Lords Sitting of 18 June 1947

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF ELY.
  Harold Edward, Lord Bishop of Ely—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
  SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

  PREFERENTIAL TARIFFS.
  2.35 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government, whether it is true as reported in the Press that during the Empire Trade talks held in London in March, a British proposal was made to abandon Empire preferential tariff margins, and that it was only after the Canadian Delegation had put up such a stiff fight against it that the British agreed to abandon the proposal, and further, whether His Majesty's Government can be relied upon not to abandon any preferential tariffs unless very substantial concessions were made by the United States of America in their tariffs which could be regarded as an equivalent to the preferential tariffs concerned.]
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I would draw the noble Viscount's attention to the statement about the Anglo-United States Financial Agreement made by the Prime Minister in another place on December 6, 1945, in the course of which he said:
  "It is recognized that reduction or elimination of preferences can only be considered in relation to and in return for reductions of tariffs and other barriers to world trade in general, which would make for mutually ad-
  952
  vantageous arrangements for the expansion of trade There is thus no question of any unilateral surrender of preferences. There must be adequate compensation for all parties affected."
  I can assure the noble Viscount that this remains the policy of His Majesty's Government, and at no time in the course of the discussions with Commonwealth Delegations did the United Kingdom Delegation make any proposal which was inconsistent with that policy.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Lord for that answer. I am very glad to hear what the noble Lord said regarding the statement of the Prime Minister. I am sure everybody in the Empire will be very satisfied with the statement.

  VENEREAL DISEASE IN THE BRITISH ARMY.
  2.37 p.m.
  LORD MORAN: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government, whether they have any further information to give to the House with reference to the number of cases of venereal disease in armies of occupation, and whether they agree that the figures quoted from the Army Medical Department as an annual rate, were correct.]
  THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD NATHAN): My Lords, the figures which I quoted in the course of the debate on the Second Reading of the National Service Bill were correct. With the noble Lord's permission I will circulate with the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving complete quarterly figures, by theatres, for the period January 1946, to March 31, 1947. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, received from the Army Medical Directorate monthly rates for one quarter. He appears to have multiplied the rates for a particular month by twelve to produce annual rates. The accuracy of the totals produced in this way varies according to the extent to which the month taken as a basis was representative of the incidence during the remaining months of the year in each theatre.
  Following is the statement referred to by Lord NATHAN:

  Cases of Venereal Disease occurring in the British Army.

  Quarterly Rates per 1,000 strength January, 1946–March, 1947.

  —

  1946.

  1947.

  1st Quarter.

  2nd Quarter.

  3rd Quarter.

  4th Quarter.

  1st Quarter.

  United Kingdom

  7·7

  8·7

  9·6

  6·8

  5·3

  B.A.O R.

  30·4

  41·8

  44·6

  41·8

  30·0

  C.M.F.

  33·3

  39·5

  35·6

  31·5

  22·8*

  M.E.L.F.

  4·1

  9·4

  9·4

  7·6

  6·3*

  S.E.A.L.F.

  37·6

  37·2

  37·2

  32·0

  31·2*

  B.C.O.F.

  —

  —

  59·6†

  102·6

  61·9*

  * Quarterly rates based on January-February only.

  † Quarterly rates based on August-September only.

  LORD MORAN: My Lords, arising out of that answer, for which I thank the noble Lord, I have a supplementary question to ask which, I think, requires three sentences of explanation. The noble Lord is under a complete delusion in thinking that I got the, monthly return and multiplied it by twelve. I have too long known the fallacies of statistical methods not to submit any statistics I bring to this House to a statistical expert first. The actual return is the official return from the noble Lord's own Department. In September of last year a meeting was held at the headquarters of the Army Medical Department of those who control venereal disease in the Forces. For the guidance and information of those who were at this meeting—namely, the Director of Hygiene of the Army, who was in the chair, and representatives of the Army, Navy and Air Force—there were prepared two papers, one of which I hold in my hand. It is an official return, and from it was taken the figures I quoted to the House during the Second Reading debate. I am rather surprised the noble Lord is not aware of this document because it was one of two given to every single member present on September 30. The question I would ask is: Does the noble Lord repudiate the accuracy of the figures prepared by his own Department as annual rates of venereal disease in all the armies of occupation?
  LORD NATHAN: I think the noble Lord is under a misapprehension in thinking that I am responsible for the Department. I am merely the spokesman of the Department in this House: I am not the Departmental Minister. It is necessary for
  954
  me to say that, because although I have taken some care to be able to answer completely and accurately the noble Lord's question, I have no departmental responsibility in regard to it. What I am told is that the noble Lord's figures represented what the annual incidence would have been if the monthly rate throughout the year had been the same as that in June, 1946, for all theatres except B.C.O.F., and August in the case of B.C.O.F. The calculation was made by the multiplication by twelve of the figures for June in the several instances and for August in the remaining instance.
  LORD MORAN: I regret to say that the noble Lord is misinformed. If I had been disposed to commit such statistical crimes I would have taken the other return, which was a monthly return for April, May and June, and multiplied it by four. That would have been statistically wrong for reasons which the noble Lord gives. Therefore I did not do it, What I did was to give the actual figures, which are down here in this return; they represent 185 per thousand, and 168 per thousand, etc. That is the way it is put out. I did no multiplication. I have merely repeated figures from the official return that was issued in September. My mathematics were not called upon this was done in the Department of which the noble Lord is a representative.

  ACCESS TO DISUSED AERODROMES.
  2.43 p.m.
  EARL MANVERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question that stands in my name.
  [The question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to the obstacles still put in the path of persons proceding on their lawful occasions, by the barriers across disused aerodromes and by civilians demanding passes, etc.; and to ask whether the time has not come when these warlike hindrances can be swept away.]
  LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, His Majesty's Government are always prepared to consider any case where the public's freedom of movement across aerodromes no longer needed for flying appears to be unreasonably restricted: access has already been restored in a large number of cases. Many such aerodromes, however, are still in use; aerodrome buildings are being used for storage, and aerodrome land has been put at the disposal of agricultural executive committees for farming purposes. Unauthorized access must, therefore, be prevented. Rights of way are restricted as little as possible, but where restriction is necessary permission to cross an aerodrome can usually be given to members of the public whose business takes them there.
  EARL MANVERS: I thank the noble Lord for his reply, which will give modified satisfaction in the Nottinghamshire villages of Kneesall, Ossington, Laxton, Norwell Woodhouse, Carlton-on-Trent, and Caunton. I think I ought to explain how this matter has arisen. The need of the Ossington aerodrome was clearly understood during the war, and no protests were made in regard to it, in spite of the noise and the obstruction caused thereby—
  LORD AMMON: Might I remind the noble Lord that on starred questions a statement should not be made?
  EARL MANVERS: If I am not allowed to state how the matter stands, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he is aware of the reasons for the trouble at this particular aerodrome. I should like to ask him whether he is aware that no aeroplane has been seen there for two years; that the farming community are beginning to ask why their communications should not be restored; and that unlucky agricultural labourers are beginning to ask why they should be expected to
  956
  make a detour of several miles in getting from their homes to their work. Further, I would ask whether the noble Lord is aware that at least three different Departments of the Government have concentrated on this unfortunate airfield. The Air Ministry, the Ministry of Works, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ordnance Department are all competing for sites there. Is he aware that as soon as one Department opens it another Department closes it, and thereby tantalises the villagers? Is he aware that this is done—
  VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I desire to ask whether it is really in order for a noble Lord to make a speech in reference to a starred question. If that practice is once introduced the whole virtue of starred questions will be at an end.
  THE EARL OF GLASGOW: Is it not in order for any of your Lordships to ask questions, and to continue to ask them for as long as he wishes?
  EARL MANVERS: I must apologize to your Lordships for having to speak in this curious manner and keep on asking the noble Lord questions. But I have nearly come to the end, and I just want to ask him whether he is aware that the statement that pilfering goes on from the hangars on this aerodrome is rather wild, in consideration of the fact that the hangars are some distance from the public road.
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, Order.
  EARL MANVERS: I thank your Lordships very much for having tolerated me for so long.
  LORD HENDERSON: I think the Government Department is aware of the considerations which have been referred to by the noble Lord, and I think also that they are dealt with in the reply which I gave to his original question.

  INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION BILL.
  2.52 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, we are in the middle of long and closely argued discussions on a Bill of fundamental importance in connexion with nationalization, and it may well be that your

  957
  Lordships will welcome the opportunity of turning for a short time to a Bill which is concerned with the private enterprise side of industry. The private enterprise side of industry will, I am sure your Lordships will agree, continue to play a fundamental part in the organization of industry in this country, and it is obviously to the advantage of the whole community and to the advantage of all political Parties that it should become as efficient as possible. It should achieve zoo per cent. efficiency, if that were indeed humanly possible.
  The object of the Bill which it is my good fortune to have the duty of commending to your Lordships this afternoon, is to provide machinery which will enable the private enterprise side of industry to bring itself up to date and to re-equip itself to meet the various demands which are already being made, and which will continue in the future to be made upon it, in connexion with reconstruction in this country. There is no one method by which this can be achieved. Industry will have to pursue simultaneously a number of different paths. The attainment of success along these lines will obviously be a great test of the initiative, enterprise, and open-mindedness of the captains of British industry. It is the object of His Majesty's Government to assist them, so far as lies within their power, and it is for the purpose of providing machinery which can assist them that this measure has been brought before Parliament.
  There are obviously a number of different ways in which our industry—certain branches of it, at any rate—has fallen rather behind the times, and there are many ways in which it can be brought abreast of the requirements of the present age. If I might just take one or two illustrations, I should say that in the first place what strikes many people as being absent is an essential co-operation between the two sides in industry, the management and the workers. Over the last years, in a number of branches of industry, very considerable success has been achieved in various directions, more particularly perhaps, as your Lordships are aware, in relation to the agreement of wages and conditions of work. In some industries that success goes back a very long way, and in recent years, and especially during the war years, considerable progress has been made along those lines.
  958
  But in a wider field there is still a very great deal of headway to be made.
  There is still, I think your Lordships will agree, lack of a fundamental partnership in many branches of industry which, if it could be achieved, would undoubtedly lead to much greater progress being made. There is a lack of co-operation between management and workers, except perhaps in regard to these matters of wages and conditions which I have already mentioned. I think that Field Marshal Lord Montgomery's greatest contribution to military science has been his achievement in getting the ordinary soldier on the ground to appreciate the essential tactics of the battle in which he was engaged. It seems to me that in modern industry it is essential that the workers should achieve the same understanding of the task upon which they are engaged. In the working parties which my right honourable and learned friend, the President of the Board of Trade set up soon after his appointment to that office., a very great deal of success has been achieved, because in those working parties the two sides of industry have been represented. They have worked together, and they have produced a number of Reports which I am sure have commended themselves to your Lordships' House. They have indeed pointed the line upon which this Bill has been drafted, and upon which a good deal of the future of industry may welt work itself out.
  Another difficulty winch I think strikes the detached observer about industry, is that many of our gloat industries are divided into watertight compartments to an extent which prevents their going forward as a whole, and which, if they could be enabled to see their problems in some sort of unified way, might very well lead to considerable advance. I was very much interested in a speech made by Sir John Barlow in the discussion on this Bill in another place, in which he referred to the work of the Cotton Board of which he was an original member, and, incidentally, paid a great tribute to the success which that Board has achieved. That Board may well be regarded as a prototype of the development councils which will be set up under this Bill. In that speech Sir John Barlow emphasized the astonishing ignorance of other parts of the industry of the representatives of the different sections in the cotton industry who came together to form the

  959
  personnel of that Board, and how, working together, a much greater degree of unity had been achieved. The machinery which this Bill will set up, and in particular these development councils, should go a very long way to remove the kind of ignorances which have played such a great part in holding back the cotton industry in Lancashire.
  There are numerous paths which will have to be pursued simultaneously if we are to get the industry up to the high level of efficiency which is essential if the great export drive on which we are engaged is to succeed. Your Lordships have no doubt looked at the First Schedule to the Bill, and you will have seen there a substantial number of which one might call paths to progress, so-called "functions" which may be assigned to development councils. It is not necessary, and would take too much time, for me to take them seriatim, and perhaps it will suffice if I take just one or two illustrations. Practically the whole of modern industry is built up on scientific research, but some of our industries are much more backward than others in this respect. Many of the discoveries on which modern industry has been built have been made by British scientists, and exploited, too often, by foreign industrialists. Bound up very closely with scientific research is the psychological side of industrial organization. There again, while in some industries great progress has been made, personnel management has been good, the workers happy and absenteeism remarkable by its absence, in other industries this approach has been neglected; the workers are unhappy, absenteeism is rife, and the interests of the community suffer.
  Another of the subjects which the councils may have entrusted to them is the problem of marketing—in which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is very interested and on which I understand he intends to address your Lordships. Very often a great amount of work, intelligence and money is put into achieving an improvement in production, and all of this is thrown away because the marketing side of the industry may be Victorian or even Georgian in its outlook; and obviously a great deal of progress and a considerable amount of reconstruction are necessary in that regard.
  Finally, I might perhaps take the subject of training, which is one of the matters
  960
  which may be assigned to a development council. By and large the arrangements for training in most branches of industry are pretty much what they were about fifty years ago. In some respects recent progress has been made. This is a problem which affects not only the workers but even more the management. It is still, unfortunately, a widely-held belief that to set up in business it is sufficient to have a little practical experience and some natural aptitude. In the United States, which I think we all agree is the foremost industrial community in the world, a great deal of work for many years past, has been put into industrial administration and training for management. I have often wondered whether one of the main reasons for the great success of the Americans has not been the work which they put into this side of the matter.
  I am quite sure that all the principles which are set out in the Schedule will recommend themselves to your Lordships. They have commended themselves to the most progressive leaders of British industry, and much of such progress as has been made is due to the initiative of the leaders in different branches of industry along the lines indicated by the Schedule. I am quite sure your Lordships would like to pay a tribute to the pioneer work which has been done by British industrialists in the past.
  The problem, of course, is to bring all parts of our industry up to the standard achieved by the best sections; and in this regard one of the great difficulties is the problem of small-scale industry. So much of our industry is small-scale, and while the small workshop has certain advantages, in the conditions of modern history it has many more disadvantages. It is financially impossible for the small-scale unit to concern itself with scientific research, personnel management, special arrangements for training, and most of the other functions which are dealt with in the First Schedule. The only solution to this problem is to get a much higher degree of co-operation in the management of these small-scale units and to provide the machinery and afford facilities for attaining this co-operation is one of the main objects of this Bill.
  The Government view, generally speaking, is that it can be achieved only by the setting up of development councils. Almost all of the Reports of the working parties which have so far been presented

  961
  to my right honourable and learned friend recommend the establishment of development. councils. The main object of this Bill is to give the Ministers concerned the powers to set up development councils, and that is provided for in Clause I of the Bill. There are no fewer than eight Ministers who are in charge of what are often called the production Departments, who are concerned with the branches of industry in which it is thought that a useful purpose might be served by setting up such development councils; and therefore these eight Ministers have the power conferred upon them to set up councils of this kind.
  The councils will, of course, have a general purview of the industries for which they are set up, and will in particular be concerned with keeping under continuous review the problems of the industries, with a view to the improvement of production methods and the attainment of as high a standard of efficiency as is possible. It is obvious that they will be successful only if they represent the main elements in the industry itself. A council must clearly be composed of management and work-people, and in addition, in the view of His Majesty's Government, it should contain a number of independent members who can bring to the work of the council expertise acquired in other branches of industry and indeed in other walks of life. It may be that an economist, an accountant or a professional man may be Found of the greatest value in connexion with the work of a council of this type; and all those who have studied the work of the working parties would pay a tribute to the value of the service which has been rendered by the independent members of those working parties. They are able to see the problems in a wider perspective than is possible to those who have perhaps spent the whole of their lives in the particular industry with which their deliberations are concerned.
  Another very valuable function which these councils can and, it is hoped, will in fact perform is to keep industry in close touch with the Government, and to keep the Government in close touch with industry—to provide, in the popular modern word, "liaison." This, I am sure, will be to the great advantage both of the Government and of industry. We are, of course, very well aware that
  962
  a great deal of work of this kind has already been done in the past—and we pay a tribute to its value—by trade associations and business organizations of one kind or another, and, on the labour side, of course, by the great trade unions. But it was the considered view of all of the working parties who have so far reported, with one exception, that some other organization, some organization other than these trade associations, was necessary for the carrying out of very many of the functions which are set out in the schedule. Trade associations in some branches of industry are very strong, but in others not so strong, and in any case it is not in the nature of organizations of this kind to carry out satisfactorily quite a number of the functions which are contained in the schedule. That does not, of course, mean that the trade associations and the trade unions and other bodies of this kind will not continue to play a very valuable part indeed in the working of industry. Obviously the development councils will keep closely in touch with them, and these bodies will work closely together.
  I should, perhaps, mention at this stage, because there was a certain amount of misunderstanding about it, I think, in the discussions in another place, that the development councils not in any way concerned with wages and conditions of work. Those are expressly removed from the functions which can be conferred upon them by paragraph 19 of the First Schedule. The organization which exists for dealing with those matters is in most industries working reasonably satisfactorily, and it would be altogether wrong that the development council which is to be built up to do a quite different type of job should interfere with matters of that kind.
  The success of these councils will, of course, depend very largely indeed on the personalities of the men who become members of them. The job of choosing them is left to the Minister concerned, but it has been made quite clear by my right honourable and learned friend that it is intended to make appointments only after very close consultation with industry, and that will be so not only in regard to the representation of management and workers, but also in respect of the independent members as well. Indeed, Clause 2, subsection (5), provides that the necessity for such consultations may,

  963
  in fact, be made a condition of the order. There was a good deal of apprehension among some Opposition speakers in another place as to whether the independent members might not be used to over-weight the development council, and the Government are prepared, and intend, to put down an Amendment on the Committee stage here which will preserve the majority to the representatives of industry as opposed to the independent members.
  It is not proposed to set up a large number of these development councils in a very short time immediately the Bill becomes law. The measure is an experimental measure and the councils will be set up as they are required in industry, and as experiment and the actual needs of industry show that they can be successfully used. The first one probably will be the Cotton Development Council, which will replace the present Cotton Board. That Board has been found to be very successful, and it will be necessary to replace it very quickly by a development council. Broadly speaking, it may be that those industries which have been investigated and reported on by the working parties will probably be the first industries to have development councils, but it does not follow that that will be so in all cases. One of the working parties, I think, does not regard such a development council as being very advantageous to the particular industry on which it has reported; and it may be that there are other industries, which have not been dealt with by working parties, in which development councils are necessary.
  If any industry is anxious to have a development council, it is pretty clear that the Minister concerned will be very glad to make an order setting up such a development council for them. If in some particular industry the general attitude towards development councils is hostile, it is very unlikely indeed that a development council will be set up. It is quite true that under Clause I, subsection (3), of the Bill the matter is left to the final discretion of the Minister. It might possibly he that in some cases he would set up a development council although there was opposition from powerful elements in the industry, but it is not expected that that will be so, and the Bill does provide that before setting up a council the Minis-
  964
  ter must consult the organizations representative of the industry concerned. Moreover, Parliament is given control in various ways. For example, before any order can finally be made it must be laid before Parliament and affirmed, and my right honourable and learned friend intends that before such an order is laid it will be published to the industry—at any rate during the earlier stages of the working of this machinery—so that criticism and discussion may take place and, if necessary, the order may be made as good an order as is obtainable before it is laid before Parliament. That, I think, will be a very valuable innovation, and it is one which we shall all watch with great interest.
  This measure is almost entirely a voluntary measure, but there are two respects in which compulsory powers are given. One of those is in regard to the collection of statistics, which is dealt with in Clauses 3, 5, and 6. The development councils may have conferred upon them by the Minister the power to require the industry with which they are concerned to return statistical information and other information necessary to the working of the councils. The collection of such statistics and the use of them are very tightly controlled by the Minister, and Clause 5 contains stringent provisions to prevent any wrongful use—provisions of a punitory character. Your Lordships had a useful if short debate last week with regard to the importance of statistics in modern industry, and it is not necessary for me to say anything more about it this afternoon. The other matter on which compulsory powers may be taken is in regard to the levying of money for the purposes of the expenses of the development councils. How exactly those levies will be made will vary from one industry to another, because, obviously, the same method would not be satisfactory in all different types of industry. The Bill does lay it down that the Minister will be responsible for seeing that these levies are made on a basis which is fair to the particular industry concerned.
  The First Schedule, to which I have referred from time to time and in which really, in a sense, is to be found the heart of the Bill, contains the recommendations of the working parties as to the lines on which they thought industrial progress could best be made. Those functions may

