HL Deb 05 February 1946 vol 139 cc216-31

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Nathan.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The VISCOUNT MERSEY in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Release of conditionally registered conscientious objectors.

1.—(I) At any time after the date fixed, under arrangements for the release from Army service of persons called up for service under the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1939 (in this Act referred to as the "Act of 1939") for completing the release from such service of persons of all ranks in any group who are released by reference to their group, the Minister of Labour and National Service may direct that any conditionally registered conscientious objector of the same group shall, as from the giving of the direction, be released from the obligation to undertake work subject to which he was so registered.

Immediately after a direction has been given under this sub-section a copy thereof shall be sent by post to the person to whom the direction relates at his last known address.

6.33 p.m.

VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, in subsection (I), to leave out "Army." The noble Viscount said: I make no apology for returning to a matter which was raised on the Second Reading, and to which, I am bound to say, I thought the noble Lord in charge of the Bill gave a very unconvincing reply. This Amendment, comprehensively, raises two points. In the first place it raises the question of why the date of release from the Army should be the date on which the conscientious objector is released. Releases cannot take place in all the Services at the same moment. This Bill concerns the man who has established his claim to be a conscientious objector and has been released from the Army—that is if he got into the Army—for, observe, we are not dealing with those who served in the Non-Combatant corps, they are dealt with entirely as soldiers, and I have nothing to say about them. We are dealing with men, who either were actually called up into the Army and got into the Army or established themselves as conscientious objectors before they actually got into uniform. They are men who on establishing their claim to be conscientious objectors were sent back by the Tribunal into civil life and became to all intents and purposes, from the moment the Tribunal gave its decision, civilians just as much as if they had never been called up.

These men were not to be called up, provided that they undertook certain employment to which the Ministry of Labour directed them. Now the war has come to an end the men in the three Services, the fighting men in the three Services, are demobilized. We are having a certain amount of trouble over demobilization to-day, and, whether we are all satisfied with the rate or the method or not, I feel we should all be agreed about one thing, that we should not add, by any mischance, to the difficulties and misunderstandings in demobilizing these fighting men. But observe what is going to happen. The conscientious objector, who has not fought at all, and has merely been occupying himself in some work to which he has been directed in civil life is, for the purpose of being relieved of his obligation to work, to be treated as if he were a member of the Army and one who, if he had continued to serve in the Army, would at a particular moment be discharged from the Army. Then, he is to be discharged from his civil obligations. It may well be that men in a similar age group in the Navy or the Royal Air Force are kept longer in their Services. Why on earth should this preference in the date of discharge be given to a conscientious objector?

The only reason the noble Lord gave last time was that it is easier to treat him as a member of the Army. It may be that the bulk of those people were called up—I dare say that they all were—for military service, and they established the right not to serve in the Army. But I say that it is unfair and is likely to lead to trouble and misunderstanding in the other Services if men who are conscientious objectors get out sconer than men of exactly the same age, category, and everything else who are serving in the Royal Navy or the Royal Air Force. We say: "First in, first out." No one can say that the conscientious objector was first in. I should say that he ought to be last out, and he ought not to come out of this civil occupation until the whole of the men in his class and of his age, in his age group, in the last of the Services to be demobilized, is demobilized. That is, I think, a very reasonable proposition.

But there is a much more important matter than this. Assuming that is done and the man is free to go away from this occupation in which he has been placed, I say that on merits this conscientious objector—he has established his claim of course, there is no prejudice in this—is not to be classed as a serving soldier, sailor or airman. He is a civilian. His whole claim was that he would have nothing to do with the war. His conscience, he maintained, forbade him to have any part in the war or to have anything to do with the Fighting Services. He would not serve in the non-combatant ranks, as many brave conscientious objectors have done at great peril to themselves. This man claimed to be a civilian and the tribunal has treated him as one and has said to him in effect: "Go back, you shall not be put: into any armed forces. Go back to civil life."

