Sitting of 11 May 1939

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:
London County Council (Improvements) [Lords].
Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Walsall Corporation Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
Mr. Shinwell: I desire to raise a point of Order arising out of a question I put on the Order Paper. Two days ago I sent to the Prime Minister a petition relating to old age pensions and intimating that I intended to put down a question to the Prime Minister for to-day. I received from the right hon. Gentleman an intimation that the question was transferred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not agree with the transference, and I wish to ask whether the Prime Minister is entitled to transfer a question directed to himself, and concerning himself alone, without having obtained my consent?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must understand that questions are transferred to the Department which is best qualified to give an answer. I do not know whether it is necessary to inform an hon. Member of the change.
Mr. Shinwell: With great respect, I submit that, while there may be this custom, to which I cannot object, yet I venture to submit that this question related to a matter of policy and possible legislation and, therefore, was not a matter to be directed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer but to the Prime Minister himself, who is the only person in this House able to answer questions on Government policy.
Mr. Speaker: Many questions have been put on the Order Paper relating to old age pensions, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has usually answered them. I see no remedy.
Mr. Shinwell: In that case I beg to intimate that I shall withdraw the question until a more suitable date.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    ASSISTANCE.
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a growing number of local unemployment assistance boards are refusing to accept certificates from applicants' own doctors in support of requests for extra nourishment; whether this is as a result of instructions issued centrally; and whether he will assure the House that it is not intended to reflect in any way on the integrity or competence of the members of the medical profession in these centres?
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I am informed by the Board that medical certificates indicating the need for extra nourishment arising from some specific pathological condition are normally accepted without question. In some instances, however, certificates are given in quite general terms to persons who are not otherwise receiving medical attention and in these cases the practice is to make further inquiry before deciding whether the allowance should be increased. In certain other cases where doubt arises, the question is referred to the regional medical officer of the Ministry of Health. The Board have no reason to

    653
    believe that doctors regard these steps as reflecting on their integrity or competence.
    Mr. Gallacher: Are we to understand that the certificate of an applicant's own doctor for extra nourishment is accepted by the Board?
    Mr. Brown: That is the normal course.
    Mr. George Griffiths: On what ground can the Board reject a medical officer's certificate? They will not know anything about the man or his wife, or whether they want this extra nourishment or not?
    Mr. Brown: It is the duty of the Board to decide whether extra nourishment is to be given.
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Minister of Labour whether he will inquire into the circumstances in which the Warwick Unemployment Assistance Board refused to grant an increase over 48s. in the allowance of Mr. H. R. Cole, of 104, Millers Road, Warwick, although the allowance was for a family of nine persons and Mrs. Cole was pregnant; and whether it is intended that the wage-stop clause shall be rigidly applied in cases such as this?
    Mr. Brown: I am informed that the question whether the allowance of 48s. should be increased was referred to the Appeals Tribunal whose decision, as the hon. Member is aware, is final.
    Mr. Gallacher: Does that mean that there is a rigid application of the rule not to go above 48s. in any circumstances?
    Mr. Brown: No, Sir. There is no foundation for the suggestion in the last part of the question. The facts are these. A weekly allowance of 48s. was paid to Mr. Cole from 20th December, 1938, to 21st April, 1939. This allowance, which was twice confirmed by the Appeals Tribunal, was not subject to wage-stop adjustment, but in view of wage-stop considerations no winter addition was made. On 21st December a lump sum grant of £2 was made to meet exceptional needs partly arising from Mrs. Cole's pregnancy. The area officer used his good offices whereby free milk was granted for the applicant's wife by the Infants' Welfare Department, as well as free milk and travelling expenses to the hospital for a child who had to undergo an operation. Application for a grant to meet the cost
    654
    of a layette was refused, as this kind of need is also met by the Infants' Welfare Department. When Mrs. Cole was confined the allowance was increased to 62s. 6d. for two weeks from 21st April, which amount is substantially in excess of the applicant's normal wage. Straight assistance is now 49s. 6d., but an allowance of 53s. 6d. is being paid temporarily in order to provide for the special needs arising from the illness of the infant. I have given these facts because I would like the House to understand that the applicant has appealed on 10 occasions to the Appeals Tribunal during the last three years.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: May I ask whether free milk was granted by the Board?
    Mr. Brown: It was granted by the Infants' Welfare Department.
    Mr. Gallacher: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that an applicant in such circumstances is entitled to appeal 10 times and 10 times more?
    Mr. Brown: I am not complaining, but I am saying that he did so.

    DURHAM.
    Mr. W. Joseph Stewartasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the able-bodied unemployed in Durham, numbering 476, are costing the county £26,936 for the year 1939; and whether anything will be done by his Department to take these people over so as to make their maintenance a national and not a local charge?
    Mr. E. Brown: I have given this matter further consideration, but have nothing to add to the reply I gave to a similar question by the hon. Member on 26th April, 1938.
    Mr. Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that £26,000 is a serious matter to an area which is heavily burdened with rates, and can he not see his way to take these people over—they are able-bodied—and make their maintenance a national, and not a local charge?
    Mr. Brown: We have often debated that matter in the House, and I cannot add anything to it now.

    GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.
    Mr. Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Labour whether an arrangement has yet been made by which all firms under Government contracts should get their labour at the local exchanges?
    Mr. E. Brown: My hon. Friend will realise that in view of the wide range of occupations and skill involved, the adoption of his proposal gives rise to a number of practical difficulties, which must be carefully examined before any final conclusion is reached. This examination is proceeding as rapidly as possible, but I am not yet in a position to make any definite statement.
    Mr. Pilkington: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that in the meantime local unemployed are not benefiting to the extent they might from work which is carried out under these contracts?
    Mr. Brown: I realise the fact, and that is why I am making an examination.

    TRACTOR DRIVERS AND AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS.
    Mr. T. Williamsasked the Minister of Labour whether his Department co-operates with the League for Ex-Service-men, in placing tractor-drivers and skilled agricultural labourers?
    Mr. E. Brown: No, Sir.
    Mr. Williams: Has this organisation placed its services at the disposal of any employment agency?
    Mr. Brown: I know nothing about it.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. Liddallasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that 110,000 persons who have retired, and are not seeking work, are included on the unemployed register in order to preserve their pension rights, and that 500,000 persons because of the normal and short interruptions to their jobs are also included in the unemployment figures; and will he, therefore, devise a means of qualifying the published theoretical unemployment figures so that the published unemployment totals may more accurately represent the position?
    Mr. E. Brown: It is a statutory requirement that any person desiring to maintain his health insurance and pension rights on the ground of unemployment can obtain evidence of unemployment under the
    656
    franking arrangements at the Employment Exchange only if he can show that he is in fact available for work. I cannot agree, therefore, with the first statement in the question. As regards the second statement, it is of course clear from the statements issued by my Department that a considerable proportion of the total number unemployed consists of persons who are temporarily stopped from employment or have been unemployed for very short periods. As mentioned in the reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Lyons) on 4th May, I am always ready to consider suggestions for improving the method of presentation of the statistics.
    Mr. Lawson: Is there any evidence that this is the experience of Lincoln? Are people there on the register who are not really unemployed?
    Mr. Brown: I do not understand that it refers to Lincoln. I understood it was a general statement made outside the House at a gathering recently.
    Mr. Liddall: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that this question has been put down with no intention of casting any reflection on people who are unemployed, but in order to get an accurate return of the unemployment figures?
    Mr. Brown: I am aware of that.
    Mr. Liddallasked the Minister of Labour whether he will warn the rearmament authorities that the last published unemployment figures cannot be used as an indication of the available reserve of unemployed labour in case of emergency, in view of the total including, for pension rights, 110,000 persons not seeking work, and 500,000 persons, classed as unemployed, whose employments are only interrupted temporarily and for normal causes?
    Mr. Brown: I do not think these authorities are under any misapprehension with regard to the true position, which, as I have explained, in reply to the previous question put by my hon. Friend, is not precisely as stated by him.
    Mr. Leach: Is there a record of persons who are unemployed and who are not seeking work, and, if so, how many members of the other House are on the list?
    Mr. Paling: Does this mean that the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall) is complaining?

    JUVENILE TRANSFERENCE.
    Mr. Dayasked the Minister of Labour the number of boys and girls who have been transferred to employment other than seasonal work under the Juvenile Transference Scheme for the 12 months ended the last convenient date; and how many of these were returned home during that period on the ground that they were unsuitable for that vacancy?
    Mr. E. Brown: During the 12 months ended 25th March, 1939, 3,941 boys and 4,536 girls were transferred through the Juvenile Transference Scheme to employment of a non-seasonal nature. Information as to the number of these juveniles who returned home for reasons of unsuitability is not available.
    Mr. Day: Have any hostels been erected for juveniles who cannot find lodgings where they have been transferred?
    Mr. Brown: It would take a long time to explain the position, but the whole scheme is set out in the recent report of the Ministry of Labour.
    Mr. Day: Are travelling warrants given to juveniles to enable them to return home when they become unemployed?
    Mr. Brown: That depends entirely on the circumstances.
    Mr. T. Williams: What are the aftercare societies doing to assist boys and girls who have to return?
    Mr. Brown: The question relates to transference. I have a number of statistics but I must answer the question on the Order Paper.