  965
  to some extent be operated by the development councils themselves; in other cases they may best be operated by individual units in the industry. That will depend on discussion and will vary from one industry to another. In a number of industries, there are already in existence exceedingly valuable research organizations and other institutions doing valuable work of this kind, and it is not intended for one moment that they should cease their operations. Indeed, it is expected that the development councils will work in the closest contact with them, arid it may be that they will be able to assist them in one way or another to secure an even higher standard of work than they have achieved in the past, now that the whole of the business will be integrated.
  It is not considered that the twenty or so functions set out in the First Schedule cover every conceivable type of progress which can be made in modern industry. It is inconceivable that, with technical and economic progress advancing at the rapid rate at which it is advancing at the present time, further useful methods will not, from time to time, be discovered; and it may well be that a development council would like to have some addition made to these particular functions, or to those of these particular functions which are conferred upon it, because it does not necessarily follow that all these functions will be conferred upon all development councils that are set up. A development council may well come to the conclusion that some addition to this list would in their particular industry be of great value. In that event Clause 8 provides that the council may request the Minister to add a new function to the list of functions conferred upon it, and the Minister may make an Order extending the functions. But before that is done, again the obligation of consulting with the industry and laying the new Order before Parliament must be fulfilled.
  These are the main matters with which the Bill is concerned, and I have, I think, already drawn you Lordships' attention to the principal clauses in this important measure. Therefore, I will not take up any more of your Lordships' time, except to emphasize what I have already said: that this Bill is regarded as an enabling measure, a Bill to provide machinery which a number of very able men repre-
  966
  senting a number of key industries, both on the management and the operative sides, regard as very important for the future of British industry. This machinery is machinery which industry will work or not as it thinks fit. The Bill has no value in itself except to set up this machinery, but if leaders of industry choose to take advantage of it it may well be that the passing of this Bill will be a landmark in the industrial history of this country. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Chorley.)
  3.25 p.m.
  LORD CHERWELL: My Lords, this Bill secured a certain amount of support from all Parties in another place, and I have no intention of opposing it at this stage in your Lordships' House. Its prime purpose, as I understand it, is to legalize the position of the working party. The Government have had these working parties, and they have enjoyed the liaison between industry and Government which they offered; now the Government are anxious to make honest women of them. As happens so often in these cases, the name is changed, and they become development: councils. The Bill seems to me to be one of those well-meaning avuncular measures dear to the hearts of the Socialist Party, which, if it is well administered, can do little harm and may even do a certain amount of good. Many of its principal objectives are already being attained by voluntary associations in industry. And some of us wonder whether Government encouragement to those voluntary associations rather than powers of compulsion would have been more effective than the elaborate machinery of an Act of Parliament. The Government's intentions, as expounded. by the Minister, are of course, admirable. But, as we all know, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." If by any mischance industry should finally reach the inferno, I can only hope that its torments will, perhaps, be somewhat mitigated by the appointment there of a Socialist Minister of Fuel and Power!
  As drafted, the Bill does seem to leave loopholes for abuses should the country at any time be at the mercy of bad Ministers, or even of one bad Minister, whether at the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Supply, the Ministry of Food, the Ministry

  967
  of Works, the Ministry of Fuel and Power, the Admiralty, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, or the Office of the Secretary of State for Scotland. I know, of course, that noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite cannot believe that we shall ever again have even one bad Minister in any office; but some of us are not quite so confident. For this reason, I think that we should look rather carefully at the loopholes which are left and see whether they cannot be stopped. In Clause I, as the noble Lord told us, power is given to any one of eight Ministers to establish development councils to whom functions may be assigned of a kind specified in the First Schedule. These are extremely wide and varied. As the noble Lord told us, no fewer than twenty kinds of function are set out. And the Minister need not even stick literally to those functions. He can even assign to one of the development councils "functions of a kind" so specified in the Schedule. On top of that, in Clause I (4), power is taken to enable the Minister to assign to the development council any incidental or supplementary matters which he deems necessary or expedient; and in Clause 8 (2) this is extended to. assigning further functions of a kind similar to those specified in the Schedule.
  Surely this proliferation of functions is rather exaggerated. The twenty which are named ought surely to suffice without "incidental or supplementary matters," not to mention "similar functions." In connexion with Clause 8 (2), I am a little surprised that the Minister who mentioned the proviso excluding from the functions of the development councils questions relating to remuneration or conditions of employment, should not think it necessary to have a similar proviso in Clause I. By implication it may he it is covered by the statement in paragraph 19 of the First Schedule, but I should have thought it would really be safer to insert a provision of the same nature in Clause I if it is quite definitely clear, as I imagine it is, that these development councils are not to deal with conditions of employment or remuneration.
  To return to the broader aspects of the Bill, noble Lords will observe what enormous power such a development council possesses. It may require persons carrying on business to furnish all such returns and information as it pleases. It
  968
  may impose limitations of time within which such information must be given, however unreasonable the amount of information required or the limitation of time may be. It may impose compliance under pain of a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months or a fine of £50, or on conviction on indictment to two years or a fine of £100, or both, plus £5 a day for every day's delay. It may impose any charges it pleases on persons carrying on business in the industry or indeed on persons carrying on any business which is concerned wholly or partly with the production of or is dealing in any materials of the industry.
  LORD CHORLEY: But I thought I had made it quite clear that these powers can only be exercised subject to an order of the Minister. They are under Ministerial control.
  LORD CHERWELL: We come back again to the possibility that one day perhaps we may have a bad Minister. It seems to me that this sort of thing can be justified only if the great majority of the industry approve of the scheme. One fundamental principle of the British Constitution is that there should be no taxation without representation. As this Bill now stands any of these eight Ministers might impose all of these charges and obligations on any industry, the great majority of which or indeed all of which considered a development council totally unnecessary, perhaps even definitely objectionable. I think the Minister indicated it is common ground that these development councils can be useful only if they are desired by a substantial portion of the industry. I hope, therefore, the House will agree that it is essential that the Minister should assure himself, before making a development council order, that the majority of the industry desires such a development council. I know it is laid down in Clause 1 (3) that the Minister shall consult any organization appearing to him to be representative of substantial numbers of persons carrying on business or employed in the industry, but there is no duty upon him to give effect to their views or even inform Parliament of what their views were. I hope it may be possible in Committee to get this rectified.
  I was glad to hear the Minister state there was no intention of overlapping with the existing organizations, provided they are doing their work well. For instance,

  969
  there are very many extremely effective research associations in various industries, and I trust it will be made clear that when such an association exists and is doing its work well the development council will not put it out of business or duplicate all its work. Of course, the great excuse is that all these things are subject to an affirmative order by each House of Parliament, but the Houses of Parliament cannot consult either employers or employees in an industry, and therefore I was very glad to hear the Minister say there would be advanced publication of proposed orders so that it can be discussed by all parties and Parliament can be informed beforehand what the views of industry are. In my opinion, the Minister should be compelled to inform Parliament about what consultations he has held and what have been the answers given. I hope it may be possible so to amend Clause I (3) as to make it clear that no development council shall be imposed upon an industry against its wishes. I trust also that the Government may agree to insert words in Clause 3 (2) and perhaps in Clause 6 to avoid power being handed over to the development councils to impose on people in the industry the possibly grievous burdens of time limits for furnishing information however unreasonable and inflicting on these people very harsh punishments if they cannot or do not fulfil these terms within the given time.
  Of course if you read some of these clauses literally you get quite absurd results. In Clause 4 (I) power is given to a development council to impose charges on any person or business producing or dealing in. any materials of the industry. A provision of that sort might be greatly abused. For instance, a development council dealing with the gramophone industry, simply because gramophones use steel needles, might demand all sorts of information from the iron and steel industry and indeed put a levy on them if they so desire. Clause 9 (I) goes even further. Apparently any one of our eight Ministers may make an order imposing a levy on persons carrying on business in any industry in which there is no development council, either for the promotion of scientific research, for the export trade or for the improvement of design. Of course that might lead to anything. The First Lord of the Admiralty or the Minister of Fuel and Power, for
  970
  instance, might make a charge on the horticultural industry if either thought that might improve the design of sweet peas. He might even go further and impose a levy on the iron and steel industry because iron wire is used to support sweet peas.
  Of course, the Minister will say that this sort of thing will not happen and I do not for a minute suppose it would; but surely it is not desirable to pass Bills in a form which gives such unlimited power to Ministers and trust to their good sense not to abuse them. Otherwise we might just as well pass an Enabling Act, as the Reichstag did for Hitler, giving the Government power to do anything they liked and trust to their good sense not to do anything foolish or unwise. Again we shall be told that our safeguard is the need for an affirmative Resolution in both Houses. Quite apart from the question of machine-made majorities, if may plagiarize the noble Viscount the Leader of the House—I am not quite clear why members of the hereditary Chamber who happen to be in a majority should be called machine-made as opposed to members of another pace where the Party machine had some say in the Election—these orders cannot be altered or amended and Parliament is faced with the disagreeable alternative of either throwing the order out altogether or accepting it in toto. I hope the Government will be able to do something, as I think was promised, to protect trade secrets. I think an Amendment to that effect was promised and I hope this Amendment, and any other Government Amendment, will be published as soon as possible so as not to cause unnecessary work and duplication if we have to put down Amendments as well.
  Of course, trade secrets are very difficult and delicate matter, very hard to safeguard in the Bill. No doubt in the egalitarian inferno inhabited by angels, which the Socialist Party believe to be our ultimate goal, trade secrets will not exist. Competition will have vanished, and everybody's endeavour will be to help his neighbour to produce as efficiently and economically as he does himself. But we have not reached this stage yet. Even nationalized industries, if they have to compete abroad with the products of other countries, will find it highly inexpedient to publish to the world all the details of their processes. It is,

  971
  therefore, extremely important that stringent steps should be taken to prevent leakage from a development council, which with its officials may consist of a large number of people, of trade secrets, which individual firms have been compelled to reveal. For this reason alone, apart from other possibilities, it does seem desirable that industry should have an appeal against a development council which it holds to be acting in a harmful way, or even if it is only wasting time and money to no effect. I hope some provision may be made for this in the Bill, and, at the very least, I hope the Minister will give an assurance that some appeal will lie to some outside independent authority for any party which considers it is aggrieved.
  Finally, I should like to say a few words about the constitution and remuneration of these development councils. It is stated in Clause 3 that there shall be three classes of members—persons representing the interests of those carrying on the business, persons capable of representing the employees, and persons without financial industrial interests in the industry, who are called independent members. As the Minister stated, we are told in Clause 2 (2) that these people are to be appointed by the Board or Minister concerned. I am very glad to hear from the Minister that this will be done only after consultation with the interests or the persons whom these individuals are supposed to represent. So far as I can see, there is nothing to that effect in the Bill, but I trust something may be inserted or some assurance given in a form that is binding. In these democratic days, when we are always told that the elective principle is all-important, it would be an anomaly for the Minister to appoint persons, in the words of the Bill, "capable of representing the interests" of others, without giving these others some say in this election of those persons. I am very glad to learn that there is an intention of moving an Amendment laying it clown that the individual members cannot swamp the other members on these development councils. I hope there will be roughly the same number of independent members, or no more independent members than there are members representing either the industry or the employees. I hope that Amendment also will be put
  972
  down early, so we can have a look at it and, I hope, agree about it. Again we are told that this danger is guarded against by the need of an affirmative Resolution, but it is really not much use in a case like this. It would be a great pity if the order for a development council, which industry wanted and which was unexceptionable in itself, had to be thrown out simply because one of the Houses of Parliament was not satisfied as to the number of persons in the three categories.
  Another point which seems open to criticism is the wide, unregulated powers given in Clause 2 (7), to the Board or the Minister for the payment of all or any of the members of the council, and for the payment on retirement or death of any of the members, either to them or to others, of sums of money. This seems to open the door, if not to practices, at any rate to suspicions which we should all anxiously try to avoid. We have seen how difficult it is in the case of the Coal Board to discover what sums of money are being paid to the people appointed to the various bodies. If it is really impossible to regulate in any form the payments which are to be made to members of these councils or to others, I think, at any rate, we should lay down in the Bill that these payments must be published annually, so that no undue suspicion is aroused and so that Parliament can have some control over money which, as I have said, can apparently be levied by these councils at their own sweet will on all sorts of industries.
  As I said at the outset, if administered sympathetically or merely only reasonably, these development councils may play a useful part in industry. As usual, the Bill as drafted appears to give unduly wide powers to the Ministers which, as I have said, could be abused in the most extravagant manner. I am sure the Government have no intention of doing this. I hope therefore that they will agree to such minor Amendments as may be necessary to safeguard this, and that they will be ready to give assurances which will satisfy the business community, so that we can accept the Bill with good heart, and feel we have not exposed the industries of the country to any danger by passing it.
  3.48 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I do not propose at this stage to

  973
  attempt to submit this Bill to any meticulous examination, but merely to say that, so far as the noble Lords who sit On these Benches are concerned, we are, in general, in sympathy with the objects it is designed to promote. The noble Lord who introduced the Bill described it as "an enabling Bill." That is, within strict limits, true, but one has to consider for a moment what it enables. It enables one of a number of Ministers, if he so desires, to set up a development council for any industry. It is quite true, as the noble Lord who has just spoken pointed out, that there is a provision that he shall consult with a representative body of that industry, where such a representative body exists. But there is no duty upon him to carry out the advice given him by that body, and he is free in any industry, whether the industry so desires or not, to create a development council. It is a little difficult to call that merely an enabling Bill; it puts a great deal more power into the hands of the Minister than one would generally expect to find in what was merely an enabling Bill.
  I do not propose to discuss at this stage whether it be right or wrong, but I think an enabling Bill is much too restrictive a term to apply to a Bill which contains powers of this kind. It may be well to have the powers if they are going to be used always and in every circumstance with good sense and with moderation, but the difficulty in these matters so often is that a Minister becomes intoxicated, metaphorically speaking, with what he considers to be the success of a particular method of dealing with a problem. Once having begun, he finds himself carried on by the momentum of his success, and he is quite unable to stop. The result is that, although you have this always somewhat illusory Parliamentary check in the background, you may, in the end, find that a Minister has gone much farther than considering provisions of this kind to be of value in certain circumstances, arid has proceeded to adopt them as a panacea suitable for every case that comes up for his consideration.
  The noble Lord, in introducing this Bill, said that the Government relied on the open-mindedness of the captains of British industry. I think it is not irrelevant to remind the noble Lord that these development boards consist not only of the cap-
  974
  tains of industry side, but also of the employees' side. if I may say so, intending no hostility of any kind to the trade union movement, it is just as important to produce an atmosphere of open-mindedness in the representatives of the employees who are going to work on these boards as it is in the representatives of the captains of industry.
  There s a third class of persons represented on these boards—namely, the independent members. The noble Lord gave some indication that the kind of person the Government have in mind is an accountant, an economist or a professional man of that sort. The aspect of that with which I confess I am a little concerned is that in these Boards—these blue prints for the future of various industries, there seems to be extremely little room for the representation of that so frequently disregarded and long-suffering individual, the consumer. The employer is represented; the employee is represented; and I had hoped the noble Lord was going to say that these independent members, or some of them at least, would be selected so as to give some representation to the class of people who consume the particular type of goods produced by the industry under examination, and not merely some accountant or economist, who will bring a no doubt valuable but still partially theoretical mind to bear upon these very concrete problems.
  Apart from those, I agree, relatively minor criticisms, I think it is quite possible that, used in moderation and with discretion, this Bill may provide valuable results, and although we may have criticisms to make of it in Committee, we are certainly, on Second Reading, prepared to give it support.
  3.52 p.m.
  LORD PIERCY: My Lords, my purpose in addressing your Lordships this afternoon was simply and quite strictly to say a few words in support of the Bill. It has, however, been received, on the whole, in such a sympathetic way that I am not certain that even that is necessary. It is true that the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, in supporting the Second Reading of the Bill, made reservations on certain points of principle arid the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, laid out, very properly, the ground which is likely to he covered on the Committee stage. But the reception of the Bill. as I understand

  975
  it, is not unfriendly. However, it may still be worth while stating, very briefly, one or two of the reasons why I am very glad to see this Bill introduced.
  It is common ground, I suppose, that there is room in British industry for altogether higher levels of efficiency. That is not to decry existing British business management or organization. The point was thrown up with great clearness in all the reports of working parties. The fact is that management science, be she goddess or hag, has disclosed many parts of which fifty years ago we were unaware, and it is more complicated than it was in the past for management to bring up the 9.15. The list in the First Schedule is very instructive in that regard: it outlines a number of aspects of industrial organization and management technique which are very modern, and many of them very difficult. The result of that is that if you take an industry where there are, besides a certain number of large and efficient firms, a number of medium sized and small firms, also perhaps efficient according to their own lights, you will find a considerable number of firms who have not access to these new reaches of management and organization, and who, even if they are aware of them, have not really the capacity or the resources within themselves to pull themselves up, so to speak, by their own boot straps. I could illustrate that very well by going through some of the items in the Schedule, but my noble friend Lord Chorley has covered some of that ground.
  It does seem to me that this Bill, with its device of the development council, introduces a means of dealing with that problem which is at once well calculated to secure the object, and, at the same time well calculated to be acceptable to the industries concerned. On the one hand, it provides a body of, we hope, fresh-minded men—I think it is rather a point in favour of the Bill that they are to be appointed by a process of selection after consultation—with great freedom for organizing work on these various matters, and the necessary means for carrying out experiments, or setting up new services on a substantial scale. On the other hand, it cuts the development council quite clearly away from any interference with the ordinary business of the industry, or of the units in the industry, and very carefully ob-
  976
  viates any interference with the policy, or what might be called the government of the industry. Therefore, I think it is a device of considerable merit. It is a body which will be a rallying point for the cooperative interest of the units in the trade, which is able to mount the inquiries in these various subjects, is interested solely in general efficiency, and does not interfere in any way with the actual operation of the industry.
  It is a cardinal feature of this device, as set out in the Bill, that the development council in every case is tailor-made for the particular industry. There are some twenty possible functions. It is by no means suggested that every development council should take on all of them—and for very good reasons. There may, for instance, be in a particular industry a very good research association; and the technical interests may be well taken care of by some technical institute, or something of the kind. The functions actually taken on by the development council can be limited to the manageable number of functions which are desired, and at a later stage they can be added to, if the council is successful. Therefore, overlapping is avoided, and something which will be reasonable in cost, and calculated for the particular purpose, can be set up.
  I suggest it is a good thing that the application of that device should be set in the framework of an enabling Bill, if I may employ that term. Whether that is the correct technical term, I do not know, but it is a Bill which enables the Ministers concerned to set up these development councils freely without much loss of time in a variety of directions wherever they may be needed, provided that they find, so to speak, there is a market for the development council in some particular direction. If, after preliminary consultation, it is found that there is the need and the demand, and if the design of the order can be agreed upon, then it can be set up promptly and can get working quite quickly. It seems to me that that set-up is a reasonable, useful and practical one. One always comes back to this, that where you are dealing with industries and private enterprisers they prefer flexible powers where there is room for discussion, where they can arrange the thing with the Ministers concerned, and get it on foot. They prefer that very much to a separate