The Ministry of Labour, very properly, made it a condition of his going back to civil life and spending the war as a civilian, that he must be subject to the obligations which rest upon any civilian of his age and category. The man to all intents and purposes is a directed civilian. He is sent to certain work, it may be agriculture, engineering or possibly in a coal mine, by the Ministry of Labour. He is, directed into an occupation which is subject to the Essential Work Order. That means that he cannot leave his work without the permission of the Ministry of Labour. Now just observe what is going to happen. He is going, under this Bill, to be given a privileged position over all other civilians who are of the same age as himself. Take a man who was dreadfully anxious to serve in the Fighting Services, and who did his best to get in but was medically unfit and so was not passed. He was sent into one of these special occupations under the Essential Work Order. Today I know the numbers have been reduced. But there are many hundreds of thousands—I am not sure if it is millions—of men who are being kept under the Essential Work Order in their particular work, men of the same age as these conscientious objectors.

If this Bill goes through without this Amendment the conscientious objector, as soon as his age group is reached, will be entitled to leave the occupation under the Essential Work Order to which the Ministry of Labour has sent him, whereas his fellow citizen of the same age, and men who wanted to fight in the war maybe, are still held in their occupations. I think I have read that correctly and I do not think I do the noble Lord an injustice because he said you could not hold them last time. We want the release to be not a formality but a reality. I do not think there is the least doubt about it and if you look at Section 1 (4) I think it makes it perfectly clear. Reading Section 1 as a whole there is not the least doubt that if that man is in one of these occupations under the Essential Work Order the moment he is due for release he is free to go away and leave the occupation to which he had been directed. If I am right in construing this, I say that this is grossly unfair.

The point I wish to make is, first of all, that he should stay where he is until the last Service group of a like category with him has been demobilized and also if he is in employment under this special Order which obliges him and his fellows to stay in work, he should be treated exactly like his fellow civilians and be compelled to stay there until the man of like age and category as himself can go. That seems to me to be simple justice. No one wants to deny the conscientious objector justice. That is what he is entitled to but he is not entitled to precedence over his fellow civilians.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 6, leave out ("Army").—(Viscount Swinton.)

6.42 p.m.

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD NATHAN)

My Lords, when I spoke on the Second Reading of this Bill I pointed out that under the National Service Act no provision at all was made for the release of registered conscientious objectors and that in default of some active and positive step they would remain subject to that Act until the end of the emergency defined in that Act. It was thought desirable to put a period to the term for which they should be under the obligations imposed upon them by the National Service Act as conscientious objectors. Consequently, it had been decided to assimilate their release to the release of those serving in the Armed Forces of the same age and service. It was therefore provided by the Bill that they should be released from their obligations as conditionally registered conscientious objectors as a class by age and service at the completion of the period, the date fixed for the release, of the similar, comparable age and service group in the Army.

The whole question that is raised by the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount opposite is whether it should be the Army or not. From the practical point of view it is important to create a system easily intelligible and easily administered. The Army is the largest of all the Armed Forces of the Crown and its programme has been chosen because broadly speaking the release from the Army is on lines more clearly defined and more straightforward than the dates in the other Forces where there are various dates of release in the same age and service groups owing to differences as regards branches and trades. So far as the Army is concerned it is proposed to take the date at which they should be released as after the date fixed for completion of release of persons in all ranks in the same age and service group including officers, who at present are being released in some classes at a somewhat slower rate.

Let me give your Lordships an actual example. According to the most recent announcement, Army officers in group 24 will be released by March 31, the other ranks of that age and service group having been previously released. The Navy would have reached group 29 in the case of the executive branches by March 31, but there are specialist branches which are being released at different rates and in some cases are several groups behind the executive branch. The Royal Air Force will, on the average, have reached group 28 by March 31, but in the case of that force certain groups of officers are being released at a slower rate. The Army is the largest of all the Services and I should have thought it is obvious that if one is seeking a yardstick the best yardstick is the Army, that substantial justice will be done to the men in the Forces if the release of conscientious objectors is timed to follow the Army programme for only a minority of the men in the same group in the Navy and Air Force are in fact being released at a later date.