    SOUTH WALES.
    Mr. Mainwaringasked the Minister of Labour why Employment Exchanges in South Wales continue to make offers of work at Corsham, Bath, to unemployed men when, on the basis of the number of acceptances already in hand and the number actually given employment, no such work exists?
    Mr. E. Brown: In order to avoid delay in meeting the anticipated requirements at Corsham, steps are taken in advance to invite applications from persons who appear suitable for the work. The time taken in considering individual particu-
    658
    lars and selecting applicants is unavoidable, but I am not aware that the number of applications obtained is in excess of requirements after taking into account wastage which occurs through persons being unsuccessful in selection or no longer available when required to commence work.
    Mr. Mainwaring: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are people who accepted at the Rhondda exchanges an offer to work at this place before Christmas, 1938, and that the fact that those people have so accepted work is acting as a pronounced deterrent to other people who are considering any such offer, with the consequence that the exchanges use these circumstances—
    Mr. Speaker rose—
    Mr. Mainwaring: May I put it in this way? Is the Minister aware that the only effect of the continuation of this, process is to deprive of their unemployment benefit those who refuse to accept.
    Mr. Brown: No, I cannot accept that.
    Mr. Mainwaring: Will the Minister accept my statement of that fact, that a number of men are so affected, as being the truth?
    Mr. Brown: No, I cannot do that. Only about a fortnight ago we provided the hon. Member with a table from which he should draw different inferences.

    SPECIAL AREAS.
    Mr. Mainwaringasked the Minister of Labour whether it is intended that the newly-appointed Commissioner for Special Areas shall concentrate upon the provision of alternate economic activity in places that have become or are becoming derelict; and can he give some indication as to how he hopes to succeed in this undertaking?
    Mr. E. Brown: The functions of the Commissioner for the Special Areas are laid down in Section 1 (i) of the Special Areas (Development and Improvement) Act, 1934. They are the initiation, organisation, prosecution and assistance of measures designed to facilitate the economic development and social improvement of the Special Areas. I have no authority to instruct him to concentrate on any one of these functions to the exclusion of the others.
    Mr. Mainwaring: Is it not a fact that one of the functions of the Commissioner is to assist in the revival of economic activity in derelict areas? Are we not now entitled to ask whether the newly-appointed Commissioner will begin to do the work that has been so long awaiting him?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Member asks for a Debate on a subject about which the House is very well informed. I can assure him that every effort will be made to carry out the purposes which Parliament meant to be carried out under the Act.
    Mr. Mainwaring: When can we expect the Commissioner to begin his task?

    WOMEN (TRANSFERENCE).
    Sir Joseph Leechasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the shortage of female labour in the West Riding of Yorkshire clothing trade; and whether, in view of the fact that there are 300,000 women and girls on the unemployed registers, he will consult trade union officials associated with the Special Areas with a view to concerting schemes to train unemployed women in those areas, or for their transfer to the employment awaiting them at trade union rates in districts at a distance from their homes?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am aware that there are shortages in the West Riding clothing trade owing to the exhaustion of the local supply of skilled labour. Training for this work is normally best carried out by employers in their own premises, and my Department will be glad to co-operate with employers wishing to engage and train unskilled workers at rates of pay enabling them to live away from home. Some employers have aimed at meeting the difficulty by establishing branches in the areas in which there are large numbers of unemployed women.
    Mr. T. Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman state in which part of the West Riding of Yorkshire there is a shortage of female labour?
    Mr. Brown: If the hon. Member will put a question on a Paper, I will give him particulars.
    Mr. Leonard: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure that no person is transferred to these districts
    660
    unless the job is more than a temporary one?
    Mr. Brown: The issue would not arise. The House will understand that my answer refers to the West Riding clothing trade.

    MEN OF 20 AND 21.
    Mr. Thorneasked the Minister of Labour (1) how many men between the ages of 20 and 21 years are registered at the various Employment Exchanges in the County Borough of West Ham;
    (2) How many men between the ages of 20 and 21 years are registered at the various Employment Exchanges in the City of Birmingham;
    (3) How many men between the ages of 20 and 21 years are registered at the various Employment Exchanges in the Borough of Bournemouth?
    Mr. E. Brown: The only available statistics relate to persons aged 18 and under 21 years, and are as follow:

    West Ham

    …

    …

    515

    Birmingham

    …

    …

    546

    Bournemouth

    …

    …

    65

    NEW FACTORIES, SOUTH WALES.
    Mr. A. Jenkinsasked the Minister of Labour (1) the number of factories erected on the Treforest Trading Estate; the total cost met out of public funds; and the number of persons employed;
    (2) The number of factories erected in South Wales and Monmouthshire by the Special Areas Reconstruction Association apart from the Treforest Trading Estate, the total cost met out of public funds, and the number of persons employed?
    Mr. E. Brown: Inquiries are being made with regard to these questions and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.
    Mr. George Hall: Will the right hon. Gentleman have these figures circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
    Mr. Brown: I shall be glad to do that.

  JOURNALISTS (EMERGENCY SERVICE).
  Mr. Gallacherasked the Minister of Labour whether, in the course of his

  661
  negotiations with the Institute of Journalists with a view to using their members for Government posts of a specialist character in the event of war, he asked the Institute to compile a list of its members available for such a purpose; and whether he has approached the National Union of Journalists with a view to utilising its members for similar work?
  Mr. E. Brown: No request has been made to the Institute of Journalists to compile a list of its members for the purpose mentioned. A committee of the Central Register Advisory Council has, however, been appointed to advise on the position of journalists in relation to the Central Register and both the Institute of Journalists and the National Union of Journalists are represented on this committee. The committee will meet at a very early date.

  HOLIDAYS WITH PAY.
  Mr. Kennedyasked the Minister of Labour whether any statistics are available showing the number of workers provided with paid holidays; the average duration of the holiday; and what proportion of the workers concerned are affected by a provision for the return of the holiday pay to the employer or deductions from future wages?
  Mr. E. Brown: It is estimated that over 9,000,000 workpeople are entitled to annual holidays with pay under collective agreements or other arrangements. The most usual period of the holiday is one week or six days, but in certain cases longer periods up to 14 days are fairly common. I am not aware of any arrangement which provides for the return of the holiday pay to the employer or deductions from future wages, except possibly in coal-mining. In that industry the district agreements cover some 730,000 workers and, in general, provide for the cost of the holiday payments to be taken into account in the ascertainments which determine the share of the surplus applicable to wages.
  Mr. John Morgan: Do those figures include the agricultural workers who have been granted three or four days holidays with pay?
  Mr. Brown: Yes, in so far as they are covered by the agreements.
  Mr. Morgan: There would be about 500,000 of them, I suppose?
  Mr. Brown: I could not give the exact number offhand.
  Mr. Riley: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to how many manual workers are not covered by these agreements?
  Mr. Brown: If the hon. Member will put a question on the Paper, I will give him the best answer I can. He will understand that we can give precise information about those who are covered by the agreements, but it is not quite so precise—and indeed is more in the nature of an estimate—in the case of those who are not covered by the agreements.

  MILITARY TRAINING (UNDERGRADUATES).
  Mr. Arthur Hendersonasked the Minister of Labour whether in view of the approach of the Long Vacation, he can give any indication as to when University undergraduates are to be called upon to undergo their military training?
  Mr. E. Brown: I am not yet in a position to make any statement on this subject beyond saying that owing to the necessary preliminary steps by way of registration and medical inspection it will not be possible to issue calling up notices so as to require Militiamen to attend for military training before the end of June at the earliest.
  Mr. Henderson: Is not the Minister aware that the Long Vacation commences about the middle of June, and that there may be a serious effect upon these undergraduates who make an effort to attend vacation courses?
  Mr. Brown: There is a number of complicated questions in this matter, and I am seeing the Vice-Chancellors of the Universities and all the Members of Parliament representing the Universities on this subject.
  Mr. David Grenfell: Will the Government consider finding some more appropriate name for these people in military service than the term "Militiamen?"

  ANTI-TUBERCULOSIS SERVICES, WALES.
  Mr. Jenkinsasked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to fix the date on which the conference of local authorities of Wales and Monmouthshire is to be held to deal with the report of the Committee on the Anti-Tuberculosis Services in Wales?
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): No, Sir. I am naturally anxious that this conference should take place as soon as possible, but I do not think that it would be expedient for it to be held before the individual local authorities have had full opportunity of considering the issues raised in the report. Meanwhile I am proceeding with interviews and correspondence with individual authorities.
  Mr. Jenkins: Can the Minister indicate at what date he thinks it will be possible to convene this conference, in view of the great urgency of the matter?
  Mr. Elliot: I am not waiting for the conclusion of the conference before taking steps. I am proceeding to do so in advance of the conference. Naturally, I am anxious that the local authorities should have a full opportunity of being able to submit their considered views at the conference when it takes place. I am not in a position to give the date when it will take place.
  Captain Arthur Evansasked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to make any statement as regards action he proposes to take to give effect to the recommendations of the recent Committee of Inquiry into the Anti-Tuberculosis Service in Wales and Mon-mouthshire?
  Mr. Elliot: Yes, Sir. The report drew attention to the high incidence of tuberculosis in Wales and pointed out that the ratio of beds to cases is lower in Wales than in England. It is clearly desirable that all practicable steps should be taken to reduce infection arising from contact with active cases. The first step in this direction must be to reduce the long list of waiting cases which now exists, particularly in South Wales. I am accordingly arranging for the immediate construction in South Wales, under the emergency hospital arrangements, of a new hutted hospital of some 600 beds which
  664
  will be made available in peace time to the Welsh National Memorial Association on favourable terms. The provision on similar terms of some 200 beds in hutments attached to an institution in North Wales is also proposed, and arrangements for Central Wales, possibly in the Shrewsbury area, are under consideration. I hope that this new accommodation will be available for the treatment of tuberculosis within the present year. This would be without prejudice to the plans now under consideration by the Welsh National Memorial Association. In addition, I have, starting from this week, detailed three of my housing inspectors to undertake a careful survey of the rural counties of Wales and to discuss with the local authorities concerned the best methods of solving their housing problems. I am also in conference with the authorities concerned on other aspects of the committee's recommendations.
  Captain Evans: May I ask whether in the next few days my right hon. Friend will take note of the great satisfaction afforded by his prompt and sympathetic action?
  Major Leighton: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how long Shrewsbury has been in Wales?
  Mr. Elliot: I have never for a moment been under the misapprehension that Shrewsbury is in Wales. I was explaining the arrangements for Central Wales which are under consideration, and said that those arrangements might well be made in the Shrewsbury area.
  Mr. Jenkins: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the sites of these hutments in South Wales have been decided upon, and, if so, whether they have been selected in consultation with the Welsh National Memorial Association?
  Mr. Elliot: I am, of course, in close consultation with the Welsh National Memorial Association and also with the medical officers of health of the counties concerned, but the actual sites have not so far been decided upon.
  Mr. James Griffiths: Regarding what the Minister said about surveys of housing conditions in rural areas, is he not aware that what is needed is not another survey, but action?
  Mr. Elliot: I thoroughly agree, and that is why I have said that I am to discuss

