HL Deb 26 February 1946 vol 139 cc877-85

2.40 p.m.

Order of the Day for the debate to be resumed on the Motion for the Third, Reading moved on Tuesday, February 12, by Lord Nathan, read.

On Question, Bill read 3a.

Clause 1:

Release of conditionally registered conscientious objectors. (1) 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.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved, after subsection (5), to insert: (6) A direction under this section shall have effect only as respects the obligation subject- to which the person in question was conditionally registered as a conscientious objector, and accordingly where he is employed in any occupation the leaving of which is subject to restrictions he shall not by reason of the direction be more favourably treated in relation to the said restrictions than wartime workers in the occupation who have not been registered in the register of conscientious objectors. In this subsection the expression 'wartime worker' means a person employed in an occupation who apart from war circumstances would not have been employed, therein.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have had some discussion, and, at times, some what involved discussion on certain matters which I and several of my friends around me have wished to raise on this Bill. We discussed them in Committee, at the Report stage and on the Third Reading before the debate was adjourned. In the light of those discussions which we then had, it has seemed fit to my noble friend Viscount Swinton and myself to put an Amendment on the Order Paper. This Amendment is somewhat more limited in extent than that which I would have had on the Paper had this Bill been recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House. After all, these conscientious objectors have chosen of their own accord to be treated as civilians. They have applied to tribunals, when called up, not to be sent into any of the Armed Forces, but, on the contrary, to be treated as civilians.

The Bill, as it is at present drafted, if this Amendment be not accepted, would have the effect that these men who have been directed to other employments would get out of those employments earlier than other civilians who were not conscientious objectors would be allowed to have their release from employments to which they were directed. That seems to us to be all wrong, and the question, of course, arises as to whether one should keep these conscientious objectors in those employments for so long as anyone is frozen in such employments. While a lot of people who are frozen in employments would be in those employments in any event, and in the normal course of their lives would be occupied—to take agriculture as an example—as agricultural labourers or in some other capacity in the agricultural industry, on the other hand you may get a case of a man who is a don or a schoolteacher or somebody like that, and who has been directed into that industry, which is quite apart from his normal vocation in life. And it may well be argued that he should be allowed to get back to his ordinary vocation and profession, even before the time when those frozen in the industry are released from it.

There may be a case for that. That case is not included in the Amendment which I am now moving. The case which is included is this: if there are two people who have actually been directed into an industry from some other calling, we say that the conscientious objector ought not to be allowed out until you also, at the same time, release the other man who has been directed but who has not been a conscientious objector. It seems to us that that is only fair. There is really no stigma left on the conscientious objector. He is not kept there any longer than any other man who, perhaps because of health reasons, was not called up, and, not being called up for the Army, Navy, or Air Force, was directed into an employment. The effect of this Amendment is to say that the conscientious objector, notwithstanding the other provisions of the Bill, shall not be released from the work to which he is directed until any other man, in the same age group and circumstances, who has been directed to industry is also released. That is only justice, and it is justice that we should, I feel, get this point upon which we have been so insistent, on the Committee stage, the Report stage and now at the ultimate stage of the adjourned debate on the Third Reading. I very much hope that the Government will see its way to accept the Amendment which I now propose. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 32, at end, to insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Llewellin.)

2.48 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT)

My Lords, I am afraid that I knew nothing of this matter until, when I was sitting here a week or ten days ago, I heard my noble friend Lord Nathan battling with some very difficult bowling on a very sticky wicket. I am bound to say that my noble friend did not score boundaries with that flowing ease he frequently does, but he did keep his end up. And he kept his end up, because by keeping it up he was observing and honouring a statement which the Minister of Labour had made in another place. I quite understand the reason the Minister had for making that statement, for, of course, if you were to remove the conscientious objectors from this particular ban, and at the same time—I, too, will take agriculture as an illustration—to hold them to agriculure on some other ground, it might well be said that the relief was illusory, and that the Bill was a sham and a fraud.

I think I speak for all of us about this. We may not all very greatly admire the attitude which the conscientious objector takes up. But after all it was the law of the land. These people have been proved to be genuine conscientious objectors, and they have done what they were told to do, and in these circumstances it would ill become any of us to try to take it out of them at this time. I think that all sides of the House will agree with that. After the debate to which I have referred the noble Lord asked me to look into the legal aspect of the matter to see whether anything could be devised to deal with another difficulty. I am bound to say that I thought the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, in the course of his speech, put the case very forcibly. He said: 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 these two civilians, because, in fact, a conscientious objector is a civilian. I am bound to say that when I looked at that I came to the conclusion that that would not be fair, and, therefore, I am satisfied to advise the House to accept this Amendment, and for this reason. We do not want to penalize or prejudice conscientious objectors, but I cannot think it right that the conscientious objector, just because he was a conscientious objector, should be placed in a better position than another man who went to work on the land. I think it only fair to say that those who support the conscientious objector would agree that that should not take place. Therefore, I hope your Lordships will think that this is a happy way out of a difficulty which has undoubtedly been pursued with pertinacity and vigour by noble Lords, and we are quite prepared to accept the Amendment.

2.52 p.m.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

My Lords, I think the whole House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, not only for the very fair and reasonable speech which he has just made to the House but for the trouble which he has taken in going into this matter, a difficult one, and to arrive at a fair conclusion. I make no apology for having brought this matter, as he has just said, so forcibly to the attention of the House and I think all your Lordships will agree that this is a very good example of the value of the deep consideration in this House of Bills where we do want to get justice done, and in 'cases where we want to get Bills into the right form. As the Bill was presented to us it would undoubtedly have done a real injustice, and I do not think that anybody wants that. It is not that anybody on this side of the House or in any quarter of the House wants to do an injustice to the conscientious objector, but what we did deeply take exception to was that this Bill (maybe inadvertently) in spite of many opportunities for explanation given to the noble Lord, the Under Secretary of State for War, seemed to do an injustice. There is not the least doubt that as this Bill was brought before us it gave undue preference to the conscientious objector. I am not going over that ground again as it has been so fairly dealt with by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor.