Similar conditions apply to the Women's Services and the release of conditionally registered women conscientious objectors is being related to the A.T.S. In regard to another class of conscientious objector, those who have been registered in the Non-Combatant Corps have been posted only into the Army, and this is, therefore, I submit to your Lordships, an obvious basis of comparison for release purposes. Otherwise you would have the anomalous position that certain conscientious objectors would be released with the Army as members of the Non-Combatant Corps: other conscientious objectors would be released by reference to some different scale or process. Indeed, there is a very real precedent for this. A broad parallel is to be found in the existing system for the coal mining ballotees. Their release age and length of service scheme is related to the timetable of the Army.

I ought perhaps to have mentioned that I do not think the noble Viscount opposite referred to the point which I myself mentioned on the occasion of the Second Reading, that in addition to release according to age and length of service, the Bill also provides for the release of conscientious objectors out of turn to undertake work of national importance. It will be a release made in the national interest on the recommendation of Government Departments. Where persons of similar experience or qualifications are being released from the Army under Class B, the same standards apply for release under Class B from the Royal Air Force and from the Navy. No conscientious objector will be released out of turn except in circumstances where he would have been so released if he had been serving in one of the Armed Forces.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I knew about that, I am not challenging it.

LORD NATHAN

I am much obliged. With regard to the second Amendment on the Paper my right honourable friend, the Minister of Labour and National Service, in the House of Commons on the Second Reading of this Bill gave an undertaking. He gave an undertaking that it was the intention to ensure that 7.he purpose of this Bill is not frustrated by the exercise of existing labour controls in such a way that a conscientious objector, who has been released from his conditions, is tied to the work from which he has been released under the Bill. Now, that was the undertaking given to Parliament by the Minister of Labour and National Service speaking, of course, on behalf of the Government.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

We are not bound by it.

LORD NATHAN

I would not suggest that the noble Viscount or indeed this House is bound by what may have been said in the other House, but it is a factor to be taken into account. It is a matter on which I feel the House ought to be informed. In that statement made in another place the Minister did set out the position, which is not indeed quite as the noble Viscount opposite seems to have understood. On the release of a conscientious objector, he will be released from the directed work or the work under the Essential Work Order—the actual job or kind of work to which he has been directed—but that does not mean he is in any better position than other members of the public of the same age and skill so far as liability is concerned to direction to some other job or piece of work, whether under the Essential Work Order, or simply direction to a non-scheduled job to which direction applies.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I am sure the noble Lord wants to answer the point I raised. I did not say he would be in a better position than somebody else in the way of direction to something new. What I put to him was this. If I have not misread the Bill there are two men serving side by side in an occupation governed by the Essential Works Order, a conscientious objector aged 29 and an ordinary civilian aged 29. Is it not a fact that if this goes through the civilian aged 29 will be held and the conscientious objector will be free?

LORD NATHAN

No, it is not true. That is the point of misapprehension on the part of the noble Viscount opposite which I was endeavouring to remove. What is true is that, if there are two workers of the same age, side by side in the same workshop under the Essential Work Order, under this Bill the conscientious objector on release will be released from that particular job, from that particular work, but he remains equally liable to be sent to a different job, it may be next door, under the Essential Work Order.

LORD LLEWELLIN

Might I interrupt one moment? Will he or will he not in all respects on release be in the same position as a member of the Armed Forces who has been released in the normal way?

LORD NATHAN

Let me take it by stages. The position in the first instance will be that, being under the Essential Work Order, on an order being made he will be released by the National Service Officer from that particular job, but it will be open to the National Service Officer to say to him, "I am directing you to another job under the Essential Work Order." I ought perhaps to say that it is not the intention, as I erroneously informed the House on the Second Reading, that they should be given a period of eight weeks to find their own jobs on the same lines as a soldier released under Class A, but that the conscientious objector, when released under this Bill will be liable, subject to what I have just said, to the same degree of direction and control as other civilians, and it is not proposed that released conscientious objectors should be given more favourable treatment than other members of the community of the same age and service group.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

May I ask this? I do not want to quarrel with the noble Lord about something in respect of which I may not be clear.

LORD NATHAN

Please.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

If I am wrong I will be the first to withdraw it.

LORD NATHAN

Please.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

In the way in which it works to-day—let us take agri- culture —people are frozen in agriculture and are forbidden to leave it, and men are not being directed into agriculture. Therefore what would happen if one considers this position? There are two men serving side by side on a farm. One man is released. The noble Lord says that he might be directed, but the way in which you are dealing with this Essential Works Order, as I understand it, is this, you are holding men frozen where they are, but you are not directing new men into a number of these works, and therefore in practice he would have a preference.