  665
  with the local authorities the best means of solving their housing problems, and action is very badly needed indeed.

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (RATING AND VALUATION).
  Mr. Whiteleyasked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the setting up of a committee to examine the present rating system, with a view to a uniform system for the nation being adopted?
  Mr. Elliot: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 4th May by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith), of which I am sending him a copy.
  Mr. Cartland: Would it not be possible to refer to the committee which is already considering the valuation scheme, the larger question with regard to rating?
  Mr. Elliot: I do not think so. The present committee has a very important but limited task, and I do not think we could refer the larger question to it.
  Mr. Whiteley: Does the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the serious situation which is arising owing to the increased burdens placed on local authorities by new legislation, and does he realise that unless something is done soon there will be serious difficulties?
  Mr. Lyons: In view of the burdens now placed on the shoulders of all the small traders, shopkeepers and ratepayers throughout the country because of the burdens on the local authorities, will my right hon. Friend try to expedite the recommendations of that committee?
  Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the Government increased old age pensions, this would have an appreciable effect on the rates in certain areas?
  Mr. R. C. Morrisonasked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the copy of a resolution passed by the Middlesex County Council calling for legislation to secure for local authorities, either directly or through the State, some portion of the enhanced values and/or revenues created in consequence of public enterprise and expenditure; and whether he proposes to take any action?
  Mr. Elliot: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I am not contemplating the introduction of legislation for this purpose.
  Mr. Morrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that when an important county council like the Middlesex County Council, which has an overwhelming Conservative majority, passes a resolution of this sort, it is an indication of the seriousness of the financial position of local authorities?
  Mr. Elliot: I always attach the greatest importance to the resolutions of local authorities, whether they have overwhelming Conservative majorities or not.

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING.
  Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Minister of Health whether it is his intention to introduce legislation to secure more effective town and country planning and to ensure the better preservation of the countryside?
  Mr. Elliot: Certain proposals for amending legislation are in hand, including suggestions made in the recent report of my Town and Country Planning Advisory Committee.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider hastening this legislation as the present legislation is wholly inadequate either for rural planning or the preservation of the countryside?
  Mr. H. Strauss: Is it not urgently necessary that there should be some right of appeal against a decision of an interim development authority granting permission to build, and will not my right hon. Friend consider introducing a short Bill with this object before further national assets have been irretrievably ruined?
  Mr. Elliot: There is a Royal Commission sitting on that matter, and it would be discourteous for me to express an opinion in advance of its report. Furthermore, owing to the congested state of legislation before the House, questions of additional legislation should not be put to me but to the responsible authority.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Does my right hon. Friend realise the very strong anxiety which is felt all over the country

  667
  at the gradual ruining of natural beauty and the destruction of all our hopes of a national park?
  Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Health to what authority members of the public or a preservation society should appeal against action by a local town planning authority that will lead to the spoliation of a place of great natural beauty?
  Mr. Elliot: Where a planning scheme is operative the scheme specifies in what circumstances and to what authority an appeal as suggested may be made. Where a planning scheme is being prepared but is not operative, the decision rests with the local authority in whose areas the development is proposed, and although third parties may inform the local authority of their views, they have no legal right of appeal. Where no resolution to prepare a scheme has been passed, there is no authority to whom any appeal of the kind suggested can be made.
  Mr. Bossom: Is it not essential that there should be some appeal if anything worth while is to be the outcome of efforts to preserve the countryside?
  Mr. Elliot: The question of appeal means to some extent the overriding of the local authority by the central authority, and while that may be very desirable it is not a step which can be lightly undertaken.
  Mr. Lyons: Does not my right hon. Friend think, in view of the time which has elapsed since the Act of 1932 came into force, that the procedure under the Act is unsatisfactory and calls for some immediate alteration?
  Mr. Elliot: As I said in reply to another question, there is a Royal Commission sitting upon this subject, and it is no doubt about to report at an early date.

  HOUSING AND SLUM CLEARANCE.
  Mr. Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Health how many houses have now been built, or are in course of building, to replace slum-dwellings and to relieve overcrowding, respectively; and how many more it is estimated are needed in each case?
  Mr. Elliot: The numbers of dwellings completed at 31st March last to replace slum dwellings and for the abatement of overcrowding were 273,255 and 23,915 respectively. At that date about 51,000 dwellings were under construction under the Housing Acts, most of which will be allocated to the above purposes. No exact estimate of the number of further houses required is possible at the moment, but it is probably about 250,000 to 300,000.
  Mr. Pilkington: When does my right hon. Friend hope that this extra number will be completed?
  Mr. Elliot: I cannot say without notice.
  Mr. Dayasked the Minister of Health the number of houses built by private enterprise with State assistance for letting and/or sale for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date; and the number of houses at present in the course of construction?
  Mr. Elliot: During the 12 months ended 31st March, 1939, the latest date for which figures are available, 4,196 houses were built by private enterprise with State assistance. The number of such houses under construction at that date was 2,253. It may be assumed that all the above-mentioned houses have been, or are being, built for letting.
  Mr. Day: Has the Minister any statistics of the number of these houses which are occupied by the owners or the persons who built them?
  Mr. Elliot: Nearly all these houses are for letting and not for the owners.

  ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (ADMINISTRATION).
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the resolution passed by the Leyton Borough Council and addressed to him, deprecating the attempt to curtail the social services of the Essex County Council, detailing the cause of the increase of the county rate, and proposing means by which the burden of high rates could be alleviated; whether he proposes to take any action to adopt the proposals of the Leyton Council to repeal the De-rating Acts, to rate site values and empty properties, to secure increased block grants and

  669
  to make air-raid precautions entirely a national charge; and whether he is aware of the increasing expenditure in Essex due to the need of supplementing old age pensions?
  Mr. Elliot: The resolution has been brought to my notice. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do anything to relieve the undoubted burdens of the ratepayers of Essex by transferring some of those burdens to the national Government? Is he not aware that there is a mischievous attempt being made in Leyton through the activities of the Leyton and Essex Ratepayers' Association to cut down the social services, and in view of that will he take some steps towards relieving the burdens of the ratepayers?
  Mr. Elliot: It is inadvisable for me to interfere between the ratepayers and that particular authority.

  PROPOSED STEEL WORKS, EDALE.
  Mr. Lipsonasked the Minister of Health what body is the town planning authority for the Edale district of the county of Derby; whether it has submitted and had approved a town planning scheme for the area, and, also whether the proposal to grant Messrs. Brown Bayley's Steel Works, Limited, permission to erect works there is in accordance with that scheme?
  Mr. Elliot: The planning authority for the Edale district is the Chapel-en-le-Frith Rural District Council, acting as interim development authority pending the completion and approval of a planning scheme for the district. Such a scheme is, I understand, being prepared by the Peak Joint Planning Committee on which the Chapel-en-le-Frith Rural District Council is represented. This scheme has not yet been submitted for my approval.
  Mr. Lipson: Do not incidents such as this, following upon other attempts at vandalism, some successful and others unsuccessful, suggest that my right hon. Friend ought to take powers to appoint an authority which will be able to recommend sites suitable for industrial purposes and sites which ought not to be used for that purpose because it would destroy the amenities of the countryside?
  Mr. Elliot: That question goes far beyond the question on the Paper.
  Mr. Marshallasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in connection with the proposal to build a steel works at Edale, the Government are offering a substantial subsidy to the firm in question; and will he, in view of the widespread protests against this threatened destruction of natural beauty, ensure that public money is not used to make it possible?
  Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that a site which forms the core of the High Peak district has been provisionally chosen for the erection of a steel works, in spite of the fact that it has been scheduled as an evacuation area for children; and whether he will intervene to ensure the choice of a more suitable district for this industrial development?
  Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that Edale, in the Peak district, where a Sheffield steel manufacturer proposes to build works for making steel for aeroplanes is a reception area; and what action he proposes to take to prevent the erection in such an area of a munitions factory inviting attack?
  Mr. Elliot: As was indicated in the reply given yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air, our information is that the Interim Development Authority have agreed in principle to the proposed development at Edale. But he is proposing to see representatives of the firm forthwith, and, in consultation with myself, to consider whether further action is practicable with a view to the firm's securing an alternative site.
  Mr. Marshall: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether State money is being offered towards the building of this factory?
  Mr. Elliot: That question had better be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air.
  Mr. Bossom: Does not my right hon. Friend think it is essential at this time that all town planning authorities should be instructed to respect the information given out by the Lord Privy Seal as regards evacuation?
  Mr. Burke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to a statement in the Press this morning, the site has been taken over and building has already begun?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: As this question of whether there is a public subsidy is a matter of vital importance, will the Minister himself ask the Secretary of State for Air whether there is a subsidy before he sees the firm?
  Mr. Elliot: Certainly, but the Secretary of State and myself will see the firm together. It is not my impression that there is any subsidy of the kind.
  Sir John Haslam: Will the right hon. Gentleman point out that there are areas in Lancashire which would welcome these works just as much as Edale does not want them, and that Lancashire is the original home of steel-making?
  Mr. Marshall: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer and of the urgency of the matter, I give notice that I will raise this question on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.
  Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Health whether Edale, in the heart of the Peak district, is already completely protected by the Town and Country Planning Act, or is under an interim development order, or is not subject to any town planning protection whatsoever?
  Mr. Elliot: The Edale area is under interim development control. A resolution to prepare a planning scheme for an area including Edale has been adopted by a joint committee of the various bodies concerned, but the scheme is not yet completed.
  Mr. Bossom: Can my right hon. Friend say whether more than 1 per cent. of the entire country is now completely controlled by the Town and Country Planning Act?
  Mr. Elliot: I could not answer such a question without notice.

