NATIONAL SERVICE (RELEASE OF CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS) BILL. (Hansard, 12 February 1946)

§ THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD NATHAN)
My Lords, I beg to 424 move that this Bill be now read a third time.

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
My Lords, on the Committee stage my friends and I gave an undertaking that we would consider carefully the speech of the noble Lord on reading it in Hansard to see whether it met the difficulties which we had raised on this Bill. I am afraid I am bound to return to this for a few minutes because I do not think, having read carefully all that the noble Lord said and having considered the Bill again, that we are in any way met on either of the two points which we raised last time. I would put these two points to the noble Lord. It is not a question of whether a conscientious objector becomes liable on release to direction in the same way that an ordinary civilian of the same age is liable to direction. Of course he does. Nobody doubts that, but that is not the point. The question is the way in which direction is operating and the way in which the holding of people in their jobs under the Essential Work Order is operating. Will the conscientious objector not in fact be better treated than the man who is held at his job?
The second point is this: Why should the conscientious objector be released at all before the last man in his age and group is released from any of the armed Services? I hope the noble Lord will interrupt me if I am wrong. He knows that the last thing I want to do is to mislead him or that there should be any misunderstanding. The conscientious objector is going to be released when the man of his age and category due for release in the Army is released. Is that so?

§ LORD NATHAN
After.

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
After, very well. The man in his age and category in the Army can be released first and the day after that the conscientious objector becomes entitled to release. It may be that men of the same age and category as conscientious objectors are held in the Air Force, possibly in India or anywhere else. They may be in the Navy, but it is more likely in the Air Force. What we say is that we do not want to do any injustice to a conscientious objector, but we do say that that conscientious objector 425 who has been excused from any military service at all should not be released until all the men in his age and category in any of the three fighting Services have been released. It seems to me that there is a simple element of justice in that and I should have thought it would have been much better for the Government in dealing with the inevitable difficulties which they have over demobilization. It must make for trouble if fighting men are held and conscientious objectors of the same age and category are released. The only reason which is given for this is that he was called up for the Army and therefore it is convenient to treat him as a man in the Army. But the Army is not really doing this; it is the Ministry of Labour.
It is perfectly simple for the Ministry of Labour to know from the Army, the Navy or the Air Force when the last man, say of 29 years of age in a group, is released. They notify the Ministry of Labour and when the last man is out of the last Fighting Services then the conscientious objector should get his release. There cannot be any administrative difficulty in doing that. It cannot hurt the War Office because the people who are going to administer this are the Ministry of Labour who have put the man into the job, and even at this late stage I ask, in the interests of fairness to the fighting men in the Services and in order that there should be as little difficulty as possible over demobilization, that the Government will do the reasonable and fair thing as between the fighting man and the conscientious objector and let all the fighting men out first. That is the first problem, and the noble Lord has not denied—I am sure he would not attempt to deny—that I have stated the position quite fairly and accurately.
Now let me come to the question of the position of the conscientious objector, vas-à-vis the civilian who is serving in the same employment. In certain occupations, civilians are still held under the Essential Work Order, or whatever it may be. In agriculture men are held and are told, because of the needs of agriculture, that they cannot leave their employment. But Men are not being directed into agriculture today. Do not tell me about being liable to be directed. I know the Minister of Labour has power to direct into a number of industries, but the real point is not whether there is a legal power, but what in day-to-day practice is the Minister of 426 Labour doing, and what does he intend to do. That is the fair way of putting it. Take two men of 28 years of age, one a conscientious objector who has got excused by the Tribunal, and who has been sent to work on a farm, and the other a man who, perhaps, tried to get into the Army and was unfit. He also has been directed or has volunteered to work on a farm. Those two men are working side by side on the same farm, but the conscientious objector is released, and the man who did not object, the ordinary civilian, is held. That, surely, is not fair as between those two civilians, because, in fact, a conscientious objector is a civilian.
It is not necessary to say the Minister of Labour has a legal power to send a conscientious objector to that farm. The Government are not directing those people on to farms to-day. When that conscientious objector is released, he will not be sent back to that or any other farm. He will be left free to get a better-paid job somewhere else. People are being held in the Civil Service also, I understand, but they are not being directed into the Civil Service. If a conscientious objector in the noble Lord's own department gets released, he will not be sent back by the Minister of Labour to the War Office. He will be free to get a job where he can, but the others will be held. I have tried to put it as fairly as I can. I believe I have stated with accuracy what the factual position is, and, if what I have said is correct, the way this thing is working out is unfair. In my opinion the objector ought to be held until the ordinary civilian of the same age and category is released, and I think that will appeal to the common sense and the common fairness of this House.