  977
  Act of Parliament, or more formal procedure.
  It has been suggested—and I will not say too much upon it, because it is not my wish to be contentious in any degree—that this Bill gives very wide powers, and that if they come for exercise by anybody less than a perfect Socialist Minister they may be abused. Well, the powers are wide, but as I have already indicated they are rather narrowly marked off. There is no interference with the operation of business—there cannot be. While the powers are wide there are a number of safeguards—I can think of five straight off, and there may be more. First, there is one safeguard which is inherent in the design of the Bill. These development councils, on the footing on which they are proposed to be established, will be impotent and will fade away unless the industry is prepared to co-operate with them. Unless there is response on the part of the industry, believe me these development councils will be stillborn, arid that is an inherent protection against tyranny throughout the scheme.
  Secondly, there is the prior consultation with the interested parties, of which we have heard, both as to whether they want it and how they want it. Thirdly, we come to one of the two formidable powers in the Bill, the power to make a levy. That again is strictly limited. It has to be agreed and approved by the Minister. Then there is the very real safeguard of which we have heard a good deal, that when this thing has been hammered out it has to be approved by the affirmative vote of both Houses of Parliament.
  Finally I would say this. Suppose you get over all those hurdles and set up the council. In order to survive, it has still got to succeed, and it can only succeed by success. Unless in some way or other it can show results worth while to the industry, it will fade away; and the process of its fading away will be accelerated by the final safeguard in the Bill, which is that every development council, year by year, must give an account of its stewardship in the shape of an annual report.
  I have had a good deal to do with private industry in one way and another, particularly the smaller-sized concerns in industry. Looking at this thing from
  978
  their angle I must say that I welcome the Bill very much. There are a lot of first-rate men in British industry, and there is a lot of first-rate management. Even where you get concerns of a rather primitive type you will still find people doing a good job of work. But when you meet with trouble in business—and one meets with it every week and every day—in nine times of out of ten, or 99 times out of 100, there is some defect in the management. We have got to provide a background in which management can be improved, can be educated and can get the tools with which to work. For those reasons I am very glad to see this Bill.
  4.5 P.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I do not think that any one of your Lordships would deny that British industry is to-day passing through another industrial revolution, one fraught with more difficulties and dangers than any we have experienced in the past. The old answers will not satisfy the new questions to which we in industry have to address ourselves, and in our approach to our future problems there is all too little difference between a groove and a grave. Although as the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, has said, the pathway to hell is paved with good intentions, the pathway to hell is also well sign-posted, and unless we have the common sense to read what is written on them, in company with his good intentions we are going to find ourselves there.
  LORD CHERWELL: Keep to the Left perhaps!
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That is always the safest rule of the road. Keep to the left and you are safe; keep to the right and you are bound to get into trouble. I welcome this Bill, because it does bring a new approach to our industrial problems. I welcome it for quite a number of reasons. I would join with the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, and pay my tribute to the excellent work which has been done in the past by a number of trade associations, but he will agree with me that not only the labour but the expense fell upon the shoulders of the few, while the many reaped the rewards and the benefits. In this Bill the expense is shared and all will have to contribute. I also welcome the bridge that is provided in this Bill between the national joint in-

  979
  dustrial councils and these development councils, because while I quite agree that you must not bring into these development councils the intricate mechanism of wage negotiation, it is impossible in industry of the future to divorce the economics of an industry from the wages and conditions of employment of the workers in that industry.
  I want to devote the very brief time I shall allow myself to pointing out where I think this Bill falls short, where it fights shy and has an all too timid approach to one of the biggest problems which industry has to face to-day. We have been told that our exports now have to be increased still further than the 75 per cent. over pre-war, which was the target figure of twelve months ago. In that very good and challenging leading article in The Times on Saturday last, it said that this will never be achieved without more far-reaching joint activity by the Government and industry. It went on to say, "That British costs of production must be reduced is beyond dispute." I am disappointed that the question of the cost of distributing the products of industry has not received greater attention in this Bill. I will grant that in the First Schedule there are three occasions upon which distribution and marketing is mentioned. In paragraph 5 of the First Schedule there are permissive powers for promoting the production and marketing of standard products. In paragraph 12 there are permissive powers for promoting or undertaking research for improving arrangements for marketing and distributing products, and in paragraph 14 arrangements for co-operative organizations for supplying materials and equipment, for co-ordinating production, and for marketing and distributing products. But in the body of the Bill, in Clause 2, subsection (3), after having set out how the representatives of industry and the labour employed in industry and the independent persons are going to be appointed, goes on to say:
  "and in a case in which it appears to the Board or Minister concerned to be expedient that the members of the council should include persons having special knowledge of matters relating to the marketing or distribution of products of the industry, persons of that category."
  That sounded to be as though the right honourable and learned gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, had in
  980
  mind that these councils were going to make an objective approach to this problem. But I was disturbed when during the Second Reading of this Bill in another place, on being asked to define "independent persons," he said:
  "We could put in a distributor or a wholesaler, because he has no interest in the manufacture or production of the-goods of that particular industry. He is interested only in distribution and, therefore, there is nothing to prevent him, as a distributor, being an independent member."
  That to me, does not appear to be a right approach. Distribution is an integral part of industry. I am rather afraid that we are spending far too much time in cajoling productive industry to become even more efficient in the production of its products, and, as we have done for this last twenty-five years, see the resulting cost improvements lost in a wasteful and extravagant system of distributing those products. I took the opportunity, in speaking on the Second Reading of the Statistics of Trade Bill, to remind your Lordships of what the Committee over which the noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow, presided, reported in 1922. That Committee said that distribution costs were a far heavier burden than society would permanently consent to bear. Successive Governments have burked this issue during those years, and there was only one working party, upon whose reports this Bill has been based, who really tackled this problem.
  I would like, with your Lordships' permission, to quote a very relevant paragraph from the Report of the Cotton Working Party. In dealing with distribution the Report said this:
  "An efficient producing industry may be pushed back into the red figures of loss if the services of distribution take too large a slice out of the retail price or raise that price to a level at which the ultimate consumer will not buy those particular goods. There is a strong feeling to-day amongst those engaged in this and other industries that the charges for wholesale and retail distribution take a disproportionate share of the price to the ultimate consumer, and that this matter deserves investigation as a question of national importance."
  About 50 per cent. of the price for any commodity in commerce to-day is taken up in costs of distribution and selling. Upon that very simple piece of arithmetic alone, this problem deserves as much attention as the costs of production. If your Lordships will forgive a personal reference, I have spent half my life in

  981
  productive industry and the other half on the distribution side of industry. I can tell your Lordships that the production technicians spend hours and hours trying to shave farthings off operation costs, while sales departments squander pennies, shilling and pounds on grandiose sales promotion and expensive selling arrangements. Selling costs have multiplied throughout industry during all these years. When I was in productive industry we were always satisfied with a plain sales department. Now, in industry, you must have not only a sales department, but a sales promotion department, and a public relations department; and so you are building up the nonproductive costs in productive industry, and the whole burden has to be borne by the productive element.
  I am very much afraid that when we come to this battle of industrial costs in the future, what we shall find is that our production quality will suffer, and the vast structure of expensive selling will go on. I hope that the noble Lord who is going to reply on behalf of His Majesty's Government will give me some assurance that this urgent question of distribution and selling costs is going to be tackled in a forthright manner, because it is useless our getting productive industry to the high state of efficiency which is necessary if we are going to fight this economic and commercial battle of the future, and see it all lost by carrying on the wasteful and extravagant selling structure which we have built through the false economy of these first years.
  I would just quote one other extract which illustrates my point, from the Cotton Working Party Report. It says:
  "A reduction in the spinning cost of ½d. per pound of yarn may involve revolutionary changes in production methods, and it is not unnatural for those doing this work to ask what total difference this ½d. per pound will make in the retail price, say, of a shirt weighing little more than eight ounces, and to compare their effort and its reward with the effort and charges of the distributors."
  That is the problem which I am afraid the Bill, as I read it, shirks or at least approaches all too timidly. Other than that, I think this is a very splendid contribution to a new approach in industry. I support it, I wish it well and I wish it to succeed.
  LORD CAWLEY: My Lords, I do riot propose to detain the House very long,
  982
  but I should like to put a question to the Minister who introduced this Bill, and also to ask him for an assurance. The matter with which I am concerned is the fixing of minimum prices. I cannot see anything in the Bill as it stands that would empower development councils to have anything to do with the selling prices—unless perhaps it can be found later in paragraph 14 of the First Schedule. I do not really think it is there, but I should like to have an assurance from the Government that they have no intention of dealing with the fixing of minimum prices any more than they intend to deal with the fixing of wages—in intention which has been disclaimed.
  The, reason I put this question forward is that in the branch of the cotton trade in which I am interested—that is the finishing section—there are a number of people who were quite hopeful of getting the Government to fix prices in order that they might not have their prices undercut, whether by the people who produce more cheaply or by people who wish to get their trade anyway. There has also been a movement which appears to have been from the direction of a section of the finishing trade. There has been a combination of a number of subsections, if I may so call them. There are a great many different works in the finishing trade, doing not only different complete branches of the trade, like dyeing or bleaching or printing, but a good many of what I might call subsections dealing with different classes of fabrics and so on, and there have been price associations in these different branches.
  About a year ago, I think it was, a confederation was formed for the purpose of maintaining prices. The object was to prevent some member of the confederation who might not happen to be in the particular section, but who had machinery which might be adapted to doing the work of that section, from taking any lower price than had been fixed by the particular section or subsection, or whatever you. might call it, regardless of the fact, of course, that he had no power, unless he joined that particular branch, of having any particular say in the price. It might be a ridiculous price or a reasonable price. At all events, the confederation was formed to bring these small subsections together with the object of having one price for one sort of product all the way through the trade. That fact has prompted me to

  983
  ask this question. I think I am right in saying that this fixing of price was distinctly discouraged in the report of the Cotton Trade Working Party, but I should like the Government to tell us that they are absolutely opposed to anything of this sort and, as far as they are able, to see to it nothing will be left in the Bill which will allow such a thing to be done.
  4.25 p.m.
  LORD KENILWORTH: My Lords, as an old industrialist, I listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, in regard to the Bill, and regarded it almost as a little homily upon the conduct of industry by those who have had it in their charge in the past. Speaking as one who has been President of the Engineering Employers, President of the Motor Car Manufacturers, and President of the Aircraft Manufacturers, I have had some experience of all the various matters which are dealt with in this Bill. We have had research associations attached to the two latter industries, and they have done very excellent work. In addition to that, we have the scientific bodies attached to the engineering industry and really I fear that these so-called development councils will not aid these industries very much. I have in time past endeavoured to bring about various bodies to help in certain matters, and I have always found that troubles arise as between the very large men and the small men in industry. As in many other things, the common denominator, I generally find, does not elevate but rather proceeds on a middle course. I have always found that the great improvements in industry have come about through the efforts of an individual or an individual firm, and I very much fear that the effect of many of these new bodies will he rather in the nature of a levelling down than a levelling up. We find in other matters that certain people will take a very strong line of action, which seems to interfere with the conduct of other businesses, and this does not help co-operation.
  Following the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I fully bear out what he says in regard to the dreadful effect of the cost of distribution upon the price of an article to the public. Lord Lucas and myself have belonged to the same type of business and we know how much
  984
  waste takes place in this particular direction. As he truly says, you have your works organization trying to economize and reduce the cost of things, and then it is all blown away, so to speak, by these excessive costs of distribution. This is not a home-made trouble. It is competing with the world that brings this about. The extravagant methods which were adopted by the exporting countries, particularly the greatest exporting countries, in the way of distributing their goods led to this type of extra cost. I would like to support Lord Lucas in what he has said about the serious effect these charges have upon industry generally.
  4.28 p.m.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I think your Lordships will agree that we have had a very useful and interesting discussion on this important measure. Your Lordships have other work of some Substance before you after we have finished the discussion of this measure, and therefore I hope you will excuse me if I do not deal with all the valuable points which have been raised by noble Lords in the detail, as I should like to do. Lord Cherwell's support of the measure was, perhaps, rather tepid, but support coming from him is so unexpected that we are very glad to have it. He complained that the scope of powers conferred upon the development councils was going to be altogether too great to be safe, and in particular, he referred to subsection (4) of Clause I, which provides power to deal with supplementary matters. I can assure him that the legal effect of this is not to give anything wider than the functions which are set out in the Schedule. It is merely concerned with the ancillary matters which may be necessary—for example to raise a loan or something of that kind—and it does not in fact confer any wider powers than those which are conferred in the substantive clause of the Bill and the Schedule thereto. I think he agreed that the problem of wages and conditions was really sufficiently dealt with, but thought he might like to have something a bit more explicit. I do not personally think that anything more explicit is necessary, but we will, in fact, consider between now and the Report stage whether it would be useful to put in something.
  The main burden of his speech, I think, was devoted to two problems, one being as to whether any development council

  985
  ought to be set up unless the approval of the industry had first been obtained. I do not think that: I can give him any assurance on that point. In so far as the Bill is concerned, it is the Minister's intention not to set up, in any ordinary case, a development council unless he feels that the industry is behind them. But there are great difficulties in laying it down that such approval should be essential. To start with, the administrative difficulty of discovering the balance in any sort of legal way would be very serious. Again, any such provision if it were practicable would undoubtedly enable sections of industry which might be most backward and unprogressive sections to hold up the whole business during a vital period. I can assure the noble Lord that powers will not in fact be used in any sort of illiberal way, and I hope that he will he satisfied with that assurance.
  Another of the main points dealt with by the noble Lord was that there might be abuses in the exercise of these powers, and, in particular, with regard to two parts of the Bill which confer compulsory powers—that is to say, the parts dealing with the taking of statistics and the levy for the expenses of the councils. I think that my noble friend Lord Piercy really dealt with those objections. The main safeguard against abuses, of course, is that these development councils are going to be composed of really representative members of the industries concerned. Surely we can rely on those people coming from the industries themselves, not to abuse their powers. If, however, there should be any sort of suggestion of their doing so there are other safeguards to which my noble friend has referred. In particular, there is the Minister himself, who is concerned to see that these councils work fairly and effectively. It is not possible to provide anything in the nature of a formal appeal, and I am sure that, on reflection, the noble Lord would hardly think that it is. But it is always open to any section of industry to approach any Minister. It is the job of Ministers to pay attention to representations from industry, and I can assure the noble Lord that so far as my right honourable and learned friend is concerned he would always be prepared to listen to any representations which a section of industry might have to make
  986
  to him in regard to the way in which a development council was doing its job. Those I think were the main points which I noted in Lord Cherwell's speech.
  The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, in an interesting and favourable contribution to the debate, also dealt with one or two points. He said that I have described this measure as "an enabling Bill." I still think that while, perhaps, it is not technically describable in that way it is a Bill which enables the Minister to deal with a situation along the lines of the Bill at a proper time and as the situation requires. Really, I was regarding it more as a Bill which gives certain powers to industry, which industry can use to bring itself up to date and make itself more efficient. It is really a Bill to enable industry to get on with the job of building up our export trade and, indeed, our trade of producing for home consumption, up to the old standards which prevailed when we led the world in the days immediately after the industrial revolution. The noble Marquess also referred to protection of consumer interests. It is not very easy to provide for representation of consumer interests in a general sort of way on these councils, but I think that my right honourable and learned friend indicated in another place that he would, in a proper case, be prepared to consider appointing someone who would represent consumer interests on me of these councils. It may well be that in connexion with a particular trade there may be a special type of consumer interest which ought to be represented on such a council. In that case, I can assure the noble Marquess that an appointment on lines of that sort will be made.
  My noble friend Lord Piercy, for whose support for the Bill I am very grateful, put a number of points in a most delightful and persuasive way. He emphasized particularly the flexibility of these arrangements, which will enable each particular scheme to be moulded to fit the industry for which it is intended. He also stressed the fact that the personnel of the councils can be selected in such a way as to give the greatest benefit to the particular industries affected.
  My noble friend Lord Lucas, whose refreshing criticisms are always most welcome to us, put his finger on what is really one of the cardinal matters in relation to the modern organization of industry—

  987
  that is, the distributive problem. I can assure him that His Majesty's Government are very much alive to the importance of this problem. As your Lordships are aware, the proportion of the working population now engaged in distribution is substantially less than it was in the years immediately before the war, and it is the view of His Majesty's Government that It would be altogether wrong to allow the proportion to go back to what it was in the years before the war. They hope, at any rate, to keep it down to the present level or something, like it. But I think that the noble Lord has really misconceived the object of this Bill. It is not a Bill to deal with the economics of distribution, which is a much wider problem and quite a different problem from that with which this Bill deals. This Bill is concerned with the setting up in individual industries of development councils for the purpose of making those industries more efficient. It may well be that in the case of some particular industry there is a difficult distribution problem which is peculiar to that industry. In that event, the development council which is set up will certainly, under powers conferred on the Minister in Clause 2 (3), have special members appointed to it to deal with the marketing and distribution of products in that industry. As the noble Lord pointed out, in no fewer than three of the paragraphs in the First Schedule is the question of marketing and distribution dealt with. So it is quite clear that so far as the organization of individual industries is concerned, the Government are very much alive to the necessity of getting the most up-to-date marketing and distributive methods into operation in those industries.
  Lord Kenilworth, whose contributions to our debates are altogether too rare, echoed the remarks of Lord Lucas, and I hope that what I have said with regard to my noble friend's points will apply also to his interesting speech. Lord Cawley asked me a specific question in regard to whether the development councils will have any power to fix minimum prices. I can assure him that they will have no powers of that sort. Not only will they have no such powers under this Bill, but it is not the intention of my right honourable and learned friend, or of His Majesty's Government, that such powers should be given to them. Indeed my right honourable and learned friend in
  988
  his speech in another place—I think it was on the Second Reading of this Bill—made it quite clear that if any tendency towards restrictive practices was observed to be growing up in the development councils he would take immediate steps to see that it was nipped in the bud. I hope that that assurance will satisfy the noble Lord. I think that I have now dealt with the main matters which have been brought up in the course of the debate, and I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to the Bill.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  CEYLON.
  4.40 p.m.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, before proceeding with the next business, may I ask your indulgence to read a statement similar to one being read in another place, dealing with the future Government of Ceylon? The statement is as follows:
  In 1945 His Majesty's Government affirmed their willingness to co-operate with the people of Ceylon in their advance to Dominion status, and expressed the hope that within a comparatively short space of time such a status would be evolved.
  His Majesty's Government recognize that the people of Ceylon are anxious to see this aim realized as quickly as possible and are eager to know how soon they may expect this to come about.
  Elections are now being arranged under the Constitution granted to Ceylon in 1946, and a new Parliament will assemble in October. Clearly no further constitutional change can take place before a new Ceylon Government is in office and fully functioning. Agreements will then have to be negotiated on a number of subjects. When such agreements have been concluded on terms satisfactory to His Majesty's Government and the Ceylon Government, immediate steps will be taken to amend the Constitution so as to confer upon Ceylon fully responsible status within the British Commonwealth of Nations.
  To avoid delay in opening negotiations with the future Ceylon Government, His Majesty's Government have