  NUTRITION.
  Mr. Bellengerasked the Minister of Health whether, in collaboration with the Minister of Agriculture, he is giving consideration to the terms of the resolution which has been sent to him, unanimously carried at the conference on the wider
  672
  aspects of nutrition recently convened by the British Medical Association, which urged upon the Government the formulation of a long-term food policy, in which the requirements of health, agriculture and industry, should be considered in mutual relation; and whether he is taking any steps to implement the suggestion contained in the resolution that an educational campaign should be launched, to encourage the increased consumption of foodstuffs held to be desirable on nutritional grounds?
  Mr. Elliot: The resolution has not yet been submitted to me, though I am aware of its terms and shall, of course, give careful consideration, in consultation with such of my right hon. Friends as are concerned with the matter in its various aspects, to any representations which may be made to me by the British Medical Association in support of it.
  Mr. Bellenger: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the terms of the resolution, has he no concrete proposals for implementing them?
  Mr. Elliot: I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not pronounce upon a resolution, even if he were aware of its terms, until it had been formally submitted.

  MERCANTILE MARINE (CREWS' ACCOMMODATION).
  Mr. Benjamin Smithasked the Minister of Health whether he has seen the information given by the medical officer of health for the port of Manchester, in his report for the year 1937, regarding a statutory notice served on the owners of a vessel in respect of food-lockers, forecastle floor, stove pipe, port lights, and water tank, and that the vessel has not been inspected since the notice was served; when, and in what circumstances, the notice was served; and what steps were taken in Manchester or elsewhere to see that it was complied with?
  Mr. Elliot: I am making inquiries from the port health authority, and will communicate with the hon. Member.
  Mr. Smithasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that some port medical officers of health include in their published annual reports particulars of the informal and statutory notices served in respect of nuisances and defects

  673
  in crews' quarters, together with particulars of the notices complied with, while others do not; and whether he will give the complete figures for all ports as supplied to him by these officers?
  Mr. Elliot: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, port medical officers of health are not at present required to give this information in their annual reports, and I am considering, in the light of the representations which he has made to me, whether or not it should be required in future. I am sending the hon. Member some information relating to his questions of 4th May which have a bearing on the present question.
  Mr. Smith: Will the Minister undertake to let me know the action he takes?
  Mr. Elliot: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Smithasked the Minister of Health whether he has noted the statement of the medical officer of the Weymouth port health authority in his report for 1937 that out of 141 informal notices served in respect of nuisances in crews' quarters 67 had been complied with and that 103 of the nuisances dealt with in previous annual reports had been found to have been satisfactorily abated, at visits to the port of the ships concerned during the year; whether the 67 outstanding notices have since been complied with; and whether there are still any nuisances that have not been abated?
  Mr. Elliot: I am making inquiries from the port health authority and will communicate with the hon. Member.

  CIVIL DEFENCE (EVACUATION).
  Mr. Henry Brookeasked the Minister of Health whether he will take early steps to secure adequate publicity for the Government's wishes in the matter of elderly persons and invalids who, acting on instructions in the air-raid precautions handbook on "The Protection of Your Home against Air Raids," may have made personal arrangements for evacuation in case of emergency; and are now, in some cases, uncertain whether it is their duty to preserve these arrangements or to modify or cancel them in the interests of the priority classes of evacuees?
  Mr. Elliot: Yes, Sir. An opportunity for a full statement of the Government's wishes in regard to evacuation will arise when Part VIII of the Civil Defence Bill is considered in Committee. It is already generally known that the Government's plans for evacuation provide for certain priority classes. The allocations under these plans which have been made to local authorities have made allowance for private arrangements which have already been made. I hope that there will be no necessity to interfere with such arrangements made by elderly persons and invalids.
  Mr. Brooke: Arising out of the answer, for which many people will be grateful, does my right hon. Friend anticipate being able to give some guidance as to the case of invalids other than blind persons in the priority class who, for some reason, are not at present able to make personal arrangements for evacuation?
  Mr. Elliot: I hope to be able to give general guidance.
  Mr. R. C. Morrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind when making this statement that local authorities are installing thousands of garden shelters in houses occupied by old age pensioners, and that if these pensioners are to be evacuated and their cottages left empty it will cause unnecessary expense?
  Mr. Elliot: No one will try to evacuate these persons against their will.

  MENTAL DEFIENCY.
  Mrs. Tateasked the Minister of Health the number of persons certified insane in the year 1938; and whether this is an increase over the years 1937, 1936 and 1935?
  Mr. Elliot: The number of persons certified insane in 1938 was 17,276. This is lower than the number certified in 1937, 1936, or 1935.
  Mr. Leonard: Do the figures include Scotland?
  Mr. Elliot: No, Sir.
  Mrs. Tateasked the Minister of Health the number of institutions and number of persons directly or indirectly under the Board of Control?
  Mr. Elliot: The number of institutions under the Lunacy and Mental Treatment Acts, 1890 to 1930, and under the Mental Deficiency Acts, 1913 to 1938, is 182 and 288 respectively. The number of persons notified as under care under these Acts on 1st January, 1939, was 157,584 and 89,904 respectively; of these 153,749 and 46,054 were in institutions. The Board of Control are directly responsible for the State Institution for Mental Defectives, which contains 1,475 patients.
  Mrs. Tate: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these thousands of people and 2,000 institutions are never under discussion in this House unless the appropriate Vote in the Ministry of Health Estimates is asked for, and that the matter is very seldom discussed; and does he think that a satisfactory state of affairs?
  Mr. Elliot: I am afraid that the subjects which are raised on the Estimates are not in my discretion.

  DENBIGH COUNTY COUNCIL (OFFICES).
  Captain Alan Grahamasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the intention of the Denbigh County Council shortly to erect new county offices in Ruthin at a cost of £80,000 to the local ratepayers; and whether, in view of the unprecented burden of rates and taxes at present being borne in the national interest, he will either refuse to authorise such expenditure or order its postponement?
  Mr. Elliot: Yes, Sir. The necessity for the offices has been established, on grounds of the inadequacy and unhealthy conditions of the existing offices, after public local inquiry. I issued my formal consent to the necessary borrowing last month.
  Captain Graham: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the council have already been offered the buildings of the old gaol?

  NATIONAL PARKS COMMITTEE (REPORT).
  Mr. Manderasked the Minister of Health whether he can now state the policy of the Government towards the report of the National Parks Committee, 1931?
  Mr. Elliot: The Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, which was passed after the publication of the report of the committee to which the hon. Member refers enables many of the objects aimed at by the committee to be secured under planning powers, and in dealing with planning schemes this purpose has been constantly in mind.
  Mr. Mander: In view of what has been happening in Edale, does not the Minister realise that definite action ought to be taken upon this report, and is not eight years long enough even for this Government to make up its mind?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not true that the Act of 1932 has totally failed to ensure the preservation of national parks, and will the Minister not take into consideration the practical and modest proposals of the report of 1931?
  Mr. Elliot: I do not agree that the Act has totally failed, because special attention has been paid to it in schemes such as that affecting the Lake District and various parts of the South Downs.
  Mr. Mander: Have the Government decided not to accept either of the two proposals put forward by the National Parks Committee?
  Mr. Elliot: No, Sir, the hon. Member would be wrong in that assumption.
  Mr. Mander: Then is it that they cannot make up their minds?

  AGRICULTURAL DERATING ACT (PUMPING PLANT).
  Sir Ernest Sheppersonasked the Minister of Health whether he will introduce legislation to ensure that an internal district drainage pumping plant used solely for the drainage of agricultural land comes within the Agricultural Derating Act?
  Mr. Elliot: I am afraid that I cannot undertake to introduce legislation for this purpose.
  Sir E. Shepperson: Is not the Minister aware that it is only in the past year that local authorities have made demands for rates on these pumping plants, and that those demands will be detrimental to the success of the land drainage schemes?
  Mr. Elliot: I am afraid that I could not undertake to introduce further legislation at the present time.
  Mr. De la Bère: Will not the Minister do something to help the agricultural community?

