selection of these men has always been submitted to the war agricultural executive committees, and in particular to their sub-committees which deal with labour questions. In view of that I do feel it is very unlikely, in connexion with any plans in this direction in future, that that procedure will be departed from.
325 Therefore, I must say I cannot support my noble friend as I did yesterday.
VISCOUNT WOLMERMy Lords, may I express the hope that my noble friend Lord Addison will not persist with his Amendment? I really think the Government have met the ease of agriculture for which he has pleaded so eloquently. The 10,000 men to which he has referred are, of course, being called up not under this Bill at all, but under the existing law, and the exact procedure which my noble friend Lord Addison is anxious to see followed has, in fact, been followed by the Government in their case. The mere fact that the administration of this Act will be in the hands of the Ministry of Labour is surely a technical matter of administration. It would be impossible to have the administration of an Act in the hands of different Government Departments. One Government Department must be responsible for the administration of the Act; but the Government provide that there is this liaison and co-operation. Advantage is taken of the knowledge of the war agricultural executive committees in this matter, and the Ministry of Labour is guided by their advice. We have an explicit assurance from the Government on that point, and it does not seem to me that agriculture can legitimately ask for more than that.
§ LORD ADDISONMy Lords, it is difficult to resist the pleas of my noble friends. May I ask my noble friend the Leader of the House if he can give me an assurance that the Ministry of Labour and National Service, or whoever it is—that is, the regional body—will consult the war agricultural executive committees with regard to these men? I understood him to say it would. If he will give me that explicit assurance, I am afraid I shall have to surrender to the many appeals which have been made.
§ LORD MOYNEI feel grateful to the noble Lord for his sweet reasonableness, and I again assure him that in future as in the past the selection of men who can best be spared will be left entirely in the hands of the expert county war agricultural executive committees.
§ LORD ADDISONThis discussion has drawn a very explicit and definite assurance, which is really all I wanted, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
326§ Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, in pursuance of the Resolution of December 9:
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON)My Lords, in moving the Third Reading of the Bill I desire to make a short statement on three points which were mentioned during the Committee stage. It is most important that the Bill should not leave your Lordships' House with any possible misapprehension on any one of the three points. The first was a point which was raised by my noble friend Lord Hutchison. I was asked what would be the position of a woman who becomes married after the Bill is passed. My answer, in Column 300 of yesterday's Official Report, was correct, but I feel that it calls for a little amplification, especially as my noble friend, I see, put his question in a rather wider form than I had understood. My answer was that the provisions of the Act would apply to relieve such a woman from the obligation of being called up which would attach to her only if she is unmarried, and that is so.
I notice, however, that the noble Lord's question as given in the Official Report also covered the case—and it may be the case he was principally thinking of—of a single woman who has been called up when a single woman, and who marries after that. That, of course, is a different point. If that was the situation her subsequent marriage would not automatically release her from the service she has entered. The exemption in subsection (2) of the third clause, as the noble Lord will see, is an exemption for married women from liability to be called up. If one is to be absolutely precise—and it may affect some people—I ought to add that by subsection (5) of Section 4 of the principal Act, the National Service Act, 1939, it is provided that an enlistment notice served on any person shall cease to have effect if before the date on which he is thereby required to present himself—in this case it will be "she is thereby required to present herself"—she "ceases to be liable under this Act to be called up for service." The critical moment, therefore, is the moment when the individual is called up. If at that moment the individual is a married woman the compulsion does not apply. If she enters a service as a single woman the Bill is not providing for her withdrawal, by a process which in another connexion 327 lawyers would call subsequens matri-monium, though, of course, in suitable cases, the authorities can grant relief to married women on personal grounds. I hope I have made that point clear.