LORD NATHAN

I do not think I can do more than repeat, I think for the second time, which I am quite prepared to do, what I have already said, and I do it with the desire of being helpful to the noble Viscount opposite. The position seems to me to be abundantly clear. A released conscientious objector under this Bill will be released from the particular job which was the subject of the condition imposed upon him by the Tribunal, but he still remains subject to direction by the National Service Officer, either to a non-scheduled piece of work or to a job under the Essential Work Order. In that respect he will be in exactly the same position as any other civilian of the same age and skill.

7 p.m.

LORD LLEWELLIN

had given Notice to move to insert the following proviso: Provided that no direction made under this section shall have the effect (a) of releasing any such conscientious objector from his obligations at a date prior to that on which persons of the same group as his are released from the last of the three Armed Forces of the Crown to release that group or (b) of relieving him from any obligation under the Essential Works Order so long as other persons of like age and qualifications remain subject to directions under the said order. The noble Lord said: I must say that I, for one, am not at all satisfied with the attitude the noble Lord has taken on this matter. He has himself told us, as we thought when we put down this Amendment, that the time of demobilization of certain groups in the three Services is different. He says that in several cases there will be groups in the Royal Navy or in the Royal Air Force which will be released after the date when the similar Army group has been released. Yet, knowing that, these conscientious objectors, who have done no service comparable to the men in the Royal Air Force or the Royal Navy who are going to be kept on, are going to be released from their obligations ahead of men who may have been serving in the Mediterranean, in submarines, in the Far East, or who may have been flying over Germany or doing other duties like that. These conscientious objectors, under this scheme, are coming out from their obligations before these other men.

In taking that attitude, which has been admitted by the noble Lord, the Government is just as wrong as it could possibly be and in my view it is being highly stupid too. There is some dissatisfaction—I do not think justified in the way it has been shown—in the Royal Air Force at the present moment, but it is only on the Government's shoulders if they make it worse by letting these conscientious objectors go before a number of men in the Royal Air Force are released. The noble Lord, on Second Reading, said that they would be released when the whole of the group in the Armed Forces to which they belonged, had itself been released. Those were the noble Lord's own words. If he would stick to those words and accept an Amendment interpreting them, I should be absolutely satisfied and justice would have been done.

What I am saying is that men who have served in this war only as civilians should not be released from their obligations before the date on which the last of the men who took the far more difficult and far more hazardous course in the war has been released. It is quite simple to know when the last group is being released. It need not be so complicated. The Ministry of Labour knows, even if the Services themselves do not know what one another is doing. The Ministry of Labour knows when groups are being released, and it would be easy enough to say that Group 24 will be released from the Army on March 24th and the last people in Group 24 are going to be released from the Royal Navy on June 24th; therefore, as from June 24th, the conscientious objectors will be released, but not before. The attitude the Government is taking is wrong in regard to the men in the Armed Forces of the Crown, and is, if I may suggest so, a stupid thing at this stage when discontent as regards demobilization is being shown.

Now, in regard to the other Amendment on the Paper. A man has been a civilian because he applied to be a civilian; he applied not to go into one of the Armed Forces of the Crown and appealed to be regarded as a conscientious objector, and he was made a conditionally registered conscientious objector. He had to take on some job similar to jobs civilians were taking on in this country. Now what the noble Lord said the other day was this: It is intended that it should be a reality, and consequently those who are serving in work under the Essential Work Order, or in work to which they have been directed by the Ministry of Labour, will be allowed to leave that work. A lot of their fellow civilians are not allowed to leave their work; they are still kept in agriculture and in the coal mines. Let us remember that these conscientious objectors are going to have preference and be allowed to leave when others are kept there.

LORD NATHAN

May I interrupt? I am sorry the noble Lord should proceed under a misapprehension. Under the Bill, a conscientious objector will be released from the occupation to which he has been made subject by the conscientious objector's tribunal, but he will remain directable to other work, like any other civilian of the same age.