  SIR DONALD BANKS.
  Mr. Lyonsasked the Prime Minister the reasons for the transfer of Sir Donald Banks from the Air Ministry to the Import Duties Advisory Committee; whether he has yet returned from his mission in Australia, when he was notified of the transfer; and whether his services will still be available for co-operation with the Air Ministry?
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): These posts are filled by the selection of the most suitable persons, for which reason Sir Donald Banks has been appointed. He was informed of the Government's intention before leaving this country; and on his return from his present mission he will assume the duties of his new office which do not include the type of service suggested in the last part of the question.
  Mr. Lyons: Did Sir Donald Banks himself ever apply for this transfer?
  Sir J. Simon: I could not say.
  Mr. Perkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very valuable services rendered to civil aviation by Sir Donald Banks, and does he not think there ought to be some recognition of them.

  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.
  Mr. Lyonsasked the Prime Minister whether he will give the date from which the Ministry of Supply will commence to operate?
  Sir J. Simon: The date in question depends on various factors, including the preparation and passing of the necessary legislation. I cannot, in the circumstances, pledge the Government to any specific date, but my hon. and learned Friend may be satisfied that there will be no avoidable delay.
  Mr. Lyons: Is the work which would normally fall to the officers of the Ministry of Supply being suspended at present?
  Sir J. Simon: I should require notice of that question.
  Mr. Shinwell: Why is so much haste shown about the men and so little about the material?
  Mr. A. Edwardsasked the Prime Minister whether, in drafting the Bill to set up a Ministry of Supply, he will consider giving that Department powers to purchase supplies of raw materials and store them in Dominions so as to ensure adequate supplies for our defensive measures and prevent the building up of potential enemy forces?
  Sir J. Simon: The point raised by the hon. Member will be duly considered.
  Mr. Edwards: If the Government do not take some steps to get these materials and to accumulate them, more farseeing Governments will accumulate them and return them to this country in the form of bombs.

  PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT (EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN).
  Mr. Denmanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the increase in undesirable employment of children for purposes of public entertainment; and whether he will have an inquiry made with a view to stopping it?
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): I have received certain representations about the employment of children in entertainments, and I propose to ask the Local Authorities Advisory Committee on the Children and Young Persons Act to consider the question.

  FILMS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
  Mr. Manderasked the Home Secretary when the report of his Advisory Committee on the question of non-inflammable sub-standard films was received; what decision has been arrived at; and whether it is intended to publish the report?
  Sir S. Hoare: I have just received the report and as soon as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have been able to examine it, there will be no delay in considering the question of publication.
  Mr. Mander: If I put a question down in about a fortnight's time, will it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to give the decision?
  Sir S. Hoare: I could not say, but the hon. Member might put his question down, and then we can see.
  Mr. Day: Will the Minister consider introducing legislation to carry out the recommendations of the report?
  Mr. Lyonsasked the Home Secretary how many meetings have taken place of the Films Advisory Committee?
  Sir S. Hoare: The committee have held six meetings.
  Mr. Lyons: Can my right hon. Friend say when he expects to receive any of the committee's recommendations?
  Sir S. Hoare: I think I have already received a recommendation about the matter raised in the question of another hon. Member I have just answered.

  SPECIAL CONSTABLES (MEDALS).
  Mr. De la Béreasked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the issue of a new medal to those members of the special constabulary who have completed, or who are completing, their second period of 10 years' service in the force, as the special constables concerned feel that a bar to the original medal, issued in a previous reign, is not appropriate?
  Sir S. Hoare: It would be contrary to practice to award a second medal in such circumstances.
  Mr. De la Bére: Does my right hon. Friend realise the very important work that these special constables have done and the very valuable services that they have rendered, and would it not be a great encouragement to them if their services were recognised in the way suggested?
  Sir S. Hoare: I certainly recognise the great value of the services done, but I do not understand that there is any feeling of discontent in regard to this matter. The question of medals must have some relation to the practice in the fighting services. At present I understand that the position is not unsatisfactory.
  Major Colfox: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that even 10 years of these valuable services warrant the grant of one medal as compared with what is involved in earning a war medal?

  METROPOLITAN POLICE (MOTOR PATROL DUTIES).
  Mr. Dayasked the Home Secretary whether he can give particulars of the number of police officers employed daily in enforcing driving laws against motorists in the Metropolitan area for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date; and the cost of same charged upon public funds?
  Sir S. Hoare: Approximately 650 members of the Metropolitan Police Force are employed on motor patrol duties, at a cost of about £200,000 a year.
  Mr. Day: Are all these officers employed on the particular duty mentioned in the question?
  Sir S. Hoare: Yes, I think so.

  CONSTITUENCIES (ELECTORATES).
  Mr. Keelingasked the Home Secretary the estimated average number of electors, excluding universities, per Member of Parliament in Great Britain; and in how many constituencies does the number of electors per Member exceed or fall short of this average by 25 per cent. or more?
  Sir S. Hoare: Excluding university constituencies, the estimated average number of electors per Member of Parliament in Great Britain is 52,817. In 186, out of a total of 509 constituencies in England and Wales (excluding universities) the number of electors per Member exceeds or falls short of this average by 25 per cent. or more. As regards Scotland, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is not in possession or figures (actual or estimated) for individual constituencies.

  CHIEF INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES (REPORT).
  Mr. Ridleyasked the Home Secretary at what date it is intended to publish the report of the Chief Inspector of Factories?
  Sir S. Hoare: I am anxious that there shall be no avoidable delay in the publication of this report, but the pressure on the Department of work of great urgency is such that I am not in a position at present to give an undertaking as to the date.
  Mr. Ridley: Will every effort be made to publish the report before the Debate upon the Home Office Vote?
  Sir S. Hoare: Yes, Sir, certainly. We will make every effort, but I cannot give a definite date.

  ALIEN (CONVICTION).
  Mr. David Adamsasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that I. David Ketter, a Jewish barrister-at-law and native of Palestine, was on 15th December, 1938, sentenced to 10 days' imprisonment and deportation; that he unsuccessfully appealed against this judgment, and was returned to prison to complete the remainder of his sentence and is still detained in Brixton prison; why this man is still under detention; and what decision, if any, has been taken regarding him?
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is aware of the facts concerning Isaac David Ketter. After his application to the Court of Criminal Appeal for leave to appeal against his conviction was dismissed, a further delay in carrying out his deportation was caused by an application whch he made for permission to take his case to the House of Lords, and at a later date by the necessity for consulting another Department on a question raised by a sympathiser. These matters having now been disposed of, the Deportation Order which has been made against him will now be enforced, and the police have made arrangements for him to sail for Palestine on Saturday, 13th May.
  Mr. Adams: Is it not a fact that this man has been forgotten in Brixton Prison, and that the authorities have been acting in the belief that he was detained there pending appeal?
  Mr. Peake: No, Sir. That is not so. My right hon. Friend has power under the Aliens Order to detain aliens recommended for deportation. This man has
  682
  not been overlooked. The delay is entirely due to the efforts which he himself has been making to avoid deportation.
  Mr. Adams: Is it not a fact that this man has been illegally detained in prison for five months after his original sentence of 10 days' imprisonment?

  SILICOSIS.
  Mr. J. Griffithsasked the Home Secretary when he proposes to issue the new regulations, under the various industries silicosis schemes, extending the period within which certification can take place to five years; and from what date the new regulation will operate?
  Mr. Peake: My Department is still in communication with the General Council of the Trades Union Congress on the draft scheme, but my right hon. Friend hopes to be in a position to make a decision very shortly. It is proposed that the scheme should come into force on the date on which it is made; my right hon. Friend is advised that he cannot make it apply retrospectively.
  Mr. Griffiths: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the failure to make this Order retrospective will cause very real hardship in a number of cases; and will he still give consideration to the desirability of making the Order retrospective?
  Mr. Peake: We are advised at present that we have no statutory authority to make a scheme of a retrospective nature. This is a very complicated subject, and perhaps the hon. Member would take the opportunity of having a word about it with me.

  ROAD TRAFFIC ACTS (OFFENCES, BIRMINGHAM).
  Mr. Pooleasked the Home Secretary how many offences under the Road Traffic Acts were heard in the Birmingham, Victoria, Law Courts on 3rd May, 1939; how many of these were heard before lay magistrates; and how many were heard before the stipendiary magistrate?
  Sir S. Hoare: I am informed that there were 60 cases of the kind referred to, of which five were heard by the stipendiary magistrate and 55 by the lay magistrates.
  Mr. Poole: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any explanation of

  683
  the discrimination which has been shown between these cases, by taking five out of 60 before the stipendiary magistrate and 55 before the lay magistrates?
  Sir S. Hoare: I have no responsibility in the matter at all.
  Mr. Fleming: Is it not the practice in our courts that cases in which points of law crop up are reserved for the stipendiary magistrate, and ordinary questions of fact for lay magistrates?
  Mr. Poole: Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries as to why discrimination was shown in the five cases selected to go before the stipendiary magistrate?
  Sir S. Hoare: I should hesitate to make further inquiries on a matter in which I have no responsibility. It is a matter for local arrangement, and I have no reason to suppose that there is any discontent.