§ LORD NATHAN
The noble Viscount has returned to the charge. The matters he has raised this evening are, in substance, the same as those raised both on Second Reading and in Committee. But that is no reason why they should not be raised. Let me take first the actual facts as regards this Bill. It is a Bill designed for a purpose, and that purpose is to grant release. Apart from this Bill there would be no possibility of the conscientious objectors in question being released until the end of the emergency under the National Service Acts. A machinery, 427 therefore, has to be created for this purpose of effecting release. The machinery chosen is the age and service group system as applicable to the Armed Forces, and the Army has been selected as the force by reference to which the age and service group of the conscientious objector shall be ascertained. This is because it is much the largest force, and the system of release there under is well understood and is simple. What is perhaps the most important thing of all is that it is predictable in the sense that it applies to a whole number in an age and service group and is announced beforehand.
With regard to the other Services, different considerations apply because in those Services there are differences of release according to trades and occupations, rather than to the mere fact of being a member of the Service. The noble Viscount opposite says that instead of being related to the Army, instead of the objector being postponed in his release till after the conclusion of the period fixed for the release of his age and service group—I am afraid I have lost the thread of my thoughts, and must ask the forgiveness of the noble Viscount.

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
Do you want my point again?

§ LORD NATHAN
No, I know your point. Let me put it to the noble Viscount this way. Under the scheme as I have related before to your Lordships on previous occasions, and as I have indicated now, the conscientious objector knows when he will be released. It is noticeable that although this Bill was introduced for Second Reading in another place as long ago as the beginning of November, no single instance has reached my ears—and no single instance has come to the attention of the Ministry of Labour and National Service—where any Service man in any of the three Services has made any complaint or any suggestion objecting to this scheme on the ground that it was unfair or otherwise. In fact, it has been accepted completely by those serving in the Armed Forces. The complaint which has been made arises not from the Armed Forces.

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
Have conscientious objectors been released?

§ LORD NATHAN
This Bill, with these proposals contained in it, as I have explained, has been before the country since November, and no single complaint has heretofore been made.

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
As no conscientious objectors haw been released, the soldiers, sailors, and airmen cannot possibly know. They do not read either the noble Lord's speeches or mine in barrack rooms. Of course, the time when the noble Lord will get into trouble is when the Bill has gone through and he before fighting men. It is a most extraordinary argument that we are not to do justice because some fighting men have not complained about the Bill.

§ LORD NATHAN
My experience in the Department in which I hold office is that a matter has only to be raised in either House of Parliament, or in the Press, in however obscure a journal, to spread like a bush rumour among all the Forces, wherever they may be, and the most unlikely and unexpected complaints or references are made to the Service Departments. I am quite certain that if this Bill had roused any of the kind of feeling to which the noble Viscount has referred, then during the period of the three or four months that have elapsed since it was introduced and debated on Second Reading, Committee stage and Third Reading in the House of Commons, and debated on Second Reading and Committee stage in your Lordships' House, we should have had a good many complaints, and it must be assumed, therefore, that it has been accepted by the Forces and by the public at large.
The noble Viscount referred to an entirely different point, namely, the relative position of two civilians, one a conscientious objector and the other not a conscientious objector. I stated in answer to a question put to me by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, in Committee, and I now repeat, that the position of the two civilians is this: the non-conscientious objector remains in the work to which he has been directed, and the conscientious objector is released from the particular occupation to which he has been directed, because it is the whole purpose of the Bill that he shall be so released, and if he were not, the purpose of the Bill would be wholly frustrated. 429 But the conscientious objector remains liable to direction.

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
Yes, liable to, but is he directed?

§ LORD NATHAN
I repeat he is liable to direction. I repeat what I said on the previous occasion, and which, apparently, in spite of a close study, the noble Viscount has not observed in the report of my speech. I repeat that the Minister of Labour is exercising, and is proposing to continue to exercise, his power of direction so far as it relates to men of what is commonly called military age, namely, at present, those under 30, and that it is exercised in relation to industry, and in relation to agriculture, and it is proposed to exercise it as far as he may consider appropriate in the case of conscientious objectors who may be released under this Bill. I do not think I can make a statement more comprehensive or more definite than that.