The second point is one raised by my noble friend Lord Strabolgi. He asked me whether, if the domestic circumstances of a woman seriously changed after she has been directed into industry, would there still be an opportunity for release from service on compassionate grounds—would there still be, where she has already been directed into industry or called up, an opportunity of having her case in its changed circumstances considered by the hardship committee or the local appeal board? I replied to the noble Lord that that would be the case when employed in industry no less than when employed in one of the Services, if there was a change of circumstances which would justify release. The noble Lord said he would like to have a perfectly specific reassurance on the Third Reading after I had had the opportunity of making further inquiries. I have been able to make that further inquiry, and I am now glad to be able to assure the noble Lord and the House that my statement is quite correct and to give a definite assurance to that effect.
Lastly, there was the interesting point, again raised by my noble friend Lord Hutchison, about the wife of a soldier who has died. There was some difference of view expressed in the Committee stage, and I think it would be desirable that I should place before the House the considerations that must be weighed. If I may borrow a phrase used by my noble friend Lord Addison just now, which he not merely pronounced as a maxim but applied in practical action, do not let us be obstinate about this but let us be guided by reason. There are several considerations which have to be carefully thought over. First of all, in order that we may see the real dimensions of the problem, a widow with a child or children living with her is already exempt; it does not make any difference whether she is the widow of a soldier or the widow of anybody else, so the case to be considered here is the case of a childless widow of a soldier.
Then let us, secondly, bear this in mind—what is the position not merely of the soldier's widow, but of the soldier's wife? 328 She is already liable as a wife to be directed into industry compulsorily, though care is taken administratively to use this power in such a way as not to break up the home. The soldier naturally and rightly is deeply concerned about the preservation of the home that he wants to come back to. The third thing to bear in mind is this. If a woman is conscribed under the Act—perhaps I may be allowed a personal preference for using that form of the verb—her liability is what? It is to serve either with the W.R.N.S. or with the A.T.S. or with the W.A.A.F. with the further option, as has already been explained to the House, which is afforded administratively of going if she prefers instead into Civil Defence or into certain specified vacancies in industry. That is the scheme for women between the statutory ages.
Would it be possible to put into this Act of Parliament, even if it was desirable to do so, a special exception for the case of soldiers' widows? It seems to me it would be excessively difficult to do so. A man's work in the Services is infinitely various. Some of these husbands in the Forces are working in Whitehall, some of them are in the Home Guard, some of them are at headquarters, some of them are in the firing line. It seems to me it would be wholly impracticable to frame a statutory exception even if it was desirable to do so, and even though, as my noble friend so eloquently explained yesterday, he feels that it would be well to do so, in the case of those who are in the very pinch of battle and prepare to risk their lives and give their uttermost in the public cause.
Indeed, if you were to make such a statutory exception I cannot believe for one moment that the exception could stand merely for the widows of those who have been serving in the Forces. What about the husband in a munitions works or explosives factory who is appealed to to tear out his heart and soul in every sort of extra energy? Would he not also have a right to be considered if such an exception was made? I conceive that it is for these reasons, which I submit to your Lordships are very formidable reasons, that it has not been possible to make such a statutory exception. The matter, therefore, if we look at it reasonably, comes down to this. It may well be that there are special cases in which the authority which this Act of Parliament 329 confers to conscribe would for special reasons not in fact be employed. But that is an administrative matter, and these cases I venture to think—and I feel quite sure that the majority of your Lordships will agree; with me—must be dealt with, if at all, by administrative discretion and not by statutory exceptions.