  NAZI ORGANISATIONS, GREAT BRITAIN.
  Mr. Manderasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the work carried on, on behalf of the Nazi Organisations of the German Labour Front in London by Johanna Wolf, recently expelled, has now been undertaken by Giinther Schallies, at the same address, 28, Cleveland Terrace; and whether he will consider putting an end to the work of this organisation altogether?
  Sir S. Hoare: If the hon. Member will refer to the list of names circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT with my reply to him on the 4th instant, he will observe that this man's name is there included.
  Mr. Mander: Has this organisation now been completely closed down?
  Sir S. Hoare: I could not say without notice.
  Mr. Petherick: Will the Home Secretary, in exchange for allowing facilities for these people to remain here, make arrangements with the German Government that representatives of the Opposition Liberals should be allowed to take up residence in Berlin?

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  Mr. T. Smithasked the Home Secretary whether he can now say if the Royal Commission on Workmen's Compensation propose to issue an interim report; and, if not, whether he will reconsider the possibility of early legislation to deal with urgent matters, such as the amount of compensation payable?
  Sir S. Hoare: The question of issuing an interim report is, as the hon. Member will be aware, a matter for the Commission. I have made inquiry of the Commission, and I understand that they regard their primary duty to be the examination of the working of the existing system and the consideration thereafter of the question whether that system should be maintained with modifications, or whether some quite different system should be instituted. Until the Commission have reached a conclusion on this fundamental question of principle, they feel that they cannot well attempt to formulate definitive recommendations on any particular part of the subject. In view of the volume of evidence to be heard, and of the complexity of the issues to be discussed, it is inevitable that this preliminary work will take some time. As regards the latter part of the question, I am unable to depart from the view previously taken that it would not be wise, while these inquiries are being made, to attempt to formulate legislation dealing with any of the larger issues.
  Mr. Smith: Does not that reply indicate that the Royal Commission have decided not to issue an interim report; and is it not a fact that, when the Royal Commission was set up, the Prime Minister left the impression that there was no reason why an interim report should not be issued and the inquiry proceed with regard to the wider changes in compensation law?
  Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir. The position has been made perfectly clear time after time. While the Commission was sitting, it was impossible to deal with the larger issues, and I have repeated that statement in my answer to-day.
  Sir Arnold Wilson: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the Trades Union Congress evidence is not yet ready?
  Mr. J. Griffiths: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that a debate on the

  685
  need for an immediate increase in workmen's compensation took place a short time ago in this House, on a Motion which was only defeated by one vote; and that shortly afterwards the Prime Minister said, in reply to a question, that he would consult with the Royal Commission on the possibility of issuing an interim report on this question?
  Sir S. Hoare: Yes, Sir, and I have given my answer after consultation with the Commission. The position is exactly as we have always stated, namely, that we could not deal with the larger issues until we got the report. As to these smaller issues, the position is as the Prime Minister stated.

  FIRE BRIGADES ACT, 1938.
  Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyteasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the burden thrown on the ratepayers in rural areas by the Fire Brigades Act, 1938; whether he can give an estimate of the increased rate per £ which will be caused by this Act in such areas; and whether he will consider giving a substantial grant to rural district councils to alleviate this burden?
  Mr. Peake: As regards the first and second parts of this question, my right hon. Friend has received a number of resolutions from rural district councils, but he is not in a position to give an estimate of the increased rate per £ in which individual rural district councils, as the responsible fire authorities, may be involved in improving their local fire services under the Fire Brigades Act. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given to a similar question by the hon. Member for the Sedgefield Division of Durham (Mr. Leslie) on 25th April last.
  Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Was not the previous reply to which my hon. Friend refers to the effect that no help would be given; and, in view of the great expense caused to local authorities, especially the poorer authorities, will he not reconsider the matter?
  Mr. Peake: That certainly was the effect of the answer, and the reason for it was of course that this matter was discussed on the Fire Brigades Bill last year
  686
  and the Exchequer is at present bearing the whole cost of the special emergency services in case of war.
  Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: This is not a question of emergency services, but of the ordinary services, and, in view of the hardship caused, will not my hon. Friend or the Home Secretary reconsider it?
  Mr. Levy: Is it not the case that in a number of these rural areas there is not a water supply that will enable the fire brigade to work?
  Captain Heilgers: Has not the Fire Brigades Act thrown on the ratepayers a greater burden than was anticipated at the time the Act was passed?

  ANGLO-RUMANIAN TRADE PROTOCOL.
  Mr. A. Henderson(by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now make a statement on the recent trade negotiations with the Rumanian Government?
  The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The discussions which have been taking place between the Royal Rumanian Government and the British Commercial Mission have been successfully concluded, and a Protocol has been signed to-day by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for National Economy on behalf of the Royal Rumanian Government and by His Britannic Majesty's Minister at Bucharest and Sir F. Leith-Ross on behalf of the Government of the United Kingdom. The Protocol provides for a number of measures to be taken for the promotion of trade between the two countries, primarily through the normal commercial channel. It envisages the formation of a Trading Organisation to promote Anglo-Rumanian trade. It outlines various amendments in the present Payments Agreement for the same purpose. It also provides for guarantee facilities to the amount of £5,000,000 to be made available to the Royal Rumanian Government for the purchase of United Kingdom goods. His Majesty's Government will purchase for Government stocks 200,000 tons of Rumanian wheat from the next harvest, if available at world prices. The text

  687
  will be published in both countries tomorrow. The formal instruments necessary to give effect to these arrangements will be drawn up in London and a Rumanian delegation will leave for London as soon as possible.
  Mr. Henderson: Will the £5,000,000 credit enable the Rumanian Government to exercise their discretion as to the kind of goods they purchase; and will that include the right to purchase armaments?
  Mr. Stanley
  Mr. Radford: Will arrangements be made for British shipping to carry the wheat and other goods from Rumania?
  Mr. Stanley: The wheat will be purchased on British Government account, and therefore the arrangements with regard to shipping will remain in the hands of the British Government.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Will the credit to Rumania be a Treasury credit, or under the Export Credits Act?
  Mr. Stanley: It will be under the export credits guarantee.
  Mr. Bellenger: What will be the nature of the Trading Organisation that will carry out certain operations? Will it be under Government control, or will it be a private institution?
  Mr. Stanley: The actual details are not yet fixed, but certainly it will be closely linked with the Government.
  Mr. Petherick: Will the agreement be published as usual in the form of a White Paper?
  Mr. Stanley: The Protocol will be published to-morrow as a Command Paper, and will be in the hands of hon. Members by to-morrow night.
  Mr. Riley: Will negotiations be entered into with the Bulgarian Government also?
  Mr. Stanley: That is rather a different question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the business for next week?
Sir J. Simon: The business for next week will be as follows:
688
Monday and Tuesday—Committee stage of the Military Training Bill (4th and 5th Allotted Days).
Wednesday—Committee stage of the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Bill until 7.30 p.m.; and, after 7.30 p.m., Committee stage of the Civil Defence Bill.
Thursday—Report and Third Reading of the Military Training Bill, and of the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Bill.
The Government Business to be taken on Friday will be announced later.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders may be taken.
Mr. Attlee: May I ask whether the Prime Minister has considered the position with regard to the pay and allowances under the Military Training Bill? The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that I asked that an opportunity should be given to the House to express its opinion on the pay, allowances and other conditions of Militiamen, which cannot be done on the Bill.
Sir J. Simon: Yes, Sir; I know that the Prime Minister has considered it. Of course the right hon. Gentleman and the House will have in mind that the earliest batch of these Militiamen do not come into any service until July, but none the less it is desirable to bring the Supplementary Estimate forward as soon as possible, and it will be presented at the earliest possible moment, so that an early opportunity will thus be given for discussion.
Mr. Attlee: My point is, whether we can have an opportunity before parting with this Bill? The right hon. Gentleman realises that this is quite an unprecedented proposal, by which people are going to be ordered to undertake certain work, and this House has nothing to say with regard to their pay. Would it not be possible to have a Motion on the Paper for 7.30 on Wednesday, under which this matter could be discussed?
Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: Do the Government not consider it most important to get the Civil Defence Bill through as soon as possible? I am in entire agreement with hon. Gentlemen opposite as to the desirability of discussing the pay and allowances of Militiamen, but there is no particular hurry about that. The House will have a full opportunity, as I understand it, of discussing the pay and allow-