§ EARL DE LA WARR
Would the noble Lord just be a little more explicit? I gather he says that a conscientious objector will be released from the obligation to work upon the land, but he remains liable to direction by the Ministry of Labour presumably to some other occupation. Will the noble Lord tell us what other occupation at the present moment, in the light of the present food situation, is more important in the national interest than work on the land?

§ LORD NATHAN
If the conscientious objector had been directed to work in agriculture, and if he is of the appropriate age and service group which under this Bill would entitle him to be released, he will be released from that occupation. But he will remain directable to some other occupation, and should the Minister of Labour consider it best in the public interest that he should be directed, so he will be directed.

§ EARL DE LA WARR
The noble Lord has not begun to answer my question. The question is what is the point, in the light of the present food situation, of removing the direction from the conscientious objector, which compels him to work on the land, and then retaining the power to direct him elsewhere, and why this disregard of the importance of the food position at the present moment?

§ LORD NATHAN
The conscientious objector, by claiming to be registered as a conscientious objector, has exercised a right deliberately given to him by Parliament. The exercise of that right exposed him to certain disabilities, one of which was that he should no longer be a free man, but, instead of serving in the Armed Forces, he should be liable to serve in some occupation to which he was directed. On the assumption made by the noble Lord opposite, he has been compulsorily directed to agriculture. Service in agriculture is therefore the service which he is performing in the interest of the State in compliance with the rights and obligations expressed deliberately by Parliament. It is now desired that he should be released from the obligations—

§ EARL DE LA WARR
Why?

§ LORD NATHAN
—released from the obligations which were imposed on him by reason of the fact that he is a conscientious objector. The only way of effecting release is to effect release! And that implies that he should be—

A NOBLE LORD
Released!

§ LORD NATHAN
—withdrawn, that he should be allowed again to resume the position of a citizen who is not subject to the direction of the Conscientious Objectors' Tribunal. But he remains subject to the general law of the land, applicable to all those below a certain age and not in the Armed Forces, and one of those obligations is that he shall be liable to direction at the judgment of, and by the action of, the Minister of Labour. I have said on Third Reading more than once, I have said to-day more than once, and I now say for a third time—

A NOBLE LORD
That is too many.

§ LORD NATHAN
—that the Minister has exercised, and will continue to exercise, his right of direction in respect of men of military age with regard to industry, including agriculture.

§ EARL DE LA WARR
Am I to take it these men may be directed back to agriculture?

§ LORD NATHAN
No.

§ EARL DE LA WARR
No, they may be—this is what I am trying to get at—directed into any other industry than agriculture. Could the noble Lord now per- 431 haps answer the question I originally asked, and, indeed, which I have asked him twice? Why, if he is maintaining the right to direct these men, should they not be directed into the industry which is suffering most from shortage of labour at the present moment, and which is likely to suffer a further shortage of labour and cause immense hardship to the country?

§ LORD NATHAN
I would answer the noble Earl by saying if that were done it would make a fraud and a farce of the Bill, because it would not be release at all; it would be going through the machinery of release while depriving the citizen of the actuality.

§ EARL DE LA WARR
I am sorry to interrupt again, but it is most important. The noble Lord suggests now it would not be making a fraud of this Bill if, on being released from agriculture, he was directed into cotton. It would only be a fraud if he were directed into agriculture.

§ LORD NATHAN
The point is surely clear.

§ EARL DE LA WARR
No, not a bit.

§ LORD NATHAN
It is surely clear—

§ EARL DE LA WARR
No.

§ LORD NATHAN
It is surely clear to the noble Earl that, where it is determined there shall be a release, that means there shall be a release from the obligations sunder which the conscientious objector rested, and if that involves that he should be released from that particular occupation of agriculture on the assumption that he has been directed to it, from that occupation he will be released. I repeat from that occupation he will be released. But a conscientious objector, who was employed in some other occupation, on being released may be directed into agriculture.

§ EARL DE LA WARR
He may be directed back into agriculture?

§ LORD NATHAN
Certainly.

§ EARL DE LA WARR
The noble Lord said that would be a fraud. The noble Lord—

§ LORD NATHAN
I hope the noble Lord will not do me an injustice. If 432 he will be good enough to listen to me I will do my best to make myself clear. You have your conscientious objector who has been directed to agriculture. He is to be released from his obligations as a conscientious objector. He is therefore released from agriculture, but he remains liable to be directed elsewhere; and for all I can say in anticipation of a particular person, he will, in fact, be directed to some other occupation. That is the combination—

§ EARL DE LA WARR
Why is that not a fraud?