  989
  directed that preparatory work should be put in hand for drawing up the heads of the necessary agreements.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am quite sure that the very important announcement which His Majesty's Government have just made will be warmly welcomed in all parts of the House. The achievement of Dominion status by the people of Ceylon will be a notable example of that progressive and fruitful evolution which is the secret of the vitality and strength of the British Commonwealth and Empire. I know we shall all wish to congratulate the people of Ceylon themselves on this new milestone in their long history, and I should like to wish the forthcoming negotiations all success.
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome wholeheartedly the announcement which has been made, which is in accordance with the very best Liberal traditions. Incidentally, when His Majesty's Government show such an admirable tendency we feel it ought to be encouraged and wish that it would extend sometimes to domestic issues; but I have listened attentively to debates on a certain Bill and I feel that hope must for the time being be classed as wishful thinking. Ceylon has been under the protection of the Crown for almost 150 years. Part of the Island came under the protection of the Crown in 1798 and the whole of the Island in 1815, and therefore there is a long tradition of relations between the two peoples. Happily during the last hundred years they have been excellent and the population of Ceylon made a notable contribution to the war effort. There was no disaffection. Ail was continued loyalty. Therefore we can only say with what pleasure we welcome the announcement, and hope that before long Ceylon will take her place on a footing of complete equality with other members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
  LORD SOULBURY: My Lords, having had the honour to be chairman of the last Commission on constitutional reform in Ceylon, I would like to convey my warmest congratulations to His Majesty's Government on the announcement we have just heard. May I also add very warm congratulations to the noble Viscount, Lord Hall? I know from personal experience what a notable contribution he
  990
  made when Colonial Secretary to bring about this very happy situation. The recommendations of the Commission, published about two years ago, received the general approval of His Majesty's Government, and were accepted in the State Council of Ceylon by an overwhelming majority. Those recommendations, though they were designed to give Ceylon a full and ample measure of self-government, admittedly fell short upon the threshold of the goal Ceylon desired to attain.
  In the circumstances of the time—it was the spring of 1945 and the Japanese war was still in progress—we did not think it possible to reach that goal by one single step, but when the Commissioners were on the Island they were immensely impressed by the great advance which Ceylon Lad made during the era of the Constitution framed by Lord Donoughmore and his Commission. We could not fail to observe the widespread enthusiasm in all sections for the development of education, health and social services, the degree of literacy they had attained, the high standard of procedure in the Ceylon Parliament and the states, manlike qualities of her political leaders. We felt quite certain that after a short period of experiencing the working of the new Constitution, Ceylon would cross the threshold on which of it recommendations had placed her. Therefore it is an intense pleasure to me to learn that, by a decision of His Majesty's Government, which I respectfully and cordially endorse, Ceylon will now be crossing the threshold immediately. I am sure all your Lordships will tender a very hearty welcome to this new member of that great community of sister nations to which we ourselves belong.
  LORD HARLECH: My Lords, may I be allowed, as an ex-Colonial Secretary and as one who visited Ceylon when I was Under-Secretary and who knows its people well, to add my felicitations? One imagines that the people of Ceylon, who have certainly shown remarkable advance and talent in governing themselves, will realize that the step between full internal self-government and complete Dominion status comes for them at a critical time in the history of the country with which most of their external affairs will be conducted. It is a matter of somewhat difficult and possibly thorny negotiations, because India is in the throes of developing

  991
  an entirely new Constitution of a form we cannot yet see, and Ceylon will in future, under Dominion status, have to conduct alone and on her own responsibility all the diplomatic and other matters concerned with her relations with India.
  One cannot get away from history, and the first thing that strikes one about Ceylon is that in centuries past the Island has been invaded by successive avalanches of Indians. The north end of the island is still to-day predominantly inhabited by Hindus and Indians, whereas Ceylon nationalism and the Sinhalese are overwhelmingly Buddhist. Though Buddhism is the outstanding and predominant religion in Ceylon, it does not exist in India, and the feeling between Buddhism combined with nationalism, and the Indian populations, has not always been too easy. One of the first consequences of the new India Bill will be that everywhere in the British Commonwealth and the Colonial Empire it will be necessary to consider the position of Hindus, Pakistan, and Mohammedans, outside India. That will immediately mean that the Sinhalese Government, with Dominion status, will have to walk warily in her diplomatic relations with her great neighbour in regard to the relations between Ceylon and the other members of the British Commonwealth. I am quite sure that there will be no difficulty, and one can testify to the whole of history pointing in a good direction in that respect. The jump that the Sinhalese people and their Government are taking is in dealing, on their own responsibility, with their great neighbour of India.
  4.50 p.m.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, as the noble Lord opposite was good enough to refer to the work which I was able to do with my three colleagues twenty years ago, I would like to say one word in associating myself with all that has been said in congratulating His Majesty's Government on their decision. I am not giving away any secret when I say it never entered our heads twenty years ago that we were advocating a final settlement, but we did hope we were advocating an educative settlement. I think the experience of the last twenty years, to which Lord Soulbury has paid such generous tribute, proves we
  992
  were right in the attitude we took. I hope it is only one step towards the future prosperity of Ceylon, which had all our good wishes in those days and has still.
  4.51 p.m.
  VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, it will be very gratifying to His Majesty's Government to know how this pronouncement has been received by your Lordships. It is very pleasing that the noble Lord, Lord Soulbury, was here to listen to the announcement. The first Report which I was expected to read when I entered the Colonial Office as Colonial Secretary was the Report of the noble Lord and his colleagues on the Commission. The Report in question was read not only by myself but also by my colleagues of the Government, and it may truly be said of the noble Lord and his colleagues that they really put down the stepping stones which enabled us to get across the stream, towards, we hope, this very happy solution. I thank noble Lords for the way in which this declaration has been received.

  NATIONAL SERVICE BILL.
  4.52 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Hall.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
  Clause 1 [Liability to be called up for service]:
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN moved, at the end of subsection (1) to insert:
  "Provided that no person shall be liable by virtue of this Act to be called up for service who is—

  (a) employed in the service of the Government of a part of His Majesty's dominions outside Great Britain, or in the service of the Government of a British protectorate, a mandated territory, a trust territory or some other country or territory which is under His Majesty's protection or sovereignty, being a person whose presence in Great Britain is occasioned solely by his employment in that service, or

  (b) is the subject of an order or inquisition under the Lunacy and Mental Treatment Acts, 1890 to 1930, or is being detained as a criminal lunatic or in pursuance of an order

  993
  made under the Criminal Lunatics Act, 1884, or is undergoing treatment as a temporary patient under section five of the Mental Treatment Act, 1930, or is a person placed in an institution or a certified house, or under guardianship, under section three of the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, or is the subject of an order under section six, eight, or nine of that Act, or is under supervision provided under paragraph (b) of section thirty of that Act, or is an inmate of a home approved under section fifty of that Act, or is the subject of a notification under subsection (2) of section fifty-one of that Act, or

  (c) is certified by a local authority, as defined by the Blind Persons Acts, 1920 and 1938, to be registered as a blind person under arrangements made by the authority under those Acts."

  The noble Viscount said: This Amendment was originally put down by my noble friends in another place, but it was not called there, and so it has been put down again in your Lordships' House in order that attention might be drawn to the point I am going to make. That point is that it is very desirable that who is affected by the proposals and who is not affected should be made plain in the Bill for anybody to see. In this case there is still a good deal of legislation by reference. The point we thought most important was to make it clear that the three categories of people mentioned in the Amendment which stands in my name and that of my noble friend are excluded from the operation of the Bill—namely, people employed in Government service outside this country, lunatics, and blind persons. I understand that the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, is anxious to include disabled persons in the scope of this Amendment and he will have something to say about that later. Very shortly, that is our case. We do not feel that the matter is adequately dealt with in the Bill. It may be that before long a Consolidation Bill will be introduced to Parliament, and that in that Bill these and other matters will be tidied up. We hope either that this Amendment will be accepted or else that the matter will not be left for a long time in its present form of legislation by reference. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 20, at end, insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Bridgeman.)
  THE DUKE OF MONTROSE THE DUKE OF MONTROSE moved to add at the end of the Amendment "or who is registered under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944, as a deaf person." The noble Duke said: I have
  994
  worded this Amendment in this way because the deaf are not registered in the Act mentioned in the Amendment of the noble Viscount. The Disabled Persons (Employment) Act is the only Act of which I know in which deaf persons are registered. My point is that, just as a blind person is excused from serving, so a deaf person should be excused. There is no doubt that a deaf person is not an asset to national defence, but is a real danger not only to himself but to all who are with him. Therefore, I beg to move that these words be included in the Amendment of the noble Viscount.
  Amendment to Amendment moved—
  At end insert: ("or who is registered under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944, as a leaf person").—(The Duke of Montrose.)
  VISCOUNT HALL: One naturally listened with a good deal of sympathy to the statement made by the noble Duke, but in view of the fact that the persons to whom the noble Duke refers will be dealt with by medical boards and will be classified in accordance with their deafness, I am afraid that it is unnecessary to add this Amendment to the Amendment. I hope the noble Duke will accept that statement.
  THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  VISCOUNT HALL: In dealing with the main Amendment I shall endeavour to be as brief as was the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. It is true that the Bill is an Amending Bill, and the Amendment proposed has been lifted out of Section 11 (1) of the National Service Act, 1939, as amended by this Bill. It is true that the Bill is legislation by reference to a very large extent, but the noble Viscount and his colleagues will be pleased to know that a Consolidation Bill is being prepared at the present time, and it is hoped that it will be found convenient to introduce it in the next session with a view to the Consolidated National Service Acts thus being available before the present Bill comes into operation. In accordance with this premise, I hope that the noble Viscount will withdraw the Amendment.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: The news that a Consolidation Bill for the National

  995
  Service Acts is to be introduced will be good news to my noble friends on these Benches, not merely from the point of view contained in this Amendment, but from the wider point of view that these Acts affect a large number of people, and the more people they affect the better. It is very important that people should be absolutely clear and able fully to understand what are their liabilities. We on these Benches are grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, for his statement, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause I agreed to.
  Clause 2:
  Whole-time and part-time Service.
  2.—(1) Where an enlistment notice is served under Section four of the principal Act upon any person liable to be called up for service by virtue of this Act the term or period for which he shall be deemed to have been entered or enlisted shall begin with the day on which he is required by the notice to present himself to the authority specified therein and shall end when his term of whole-time service is completed in accordance with the provisions of the First Schedule to this Act.
  (3) During his term of part-time service a person may be required to undergo training for any periods not exceeding in the aggregate—

  (a) sixty days during the whole of his term of part-time service;

  (b) twenty-one days in any year of that service.

  (5) The provisions of this Act and of any regulations made thereunder relating to the terms and conditions of service of a person serving in any auxiliary force during his part-time service shall be subject to the provisions of any enactment whereby reservists may be called into actual service or called out on permanent service or to aid the civil power, or the territorial army or the auxiliary air force may be embodied, or whereby men of the air force reserve or the auxiliary air force may be called out to serve in defence of the British Islands.
  LORD LLEWELLINmoved, in subsection (3), to leave out all words after "for" and insert "such periods as are in force in the Service for which he is deemed to be entered or enlisted in accordance with subsection (2) of this clause." The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will see that I am in effect trying to leave out the greater part of
  996
  subsection (3) of Clause 2—that subsection which defines the period of training, whether in annual camp or in drills, that these men have to perform after they finish their full-time service. I am suggesting that we should substitute these words:
  "such periods as are in force in the Service for which he is deemed to be entered or enlisted in accordance with subsection (2) of this clause."
  My reasons for suggesting this come from practical experience, because I served for some twenty-four years in the Territorial Army.
  I think it would be almost impossible to have two classes of people serving under two different sets of conditions in the same unit. The difficulties to which this will give rise will be seen in practice. If, as is laid down in the Territorial Forces Act, a man has to do fifteen days' training in camp every year (unless he is excused, which is, of course, within the discretion of the Commanding Officer) and at the same time has to do thirty drills, you are less likely to attract into the Service the volunteers who are wanted—particularly if the conditions are far less onerous for the national service man. That, I believe, will be the effect. It is important, if this new Territorial Army is to be a success—and here I know the noble Viscount will agree with me—that we should have the best, both in its officers and non-commissioned officers, and, indeed, in the matter of specialists. We must do nothing to deter the good people from coming in. It is because I believe the fact that they will have to serve longer periods than the national service men will be a deterrent that I would like to see them all serving on the same terms. That is really the whole basis of my argument.
  I know that the Territorial soldier will receive a bonus, which the national service man will not receive. As a matter of fact, I am one of those who believe that the national service man, if he does his drills properly, should not be discriminated against in the matter of bonus. However, under the present scheme he is not to receive a bonus. At the moment the bonus is not looked upon by the new Territorial recruit in too kindly a light, as I know from commanding officers in the Territorial Association of which I am still a member. They say that the recruits

  997
  are all complaining that, whereas this £5 is supposed to be a bonus, it is to be subject to P.A.Y.E. I hope that somebody will take away that grievance. It cannot make a great deal of difference to the Exchequer, but when a man feels that he has earned his £5 bonus, and then somebody deducts 5s., or some such sum from it, it causes the maximum amount of irritation. Although that is not strictly relevant to my Amendment, I hope the point will be looked into. I am certain that the Service Departments will he agreeable, and all they have to do is to prevail upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  I really believe (there is no Party difference in this) that it would have been far better to give these fellows less time on this part-time training, if you were going to have only this small number of drills compared with the Territorial soldier. In fact, if you work out the man's maximum service under subsection (3), you will find, if you take his service as three years, that the maximum he can do is three years camp and twenty drills every year. I am never quite certain whether it is 5½, 6 or 6½ years extra which he now has to do.
  VISCOUNT HALL: Six years.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: So in three years he can do all that he has to do. Then there are three more years when he has nothing more to do. Personally, I would like to see the man do his full-time training, three years in his unit; and, if he has not to put in any more drills, let him have the remaining three years, as it were, with the Territorial Reserve. Then you will be able to do something in regard to running a unit. But if you lay down the years in which these people are to attend camp, and so on, you will have the greatest difficulty in every unit in this country where the territorial—the volunteer, shall I call him?—and the national service man are mixed up, as they should be.
  That deals With the Territorial side. But I think some of us—certainly myself, and I am glad the First Lord of the Admiralty is present—would like to know how the Royal Navy intend to deal with these men. Take the case of the man who goes in for his year's training in the Royal Navy—and some still will. What is the plan of how he should do his part-time training? Suppose you have a man
  998
  who volunteers from Rugby, or somewhere like that in the middle of the country, who is accepted for the Royal Navy. The First Lord of the Admiralty will know as well as I do—and better—that all our old R.N.V.R. training depots were always either on a river or at a seaside port. I do not see that there is anywhere there where this man can do his training. He will then have to be told that he is not wanted in this special Royal Naval Reserve, although he has done his year's training in the Navy, and he will have to be posted to the Army or the Royal Air Force. No sailor would like that very much; he has some pride in the Royal Navy, if he has served in it. Alternatively, you will have to say that you will not take anybody from those inland districts, or that the training shall be done—as may well be the scheme, and the First Lord of the Admiralty will perhaps tell us what it is—at some shore school or similar place, such as Whale Island, or perhaps with the crew in one of the cruisers or battleships kept in reserve. I would like to know how it is intended to deal with these men.
  I should also like to know, while I am speaking about this point, how the Royal Air Force intend to deal with their men. That is a simpler problem than that of the Royal Navy, because there may be more neighbouring airfields to which they can go. I think it is right that this House should know what is the scheme in mind; there must be a scheme on which somebody has worked out these periods of sixty days during the whole time of his term of part-time service and not more than twenty-one days in the year; because it is absolutely essential, if you are going to make this scheme a success, that the greatest amount of use shall be made of the time to keep these men up to scratch in their part-time training. As I say, I think it was a mistake to have different periods for the men who are volunteers and the others—and there it is in the Bill. At any rate, I would like some explanation as to how it came about, and in whose mind it originated, that the periods should be different, and also to be told how it is intended to employ these men by each of the Services during their part-time training. With those words I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 31, leave out from ("for") to end of line 35, and insert ("such periods

  999
  as are in force in the Service for which he is deemed to be entered or enlisted in accordance with subsection (2) of this clause").—(Lord Llewellin.)
  LORD MANCROFT: I should like to support strongly the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Llewellin and I should if I may, like to do so from the point of view of the ordinary Territorial regimental officer who has to try and make this Bill work. I must say that I agree with my noble friend that I see a very grave difficulty in so doing. The disparagement between the two types of service are, I think, even greater than most people realize. In six years the national service man has to do a maximum sixty days training. In the same six years the volunteer has to do a minimum of 135 days training, and all noble Lords who have been associated with the Territorial Army will remember that that minimum is a strict minimum, and that every good Territorial is expected to do, and does in fact do, a great deal more. It is going to be absolutely impossible to work out a programme which will make sense. Furthermore, it is going to be extremely difficult to build up any esprit de corps or discipline when a commanding officer will not see three-quarters of his men for nine months on end. Many of these national service men will do the whole of their training in a few months. They will get their camp over and they will do their few days of extra training round about that period. Therefore you have no chance of building up a decent unit.
  I confess that I have great difficulty in seeing how these figures have been arrived at. When the period of eighteen months was reduced to twelve months, the period of training was raised from five-and-a-half years to six years. But that increase was purely illusory, because no increase was allowed for training in that period. When, in another place, certain Amendments were moved in order to try to get the period increased from sixty days to seventy-five days in those six years, the argument was put forward perfectly accurately by the Government that that would cost the country 40,000 man-hours of work. But surely many of those man-hours of work are expended outside work time, and take place in the evening. If the national service man cannot be spared from industry, why can the volunteer be spared, and why can the man who is to volunteer from national service to the
  1000
  Territorial Army be spared? It is going to be a fact that nearly all Territorial Army officers, in order to avoid this appalling confusion, will try to recruit 100 per cent. Territorial units, and they are not to be blamed for so doing.
  I should like to refer to the effect which this disparity is going to have upon the Territorial Army. I fear it is going to be very serious. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, when he replied to the debate on the Territorial Army which took place on March 27, laid great weight upon the necessity of recruiting a good cadre for the Territorial Army. He laid great stress upon that. This is not going to do that cadre much good, and I think it only right to say straight away that I have the gravest doubts and fears as to the whole success of this Territorial scheme at the moment. Recruiting has admittedly been in progress for only about six weeks, but in that six weeks very few units, except the better known ones and the mixed A.A. units, have recruited to much more than 10 per cent. of their establishment. The recruiting drives are admittedly not on yet, but are coming in the autumn. I should be very surprised, however, if any unit in the next three years will find itself at more than 15 per cent. of its establishment.
  I think that that has to be faced. The fact will be that the difficulties of maintaining any enthusiasm or reaching any standard will be so great as to cause the collapse of the whole scheme. This is, I am quite certain, going to provoke that difficulty. The Territorial officer—and I speak from practical experience—in plain barrack room language will say that he has been left "holding the can" again. He feels that his enthusiasm is being traded upon, and that he has got to carry the heavier share of the burden—which he is prepared to do as long as others carry it too. I think the figures should be equalled out between volunteers, Territorials and national service men. What is needed to produce a satisfactory state of readiness in our affairs? That surely is the question, and not how much industry can spare, or how much we can squeeze out of the Territorial before he finally squeaks. Also, what state of efficiency do we require? Those are the two questions which should have been asked before those figures of 60 and 135 days were arrived at. I ask that this question be thoroughly threshed out by the