689
ances before the men are actually called up.
Sir J. Simon: What was said by my hon. Friend behind me was certainly the impression that I had gathered, namely, that the Civil Defence Bill is regarded in all quarters of the House as a matter of very great urgency. I have no doubt that that is the reason that it was put down for Wednesday after 7.30. If it were possible to arrange for a Supplementary Estimate to be taken in the ordinary way there would be no very great difficulty, but that would mean postponing the discussion on the Civil Defence Bill.
Mr. Attlee: I think we all realise the importance of the Civil Defence Bill. In fact, the suggestion has been made with regard to the Military Training Bill that it would be much better to get on with the Civil Defence Bill. But before we part with the Military Training Bill, we should know the conditions under which these men will be trained.
Mr. R. C. Morrison: The Government are treating the Civil Defence Bill in a most unsatisfactory way. We have had two hours this week. Now it is proposed to allow two hours next week. Would it not be better that the House should have a day in which to get on with this Bill of over 70 Clauses in a serious way?
Sir J. Simon: We are allowing more than two hours. I dare say that others would agree that it would be better to do the thing more completely—I do not complain of that. But I think the feeling of the House is that we want to make progress as far and as fast as we can with the Civil Defence Bill. The proposal to take up time allotted to that Measure would be running counter to that desire. With regard to the pay and allowances of these men, we must remember that there can be no question of that matter arising until July, and there is no reason why the discussion of the Supplementary Estimate which will be necessary should take place on the Military Training Bill, with which it is not directly connected.
Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that this is the first time the Government have taken power to force people to work and give service? Therefore, is it not essential that the House should know how people are to be paid before giving the Government this power?
Sir J. Simon: Provision for the pay of anybody in His Majesty's service is ordinarily made by the presentation of Estimates to the House. If the House passes the Bill it will be necessary to have a Supplementary Estimate.
Mr. Mander: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that it is impossible to form a true judgment as to the merits of this Bill until it is known what the conditions of pay are to be? I am sure the House would be quite willing to sit on Saturday in order to deal with a matter of this importance.
Sir J. Simon: I can only say that I really do not think that the Civil Defence Bill can be postponed. I think the House as a whole will realise that this is the proper way.
Mr. Attlee: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that we feel very strongly that this raises a constitutional question? Unless we get time for this, we shall have to put down a Motion on the Paper and ask for time for discussion.
Mr. Lunn: Will the Government withdraw the Military Training Bill, in order that we may proceed with the Civil Defence Bill?
Mr. Gallacher: Is not the difficulty a difference between 3s. and 4s. a day? Is Friday, being our last day, to count as a full allotted day, or shall we work late on Friday night?
Sir J. Simon: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the provisions for dealing with the Military Training Bill, he will find in the terms of the Motion that was passed yesterday what is done about Friday.
Mr. Gallacher: Is it 3s. or 4s.
Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the real point at issue lies in the fact that the Government have made a difference between the conditions of these soldiers and other soldiers, and that, therefore, it is a matter for discussion on the Military Training Bill?
Mr. Silverman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as recently as yesterday afternoon, the Prime Minister, in reply to a question of mine, said that the method whereby this matter could be discussed before parting with the Bill was still under consideration? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that consideration ended in the discovery of any method of doing that, seeing that the

691
Prime Minister appeared yesterday and the day before, in answer to questions of mine, to agree that it was possible to deal with these matters before passing the Bill?
Sir J. Simon: I do not think the Prime Minister said that. The hon. Member is quite right when he reminds me that the Prime Minister said that the matter was being considered. It has been considered. It is quite clear that the proper way to deal with this is by a Supplementary Estimate. The only remaining difficulty is when we are to take it. The Supplementary Estimate is being prepared, and will be presented as soon as possible. There is no desire to postpone it, but it is necessary for us to get the Bill.
Mr. Mander: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is another question which is considered by many Members to be just as important as the Military Training Bill, that is, the Conscription of Wealth Bill?

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolution reported from the Select Committee:
"That, in the case of the Air Ministry (Heston and Kenley Aerodromes Extension) Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the Bill be permitted to proceed."
Resolution agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the enactments relating to streets buildings and structures in London." [London Building Acts (Amendment) Bill [Lords.]
And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable the Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Croydon to pay compensation for certain loss injury or damage resulting from a certain outbreak of typhoid fever in the said borough notwithstanding certain provisions of the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, and the Fatal Accidents Act, 1846; and for other purposes." [Croydon Corporation Bill [Lords.]
London Building Acts (Amendment) Bill [Lords],
Croydon Corporation Bill [Lords],
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

BILLS REPORTED.

  SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).
  Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

  SCOTTISH UNION AND NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
  Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

  SMETHWICK OLDBURY ROWLEY REGIS AND TIPTON TRANSPORT BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).
  Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

  TIVERTON CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).
  Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  MILITARY TRAINING BILL.
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee (Progress, 10th May).
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  MILITARY TRAINING BILL.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Conscientious Objectors.)
    4.0 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): I beg to move, in page 5, line 11, after "he," to insert:
    "furnishes the prescribed particulars about himself and."
    Under Clause I men who apply to be put on the military register must give particulars themselves. It is obviously necessary that the same procedure should apply to those who ask to be put on the register of conscientious objectors.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, in page 5, line 18, after "he," to insert:
    "furnishes such particulars as aforesaid and."
    This Amendment will extend the provisions that the Committee have just passed to those who fail to apply at the due date to be registered but who make application to be registered at a later date.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 24, after "period," insert "furnish such particulars as aforesaid and."—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, in page 6, line 3, at the end, to insert:
    "(5) An applicant for registration as a conscientious objector who is aggrieved by any order of a local tribunal, and the Minister, if he considers it necessary, may, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, appeal to the appellate tribunal constituted under Part II of the Schedule to this Act, and the decision of the appellate tribunal shall be final:
    Provided that if the decision of the local tribunal with respect to any order made by them was unanimous, the applicant shall not be entitled to appeal to the appellate tribunal except with the leave of the local or the appellate tribunal.
    (6) The Minister or any person authorised by him shall be entitled to be heard on any application or appeal to a tribunal under this section."
    724
    This is merely a drafting Amendment which rearranges the Sub-sections of the Clause without altering their meaning.
    4.3 p.m.
    Mr. Lansbury: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, after the word "tribunal" to insert:
    "and any person who is aggrieved by the transfer of his name to the military training register under the provisions of sub-section (6) of this section."
    The object of my Amendment to the proposed Amendment is that the person who is being dealt with shall as a matter of right be able to go to the appeal court. As the matter stands he has no such right, and in our view it is only elementary justice that a person under these conditions should have that rather elementary right. I cannot see how in equity or justice it is right for one side only 'to have the right of appeal. If a man has won his case before the tribunal and the Minister is not satisfied with the verdict of the tribunal, I am not questioning his right to take it to the appeal court, but I do think that it is rather a denial of justice to say that the map shall not also have that right. I could quote very many cases in which, if an appeal to an appeal court of this kind had been possible during the last War, a great deal of injustice would have been prevented.
    Mr. Shinwell: Before the Parliamentary Secretary replies I would ask him whether an Amendment which appears on the Paper later, in the name of the Chancellor of the Duchy, does not bear on this point. There is a suspicion in the mind of some of us that it has some relation to the matter under review.
    4.6 p.m.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member is quite correct. We appreciate the force of the arguments used by the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and we have taken steps in an Amendment which will be moved later, to lines 33 and 34 in Sub-section (6), to meet the position that the right hon. Gentleman has outlined. It may be for the advantage of the Committee if I briefly recapitulate the exact position. The Amendment which I have moved merely alters the order of the Sub-sections of the Clause. A person claiming to be a conscientious objector may appeal to the appeal tribunal under the new Sub-section (5). The right hon. Member for Bow and