We have discussed the question of when the conscientious objector should obtain, technically, his Army release. I think a great deal of muddle arose over that by trying to treat the conscientious objector—who had either never been in the Armed Forces at all or had been released from the Armed Forces immediately the tribunal said he was not to serve—as a member of the Armed Forces or in some way analogous to a member of the Armed Forces. Of course he is nothing of the sort; he is a civilian. He is just as much a civilian as anyone else who is not called up for military service. For my part, and I am sure my noble friends will agree with me, all that is done with him is something in the nature of a bookkeeping entry, providing that you treat him on equal terms, neither better nor worse, than the civilian which he is. Therefore, we can entirely wash out the question of whether he should be treated in an Army, Navy or Air Force group. He should not be treated as a member of any group at all, because he is not a member of the Armed Forces.

Then comes the question: how are you going to treat this man who has been sent to do a job in civil life? Certain people may be reserved for a long time who are normally employed in an industry. It may be that agricultural labourers will be told, "You are to stay at your work in agriculture (which is what you have always been working at) for a considerable time." I do not know; that is a question for the Government to, say. But I do not think it would be reasonable to say to a conscientious objector who is not an agricultural labourer, but who happens to be sent to work in agriculture, "You shall be retained in agriculture until the last man under an Essential Work Order in agriculture comes out of that employment, or is free to seek other employment." On the other hand, so long as there is any man who has been directed into an employment, whether it is agriculture or any form of industry, who is of the same age and similar circumstances to the conscientious objector, then undoubtedly the conscientious objector should have no preference over that man.

I am very grateful to the Lord Chancellor not only for accepting this Amendment but for his help in the drafting of it. I understand that the effect will be that you will take two men who had been directed into an employment, one a conscientious objector and one an ordinary civilian. So long as those two men are serving together under any obligation to the State, under any direction by the Ministry of Labour or any other Ministry, they will be treated exactly alike. They will be released on the same date, and neither will go out before the other. If that is the position, we shall be treating both the conscientious objector and the directed man fairly.

2.59 p.m.

THE LORD BISHOP OF BIRMINGHAM

My Lords, may I express the great regret which will be felt throughout the country by pacifists and those in sympathy with them that the Government have yielded to certain members on the Conservative Benches in regard to this matter. Superficially, the clause as now proposed is fair and, its apparent fairness has naturally been stressed from the Benches opposite, but in point of fact there are a number of men working in agriculture, men who are not in particularly good health, who have been registered as conscientious objectors, and who have been directed to agriculture because there seemed little else for them to do. Your Lordships can well understand that a man approaching middle life, say a schoolmaster, whose health may not be particularly good, is not effective when digging potatoes, and to put him to such work is to take him from work where he might render much more useful service to the State.

In the Bill, as it was drafted, the Minister had power to determine where he was satisfied with regard to the previous employment or special qualifications of any conditionally registered conscientious objector, whether, being satisfied, he felt it expedient that the man should be released. I think that such powers would have given the opportunity of much more equitable treatment of conscientious objectors than some of them, only a handful, let us say, will receive under the Amendment now proposed. The Minister would have had power to send a man directed to agriculture back to the tribunal which sent him there, with the request that the tribunal should examine whether he could not fairly continue in the work to which he had been directed. Now, an automatic rule applies. A man may not be sent back to the tribunal of first instance. He has to stay doing work which may be most unsatisfactory alike from the point of view of the work done and the effect on the health of the man so unsuitably employed, to say nothing of the fact that he is taken from more valuable service to the State. Now the case of that man is not reconsidered by his tribunal of first instance. Automatically he continues in unsatisfactory work.

That surely is hardly worthy of the rather fine record of treatment of conscientious objectors which the Legislature and successive Governments have made during the present war. If a man were referred back to his tribunal of first instance, that tribunal could determine at once whether it was not advisable that he should go to the work for which he is peculiarly fitted. I might say to your Lordships that the tribunals as they have carried out their labours throughout the country have adopted an increasingly friendly attitude towards conscientious objectors as they have realized the strength of their convictions, and the fine spirit in which they have endeavoured to do their best for the State under extremely difficult circumstances. Must we have this man, as I see the matter, sent back? Must the conscientious objector, who might take Holy Orders, which necessitates his being trained at a Theological College, go on automatically in agricultural work, when the tribunal would undoubtedly release him, and when those of your Lordships here who knew him personally, and who knew his circumstances, would almost certainly acquiesce or determine that such was the correct course?

LORD LLEWELLIN

May I interrupt the right reverend Prelate? Of course, the other man who has been directed, say, to work on a farm, who is not a conscientious objector, may equally be wishing to go into Holy Orders. We are only putting the two on the same footing. There are none of us doing down the conscientious objector.

THE LORD BISHOP OF BIRMINGHAM

Would it not be better, then, that the other man so directed should have the right to appeal to the tribunal which would determine whether in that way he could not do more valuable service to the State?

3.5 p.m.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

My Lords, I rise to say one word. I rise to support the Amendment proposed by the Lord Chancellor. I am most anxious and always have been to see that the conscientious objectors and passive resisters should have every kind of fairness. As the right reverend Prelate has said, they have had this fairness and justice from the various courts. But I am not anxious that they should have preferential treatment at the cost of others who were willing to serve their country in the Fighting Forces if they had been able to do so. As for the ordination candidates, I would only say this: if there are any such, speaking for the Church of England, I am quite certain they would not wish to have preferential treatment at the cost of others.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.