§ LORD NATHAN
That is the combination of the operation of two principles: first, that release means release, and second that liability to direction means liability to direction.

§ EARL DE LA WARR
No, no.

§ LORD NATHAN
The noble Viscount opposite is far too experienced and far too shrewd a business man not to understand quite clearly. He does himself an injustice in professing he does not understand how the scheme operates. By parity of reasoning, a conscientious objector who is in the engineering industry is released from the engineering industry, because that is the method, and the only method, of releasing him from his obligations.

§ EARL DE LA WARR
I think I see—

§ LORD NATHAN
I cannot give way to the noble Earl again. Man-power in agriculture, therefore, may not only remain as great as it is now, but may, under this release scheme, be actually increased; and I hope it will satisfy, on that point, the noble Lord opposite.

§ EARL DE LA WARR
May I have an assurance from the noble Lord that those working in engineering will be directed to agriculture?

§ LORD NATHAN
The noble Earl will agree that, as I have wished to do, I have shown courtesy to him, but I cannot give way indefinitely. We must get on. There was a third question put to me by the noble Viscount, and that was with regard to the position of civil servants. He pointed out, with perfect accuracy, that civil servants are liable to be held—that is under Defence Regulation 58AAA. I 433 am answering a question the noble Viscount specifically put to me.

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
Yes, I am listening.

§ LORD NATHAN
The regulation does not exclude the right of the civil servant to apply to his chief, the Permanent Secretary, the head of his own Department, for release, and if that release be denied to him he has a right of appeal. But it is perfect, true—

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
The conscientious objector has a right to release; the other has a right to appeal.

§ LORD NATHAN
It is perfectly true the civil servant is held, subject to that right of appeal. The point that the noble Lord put to me as to there being two civil servants, one a conscientious objector and the other not, one held under the Regulation and the other released under this Bill, does not, in fact, arise, because conscientious objectors from the Civil Service have not been directed back by the Tribunals to the Civil Service, nor have Tribunals directed into the Civil Service any who were not in the Civil Service before. Therefore the position which the noble Lord put to me is one that does not and cannot arise in the way in which he suggested it might.
Now I have spoken upon the three objections that were taken on this occasion. I think they have all been taken on previous occasions, to a greater or less degree, by the noble Lord Opposite. The object of this scheme, to put it again in a single sentence, is to enable the conscientious objector to be released who otherwise would not be releasable until the end of the emergency under the National Service Acts, and the releases to be effected in such a way as to do substantial justice between one member of the community and another member.

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
My Lords, I can only speak again with the leave of the House. I am bound to say that I think this is a most unsatisfactory position. It is not a large House, but rather than do injustice we had better not pass a Bill if it is a thoroughly unjust Bill. What I do suggest would be very wise of the Government would be to consider this a little further and put down an Amendment. 434 They could put down an Amendment on Third Reading. This Bill is an unjust Bill as it stands. It is not only an unjust Bill, it is a very silly Bill, because you take a man out of agriculture and you say he is liable to direction, but the only thing you will not direct him back into is agriculture, which needs him and which he knows how to do. You direct a man into engineering, and then you take him out and presumably direct him into agriculture, if he is an engineer.
We have tried to help the Government over a large number of these measures and I think they will say we have had some very useful debates to-day. The Lord Chancellor and some others have been extremely helpful. We have tried to make Bills better Bills and have made some very useful Amendments. I do not believe anybody sitting in any quarter of this House believes this Bill is a reasonable Bill as it stands, or would be satisfied to pass the Bill as it stands. If necessary, I will formally move that the debate be adjourned, but I hope the Leader of the House will do so. There cannot be any great hurry to pass this Bill about conscientious objectors. They are not going to be released tomorrow morning. Indeed, it will not really do any harm if a few of them stay on the land for a few more days until the German prisoners arrive. It cannot do any harm to keep them on the land while U.N.O. resolutions on food are being passed and other things are being considered.
I would suggest to the Leader of the House that instead of making me move the Motion, by common consent we may have the debate adjourned to a day next week when a little more thought can be given to it. If the noble Lord would like me to do so, I will move accordingly, but perhaps he will.

§ VISCOUNT ADDISON
You move it.

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
Then. I move that the debate on this Bill be adjourned.

§ VISCOUNT ADDISON
There seems to be some misunderstanding, or not sufficient clarity of understanding on this matter, and I think perhaps it might be useful if we did adjourn.