  1001
  Government, and I hope that they will use this Amendment to think the matter over again.
  THE MARQUESS or READING: The point raised by this Amendment falls within a very short compass, and I do not propose to take up time by repeating the arguments which have already been advanced by noble Lords who have spoken. All I desire to do, if I may, is to bring to the support of their contention the experience of some years in the Territorial Army, both from service in it, and contact with it. The task of a Territorial commanding officer and his permanent staff, is, in any circumstances, an exacting one enough, and anything which can be done to relieve him of complications of that task from the point of view not of his personal convenience, but of the efficiency of the unit for which he is responsible, should be taken into account. I believe from my own experience in the past that the scheme put forward by this Amendment is a far more efficient, practical and business-like conception than the one at present embodied in the Bill, and I very much hope that His Majesty's Government will find themselves in a position to accept it.
  THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I rise only to support the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, that this veil of secrecy over what is going to be done about the naval reserves should be removed. I tried to make inquiries in order to prime myself for this Bill, but the answer I got told me nothing at all. I feel that this Bill is going through the House purely as a military measure, because people who are interested have not been allowed to get into contact with it.
  LORD NATHAN: Let me first make a confession of personal interest, because like noble Lords who have already spoken from the Benches opposite, I also have an interest in the Territorial Army. Like them, I am anxious to see it in every way efficient and effective for its purpose. I think that everyone in your Lordships' House will agree that taking the national service men as a class amongst themselves in isolation, it is essential that as between themselves there should exist precisely the same liability—the liability prescribed in the Bill, being a maximum of sixty days. If this Amendment were accepted in its
  1002
  terms, that condition would not, I think, be fulfilled. So far as the noble Lord who moved this Amendment and those who supported it are concerned, they have really addressed themselves in this regard to the position of the national service man who performs his part-time service in the Territorial Army. One has to consider the position in regard to the other Services. So far as the national service man is concerned, when he comes to part-time service after full-time service in the Royal Navy, he will join a Royal Naval Special Reserve. The term of service in that reserve for the naval man will be this maximum of six years, with the over-riding maximum of 6o days during those six years.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: And no other type of naval reservist will be in that particular body. Am I right?
  LORD NATHAN: That is the Royal Naval Special Reserve, which will consist exclusively of part-time national service men. They will serve for six years with the over-all liability of sixty days during those six years.
  With regard to the Royal Air Force, they will join the Air Force Reserve, and the period of service in the Air Force varies according to the type of trade and the particular qualifications of the reservist, so that in the Air Force Reserve you have a variety of periods of service. But so far as the national service man is concerned, he will join the Air Force Reserve for the prescribed period of six years, with the commitment of sixty days during those six years. You could not relate his period of service to the others in the Air Force Reserve because the period of service will in some cases be greater than six years and the obligation during that period will be greater than sixty days. It seems to me that the object must be, as regards these national service men, to ensure that as between themselves all have an equal liability, both as regards the period for which they are to serve and the amount of training during that period. That could not be ensured by the adoption of this Amendment.
  Let me direct attention to the particular position of the Territorial Army. It is not out of place to do so, partly because that is the main question that has been raised and partly because it will be into the Territorial Army that by far the

  1003
  greater number of these national service part-time men will enter. There are, I think, only two methods of achieving the object which this Amendment seeks to achieve. One is by reducing the amount of obligation in terms of services of the Territorial to bring it into line with the sixty days; and the other is to increase the four years Territorial Service to six years, putting an additional obligation upon the volunteer Territorial. Those I think are the only two methods by which an identity of obligation could be established.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: The noble Lord surely put the last point slightly wrong. He means regarding the number of drills and days of service.
  LORD NATHAN: National service men will have to do the six years, any other obligation being reduced to fall into line with that prescribed for the national service man. The sixty days has not been adhered to capriciously in the Bill. Obviously great consideration has been given to this period of sixty days, and it has been arrived at and retained on the footing that that is the maximum period that the national economy can stand for a purpose of this kind, for training reservists on the one hand, and on the other depriving industry of those man-hours.
  The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, and the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, referred to the question of how the training was to be taken, whether it could be made to coincide as far as possible as between the national service man and the Territorial. The noble Lord suggested that during the first three years, the national service man should do his fifteen days' training, and also the necessary number of drills which would ensure his completing his sixty days within the period of the first three years, leaving the remaining three years really on reserve without any obligations existing. It may be that that would be the right way of doing it. There is the disadvantage that that would involve withdrawing from industry for fifteen days during each of those three years the volunteer Territorials and also the national service men; whereas if the period of training were spread over a longer period, if the fifteen days training were taken not during the first three years, but three times during the six years, the drain upon the man-power of the country at a particular
  1004
  moment during the first three years would of course be very greatly diminished.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: Surely the noble Lord is slightly wrong in his calculations. It would be all right if you had only one batch coming up. But there would be another batch after the second year, and another after the third, so if you miss a year, the second year, for the third year's people, you would have to make it up next time; then you are going to get all the more drain because you get another year's outflow from the full year's service coming into your Territorial scheme. It would not work out that way in practice.
  LORD NATHAN: There is a certain graph in the matter, a period of increase, and then a period of decrease. It would not be, in the first years, altogether cumulative. It is very much a matter for the commanding officers, under the general direction of the Department, to decide how in this sixty days over the period of six years, with the limitation of twenty-one days in each year, the training should be done to the greatest advantage of the efficiency and effectiveness of the force—for what periods and when they should be called up, and for what drills they should be asked to parade. It is a matter for decision in regard to each particular case.
  The noble Lord asked me, rather pointedly, whether anything could be done with regard to the £5 bounty for the Territorials. He does not expect a reply from me, but I will see that it is brought prominently to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: Not the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
  LORD NATHAN: I think I shall have to go through the usual channels.
  The noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, raised the question with regard to the service in the Royal Navy Special Reserves. I understand from my noble friend, the First Lord of the Admiralty, that I may say that it is the intention and aim that the service should be done in three periods of twenty days each, in the Royal Navy, in cruises during the period of six years.
  THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: Might I interrupt the noble Lord? I think

  1005
  the naval technicians seem to have been rather blotted out. I understand the Air Force has special regulations for them.
  LORD NATHAN: I understand the technicians will also be called up for a period of twenty days in each year for each of three years during the six years. That is the intention. I want the noble Lord to believe that I am just as much concerned as he is to see that this works satisfactorily, and that it is a success. We intend to do our utmost to ensure that it should be. But I cannot accept this Amendment because I do not feel that it is really workable or would add to the efficiency or effectiveness of the Service which we have under consideration. But I would say this to the noble Lord opposite, that I trust that the wishes which we share may fructify in a really effective and efficient force, and that I will see that the arguments which have been put forward by the noble Lords are brought to the attention of the Service Ministers concerned, so that full weight may be given to them.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I must say that I do not find the noble Lord's reply 100 per cent. acceptable; but there we are. I quite appreciate that this Bill has had some difficult times in another place, and that it might be quite inconvenient to send it back with what would in effect be an increased amount of part-time service. For myself I would like to see these national service people go ahead, and this new method of training to be started, without any further controversy one way or the other. In regard, however, to the argument that it would be much better to spread this training period over the whole six years, I find myself not following the noble Lord on that line of country, because he will realize, I am sure, that there are other men who have got to come out in the second year and the third year; and from the War Office point of view if you are really going to plan your camp sites and all those things you would much better get rid of the people so that you have the same number going in each year. I was reinforced on the sensible suggestion that I have made, as I thought it was, by what I hear is happening in the Royal Navy, which always seems to me to do the sensible thing, and if they have got sixty days, they say: "You do twenty days each year, and that is how we are going to do it"—
  LORD NATHAN: Spread over the six years. Twenty days in each of three years during the six years—not necessarily the first three years.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I do not understand what is meant by the phrase "in each of three years."
  LORD NATHAN: It is divided into three parts. You may, for instance, take your twenty days the first year, and twenty days in the third year, and twenty days in the fifth year. It does not necessarily mean the first three years; it is spread over the six years.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I am sorry that my confidence in the sense of the Royal Navy has slightly gone down, because it seems to me even more important in the Royal Navy that you should spread your training period equally in numbers; otherwise, as the noble Lord, the First Lord, will realize, yon have got to get some other ship out which is on care and maintenance to take these fellows for a cruise. It is surely very much better to have the number the same each year in your training programme. However, be that as it may, I have no doubt that it will be drawn in the best way possible. I really believe quite honestly that the Government have made a mistake. Without any real friction before them they could much more easily have increased the training period. It does not, except for the fortnight's camp, materially affect the economy of the country at all. A man does an hour's drill in the evening. With regard to the fortnight's camp, that does affect the economy of the country. The rest of the training period, the hour's drill, does not affect it in the smallest degree, and you have never had any trouble about employers saying "You are tiring my men out by having them an extra hour in the evening." I think the Government have made a mistake. I am sorry they have made a mistake. Nevertheless, I hope their system will work, and I hope that the Territorial Army will be able to work along with those two types of people in it. I must say that they have altogether made it much harder than they might have done for the commanding officers, but I am certain that they will do their best to make this force the one which we wish to see, although I am not at all satisfied that they have done the sensible

  1007
  thing. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  5.37 p.m.
  LORD FARINGDONmoved to add the following proviso at the end of subsection (5):
  "Provided that no persons subject to the National Service Act shall be required to take duty in aid of the civil power in connexion with a trade dispute or to perform in consequence of a trade dispute any civil or industrial duty customarily performed by a civilian in the course of his employment."
  The noble Lord said: It is my intention to follow the admirable example set by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, in the moving of this Amendment, an example of brevity. I am enabled to do that the more easily because this is an Amendment which has been argued eloquently, passionately, and at great length, by many tight honourable gentlemen at present members of His Majesty's Government. I do not suppose for one moment that the Government Bench in your Lordships' House is not fully aware of those arguments. The matter was, in particular, raised at the time that conscription was introduced at the beginning of this war, and I think I am right in saying that a similar Amendment was moved by the right honourable gentleman who is at present the Minister of Fuel and Power. He then received assurances, as, in another place, the mover of a similar Amendment received assurances last month.
  I have very little doubt that the reason why His Majesty's Government and their supporters in another place accepted those assurances was that they are the Government, and are naturally fully convinced of their own good intentions and, of course, satisfied that the guarantees which they give will be carried out. I think, however, that any noble and learned Lords who are at present in the House will support me when I say that no gloze given to a Bill by a Minister when it is in process of going through Parliament has any legal weight whatever. The only gloze that can be put on an Act of Parliament is to be found in the interpretation of the Courts. Therefore, however well intentioned a Minister may be in the undertakings which he gives, those undertakings may always be ignored in the future and there is no redress. In actual fact,
  1008
  I think that the Attorney-General in another place might perhaps have been well advised had he merely made his assurances more emphatic and not gone into some detail. He stated that this Bill does not give any new powers. He also stated that the powers for the use of military personnel existed under the Emergency Powers Act and under the Defence Regulations which are due to expire. That, of course, is perfectly true.
  I would impress upon the Government the fact that, under this Bill, you will be making two types of soldier. Moreover, you are making a Reservist. That is the point which ties up with all the arguments which have been made against the use of the conscripted soldier in an industrial dispute. You are building up a Reserve which may be called up for service. This is a matter which always caused very deep anxiety to many of us in the Labour Party in the past, because in fact it was machinery which has been used in industrial disputes in foreign countries which have conscription. It is possible to call up Reservists and put them to work under military orders, doing exactly the job which they have refused as strikers to do. The Attorney-General went on to say that the military, clearly, would be liable, just as, indeed, any decent citizen would be liable, to assist the police forces to maintain law and order and to avoid violence and disorder. Of course, that has no reference whatever to this Amendment. No one would suggest the contrary for one moment. The Attorney-General further spoke of machinery for settlement, and there, perhaps, he was on very dangerous ground; because whilst we all welcome machinery for the settlement of industrial disputes, I think it would be very unfortunate if we got to a position in which we declared that any strike which took place, either without proper use of that machinery or despite the use of that machinery, was an illegal strike which must be suppressed with all the forces at the disposal of the Executive. That is a proposal with which, I am sure, His Majesty's Government would not agree for one moment. In making this reference to machinery for settlement the Attorney-General was, I suggest, on very weak ground indeed. It was a remarkable statement and I rather wish that he had not made it.
  Finally, it is argued that it would be impossible to exclude men called up under

  1009
  this Bill (when it becomes an Act) from being used, not for strike breaking, but for the maintenance of the life of the community. It was urged that it would be impossible to exclude their use and to make use only of the full-time soldiery. Another Member of another place, however, made the effective point that on a Sunday there was never any difficulty at all in seeing who was Roman Catholic and who was Church of England. In other words, you can use your full-time soldiery who have volunteered and accepted certain liabilities, whereas I believe it would be extremely dangerous to use the conscript forces in this way. After all, these men, if they are doing their year's training, will have been called up, and it is quite possible that they will have been called up from or be about to return to the very industry in which the strike is taking place. Clearly it will be putting a great strain upon their discipline to call upon them to do what they and the strikers would undoubtedly regard as strike breaking, though, of course, His Majesty's Government would regard it—probably with the agreement of the majority of the community, because, of course, the Government would be anxious to have general support—as maintaining the life of the community. But the strikers and the strikers' ex-colleagues in the Forces would not take that view. In so far as Reservists are concerned, clearly it would be highly unjust to call up men who were striking and to put them back at work as strike breakers.
  I am afraid that I have repeated, at rather more length than I had intended, arguments with which I know members of the Front Bench in this House are extremely well acquainted. I feel pretty certain that they are sympathetic to the objects of this Amendment, and I hope that if it is felt that it cannot be accepted in its present form they may find it is possible to introduce an Amendment at the Report stage which will cover this point, and so ease the anxieties of a great many people, particularly trade unionists. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 4, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Faringdon.)
  THE EARL OF GLASGOW: Does this Amendment apply only to conscripts or to the Army as a whole?
  LORD FARINGDON: This is a Bill which deals only with conscripts, and, therefore, so does my Amendment.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE: If the Committee will allow me, I am going to suggest that this is an extremely evil Amendment and one that should be resisted. It is divided into two parts. The first part of it reads:
  "Provided that no persons subject to the National Service Act shall be required to take duty in aid of the civil power in connexion with a trade dispute"—
  In the second part the Amendment goes on:
  "or to perform in consequence of a trade dispute any civil or industrial duty customarily performed by a civilian in the course of his employment."
  Now, I have no doubt that the noble Lord may have had to perform at some time what is known amongst troops to be a very unpleasant duty, as many of us have had to do at various times during the course of service. But if he has not had that experience, I can assure him that the presence of disciplined troops in troubled times is well known to have an extremely calming and salutary effect upon crowds. It is because of that very fact that, at such times, you bring in troops which are well known for their tact and good humour. By taking such a step you very often relieve a situation which otherwise might be much more serious.
  I do not wish to weary the Committee by recounting my own experiences at length, but perhaps I may be allowed to recall how, during part of my regular service, I had to do duty at the Johannesburg riots in South Africa, in 1912. They were very serious, and unfortunately at one moment it was necessary for some troops to fire—my regiment did not have to do so—and for one regiment to charge. That was an extremely unfortunate incident. At the same time, those who knew these people in Johannesburg and knew the local conditions were quite certain that had it not been for the action which was taken, and for the effect of the use of the troops, the situation might have been very much worse indeed. I can give the Committee, for their information, particulars of another instance which was brought to my notice. There were riots again just before we left South Africa to serve in the Great War. We happened to be the last troops to be

  1011
  quartered there, and this time they did not use us to deal with the riots, but used their own burgher commandos. The result was that the civil population prayed that they might get the Imperial troops back, for they had never had such a terribly rough handling as they had from their own people.
  The point I wish to make here is that the Government seem to forget that it is their duty to keep order, and if it necessary—regrettable though it may be—to call out troops, whether conscipt or not, as a last resort, it must be done. It is the duty of the Government to govern, and while they are governing the country to see that order is kept. They must even, if it is necessary, call out troops in order to do so. This, of course, applies equally to the second part of the Amendment which deals with the performing, in consequence of a trade dispute, of any civil or industrial duty customarily performed by a civilian in the course of his employment. Once again I reiterate that it is the Government's duty to see that the life of the community is carried on. If they can do so only by the use of troops, unpleasant and regrettable though that may be, obviously that is the step which they must take in the circumstances.
  VISCOUNT HALL: The noble Lord who moved this Amendment rightly referred to the long and passionate debate which took place in another place on a similar Amendment. He mentioned the fact that trade unionists themselves desired to receive a pledge. That pledge, possibly, was even stronger than having statutory powers. The interesting thing about the debate in another place was this: that whilst the Government is made up of members who include a large number of trade union representatives, in the actual Division which took place on the Amendment very few trade unionists voted for the Amendment, because they were satisfied with the pledges which were given by the Attorney-General on behalf of His Majesty's Government. I myself—and this may seem strange—for many years have been very closely associated with a trade union which is regarded as one of the most militant trade unions in this country, which has quite a number of representatives in another place. I looked through the Voting List and did
  1012
  not see the name of one of my trade union colleagues who voted in favour of this Amendment.
  I do want to point out to the noble Lord there is no new principle introduced by this Bill and to assure him that there can be no question of the possible use of armed forces who would take sides in an industrial dispute. Indeed, I will go so far as to say that it would be impossible for any Government of any political colour to resort to the use of armed force to take sides in any industrial dispute, especially to use the Armed Forces for purposes any other than the protection of civilian life and property and provision for the essential services of the community.
  The noble Lord, the Earl of Airlie, referred to the fact that a Government must govern. I think in this respect that the present Government have indicated their intention to provide for the essential services of the country by placing representatives of the three Services to clear away perishable goods and bring them to meet the needs of the people, not on one occasion but on two or three occasions. It may be said that the stoppage of employment was brought about as a result of some irresponsible individuals on one side, but there are irresponsible individuals on both sides, and if the community is being held to ransom then it is not the duty of His Majesty's Government to resort to driving Service men as they did in the olden days. I am old enough to remember when troops were sent to break a strike and it did not result in bringing about a solution of the difficulty, but in extending the strike, as would be the case if troops were used for purposes of that kind in this country.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I did not refer to that.
  VISCOUNT HALL: I hardly liked the noble Earl's references to conditions existing in another country some thousands of miles away which were not at all apt to the conditions prevailing in this country for well over half a century, and which I think, with the good sense of this country, are likely to prevail in the future.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE: We went in exactly the same conditions merely to keep order, but they were very much more violent than our crowds, and somebody was forced to take action.
  VISCOUNT HALL: That hardly applies to this country.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I disagree with the noble Viscount.
  VISCOUNT HALL: I disagree with the noble Earl. So we disagree one with the other. I want to assure my noble friend that so far as trade unionists are concerned, and they are great protectors of their own rights and interests, they are quite satisfied with the pledge given by the learned Attorney-General. I can do no more than repeat the statements made by him and the pledge he gave, and I am convinced that the trade unionists will accept it. I am afraid the Government cannot accept this Amendment.
  LORD CROFT: My Lords, we on these Benches made our protest at the time of the Second Reading on what we regard as lamentable changes in the original Bill, but we also said we would accept the general principles embodied in the measure, emasculated though the Bill had become. I want to assure the noble Viscount, and I think he will agree, that the Amendments tabled by my noble friends in the interests, we believe, of all three Services are purely of a helpful character designed to improve the machinery and working of this Bill. The Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, seems to me to be of a very different character, and I should like to say that we appreciate that there was a debate in another place on a similar Amendment which was defeated by an immense majority of all Parties. I think it is also fair to say to my noble friend who spoke earlier from below the gangway that he should remember that the words used by a Law Officer of the Crown in resisting a similar Amendment made the position clear. The words were: "The Government must govern." I ask my noble friend if he is aware that the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, even during the war, was not wholly on the side of the soldiers and sailors on every occasion.
  LORD FARINGDON: The noble Lord has absolutely no right to make that statement—no right whatever. I take great exception to it.
  LORD CROFT: The noble Lord, during the war, was a conscientious objector.
  LORD FARINGDON: I was a member of the National Fire Service.
  LORD CROFT: I hope the noble Lord did not get injured, in pursuit of that great duty.
  LORD FARINGDON: The noble Lord is now making a refection on the National Fire Service. I think the National Fire Service did quite creditably, all things considered.
  LORD CROFT: The noble Lord cannot ride away like that. The noble Lord knows that he was not only taking an attitude of that kind but he was also doing everything in his power to provide machinery to make it easier for people to claim conscientious objection. I think my noble friends would not want to take him as their mentor on what they wish for the military forces of this country in the future. I appreciate the argument used by members of the Government in another place, and the argument in similar terms by the noble Viscount this afternoon. We certainly would support the Government in resisting this Amendment.
  LORD STRABOLGI: I did not intend to intervene, but the noble Lord has made an attack on my noble friend of a nature quite unusual for him and which caused me surprise. I have sat longer in this House with Lord Faringdon than has Lord Croft. I have sat with Lord Faringdon for thirteen years and have been pretty closely associated with him, and the charges made by Lord Croft are completely without any foundation whatsoever. He served during the recent war in the National Fire Service, which is a perfectly honourable service. There is no dispute about that, and no one suggests that people serving in the National Fire Service were not helping the country.
  LORD CROFT: I at once withdraw my remark if the noble Lord is suggesting I was wrong in saying the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, was a conscientious objector.
  LORD STRABOLIGI: I was coming to that. Conscientious objection is perfectly legal: that is allowed. I am in a position to defend the provision for conscientious objection. I was in favour of conscription long before the late Conservative Government introduced it and made my views known. I have defended conscription in this House since. I say nevertheless that the conscientious objection clause is neces-