LORD LLEWELL

Perhaps the noble Lord, then, will relieve my doubts. I understand that at the moment, although people are being frozen in essential work to which they have gone or to which they have been directed, new people are not being directed into those industries to-day. Is that correct, or is it not? I give way to the noble Lord.

LORD NATHAN

The Minister of Labour and National Service made a very long and careful statement on this subject in another place the other day, extending to upwards of four columns of Hansard, but I think, broadly speaking—and I must make tint qualification—the position is that the Minister of Labour's power of direction to work under the Essential Work Order and the like will not extend to those aver the age of 30, and he is intending to withdraw, on notice, certain kinds of work from the Essential Works Order. I think I read that such a notice had been given—three months' notice—only the other day. I can make only a general statement, because otherwise I should have to make a most careful statement to the noble Lord, based on four columns of Hansard.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I am really asking the noble Lord one simple question, and if one of his noble friends would make an inquiry while I am speaking, perhaps I may get the answer. The simple question is: If you allow one of the conscientious objectors to leave his job now, is it the practice now (not is it within the Minister's power) to direct any man back again, if the Minister wishes to do so? That is the short, simple question that I am putting. I am not suggesting that if you are not directing a civilian man above the age of 50 or above the age of 31, whichever it is, that you should direct a conscientious objector above that age. All I am saying is that I object to this man being given a preference over a civilian of his own age. If he is a man of 32 and you are no longer directing anyone above 31, of course, release him; but if he is a man of 28, then I say you ought to keep him along with other similar civilians who, for one reason or another, perhaps because they were unfit, are in the same occupation (if it is one covered by the Essential Work Order), where you are still keeping people by the direction of the Ministry of Labour and freezing them. If he has been directed to something in which civilians are not still frozen, then release him with the others when his age group in the Armed Forces of the Crown is released. If however, his fellow civilians are still being frozen in that occupation, I see no reason whatever for letting the conscientious objector of the same age out. I give way to the noble Lord.

LORD NATHAN

I am not at all certain that the noble Lord is not really chasing a shadow, and I know he has no desire to do that. When the conscientious objector is in an essential works job—I use that phrase for shortness and clarity—he is under it, not by virtue of the Essential Work Order, but by virtue of the condition imposed by the Conscientious Objectors Tribunal. That is his position at present.

LORD LLEWELLIN

It may be. He might have been there before and ordered by the Tribunal to remain there. If he had not been directed by the Conscientious Objectors Tribunal and was a man of the appropriate age, he would still have to stay there. As I understand it, because he has been directed by the Tribunal to stay in his job, having once been directed like that, he is in a favourable position compared to that of his cousin, who was there at the same time and never was directed by a Conscientious Objectors Tribunal.

LORD NATHAN

I will put it in another way. The status of a conditionally registered conscientious objector in an essential works job is that he is in that essential works job by reason of a direction given or a condition imposed by the Conscientious Objectors Tribunal. That is his position subject to the proposals for release which we now have under discussion. He is, in other words, the object of an act by the Conscientious Objectors' Tribunal. We now say to him under this Bill: "You shall no longer be the object of the activities of the Conscientious Objectors Tribunal; you shall be released from the condition which they imposed upon you. You shall be restored to the general body of civilians unconditionally as far as the Conscientious Objectors Act is concerned, but you shall remain in all respects subject to the obligations of every other civilian of the same age, in that although you may be released from the occupation to which you have been directed by the Tribunal, you still remain directable to other essential works under the Essential Work Order, like any other civilian of the same age."

LORD LLEWELLIN

None of us would have any objection to saying "Once your group number has come under this Bill, the condition imposed on you by the Conscientious Objectors Tribunal shall cease to have effect," if the noble Lord went on to say that a National Service Officer could then say to the man, "Look here, there are three of you in the same job. You are going to be frozen like the other two, because you are in this industry. We are not freezing people because we like to freeze them; we are freezing them because the industry is important. You will have to stay along with them, although your original way of going in may have been because you were directed by the Tribunal. By now you have learnt the job; you are just as important as any of the other people in it. When we release everybody in it, then we will unfreeze you, and not before." Why should not the conscientious objector take his part and line up alongside civilians of his age in such things as agriculture? From what I have heard of the Minister of Food's announcement in another place to-day, agriculture is more important in this country than ever it was.