I must say in one concluding word that, while I speak with very great reserve and humility on such a point, where naturally those with great military experience have a far better right to express an opinion, I should have thought that if we regard National Service as a form of citizen duty, not as some punishment or penalty which is inflicted upon people, and that it is applied by this machinery for purposes of completeness and for purposes of organization, it would be very difficult to visualize a situation in which it would be thought to be unfair or ungenerous or unjust to include these wives, though they be bereaved, in the general national effort for the sake of which their husbands died. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSEMy Lords, while thanking the noble and learned Viscount for his remarks on the two points I raised yesterday, I am indeed sorry that he has not given me more assurance about the childless widows of our men who fall in battle. I am afraid of the administration of this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament. I would have liked the Government to give instructions through the Ministry of Labour that no widow who has had the dreadful misfortune to lose her husband in battle shall be approached in the way of compulsion for at least a year. That would give her opportunity to volunteer, as I am sure ninety per cent. of these women would volunteer to give their services in whatever direction they can to the country. I am afraid of a situation being created in which our Service men will feel that they are not being fairly treated. I have had expressions of opinion from experienced officers and men on this subject, and I have had experience myself of the administrative pressure which is put on women in regard to service. The noble and learned Viscount says they have an option to serve either in the W.R.N.S., or the W.A.A.F. or the 330 A.T.S., or in munitions production, or in one of the Civil Defence Services. That may be true as regards the letter of the law, but it is not true in my experience when it comes to administration.
Great pressure, continued pressure is put on these girls to join a particular corps. Although they say they do not want to join a particular corps, repeated pressure is put on them. Further; arising out of the administration of the Act as it stands to-day, there are many cases where women are taken from their occupations and instructed to go to certain places where it is said employment awaits them, but no employment does in fact await them. I have had such a case in my own household. I asked the representative of the Labour Office not to move one of the girls in my household until there was an opening for her. She had no objection to going, but she had an objection to going and then doing nothing. This girl was then instructed by the Ministry of Labour to go to her home near Durham where a job in munitions production was awaiting her. She has been there for weeks and she writes to say she cannot get a job. That sort of administration is what we have to fear. That is why I think the Government ought to take care that the childless widows of our serving men are protected in some way against maladministration. If all the widows came before the noble and learned Viscount I should have no word of complaint—I am sure he would administer the Act in the most sympathetic and nice way—but we have to deal with human frailty in administration all over the country. That is why I raised the question, and I hope the Government will yet do something to look after these unfortunate people.
As to the second question which I raised, about the position of the woman who marries after the passing of the Act, I appreciate the correction which is now being made and it will be of value to the country generally. The noble and learned Viscount said yesterday:
After all, when a woman marries she necessarily assumes new responsibilities: responsibility for her home, possibly responsibilities for children in the future, which place her on an equal footing with women who were married before the passing of the Act.That makes the position more clear. I cannot help thinking that this question will have a detrimental effect with regard to our young women marrying. They 331 ought to do so, otherwise succeeding generations in this country will suffer. We may then suffer from a lack of children at a time when, perhaps, the country will need them very much indeed.And now just a word on the Bill in general. I will not detain your Lordships more than a few minutes. This Bill, which is purely an Amending Bill, has been brought in largely to get women for the A.T.S. Two hundred thousand are wanted, and the Government could not get them before owing to the Corps being thoroughly unpopular. This was no fault of the women in the Corps. They are a grand lot of women. I have seen them at work, and I say that the Corps is a splendid Corps in every respect. The members suffer from having started with bad organization and thoroughly bad administration. Why did not the Government, or rather the War Office, copy the administration and the organization which we laid down so carefully in the last war in regard to the W.A.A.C.? For the last year and a half of the war, as Director of Organization, I was responsible for the administration of those people, and one ran the Whole Corps by women, with the addition of two experienced male staff officers to assist at headquarters. First under Mrs. Chalmers Watson and then under Dame Florence Leach, they were a happy Corps.
I think it is necessary for the happiness and comfort of these girls, and also to induce mothers to send their daughters into this Corps, that some sort of inquiry should be carried out by three responsible people, one of whom should be a woman. This board of inquiry should look into all matters connected with the Corps and see whether any alteration in the organization, with a view to adding to the happiness of those serving in it, can be carried out. When my noble friend Lord Trenchard raised this question a fortnight ago, he made some telling points, but these points were, I am sorry to say, avoided by the noble Lord who speaks for the War Office. The feeling is that there is not full effective use of the male staff connected with this Corps, that there is duplication of staff; that there is a waste of man-power, and that the more this Corps can be run by the 332 women themselves, the better and happier the Corps will be.