  1015
  sary and legally recognized, and I, for one, will not sit silently and allow jeers and insults to be thrown at conscientious objectors or at my noble friend because he was a conscientious objector. It takes a great deal of courage to be a conscientious objector. The idea they are all shirkers is nonsense, and the noble Lord with his military experience should know that as well as anyone. I feel bound to come to the defence of the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon. His attitude during the war was in support of the national war effort. He supported the war politically, and the noble Lord has an entirely wrong impression of my noble friend's attitude.
  As I am on my feet, I am going to say this in regard to the Amendment—the use of troops in trade disputes is a most difficult and delicate matter, and it depends a great deal on the attitude of the Government of the day. With the present Government (which I believe will remain in office for a great many years) we may feel confident that the troops will not be misused. I also think—and this is an argument I would particularly address to my noble friend, because he and I see eye to eye on many other things—there is less danger now of troops being improperly used in industrial disputes, either to awe or terrorize strikers, than if they were a long-term professional volunteer force. I do not want to go into the details; we all know the old history of some of the misuse of troops in industrial strikes in Yorkshire, at Featherstone for example, and Tonypandy. There is less danger of misuse if the troops are drawn from the whole population and are serving only for a short time: their officers know quite well how far they can go with them. That is one of the arguments which made me support this Bill in principle, and I support it as the noble Lord, Lord Croft, supports it. For these reasons I hope my noble friend will see his way not to press his Amendment.
  LORD FARINGDON: I must apologize for the fact that a little personal interruption has rather wasted some of your Lordships' time, and I feel that I owe your Lordships an apology. I should not have risen to the rather unjustified personal attack of the noble Lord, Lord Croft, an attack which was also rather irrelevant. The point really at issue was not answered by my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty. It is true that assurances of
  1016
  the Government have been accepted. I would accept them, and I do accept them, whole-heartedly, but my real point was that no Government assurances are a legal gloze on any Act of Parliament. For that reason I thought it would be better—I still think it would be very much better—to have in the Bill the necessary provisions to limit certain uses of the Armed Forces. However, I shall not insist on this Amendment, and with your Lordships' consent I will withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
  6.3 p.m.
  Clause 5:
  Liability to complete interrupted service.
  (3) The Minister may cause to be served on any person liable under this section to be called upon to undertake part-time service a written notice specifying the term of part-time service which he is liable to perform, and, subject as hereinafter provided, that person shall after the expiration of the period of fourteen days after the service of the notice be deemed to be entered or enlisted for service in such force as may be specified in the notice:
  Provided that if within the said period of fourteen days that person disputes his liability to he called upon to undertake part-time service, or the term of part-time service which he is shown by the notice to be liable to perform, and requires the Minister to refer the question in dispute to a referee, the notice shall not become operative to enter or enlist that person unless a referee selected by the Minister from a panel of persons nominated by the Lord Chancellor, after inquiring into and determining the question in dispute, directs that the notice shall become operative so to do on such date and for such term of part-time service as may be specified in the direction.
  VISCOUNT HALLmoved, in the proviso to subsection (3), to leave out from "person," where that word first occurs, to the end of the clause and insert
  "applies in the prescribed manner to the Minister for the cancellation or variation of the notice on the ground that he is not liable to be called upon to undertake part-time service under this section or is liable to undertake a term of part-time service shorter than that specified in the notice, the Minister shall, unless he grants the application, refer it to a referee selected by the Minister from a panel of persons nominated by the Lord Chancellor; and the notice shall not become operative to enter or enlist the applicant for service except as from such date and for such a term as may be determined by the Minister or the referee as aforesaid."
  The noble Viscount said: The purpose of this Amendment is to deal with the

  1017
  man whose service under the Bill has been interrupted and who, when called up for part-time service under Clause 5 (1) to complete that service, disputes his liability.
  In another place it was represented that the present wording of the Bill is unsatisfactory in that, first, the liability ought to be disputed in writing and not orally, and, secondly, that a man ought not to be required both to dispute his liability and to ask for the question to be referred to the referee. The Minister of Labour undertook to examine these points and, as a result, this Amendment is proposed. It will provide that if a man applies to the Minister of Labour in the prescribed manner, within fourteen days, for the cancellation or variation of the written notice, then the Minister, unless he grants the application himself and cancels the calling up paper, will refer the application to the referee for decision. That is the purpose of the Amendment, and I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 14, line 16, leave out from ("person") to the end of the clause and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Hall.)
  LORD CROFT: This Amendment appears to meet the pledge which was given in another place, and we most cordially support it.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
  6.6 p.m.
  Clause 6:
  Calling up for training during part-time service.
  (3) A person who fails to comply with a training notice shall be liable to be apprehended and unless he has some reasonable excuse punished in the same manner as a person belonging to an auxiliary force failing to appear when called into actual or permanent service or on embodiment.
  VISCOUNT HALL VISCOUNT HALL moved, after subsection (2), to insert:
  "(3) Every training notice served otherwise than by registered post shall require the person upon whom it is served to acknowledge receipt thereof within such time as may be specified in the requirement; and if acknowledgment is not received the Service Authority may cause a further training notice to be served on him by registered post and may by that notice direct that the former notice shall be deemed never to have had effect."
  The noble Viscount said: This Amend-
  1018
  ment also carries out a pledge which the Minister of Labour gave in another place. I think the purpose of the Amendment will be quite clear to your Lordships. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 38, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Hall.)
  LORD CROFT: For the same reason, we accept that Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMANmoved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Viscount said: The object of this Amendment is to clarify the position in regard to penalties. When this clause was being discussed in another place the view was expressed by our right honourable friends that it would be much better if the penalties, instead of being referred to in the way they are in the Bill as it now stands, should be specifically set out. We on these Benches feel that this is a much better way of dealing with this question of penalties. After all, what is wanted is not that anybody should suffer the penalties, but that it should be made plain beforehand what these penalties are, so that nobody will seek to incur them and that everybody does his training and, as they say, that "a good time is had by all." For that reason we felt it was necessary that the penalties should be expressed more clearly than they are, and that the details of these penalties should be made available to everybody who was liable to suffer if he defaulted on a Territorial or Reserve parade or training and so forth.
  Since we put down this Amendment a starred Amendment in the name of my noble friend Viscount Hall has found its way on to the Order Paper. That Amendment goes a long way to meet the contention which we put forward here, and which our honourable friends put forward in another place. I think that it goes as far as anybody could expect the Government to go in the Bill. I do not think it quite goes all the way, from the point of view of informing the national service man what the penalties are, and it may be possible that the object can be achieved by having on the training notice something which goes into the penalties in more detail. If His Majesty's Government can consider that (I rather think they may have considered

  1019
  it already) then that, coupled with the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, would meet our point in a very reasonable fashion. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 39, leave out subsection (3)—(Viscount Bridgeman.)
  LORD NATHAN: I think it would be more convenient if I spoke, not so much to the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, as to the Amendment of my noble friend Viscount Hall which follows, and which I will afterwards move formally. It is hardly necessary for me to speak at all, because the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, has indicated that my noble friend's Amendment meets the case, as we are anxious to meet the case. I would add only that I may give the noble Viscount an assurance that it is intended to place particulars of the penalties on the training notices as issued, so the recipient will be aware of the risks that he is taking in the event of non-compliance. I think that answers the point put by the noble Viscount.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I am obliged to the noble Lord opposite. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment, and in doing so I would say that my noble friends and myself will support the Amendment which follows.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  VISCOUNT HALL: I beg to move the next Amendment, to which reference has already been made.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 43, at end insert: "so, however, that the maximum punishment that may be awarded in respect of any such offence shall be, in the case of a person convicted by a court of summary jurisdiction, a fine of twenty-five pounds, and in any other case detention or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years."—(Viscount Hall.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  6.11 p.m.
  On Question, whether Clause 6, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill:
  LORD MANCROFT: I would like to say one or two words on this clause before it is passed, as we have introduced a certain number of new penalties which we have not had before in the Territorial Army. One hopes that they will seldom require to be used, but I know I shall have, at least, the noble Lord, Lord
  1020
  Nathan, with me when I remind him of the difficulties we experienced before the war in the one penalty which was permissible in the Territorial Army. If a man did not turn up for a specified number of drills, or did not attend camp, or if he generally made a nuisance of himself, you could proceed against him in the police court. It was, however, an action that was seldom taken. First, it meant an immense amount of paper work for the commanding officer and the adjutant, who could be much better employed on other work; secondly, in all cases the fine on the miserable man who was dragged into the police court was illusory; thirdly—and this is most important—it meant an unpleasant spotlight of publicity upon the unit in the one area from which the unit recruited and where it was most important to maintain a reservoir of good will. A large number of penalties are to be added, and, so far as I can see, most of them will have to be in the hands of the unfortunate commanding officer. All I am asking is that the Government should bear in mind that the more work of this unpleasant legal kind they can keep away from the units the better; and the more they can save units from any unfortunate publicity—which may be no fault of their own, if they have the misfortune to get a bad lot of men posted to them—the better it will be for the unit, and the better will be the relations of the unit in the neighbourhood, where it is most important that they should stand well.
  LORD NATHAN: I find nothing in what the noble Lord has said with which I can differ. As he will be aware, the provisions of the Act relating to the Territorial force practically fell into abeyance before the war, for very much the reasons that have been indicated by the noble Lord. It is necessary, as is generally appreciated, that there should be penalties of some severity held in terrorem over the recalcitrant soldier. But it is earnestly hoped that it will not be necessary to bring those penalties into operation. The noble Lord will not overlook the fact that the commanding officer has certain disciplinary powers, which no doubt he will desire to exercise before taking matters further; indeed, I may say it is the intention that instructions should be issued to commanding officers of the Territorial Army pointing out to

  1021
  them the nature of the summary powers which are vested in them, and directing their attention to the importance of discretion in the use of those powers; and that would, of course, include discretion in passing matters forward to another tribunal. The powers must be there, but I hope the occasions to exercise them will be few and far between.
  Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7 agreed to.
  6.14 p.m.
  Clause 8:
  Transitional provisions.
  (2) A person who has been entered or enlisted under Section four of the principal Act for a term or period ending with the present emergency and is serving in pursuance of that engagement or enlistment at the commencement of this Act shall, subject to the provisions of the last foregoing subsection, continue to serve in pursuance thereof for that term or period.
  VISCOUNT HALL: I beg to move the next Amendment standing in my name. The purpose of this Amendment is purely drafting, to bring the wording of Clause 8 (1) into line with that of Clause 5 (1). I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 13, leave out from ("shall") to ("to") in line 16 and insert ("unless he has attained the age of thirty-six years or has ceased to be liable under this Act to be called up for service otherwise than by reason of his having attained the age of twenty-six years, be liable to be so called up").—(Viscount Hall.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN moved to leave out subsection (2) and insert:
  "(2) No person who has been entered or enlisted under the National Service Acts before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, and is serving in the armed forces of the Crown under those Acts at the commencement of this Act shall be required to continue to serve therein after the commencement of this Act."
  The noble Viscount said: In moving the next Amendment that stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Croft and myself, I am in the peculiar position of having to use the same sort of argument as was used in his Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon—namely, that if a Government pledge has been given there was no reason why it should not be translated into the Bill when there are good reasons for that course. The reason why I think
  1022
  it applies in this case, and why I did not think it applied to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, is that in his case the noble Lord was dealing with something which will be a matter of conjecture. In this case there is no question of conjecture whatsoever—either people are serving a certain length of time, or they are not. Therefore, I think the argument applies. Here, as I understand it, a pledge was given by the Minister of Labour in another place on March 4 that by December 31, 1948, all those persons who were called up before January 1, 1947, would have been discharged. That matter was taken up in another place on the Committee stage of this Bill, and an attempt was made there to have this pledge written into the Bill, so that by the time the national service men called up under it began to join the Services there would be no one left under earlier National Service Acts running on a different form of attestation.
  One argument given against this course, as I understand it, was that it was administratively impossible to make sure that this could be done. This, I realize, does depend to a great extent on the Government's assessment of the commitments in man-power. This business of man-power calculations is, as we all appreciate, a very tricky one. The whole thing ties back to whether or not the foreign policy of the Government can be seen sufficiently clearly for them to be absolutely certain that they will be able to keep their word about the discharge of the people called up. All the same, I cannot see why the firm pledges which they have given should not be written into the Bill. I would like to say one more thing, and it is this. When these earlier debates were going on, I do not know whether it was realized that there would be proposals to withdraw the British troops from India quite so quickly as apparently they are going to be withdrawn. For those reasons, I should have thought—though no doubt I stand open to correction—that there was enough margin in the man-power calculations to make it posible to go a short step further, and translate these Government pledges, which we recognize are of very great value, into the Bill. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 22, leave out subsection (2) and insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Bridgeman.)
  VISCOUNT HALL: I am afraid I must ask your Lordships to rely upon the pledges which have already been given by His Majesty's Government in connexion with this matter, for we feel that a provision of this nature would be quite inappropriate in a Bill introducing a new scheme which would apply to men called up on or after January 1, 1949, and does not propose to legislate for men called up before that date, except in so far as they may be recalled after January 1, 1949, to complete their service. There should be no doubt at all about the intentions of the Government. Command Paper 6831 definitely declared what was the intention of the Government in this respect, and indeed the Government has to date carried out its pledges in connexion with this matter. This pledge was confirmed by another given by the Prime Minister in November of last year, and as recently as about two months ago the Minister of Defence again repeated the pledge in another place. I want to assure your Lordships that it is the full intention of His Majesty's Government to carry out the pledges which they have given, and I ask noble Lords to accept that assurance.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: Of course, what we come down to on this Amendment is frankly this. Although I have not the slightest doubt that the Government has the best intention in the world of carrying out what was in the White Paper, it cannot reduce it to statutory form because the certainties are not strong enough. That really summarizes the position clearly. Let us be frank about it that that is the position. Otherwise, if they were so certain, they could clearly include the required provision in the Bill.
  Now it is a bit steep if, by the time these new fellows are called up, they do a year's full-time service, while others who were called up before January 1, 1947, still have to go on serving after January, 1949—rather more than double the period—because that is the time when this Bill becomes operative. I feel sure that the Government intend to try and keep their pledge—do not let us put it higher than that—but it is not so certain (and I do not know that perhaps it can be so certain) that they will include it in an Act of Parliament. That is the position, and a position which I think we ought to accept. Whatever words the noble Lord used from his carefully pre-
  1024
  pared brief that, frankly, is the position. I have not the slightest doubt that this Government, and any Government which may succeed it—and here I do not take quite the same view as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, about the term of existence in office of noble Lords opposite—would, of course, try and carry out that pledge.
  LORD STRABOLGI: I do not wish to indulge in further prophecies, because we can all have our own views on that, but I feel a little dubious about this matter, and I am sure my noble friend, the First Lord of the Admiralty, can put my mind at rest. If I read the Bill and the Amendment aright, we can have men serving for more than two years side by side with men serving only one year. My noble friend speaks of the pledges given in another place, but I am sorry to say that I have forgotten what they were and have not had time to look them up. I think it will be quite appropriate if we might have a short résumé of what those pledges were, and I am sure my noble friend would be only too happy to recall them for us. I hope that is convenient, but, if not, we can wait until the Report stage.
  VISCOUNT HALL: So far as the pledge in the White Paper is concerned, may I read it for greater accuracy:
  "Men already serving in the Forces at the 31st December, 1946 (except those serving under voluntary engagements for fixed periods), will be released according to the existing age and length of service scheme, and all such men will be released before the end of 1948, that is to say, before any of the men called up in 1947. Moreover, it will be the aim of His Majesty's Government to release during 1947 all men called up before the 1st January, 1944."
  Thus, the men who enlist or are called up on January 1, 1948, to January 31, 1948, will serve two years; February 1, 1948, to March 31, 1948, one year and eleven months; April 1, 1948, to May 31, 1948, one year and ten months; June 1, 1948, to July 31, 1948, one year and nine months; August 1, 1948, to September 30, 1948, one year and eight months; October 1948, to November 31, 1948, one year and seven months, and December 1, 1948, to December 31, 1948, one year and six months. That reads as though it would mean that those persons who were called up in December, 1948, would have a lap-over of six months after the first conscript had been called up. The pledge which was given by the Minister of

  1025
  Defence was that no person who is called up under the existing National Service Acts will serve beyond the date of a person who is called up under this Bill. Of course, there are certain exceptional circumstances, such as when the man has been subject to a sentence of detention or imprisonment for desertion; but, so far as is practicable, all men who have been called up under the existing legislation will be released before men who are called up under the Bill with which we are now dealing.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: Unless, of course, he volunteers.
  VISCOUNT HALL: That is so.
  LORD STRABOLGI: I am much obliged to my noble friend, and I am very glad that I asked for that information. Those pledges are now quite clear, and I think it was well worth your Lordships' hearing them.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: After this very useful debate, I would like to say that I am quite happy about the pledge. I have been comparing it carefully with the Report from another place, and it tallies exactly. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 9 agreed to.
  Clause 10:
  Further education daring whole-time service, 7 & 8 Geo. 6. c. 31.
  (2) It shall be the duty of the Service Authorities to provide, so far as may be practicable, further education within the meaning of the said Section forty-one for persons during their terms of whole-time service; and, notwithstanding the provisions of the last foregoing subsection, every local education authority shall have power to provide, or secure the provision of, such facilities for further education for such persons as afore-said as may be agreed between them and any Service Authority, upon such terms, if any, as may be so agreed.
  LORD CROFThad given notice that he would move, in subsection (2), to leave out "practicable" and insert "consistent with the attainment of a proper standard of service training." The noble Lord said: With the permission of your Lordships, I should like slightly to alter the Amendment which stands in my name. The word "prac-
  1026
  ticable" should not be omitted and the words inserted should read, "and consistent with the attainment of a proper standard of service, training." On further consideration, I can understand the reasons for the word "practicable" being in the Bill, and I would not like to omit that word. Its retention will involve inserting the word "and."
  I will not detain your Lordships for more than a moment or two, and I should like to say at once that I have never been in any way hostile to education in the Services. In fact, I was responsible during the war for the widening of the whole scheme of education in the Army from the original scheme. Therefore, I am in no way hostile, and I do appreciate that in an Army, especially the long service Army, everything possible has to be done to keep the troops interested in affairs and life generally, provided, I would add, we do net indulge in Party politics, which I think are fatal to any Service.
  It seems to me, however, that now we have to compress into one year the most intensive training that can be imagined if the Forces are really to be efficient and able to meet the great responsibilities which the Government and the country are facing. For that reason, I think it is essential that there should be some words to make it clear that this intensive training, now compressed from eighteen months into a year, should be made as high-speed as possible, and it should not be interfered with by anything, however desirable it may seem, which would prevent the attainment of the efficiency of the Forces as a fighting unit should they ever, unhappily, be required. It is only from that point of view that I want to stress the matter. We should, by inserting these words, do everything practicable and consistent with the maintenance of the proper standard of the Forces. It should be made quite clear that if we really mean business the Forces are to be a fighting unit and that the whole training time cannot be concentrated upon educational matters. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 14, after ("practicable") insert ("and consistent with the attainment of a proper standard of service training").—(Lord Croft)
  LORD MANCROFT: Despite the fact that the first lecture of the Army Edu-