LORD NATHAN

I will tell the noble Lord—that really was the subject of what I referred to as the Minister's undertaking in another place—that to adopt his suggestion would—and I say it with great respect—make of this Bill a fraud and a farce. Under the noble Lord's suggestion he would be getting no release at all.

A NOBLE LORD: And a good job too.

LORD NATHAN

It may be a good job or it may not. The object of this Bill is to provide release. Under the noble Lord's suggestion he would remain exactly where he was. The only difference—and I do not think it is a great difference—between the noble Lord and myself is this. We are saying, "You shall be freed from the particular occupation to which you have been directed, but you still remain liable to the national service implied by the liability to direction which is applicable to other people of your age, although it may be into a different occupation." That is essential in order to make the release a reality.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I shall be quite satisfied if I am told the answer to the question I put. Are the Ministry of Labour in fact now doing anything more than freezing people? Are they still directing people into industry? I have asked a simple question; I asked it five minutes ago. There should be somebody available in this House to give that answer.

LORD NATHAN

I have said—

LORD LLEWELLIN

The noble Lord said, "He is still directable." He may be, according to the law, but the question is whether the practice is now to direct these people. I understand that the practice is not to direct anybody new into industry but only to freeze those in the industries in which they now are. If so, if the conscientious objector is released from the industry in which he is, unless you are going to make an exception in the case of conscientious objectors, he will get completely out. I am not trying to do the man down; all I am saying is that if you have got two people who are still frozen in an industry, the first man out ought not to be the conscientious objector, just because he has been a conscientious objector. That is what is going to happen if he is let cut and the Ministry of Labour are at the moment not directing any other people in.

LORD NATHAN

It is the same point which I think I made on the Second Reading, and which I made to-day when I said it had been limited now to men not over 30. Men, of course, are directed into industry if they are of military age, and for the present purposes military age has been taken administratively to be 30. They are not only directable but they are being directed.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I understand that a conscientious objector, if he is under the age of 30 and is released from an essential works job in which civilians are kept, will not be just as free as a member of the Armed Forces, as the noble Lord told us last time. Members of the Armed Forces are free, they are not directed; they are given the opportunity of finding their own jobs, and quite rightly. The conscientious objector will be on the same basis as his fellow civilians; he will be directable back, if released. Therefore, if you decide that after being four or five years a conscientious objector he has picked up the calling of agriculture, he will then, under this Bill, be released, because you do not want to make of it a fraud, but you can look round and say, "We still want people in agriculture; you have had five years' experience in it, so back you go." If that is the position, it puts him on the same basis as his fellow civilians in the agricultural industry, and I am quite happy, but I hope to be re-assured that that is the position.

LORD NATHAN

I have told the noble Lord that the power of direction is retained. The conscientious objector is liable to direction. The power of direction is being exercised by the Minister so far as it relates to people up to the age of 30. The conscientious objector will be released from the particular occupation in which he is engaged and he will remain liable to be directed, and in an appropriate case he will be directed to other work for which he is suitable, in the same way as any other civilian of military age.

LORD LLEWELLIN

That puts it far better than it was put by the noble Lord on the Second Reading of this Bill, when he said this man was going to be as free as any member of the Armed Forces. I am not asking for him to be penalised; I think the House understands that. I am only asking for him not to be dealt with in a preferential way to those in the Armed Forces. As it is, I shall read rather carefully in the Official Report what the noble Lord has said to-night. If it does not seem to meet my point, I shall ask liberty to return to the charge at a later stage of this Bill. But, as we are both probably meaning to do the same thing here, it would be better if the Government—if they are bound by this thing—would put down an Amendment themselves to do justice to the other men serving in the Forces and to the civilians working alongside conscientious objectors. I would ask the noble Lord to look at it from that point of view and having said that I beg leave on behalf of my noble friend to withdraw—at any rate at this stage of the Bill—the Amendment that was proposed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I do not move the Amendment of which I gave notice.

Clause 1, agreed to

Remaining Clause, agreed to.