Another reflection which I have to make is this. If you are going to con-scribe the women of this country and compel them to go where you want them to go—the option will not last long, the Ministry of Labour will soon see to that—you have got to have a woman in the Cabinet responsible for the proper administration and everything else; a woman who can speak in the councils of the mighty, and who can see that these women are properly looked after.
And now, a last reflection which I would make concerns the waste of manpower that is going on in this country today, owing to excessive control. This control of all kinds of industry, of food and of everything else, has been built up on a peace system on the structure of the Civil Service. It is too heavy for this country to carry in war-time, and there ought to be a great simplification of the method in which control and other matters are operated by the Civil Service. Only to-day, in The Times, one reads the remarks of Mr. Horton about reform of the Income Tax administration. He says that thousands and thousands of forms could be saved, and that man-power could also be saved in respect of the machinery for the collection of Income Tax. He is a man who ought to know for he is Secretary of the Income Tax Workers Federation. Further, the whole of our system of control in Departments by the Civil Service is built up on a peace system of grades, and whole grades in that Civil Service could, with great advantage, and with great speeding up of the administration, be cut out. During the last war I tried to cut out complete grades of the Civil Service so that there was not this continual post office and minute-writing business before a decision was taken. It is a most difficult thing to reduce staff in war-time. I had it said to me in the last war: "Oh, for goodness sake do not try to reduce staff; but if you want any additional staff you can have it."
I think it is up to the Government to see that man-power is utilized where it is of best service to the country, rather than that it should be left in the peace-time construction of the Civil Service as it is to-day. This Amending Bill is one of the turning points in the national history. We have had, unfortunately, owing to stress 333 of events, to conscribe our women. Well, it is for the Government to see that if we conscribe our women there is not going to be, at the same time, a waste of manpower in places from which it could be taken and used elsewhere. I hope the Government will exercise their powers in connection with this matter very actively in dealing with this very serious problem.
§ LORD TEVIOTMy Lords, I wish to make only a few observations before this Bill passes. I think that we all must very much regret the necessity for the Bill, but it is only the Government that can know the reason for it. I feel that we must do everything we can to make it a success. I would like to draw your Lordships' attention to the very fine example—which I see referred to in the Press this morning—of the Ministry of Labour, in that they have said that they will dispense with up to 50 per cent. of the women in the Department. I only hope that that example will be followed by many other of the Government Departments.
Last night I was listening to a broadcast by, I think, Mr. Ince, who made a remark which gave me some encouragement and hope, to the effect that, in regard to this Bill, special consideration would be given to agriculture. I hope that this will not be forgotten by the Ministry of Labour in their administration. I am wondering what position home-grown food occupies among munitions, and where its importance comes. It is in fact of vital importance. The question is sometimes asked whether shells, guns or tanks should come first. Where does homegrown food come? We must not forget that to bring food to this country to-day involves risking the lives of our men of the sea and our men of the air, and I feel that we have to bear this very much in mind when considering how many more men can be taken from agriculture. Moreover, we must bear in mind that these fine peasants of ours are to-day not peasants only, but peasant-soldiers; most of them are in the Home Guard. From that point of view, I think that the Ministry of Labour should be very careful before taking many more men away from the farms. I should like to make this appeal to the Ministry of Labour. I am not so distressed about the taking away of men from the big farms, the farms which have been very well cultivated, as about taking them from farms where the fertility is not 334 good, farms which owing to their bad condition have been taken over. If those farms are to be brought to a state of maximum fertility, their labour cannot be taken away without harmful results. I hope that the Ministry of Labour will bear that in mind.