  1027
  cational Corps which I ever attended myself was entitled "Is the House of Lords really necessary?", I still have a very great respect for the work which the educational authorities did during the war. I should not like the fact of my name being associated with this Amendment to be taken as implying that I am in any way decrying that work and do not want it to be prolonged as far as possible into peace. I want only to echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Croft. As we have so little time at our disposal for the training programme, the first consideration must be the military one, and educational facilities must be secondary only.
  LORD O'HAGAN: I support the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Croft, and I absolutely agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. I have not been connected with the Territorial Army for some years, though I was connected with it for a long period from the time it was initiated. I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate that there is great concern in the country generally with regard to what will be the condition of the Armed Forces under this Bill. I suggest that the inclusion of an Amendment such as has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Croft, might go far to persuade those who are doubtful that the Forces which will be gathered together under the terms of this Bill will really be treated as a very serious force, and that from the military angle everything will be done to ensure, under modern conditions, that they shall have as their first object full efficiency as servants in this profession under the Crown.
  THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I should like to support the Amendment. As has been pointed out, training has to be compressed into twelve months instead of eighteen, so that I would ask that the Service Departments be given a free hand with training and that no outside body should be given an excuse to come in and spoil it.
  VISCOUNT HALL: I appreciate that there is not so much time to train a man in twelve months as if the original eighteen months' period had remained in the Bill. I assure noble Lords at once that it is fully recognized by all concerned that the primary task of the Services is to produce efficient fighting Forces; and the
  1028
  education programme will be arranged with this well in mind. The object of inserting the words "as far as may be practicable" was to relieve the Service Departments of the liability of further education to the extent to which it literally might not be a practical possibility—that is, so far as any education is concerned, and it applies to men overseas, afloat in small ships, and some units in isolated places. I think the point which the noble Lord who moved the Amendment desired to make is met by retaining in the Bill the word "practicable". I can assure noble Lords that the Services fully realize the need for utilizing the twelve months for the purpose of making men called up under this Bill as efficient as is possible.
  LORD CROFT: In view of the assurances that the noble Viscount has given, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 10 agreed to.
  Clause II:
  Information to be furnished by education authorities.
  11. It shall be the duty of every local education authority, and of the governing body or other persons having the management of any university, school or other educational institution, to give to the Minister, on his request, such information in their possession, or reasonably available to them, about male persons receiving, or who have received, education for which the local education authority are responsible, or, as the case may be, education at the university, school or other institution, as the Minister may from time to time require for the purpose of assisting his consideration of questions connected with their being called up for service under this Act.
  6.36 p.m.
  LORD ADDINGTONmoved to leave out "assisting his consideration of questions connected with their being called up for service under this" and to insert "subsection (2) of section ten of." The noble Lord said: This clause provides that every local education authority, as well as certain other people, are under an obligation to give the Minister, as his request, information about male persons who have received education for which they are responsible. Local authorities' staffs, particularly education staffs, are burdened with very heavy duties at present, and there is a large body of information available in their records concerning every boy from the age of five onwards. I think

  1029
  Ministers and Ministries have an insatiable appetite for more and more returns and more and more information and statistics. So the local authorities consider that all they can reasonably be asked to supply in this respect is such information as is really required to enable the Services to carry out the educational duties that are put upon them by Clause 10 (2) of this Bill in connexion with duties for further education, of which duties they have relieved education authorities during the time those persons are in the whole time service of the Forces. I hope, therefore, that this limitation of obligation may be accepted. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 34, leave out from ("of") to ("this") in line 36, and insert ("subsection (2) of section ten of").—(Lord Addington.)
  VISCOUNT HALL: I think Clause II makes quite clear what the intention of the Minister is, and I can assure the noble Lord that the information is required for just two purposes. The first is to enable the Minister to decide whether it is desirable in the national interest to defer the call-up of a student. You may well have a young man who is 18 and who has to wait another four or five months before he can take his Higher School Certificate or pass a necessary examination. He will apply for deferment, and the Minister would like to contact the responsible education authority to ascertain whether it is desirable or not desirable. It is solely for the purpose of obtaining information of that kind to enable the Minister to come to certain conclusions with regard to the deferment. The same thing applies to university authorities. I am convinced that as a result of such a contact it will be very helpful to the Minister when the person who is called up makes his application.
  LORD ADDINGTON: I am grateful to the noble Lord and I appreciate that tire young men for whom information would be wanted would not be a very large proportion of the whole. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 11 agreed to.
  Clause 12 agreed to.
  Clause 13 [Prohibition of dismissal of employees by reason of liability for service]:
  VISCOUNT HALL: These are merely drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 9, line 33, leave out the first ("is") and insert ("are");
  Page 9, line 44, leave out ("umpires") and insert ("the umpire");
  Page 10, line 9, leave out ("and");
  Page 10, line 10, at end insert—
  ("section twenty-one (which modifies section eighteen in its application to Scotland); and
  subsections (1), (2) and (4) of section twenty-two (which relate to the application of the said section eighteen, and the provisions of the Act relating to the Minister, to Northern Ireland)."(Viscount Hall.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 14 to 17 agreed to.
  Clause 18 [Postponement of liability to be called up for service]:
  VISCOUNT HALL: Again, these are purely drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 11, line 36, leave out ("section one of");
  Page 11, line 37, leave out ("the reference") and insert ("references");
  Page 11, line 38, leave out ("a reference") and insert ("references").—(Viscount Hall.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 19 agreed to.
  Clause 20:
  Candidates for commissions.
  20. Where persons are during their terms of whole-time or part-time service selected as candidates for commissions in His Majesty's forces, it shall not be made a condition of their acceptance as such candidates that they shall perform additional whole-time service after the completion of their terms of whole-time service except in accordance with regulations made by the Service Authorities under this Act.
  LORD LLEWELLINmoved, to leave out from the beginning of the clause to "it" and insert:
  "The service authorities shall make provision for the attainment commissioned rank either during or immediately upon the expiry of the term of whole-time service by persons called up for service under this Act and selected as candidates for Commissions in His Majesty's forces and."

  1031
  The noble Lord said: The object of the Amendment which I now move, is to put in the forefront of this Bill the fact that any man called up under this Bill need not feel he is going into whichever Service he goes into merely for a year's dull training without any possibility of promotion. I am one of those who think that when a young man is called up in this service, if he is selected and goes through the right kind of appointments board and is thought to be a young man who can bear the responsibility of a Commission, then some kind of provision ought to be made to train him for it, and to encourage him to try and attain that status.
  I would very much like to see—and I hope the Government will be able to accept this—the Service Authorities making some provision—my Amendment does not say how much—so that the people called up under this Bill do not say that this is just a "dead end." That was the kind of position which we used to deplore when young men, having left school, obtained a job for a year or two and were hanging on the back of a waggon, just seeing that the parcels did not fall out. It is what we used to call completely "dead-end" employment—I think "blind alley employment" is the right term. Do not let us have this blind alley from the point of view of the man not having a reasonable chance, if he is keen, if he is efficient, and if he is good enough, of securing a Commission. I think that the Services ought to provide those facilities, and I very much hope the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment. It is an extremely reasonable Amendment, proposed in the most friendly fashion, and I believe it will have the effect of giving some encouragement to those young men. As a result, it will mean keener men serving in the Army, the Navy and the Royal Air Force. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 12, line 1, leave out from beginning to ("it") in line 3, and insert the said words.—(Lord Llewellin.)
  LORD FARINGDON: I hope I shall not embarrass the noble Lord opposite if I support his Amendment. I desire only to bring an objective view to bear on this Bill. When I have spoken to your Lordships I hope that I shall have made it
  1032
  clear that I have objections to conscription which do not arise from my own personal outlook on military service. Why I would like to support this Amendment is because one of my anxieties in connexion with the whole system of conscription is the tendency to get an officer class which is too sharply divided from the conscripts who are called up. Without wishing to cause embarrassment to the noble Lord, I most strongly desire to support his Amendment.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I intervene for one moment because of the intervention of the noble Lord who spoke last. I think one of the merits of this Amendment is that it enables the Services to get hold of the right people, whatever their class, to be officers. The present effect of the Bill is that there may grow up an unwritten law (and you have unwritten laws in the Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force), whereby it becomes an understood thing that people cannot obtain their Commission at the end of their twelve months; to do so they will have to extend their service. Unless Parliament sees to it that that sort of practice never begins, we shall have a situation where the not-so-good-people will be obtaining a Commission and the best classes will feel that they cannot stay on because they have to get back to their business or education. That means leaving it to other people, who are not so keen on their careers, to take Commissions. I think that might weigh quite heavily on the people who have every need to obtain their living as soon as they come out of the Forces. That is the danger. It will not be to the good of the Services if we do not lay ourselves out to obtain the very best people—that is to say, the people who, during their training have shown the highest capacity for leadership, wherever they come from—and see that they are commissioned, sorted out, and put in their proper places, to do their Reserve service as leaders. This is nothing to do with class; it applies no matter what class the potential officer belongs to, where he came from, or where he is going to.
  THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: To raise another point perhaps not absolutely germane to the Amendment, I feel that it is going to be difficult to train recruits in the new forms of service, unless we have an early

  1033
  supply of efficient officers; by that I mean either commissioned or non-commissioned officers. Until you have people who can teach the new arms of the Service it will be very difficult to know what to do with men who come forward to join as ordinary members of the new Territorial and Auxiliary Forces. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, will be able to say something on that point, because it is important to encourage recruits, as soon as they join, by enabling them to have efficient instruction from the officers. Unless there are efficient officers I feel it will be a damper not only on the recruits, but also on the authorities of the association, to have to try and make this scheme work.
  LORD NATHAN: I am hopeful that I can satisfy the noble Lords who have just spoken on the other side of the House, and also my noble friend speaking from these Benches, even though I am unable to accept the Amendment. For one reason, I am unable to accept the Amendment because it is intentional that that clause in the Bill refers to the selection and preparation of candidates for Commission rather than the grant of a Commission, for the grant of a Commission is a Royal prerogative, and is not, therefore, a matter for inclusion in legislation. But so far as the substance of the matter is concerned, I think I can satisfy the noble Lords. I am assuming that noble Lords are not referring, nor is it intended that the Amendment should refer, to Commissions in the Regular Army. I am leaving those on one side for the purposes of this discussion. We are considering the position of national service men. But may I say that I agree entirely with what has been said by noble Lords opposite, and with what was said by the noble Earl just now, that it is an honourable ambition and should be the endeavour of the national service men to qualify at an early date for Commissions, both for their own satisfaction, and in order to make them available to train and to take command of those with whom they may come into association during their part-time service?
  So, we arc thinking of national service men who may be desiring Commissions in the auxiliary forces. Naturally, they do not want to do more whole-time service than is necessary. It is the intention so to plan matters that everything
  1034
  possible will be done to complete the selection and the training of candidates for Auxiliary Force Commissions during their twelve months' whole-time service. That is the deliberate intention.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: Forgive me for interrupting but are you speaking now about all three Services?
  LORD NATHAN: For the moment I was speaking of the Army. It was the Army which I had mostly in mind, as I think had also noble Lords opposite. I will say a word about the other Services in a moment. It is anticipated that it will be possible within the twelve months, in the great majority of cases, so far as the Army is concerned—and of course it is the Army which will require the greatest number of officers—to give the candidates Commissions either at the end of or shortly after the end of their twelve months' service. That is the intention. So far as the Royal Air Force is concerned, I am unable to make so specific a statement, because no definite decision has yet been taken with regard to the Royal Air Force. As to the Navy, it is not really thought that much commissioning can take place within twelve months, because, as in the case of certain of the technical branches of the Royal Air Force also, candidates will need to undertake additional obligations for Commissions. Arrangements will differ a good deal according to the Services and the branches of the Services.
  THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: The principle would be open, I understand, in the case of the Navy if it can be found possible in twelve months to select some really smart young man who stands out head and shoulders above the others.
  LORD NATHAN: Certainly, the principle will be open. I wanted to make only this reservation. I cannot make the same general statement with regard to the Navy as I am in a position to make with regard to the Army, The arrangements will differ according to the Service, and the branches of the Service. It is intended to make provision for an extra period of training within the appropriate Auxiliary Force. If is to be a longer period of training then the arrangements will be made by Regulations, which will be presented to Parliament. Therefore, there will be the normal Parliamentary opportunity for scrutiny and discussion so

  1035
  as to ensure that nobody is being compelled against his will to remain in the ranks in the Service as the price of securing selection for a Commission. I do not think that there is any difference between noble Lords opposite and the Government as to what we desire to achieve in this matter.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: In view of what the noble Lord has said, I do not think I need press this Amendment. There are, obviously, different conditions obtaining in the different Services and of course a higher degree of training is wanted in some Services and in some branches of some Services than in others. I can quite well see why, for instance, in the Royal Navy they would not be able to train personnel up to the standard required for commissioning immediately after the end of twelve months service. At any rate, so long as we have this assurance of the Government's intention with regard to commissioning, that men who are deemed suitable may be picked out and given preliminary training while serving their twelve months, I think that that should satisfy us all. I believe that that sums up the feeling of noble Lords on these Benches, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 20 agreed to.
  Clauses 21 to 23 agreed to.
  6.56 p.m.
  Clause 24:
  Interpretation.
  (6) Any reference in the National Service Acts, 1939 to 1946, to those Acts or to any provision thereof shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be construed as including a reference to this Act, or to that provision as amended by this Act, as the case may be.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMANmoved, at the end of the clause, to insert:
  "Provided that such service shall be deemed for the purpose of this Act to be service in lieu of part-time service."
  The noble Viscount said: This Amendment which stands in my name originates from a similar Amendment which was put down in another place. But I am not absolutely certain that the Amendment is drafted so as to produce the result I want. I think I can explain clearly what I want. As I read the Bill, it will be impossible for any young man, after he
  1036
  finishes his year with the Forces, to do duty with the pre-Service organizations, the Sea Cadets, the Air Training Corps and the Army Cadet Force, until he has finished his liability for part-time service at the age of 26 years. I suggest to the noble Lord that that is a very unwise arrangement. There will be plenty of people available who can be spared to deal with the Cadet units. Furthermore, there is a great deal to be said for having young and enthusiastic officers doing duty with these Cadet units fresh from their very high-class training in one of His Majesty's Forces.
  It may be that the object which I have explained, and which I hope we shall be able to realize, may be possible of achievement by Regulation and not by Amendment to the Bill. If that is so I shall be prepared to withdraw my Amendment, provided I have an assurance that the thing could be done and we could achieve this object, which, I believe, is not unacceptable to noble Lords opposite. At the moment, as I say, I am in grave doubt whether this can be done without the Amendment, and I therefore beg to move the Amendment as it stands.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 14, line 17, at end insert the said new proviso.—(Viscount Bridgeman.)
  LORD NATHAN: This Amendment ought really to come at line 8, but that is a matter of no importance. Let me take this opportunity, which is a very gratifying one to me, if the noble Viscount will not think it impertinent, to say how fully we all appreciate the long years of devoted service which he has given to the Army Cadets to the great public advantage. I know that that Force is very near his heart, and I am sure he will believe me when I say that his words do not fall on unreceptive ears. Let me say at once that it is unnecessary and, I think, inappropriate that this Amendment should be moved. Nor do I think that this is a matter which needs to be dealt with by Regulations, though there I speak subject to advice. I think that it is a matter for administrative action, and as regards administrative action let me say that the national service man will, on completing his whole-time service, be under obligation for a period of six years part-time service. It is open to the Service Minister to call him up or not to call him up for training.

  1037
  The importance of the pre-Service organizations is fully realized. Although they are not technically part of the Armed Forces of the Crown they are fulfilling a most valuable and important public service. Obviously the age group from which most usefully pre-Service officers can be drawn is the age group between, let me say, 18 and 26. Indeed, unless some arrangements were made on the lines contemplated by this Amendment, we should have no officers of that age group at all. That is not a position which we could contemplate. I think I can put the position clearly if I say that the service of the Cadet officer—I use this term to save using a more elaborate phrase—before being called up will on no account be credited to the young man. He will have to serve his full seven years when called up. When they have done one year full-time service, the right people in appropriate numbers will be given Commissions as Cadet officers and subject to their fulfilling their Cadet officer obligations for the period of six years, it would not be the intention of the Service Ministers to call them up. They will be deemed to have satisfied their obligations. If, on the other hand, for any reason a Cadet officer should cease, after say four years, to be an officer, then he will be called up for the remaining period of two years to perform a proportionate amount of training during these two years. The intention is to encourage the Cadet officer—we recognize his importance—and to ensure he will not be called up to do national service during the part-time period in addition to fulfilling his duties as a Cadet officer provided he does so for a full period of six years.
  LORD CROFT: The words of the noble Lord are very comforting to all those who take an interest in pre-Service training and I would like to say the assurance he gives us does much to cover the point. I was a little doubtful until he spoke but he makes it very clear that the point is really substantially met. I am very glad of that because I believe, and I say this after very considerable study, that the whole future of part-time service in this country will depend enormously on the efficiency of the Cadet forces of the three Services. I cordially welcome the words of the noble Lord. I gather that my noble friend does not wish to pursue his Amendment.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I would like to say how very much I welcome the assurance of the noble Lord opposite. There is one point I would like to make before I withdraw my Amendment. The arrangements are very satisfactory and they will work well provided they are properly promulgated. I do not quite know how they are to be promulgated. There is a great difference between making plans and letting the people who are to be affected know in time. I ask the noble Lord for an assurance that these terms of service will be put in front of likely Cadet officers during their term of service with the Forces.
  LORD NATHAN: I think I can safely and properly say it is generally wished to do what this Amendment contemplated and all ancillary steps will be taken, including, I assume, the one suggested by the noble Viscount.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: It is very important to work the scheme practically. In view of the noble Lord's assurance, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 24 agreed to.
  Clauses 25 and 26 agreed to.
  7.5 P.m.
  Clause 27:
  Duration of National Service Acts.
  27. No person who attains the age of eighteen years on or after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fifty-four shall be liable under the National Service Acts to be called upon to serve in the armed forces of the Crown; and accordingly those Acts shall continue in operation only with respect to persons who have attained that age or who have been called up for service under those Acts before that date:
  Provided that His Majesty may by Order in Council substitute for the said day such later day as may seem to His Majesty expedient.
  LORD FARINGDONmoved, to substitute "nineteen hundred and fifty-one" for "nineteen hundred and fifty-four." The noble Lord said: It will be within the memory of your Lordships that I spoke against the Second Reading. I confess frankly I intended to divide the House at that time. In deciding not to do so, the reason which weighed with me was one I thought expressed well by the Leader of the Opposition a day or two later on the Transport Bill, when he said that the Opposition had decided that on any measure which had passed the Lower

