NATIONAL SERVICE BILL.

HL Deb 18 June 1947 vol 148 cc992-1043

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 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—

1. (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
2. (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
3. (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 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 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 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—

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

moved, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 thing. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.37 p.m.

LORD FARINGDON

moved 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, 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 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 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 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- 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 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 HALL

moved, 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 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 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- 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 BRIDGEMAN

moved 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 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 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 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 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 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- 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 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 CROFT

had 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- 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- 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 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 ADDINGTON

moved 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 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 LLEWELLIN

moved, 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. 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 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 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 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 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 BRIDGEMAN

moved, 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 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. 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 FARINGDON

moved, 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 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 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 FARINGDON

moved 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 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. 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.