There is one other appeal which I should like to make to the Ministry of Labour. Your Lordships know of the very fine work which is being done at the present time throughout the country by the Young Women's Christian Association. In the district where I live, many girls have had to leave their homes in the villages to go to work in factories in the neighbouring towns, where the conditions of work are not always satisfactory. The Young Women's Christian Association are running hostels and clubs in the towns, and they have told me that they are anxious lest, under this Bill, their staff may be taken away from them. It is obvious to all of us, I am sure, that girls who have to go to work in the blackout, and who leave their work in the black-out, and who work for long hours, cannot do much for themselves; there must be an adequate staff left at these hostels and clubs to look after the girls and give them rest, quiet and refreshment. I hope that the points which I have raised, and which I think are of real importance, will be borne in mind by the Ministry of Labour. If they are, I am sure that it will be very much appreciated by all concerned.
LORD FARINGDONMy Lords, there is one point to which I should like to call the attention of the Ministry of Labour when they come to operate this Bill. I refer to the position of part-time members of the Home Guard and of the A.R.P. and fire-fighting services. In my own service, a very high percentage—more than seventy-five per cent.—of the personnel are part-time. I hope that when the time comes when, owing to dereservation or the raising of the age limit, the position of these men is reconsidered, what they do in their spare time will carry weight with the Ministry of Labour. We have now no other reservoir from which we can draw personnel, and it is certainly not desirable, even if it were possible, to replace the part-time personnel by whole-time personnel. It seems to me of supreme importance, therefore 335 that, when a man's work is being considered, what he does outside his working hours should carry some weight with the Ministry of Labour.
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELMy Lords, my noble friend Lord Addison has been obliged to leave the House, and he has asked me to put a question to the Government on a matter which is causing him some anxiety. He would like to know whether, under this Bill, there will be a further large-scale call-up of schoolteachers.
§ LORD MOYNEMy Lords, in the case of women teachers there is no intention of calling up any at all. In the case of men, they will be called up only after consultation with the President of the Board of Education. It is impossible to forecast at this stage what the future developments may be, but there is no intention of making any call on the teaching profession at the moment, and, if a call were made, cases would naturally be considered individually; men would be dereserved according to age, and each individual case would be considered on its merits.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERYMy Lords, I should like to reinforce the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Hutchison of Montrose, that if a man does fall in action he should at any rate have known that his widow would be exempt for a certain time from being directed into industry or conscribed in any way. I would not suggest so long a time as one year, but I should like to suggest a period of three or four months, so that she may have an opportunity of putting her affairs in order. I confess that I do not think very much of the comparison which has been made between the man who is killed at the front and the man who is killed when working in an explosives factory, if the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will excuse me for differing from him. The man who is killed at the front has been receiving a very low wage, and he may not have had the opportunity of seeing his wife and family for a very long time, while the factory worker has certain advantages in those respects. I am not decrying the factory worker, but I do not think it is fair to compare his position with that of the man at the front.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, if I may intervene for a moment, I should like to say that my observation was not addressed to establishing an equality between the two men for that purpose, but I understood that the proposal was that the Bill before us should be amended, and I was merely pointing out that, if the Bill was to be amended, it would be very difficult to draw the line.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERYI quite see the difficulty. There is only one other matter I would like to mention. I differ from my noble friend Lord Hutchison in his view as to what the men of the Services would think. This has been brought up yesterday and again today by noble Lords, speaking as if old officers would be naturally in sympathy with it. I personally claim to be as old an officer as anybody sitting in this House, and I do not agree. I do not think that the man who is going to do the deed is the sort of man who will reckon ahead what is going to happen after his death, and I am perfectly sure that the man in the Services is not going to be stopped from doing his duty, whether in peace or in war, by those thoughts. I would appeal to my noble friend Lord Strabolgi, if he were here, to support me in this. You continually see men who in peace-time on the spur of the moment jump down and do something dangerous. The same men would be just like that in action, and would not wonder before doing their deeds whether something is going to happen in their homes. They are the last men who would wish to be treated more leniently when it comes to serving.
§ On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
§ Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.