  1039
  House and formed part of the Government's election programme they would not consider it any part of their business to oppose it on Second Ruling. I personally take that particular ruling, as it were, one step further. I do not think any Government can be expected to foresee in an election programme all the events which may arise during their five years of office. When a Bill has passed the Lower House, it is not the function of the Upper House, which is not representative (though I think the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, rather surprised us the other day when he described himself as representative), to oppose in principle the elected House. Therefore I did not move to divide the House on the Second Reading of this Bill, although the Bill had no part in the Labour Party's election programme. So far from having part in the Labour Party's election programme, any average person who was asked for the Labour Party's views on conscription at the time of the election would have based it on the original policy and statements and said the Labour Party was opposed to it.
  I put down this Amendment because it seems to me the Government have introduced so revolutionary a measure as this without having a direct mandate from the country. Although the circumstances in which they find themselves might justify it, it is desirable that they should go to the country and give those reasons and get the necessary mandate. That is why I have suggested that the period of operation be reduced so as to fall at the time presumably of the next election. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 14, line 41, leave out ("fifty-four") and insert ("fifty-one").—(Lord Faringdon.)
  LORD NATHAN: I know with what sincerity my noble friend holds his views and with what sincerity he has long held them. He may rest assured that the Government did not introduce this Bill without grave deliberation, and it is a deliberate act of policy that this Bill should be passed into law. It is essential that it should be made into a workable Bill. A period of two years as contemplated by my noble friend would be quite ineffective for the purposes of the Bill. The
  1040
  period of five years has been inserted deliberately, and I cannot, in these circumstances, accept this Amendment.
  LORD FARINGDON: I was afraid I had not very much hope that the Government would accept the Amendment, but it was to express the strong feelings some of us had on this matter that I really put it down. I apologize if noble Lords think I have wasted their time, but, at least, I have not taken very long. With your permission I will withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD FARINGDONmoved to leave out the proviso. The noble Lord said: This contains quite a different point from my previous Amendment; and it is a point which received a great deal of support in another place. His Majesty's Government have stated, in the course of the debates on this Bill, that they regard it as a temporary measure, or, at any rate, they hope it will not have to be a permanent institution in this country. The method contained in this proviso for prolonging the life of the Bill seems to me to belie those protestations. Moreover, it is felt by a great many people that national service is a new adventure and an innovation in the life of this country, and one that is very likely to teach us various lessons in regard to its operation. It seems to me, therefore—and I know members of all Parties in another place felt this—that it would be better to give the Bill a stated period of duration and then for it to come back to Parliament, when, as a result of the lessons learned in the operation of the Bill, we could decide whether it was wished to continue with it. Parliament could then say, "These are our lessons and our experiences, and, in the light of them, we wish to pass a new Bill extending or prolonging, or even diminishing, the amount of national service to be done, and to vary the terms accordingly." I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 15, leave out lines 1 to 3.—(Lord Faringdon.)
  LORD NATHAN: Compulsory service is not made a permanent feature of our legislation by this Bill. A definite period is prescribed by the Bill, but it would be futile, should circumstances make it necessary to extend the period, if we had to

  1041
  go through the whole machinery and paraphernalia of legislation once more. Parliamentary control is completely safeguarded since an extension can be made only by Order in Council, and the Order in Council (as stated in Clause 22) would need an affirmative Resolution by both Houses. My noble friend, therefore, may rest assured that Parliamentary control of the situation is amply safeguarded by this Bill.
  LORD STRABOLGI: I take it that there is also a certain safeguard in the Army Annual Act, and that safeguard will continue under this Bill, which will give an opportunity for raising all sorts of grievances in this House as well as in another place. Will my noble friend confirm that?
  LORD LLEWELLIN: With great respect to the noble Lord, the Army Act has nothing whatever to do with it. Of course you can raise grievances under the Army Act, but not a grievance that this Bill had been prolonged by Order in Council. As the noble Lord said in his reply for the Government, that prolongation will be under the control of Parliament, because it has to be done by an affirmative Resolution of both Houses. A slight thought came into my mind when I heard the noble Lord dealing with the two Amendments, and that was that the grave deliberations that have made the date of 1954 absolutely necessary have just this variant; that from year to year the results of such grave deliberations may somewhat change. I could not help thinking that this Government did not, without grave deliberation, first introduce this Bill with a service period of eighteen months. I leave that thought with the noble Lord.
  LORD MANCROFT: I always respect the views of the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, and the sincerity and honesty with which he puts them forward, although I disagree profoundly with almost everything he says. But I think it would be wrong if we gave the impression to the young men of this country that the Government are acting on the basis that this measure is likely to be very short lived. I would remind your Lordships of the remarks made by the Minister in another place. He said:
  "If anyone can give me a cast iron guarantee that this country will never be attacked, that we shall never have to defend ourselves, at home or abroad, then I am prepared to say we shall not need conscription."
  1042
  With that remark I most strongly agree. But that remark does suggest that in the minds of the Government and of noble Lords who sit on these Benches this is not a short term measure.
  LORD FARINGDON: Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, I find myself in agreement with him. I hope that will not embarrass him. What he said, however, is really the basis of this Amendment. I am afraid that the repeated statements of reluctance and dislike on the part of His Majesty's Government to the particular form of prolongation which they have announced (which, although it does give a certain amount of control, gives control of a very much slighter and easier nature than could be exercised by the introduction of a new Bill) are bound up with a profound pessimism as to any prospects of happier days when they will no longer be reluctant and no longer unhappy about the institution of conscription in this country. Therefore, I do not feel inclined to withdraw this Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  Clause 27 agreed to.
  First and Second Schedules agreed to.
  Third Schedule [Minor and Consequential Amendments of the National Service Acts, 1939 to 1946. The National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1939]:
  VISCOUNT HALL: This series of Amendments is consequential, to bring the Schedules in line with the Amendments to which we have already agreed.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 18, line 24, at end insert—
  ("and at the end of subsection (2), there shall be added the following words—
  'and in particular, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the Minister may, if he is in doubt whether an enlistment notice served on any person other than by registered post has been received by him, cause a further enlistment notice to be served on him by registered post and may by that notice direct that the former notice shall be deemed never to have had effect.'")—(Viscount Hall.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 19, line 24, leave out from ("(1)") to the end of line 26.—(Viscount Hall.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 19, line 39, at end insert—
  ("In Section fifteen, in subsection (2), the words from the beginning to 'Act; and' and the words 'while this Act is in force' and the proviso to subsection (3) shall cease to have effect.
  At the end of Section eighteen there shall be inserted the following proviso—
  'Provided that, notwithstanding anything in Section twenty-six of the Interpretation Act, 1889, where an enlistment notice or a training notice has been served on any person by post, service on him shall not be deemed to have been duly effected unless it is proved either that he received the notice or that it was sent by registered post addressed to him at his last known address.'")—(Viscount Hall.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Fourth Schedule agreed to.
  Fifth Schedule [Enactments Repealed]:
  VISCOUNT HALL: I beg to move this consequential Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 22, line 25, column 3, at end insert—
  ("In Section fifteen, in subsection (2), the words from the beginning to 'Act; and' and the words 'while this Act is in force' and the proviso to subsection (3).")—(Viscount Hall.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed.

  IRISH VOLUNTEERS AND UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
  7.20 p.m.
  THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the fact that under the Unemployment Insurance (Eire Volunteers) Act of October, 1946, as at present administered, Southern Irish volunteers who were discharged before March, 1945, are precluded from any benefit under that Act, and to ask if that was the original intention of His Majesty's Government; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I make no apologies for again bringing this matter before your Lordships, for I feel you would wish to have your attention called to the situation that has arisen regarding the Unemployment Insurance (Eire Volunteers) Act of 1946—a situation which, I am quite sure, was never intended by the Government in the first place, or by your Lord-
  1044
  ships who gave the Bill a Second Reading, and subsequently passed it. As its title explains, the object of this Act was to enable those men who came from Eire as volunteers and served in His Majesty's Forces during the recent war, to obtain benefit under the Insurance Act of 1935, to which benefit they had become entitled by virtue of the contributions with which they had been credited during their years of service, but which they were debarred from receiving by a clause in that Act which prohibited payment of benefit to residents outside of the United Kingdom.
  I know full well that this statesmanlike measure, the Unemployment Insurance (Eire Volunteers) Act was conceived with a genuine desire to be just and generous. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who introduced the measure, it was
  "to give practical expression to the very real debt of gratitude which we in this country feel to those gallant men who served so faithfully in His Majesty's Forces during the war."
  I should like to emphasize those words "during the war." The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, gave the Bill, in his own words, "an unreserved and enthusiastic welcome." He went on to say:
  "It enables us to pay our tribute, and, indeed, something of our debt, to those men who came from Eire. They were all volunteers, many of whom came in the face of difficulty and discouragement."
  And the noble Viscount concluded by saying:
  "In all quarters of the House we are delighted that this Bill has come to us, and we shall speed it on its way."
  The Bill left this House, then in an atmosphere of generous good will, and it was received with appreciation by the men who were to benefit by it, who had been feeling somewhat neglected and rebuffed—those same men who, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, had "served so faithfully in His Majesty's Forces during the war." Realization, however, does not always come up to anticipation, and unhappily that has proved to be the case in this instance. It was not until February, 1947—everything having been arranged between the two Government, and the necessary Acts passed—that an announcement appeared in the papers of Eire informing those who considered themselves entitled under this concession that they should make their claims. Many men did so at once, as early

  1045
  as they could, and received an official answer telling them that they were not eligible on the grounds that "at least thirty contributions have not been credited to the applicant in the British Unemployment Fund for service in the United Kingdom Forces in respect of the two years immediately preceding the date of their claim."
  One of my correspondents, who had served in the Forces since 1939—that is well over five years—was demobilized at the earliest date possible, on account of his age and length of service. He was an old soldier—he had been a sergeant-major in the 1914–1918 war, and a sergeant-major Pioneer in this war. He did not believe that the British Government would treat him in this way, and he wrote to the Ministry of Labour in this country on the subject. He received a reply which referred him back to Dublin, but which supported the Irish decision on the same grounds, that thirty contributions had not been paid in respect of him as an insured contributor in respect of the two years immediately preceding the date on which a claim for benefit was made. To those who are not familiar with the Insurance Act of 1935 I would say that that is the first statutory condition which must be fulfilled to enable a man to apply for benefits in this country—that is, in Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. It is, of course, the application of this test, and the date fixed, Which brings about the present condition, and which goes far to nullify the Act of 1946, although it was physically impossible for many of the men to comply with this condition.
  After I received the report on this man, I myself wrote to the Minister of National Insurance, and I received from him a courteous but disappointing reply, which I will read to your Lordships:
  "As you are no doubt aware, it has been a condition for the receipt of benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Acts that not less than thirty contributions have been paid by the applicant as an insured contributor in respect of the two years immediately preceding the date of the claim to benefit.
  "It is true that ex-Service men and women in Eire have to satisfy this condition before becoming eligible for benefit under the Unemployment Insurance (Eire Volunteers) Act, 1946, by virtue of contributions credited to them in respect of service in His Majesty's Forces; but they are in no different position in this respect from ex-Service men or women
  1046
  resident in this country who have also received free credits of contributions in respect of war service."
  He concludes his letter with the following paragraph:
  "It will be appreciated that the earliest practicable date on which the special concession of paying benefit to persons in Eire could be introduced was February 27, 1947, and that to have modified the above contribution condition in favour of ex-Service men and women resident in Eire who we re among the earlier releases from the Forces would have had the effect of making an unjustifiable discrimination not only against ex-Service men and women in this country but also against other persons here who claim unemployment benefit."
  After that answer, it is quite apparent that instead of this Act, administered as it is at present, giving, as was claimed in the first place, expression to "the very real debt of gratitude which we in this country feel to those gallant volunteers who served so faithfully" during several years of war, it fails to do so as regards those men who left prior to August, 1945, for it was not physically possible for them to comply with the necessary conditions. Let me remind your Lordships of some of the dates. May 8, 1945, was V.E. Day; on August 2, 1945, the Prime Minister announced the capitulation of Japan; demobilization started the same month—the war was won, and those bleak years when we so badly wanted volunteers were well behind us. Those very men who fought through practically the whole war are those who became automatically disqualified. I do not believe for one moment that that was ever intended by the Government, or by any of your Lordships who passed this Bill, and I would like formally, to ask His Majesty's Government whether that was their intention when the Bill was brought before this House.
  If we examine the Minister's statement, that men or women discharged to Eire are in no different position from ex-Service men and women in this country, it will not hold water. Take the case of two men, one resident in London and the other in Dublin. The Londoner, if unemployed, would be eligible for unemployment benefits; and when he found employment he would be able to continue his contributions to the Insurance Fund—in fact, he would probably be compelled by law to do so. The Irishman, if unemployed, could not draw unemployment benefit, because, in the first place, he would be resident outside the United King-

  1047
  dom, which prevented his doing so; and, in the second place his absence from Ireland for several years would have deprived him of any benefit to which he would be entitled under the Irish Acts. Nor, if he found work, could he send his contributions to the insurance people. It is ridiculous to suppose that he could send his contributions over to this country, even if anybody would receive them when he did.
  As to the last paragraph of the Minister's letter, it is difficult to follow how modifying the contribution conditions for these men from Eire would be unjustifiable discrimination against ex-Service men and women in this country. Surely the mere fact that special legislation is necessary shows that they were not on the same footing as the British personnel. Why make them eligible for these benefits, and then introduce this date which precludes them from benefit? I would remind your Lordships that ex-Service men who returned to their homes in Eire were not, in the first place, eligible for any help under the Release and Settlement Scheme; so they were discriminated against from the beginning. In the Minister's own words, the paying of these unemployment benefits is described as "a special concession." Why spoil this "special concession" by so circumscribing its action as to leave out the very men we most wish to benefit?
  I have tried to be brief. I have not had the exhilarating audience I should have liked, but I do ask your Lordships to consider this matter. I think it only needs attention called to this failure to implement the good intentions of everybody who had anything to do with the passing of the Bill in the first place to ensure that whatever modifications are required to carry out the original high purpose of the Bill will be made. I beg the Government to let it go out from this House to-night that the matter will be reconsidered, and that everything will be done to make sure that this attempt to give practical expression to the great gratitude we feel to these men will not prove to have been stillborn. I beg to move for Papers.
  7.30 p.m.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I know how strongly the noble Earl feels about this subject, and I think that perhaps as
  1048
  a result of his feeling he has given a description of the working of this Act which is not altogether fair. Undoubtedly, as a result of administrative difficulties, there have been a small number of hard cases, and I welcome the fact that the noble Earl should have drawn attention to them. They result from the difficulty of bringing the Act into operation in Ireland as quickly as one would have liked. I would remind your Lordships that this Bill received the Royal Assent on November 6, and in order to explain the position I am afraid I have to give one or two dates.
  The Act was to come into effect when arrangements with the Eire Government had been entered into and were in force. The complementary Eire Act was passed on December 19, 1946. Following that, it required an Order in Council to be brought into effect in this country, and that was issued on January 29, 1947. Following that, the Eire Commencement Order came into operation on February 24, and the full arrangements came into working effect on February 27 last. As these sort of things go, it was a comparatively short period; but unfortunately it did mean that there was a gap, and it is as a result of that gap that this difficulty to which the noble Earl has drawn attention has arisen. I will say something in explanation as to how that difficulty has arisen and to discuss the extent of it. But before doing so I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that this Act has been very successful during the comparatively short period in which it has been in operation.
  To take the latest figures which I have been able to obtain, on June 17 last the total number of claims made in that short period had been 2,727. 16,503 payments have been made to claimants, involving a sum of no less than £28,763 from the British Unemployment Fund. In that particular period, ending on June 6 last, some 1,5oo cases were dealt with, averaging payments of 35s. a week. The Act has worked remarkably smoothly. The relations between the Department of Social Welfare in Eire and the Ministry here have been exceedingly good, and I should like to take this opportunity, on behalf of my right honourable friend, of expressing his very great appreciation for all the assistance that has been given by that Department in Eire.

  1049
  There have, from time to time since the Act came into operation, been a number of protests from men who were unable to satisfy the contribution conditions which were quite clearly laid down in the Act of Parliament. It has been alleged, I think by the British Legion in Ireland, that some 500 cases of this kind exist. Actually, I understand that the number of applications which have been rejected amounts to some 400, but that quite a large number of those cases were, so to speak, completely outside the ambit of the Act. The Act seems to have been regarded by a number of men in Ireland—perhaps quite naturally—as a kind of additional bonus for service with the British Forces, even as far back as the Boer War. I understand that quite a number of applications have been received from men who fought in South Africa, and from others who took part in the. 1914–1918 war. Others are equally absurd from the point of view of the application of this Act, although no doubt from the point of view of the men who made them they were perfectly genuine applications. The only genuine grievance is on the part of those men whose credit of contributions in respect of their war service is not enough to satisfy the statutory requirement that there must be thirty contributions in the two years previous to the time when the claim was made.
  The difficulty arises from this gap in bringing the Act into force. It is quite true that between the time when discharges from the Services first began to take place—which would be about June 18, 1945, about a month after V.E. Day—and a date somewhere between the middle and the end of July, there is a period in which, even though the men had a full credit of contributions, it would not enable them to achieve the thirty contributions during the two years up to February 27, when the arrangements became effective. I understand that the number of men who were in fact discharged during that month is not more than about fifty, and therefore the total number of complaints there could possibly be is in the neighbourhood of fifty. But of those fifty men, it is quite obvious that a number of them, at any rate, went back into employment, and would not, therefore, be in a position to make a claim under the Act in this way.
  1050
  Therefore, the grievance quantitatively is merely a small one. That does not mean, of course, that the particular man whose claim has been rejected—and particularly a man who has rendered such admirable service as that to which the noble Earl has referred—has not a very genuine grievance. Unfortunately, it can be remedied only by passing a new Act of Parliament, because the Statute under which this matter is arranged—the English Statute relating to unemployment—is perfectly clear on this matter, and this particular Act was passed in order to dovetail into the British arrangements.
  We do not consider that the extent of the grievance is sufficiently wide to justify the passing of a special Act in regard to this matter. Moreover, as the noble Earl has pointed out during the course of his speech, there are quite substantial groups of ex-Service men in this country who, for one reason or another, are in much the same position; to pass an Act of Parliament to confer a special benefit of this kind upon a handful of men in Eire would be very unfair to the groups of ex-Service men in this country who are affected. It is not really a question of there not being arrangements in Eire for these men to pay their contributions, because they could not have done so. The Act did not come into force until February 27 of this year, and the relevant period, of course, was the period right back from June to July in 1945, immediately after V.E. Day. I am sure that the noble Earl has not quite understood the difficulties of the situation, and I hope that now he realizes how successful this Act has been—an Act for which he himself is entitled to a great deal of the credit—and how comparatively slight are the number of genuine grievances which have arisen under this Act, he will agree with me that the Government can hardly be expected to introduce special legislation to deal with the matter.
  THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I am afraid I do not agree with the noble Lord when he gives the number as fifty, because I must have at least fifteen letters from various men on this subject, and I have seen their papers. But even if it is fifteen, why should fifteen of those men who fought for us for five years he neglected? If you cannot include them, then do what any insurance

  1051
  company will do when a policy is surrendered—return a percentage of the premiums paid. You may tell me that these premiums were not paid for the men, but it is part of their pay and if you had not paid it you would have had to give them more pay. I do suggest that it is not right to say that it is difficult to do anything for these men, because it would be perfectly possible to put aside a certain sum of money. The noble Lord says that the number is only about fifty. What a small sum that would involve! These old soldiers in Ireland are our friends. I think the Act is a very statesmanlike Act. It rises above the emotions of the moment to the broad view of the future. But do
  1052
  try to be just and generous to the men who have served us.
  I think that to go and spoil it now for a ha'p'orth of tar is—I was going to say stupid, but I should not like to use that word, though it is what I think. It will do no good to save a few pounds and make a lot of our friends in Ireland, with very good reason, discontented. I believe that if only I had an audience in this House, I could have divided the House; but as it is, there is nobody to divide, and in the circumstances there seems to be no alternative but to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
  House adjourned at eighteen minutes before eight o'clock.