    725
    Bromley wants to add a provision to deal with the person aggrieved by the transfer of his name to the military register. If, for example, someone has been conditionally registered and is brought to the notice of the tribunal as not fulfilling the conditions of that conditional registration, an appeal should lie before that individual conscientious objector has his name arbitrarily transferred to the military register. In fact, we propose to take steps to meet that situation. As the Bill now stands, should someone say to the tribunal that a man on the conditional register is not in fact fulfilling the conditions, then when the local tribunal reports this fact to the Minister, the Minister is obliged to transfer that man to the military register.
    Under our proposed Amendment the man against whom this information has been lodged would be allowed to appeal to the local tribunal and the local tribunal would once more review the whole of his case. If the decision went against the applicant he would be able to appeal just as if it were an original application. If in fact, as a result of this appeal, the decision goes against the applicant and his name is transferred from the conscientious objector register to the military training register, it could only be transferred to the military training register for non-combatant duties. The view held, and rightly held, is that a man who has once made out his case to be a conscientious objector should not be asked to undertake military training except for non-combatant duties. We are advised that the point raised by the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) will be entirely met by our Amendment.
    4.9 p.m.
    Mr. Lansbury: The man appears before the local tribunal and the local tribunal makes a decision in his favour. I understand that if the Minister is dissatisfied with that decision, the Minister can appeal to the appeal court, but that the man has no appeal against the decision. It is not a question of someone informing on him. It is the case of the man who has been found not to have a conscientious objection or who is being put to work of national importance or to non-combatant service. My Amendment is that when that decision is reached he shall have the same right of appeal as the Minister has if the Minister is dissatisfied with the local tribunal's decision.
    726
    Honestly I do not see how the Government Amendment applies to such a case.
    Mr. Mabane: May we know what Amendment the right hon. Gentleman has moved? As I understand it, his argument is not relevant to the Amendment that has been called.
    Mr. Lansbury: The Amendment to the proposed Amendment which I have moved is the first in my name on page 1072 of the Order Paper, in line 2, after "tribunal," to insert:
    "and any person who is aggrieved by the transfer of his name to the military training register under the provisions of Sub-section (6) of this Section."
    I want those words to be inserted in the Government Amendment.
    Mr. Mabane: That Amendment to the proposed Amendment does not do what the right hon. Gentleman is asking to be done, because it does not amend the words in lines 6, 7 and 8 of the proposed Amendment.
    Mr. Lansbury: That point is to be dealt with in another Amendment to be moved later.
    The Chairman: The next Amendment to the proposed Amendment which appears on the Paper is to leave out lines 9 and 10. I understand that it should be to leave out lines 6 to 8.
    4.13 p.m.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Whatever the intention of the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) may be, the effect of carrying his Amendment to the proposed Amendment would really be as I have outlined it to the Committee; but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the point he has raised will be dealt with by a later Amendment standing in the name of the Chancellor of the Duchy, relating to lines 33 and 34 on page 6 of the Bill. If the decision of a local tribunal is not unanimous, the applicant has a right of appeal, and if the decision is unanimous and the leave of the tribunal is given to appeal he also has the right of appeal. I am satisfied that there are perfectly adequate safeguards provided.
    Mr. Lansbury: I want the applicant to have the full right of appeal, and I am very sorry not to be able to agree with the Parliamentary Secretary.
    Mr. Garro Jones: Why is it that the Parliamentary Secretary should prefer to have an advantage over the conscientious objector in a case like this? Surely the decision of the local tribunal should be treated with uniform respect both by the Minister and the applicant. I cannot see any conceivable reason why, if a decision goes against the Minister, he should have the right of appeal, but that a conscientious objector should have no right of appeal if the decision of the tribunal is adverse to him. What is the reason for this? The Minister has given no justification whatever for this unfair and illogical principle. If he has the right to appeal, the same right should be conceded to the conscientious objector. The Minister takes a preferential right of appeal, and there is no reason why he should do so.
    4.16 p.m.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In reply to the hon. Member, it is not the fact that the Minister is an interested party, but, as this is an impartial tribunal, he can bring forward an appeal in order to try and get a decision more in accordance with the desires of the applicant just as much as a decision contrary to the position of the applicant. It is rather confusing the issue to give the impression that in this matter there is some divergence of interest between the Minister and the applicant. The hon. Gentleman has no doubt had experience of the insurance law and will know quite well that in many cases, where an appeal is asked for by the insurance officer, it is in order to protect the interests of the appellant just as much as the interests of the State.
    4.17 p.m.
    Mr. Aneurin Bevan: The last argument of the Parliamentary Secretary is really far too ingenious. If this is incorporated in the Bill in order to protect the applicant against what the Minister may conceive to be an unjust decision, the defence of the applicant can quite easily be preserved by giving him the same right as the Minister and allowing him to be the judge of his own interest. You are giving power to the Minister on the one hand, and taking away the power of the applicant on the other.
    4.18 p.m.
    Mr. Silverman: I would like to examine the reason which the Parliamentary Secretary has given for this distinction be-
    728
    tween the rights of the Minister and the rights of the applicant. He is saying that the Minister has no part or interest in the application, that he is entirely impartial and that his right of appeal may be exercised as much in the interests of the applicant as against them. If a tribunal has admitted the applicant's contention and granted him exemption, the Minister, if not satisfied with it, can appeal to the appellant tribunal. I think that I am right so far. In that case, there would be a conflict of interests between the Minister and the applicant. That is beyond dispute, and where there is such a conflict the Minister may appeal. It may also be if I have understood him correctly, that the Minister can appeal in a case where the applicant's contention has been rejected by the tribunal. One cannot imagine that the Minister would want to interfere with a tribunal that had rejected the applicant's contention unless the applicant himself were dissatisfied. If the applicant accepts the rejection of his own application, one cannot imagine the Minister interfering and going to the appellate tribunal.
    So it comes down to this, that the Minister might impartially take the appeal to the appellate tribunal in the man's own interest where the man himself objected. If that is so, I want the hon. Gentleman to tell me why there should be this intervening stage. If the Minister is to use his extra right to go to the appellate tribunal in order to assist an applicant whose application has been rejected by the tribunal, why not allow the man to go himself? Why bother with the Minister at all? That is the only reason he has given. The simplest thing would be, as my hon. Friend has said, to put the applicant, the Minister and everybody else on exactly the same terms, and either give them all the right to go to the appellate tribunal or no right. I hope that I have shown that the ground which the hon. Gentleman himself chose as justifying the additional right of the Minister is, when you examine it, quite without foundation. I do not think that a unanimously hostile tribunal is at all likely to give leave to appeal against its own decision to an appellate tribunal. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman—I am sure that he wants justice to be done in these matters—to cut the knot and give the applicant an absolute right of appeal to the appellate tribunal.
    4.22 p.m.
    Mr. Maxton: I support the Amendment to the proposed Amendment which has been moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). The process here is defended on the ground that it is parallel to the method of dealing with unemployed men who have grievances. All of us know of the many difficulties that have arisen there, but this is not a parallel to the position of the unemployed man, because the unemployed man has two safeguards which are not available here. His membership of a trade union gives his trade union the right to appeal on his behalf. Am I right in that? It is an outside body which is not part of the court that has condemned him or turned him down. Secondly he has a workers' representative secured to him on the court of referees from which an appeal may be made. But this man has no representative guaranteed in the lower court. There is only one person of whom we know the nature, and he is the sheriff, a judicially-minded person. The other persons may be anything. They may be poor persons representing the Army as far as this House knows. I will sit down while the Minister kindly explains the position.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): The whole procedure under this Bill is that in regard to this civil tribunal the Minister is responsible both for appointing the tribunal and for seeing that its decisions are carried out.
    Mr. Maxton: I accept that as an assurance from the Minister, completely and adequately, that the four persons, in addition to the chairman, will not be military persons. There is nothing about that in the Bill or in the Schedule, but we have now got it definitely defined by the assurance of the Minister given at that Despatch Box, and I am very glad to have it. [An HON. MEMBER: "He has not given it."] I take his word for it. I am assuming that the Minister, like other Ministers, will regard the statement he has made there as being binding. I take it that the assurance includes those who do not represent the local Territorial associations; that they will be civilian persons in the fullest sense of the term.
    The Chairman: I am very anxious that we should have as full a discussion as possible on all the points arising on this Clause. It is clear that at the present
    730
    time the discussion is going beyond the actual Amendment to the Amendment. It is perhaps inevitable that it should do. The discussion covers questions relating to the second Amendment to the Amendment and also the Government Amendments at the top of page 1074 of the Amendment Paper, and if the Committee will agree, I suggest—I do not see that it is easy to do otherwise—that the discussion might range over both Amendments to the Amendment and also over the four Government Amendments at the top of page 1074. It should be understood that, when we come to the further Amendments, they will be put to the Committee without further discussion.
    Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I think that that would be for the convenience of the Committee.
    Mr. Maxton: I hope you are not giving that Ruling, Sir Dennis, because I was getting too wide of the mark.
    The Chairman: No, I was not giving a Ruling, but suggesting that, in the Committee's own interest, it might be better to adopt this course.
    Mr. Maxton: I return to the specific Amendment which is at present before us, and I am asking that the Amendment of my right hon. Friend to the proposed Amendment should be accepted. As I have pointed out, the men affected here have not the two safeguards which are presently available to the unemployed men. These men, as individuals, should have the same right of appeal to the higher tribunal as the Minister is claiming for himself.
    4.27 p.m.
    Sir Stafford Cripps: I would like to make one or two remarks on the actual form of these Amendments. The Minister has confused the Committee as to the exact position. As far as the new Subsection at the bottom of page 1071 of the Amendment Paper is concerned, applicants have exactly equal rights, and there is no question about the one having more right to appeal than the other. The difference in their right of appeal is introduced by the proviso where the Minister has the right of appeal when there is a unanimous decision against him and the applicant has not. That, I understand, is the subject dealt with by the Amendment to the Amendment. The first Amendment is intended to introduce the right of appeal

    731
    for quite another class of person altogether, namely, the person, who, under Sub-section (6) as it originally stood, would have been put automatically on to the military register because there had been a report to the local tribunal that he was not complying with the terms which entitled him to remain as a conscientious objector. That person has no right of appeal at all, as under the original Sub-section, and my right hon. Friend's intention in the first of his Amendments is to give that person the same right of appeal that the original applicant would have had.
    The Minister has dealt with that position in the Amendment on page 1074 of the Paper where in Clause 3, page 6, line 33, such a person before being put on the military register is required to make a fresh application to the conscientious objectors' tribunal. He will then have exactly the same right of appeal as if he was the original applicant, so that by the Amendment now proposed by the Minister such a person gets exactly the same right of appeal as the original applicant, and the only difference between him and the Minister in that case is that, if the decision is unanimous against him, he will not have the right of appeal, but the Minister will. I suggest that my right hon. Friend's objection has been cured on the first Amendment by what the Minister has proposed, and that it is only on the second Amendment that he has not been met.
    4.31 p.m.
    Mr. Barr: As my name is attached to the second Amendment to the proposed Amendment, I would take the liberty of addressing a few words to the Committee upon it. There is some mistake in the print, and the Amendment should be to leave out lines 6 to 8, that is to say, to leave out the words of the proviso as to the case where the tribunal was unanimous. By leaving out those words, we should secure that the fact that the tribunal, either local or appellate, had been unanimous would not debar the applicant from appealing. I attach very great importance to this Amendment, because a unanimous tribunal might still do great injustice. I should like to recall the kind of cases that came up during the War in this very connection, and to point out that, so far as the then regulations were concerned, they seemed on
    732
    paper to be very fair. For example, in the official circulars of the Local Government Board, issued at that time, it was stated:
    "The functions of the Local Tribunal will be of a judicial nature; persons should therefore be appointed who will consider the cases impartially."
    How far that was from being done and what great injustices were committed against applicants, even by unanimous courts, I would take the liberty of illustrating. I gathered these cases myself during the late War, and in many cases they were unanimous decisions. This is from Camberwell Tribunal:
    "You ought to be hanged. You ought to be shot."
    This is from the Oldbury Tribunal:
    "It seems to me that there are two things you possess—cowardice and insolence.
    From Aldershot:
    "You are qualifying for a lunatic asylum."
    At Gower the military representative asked an applicant if he had ever been in a lunatic asylum, and he told another applicant that he was a traitor and
    "Only fit to be put on the point of a German bayonet."
    I trust that if, unfortunately, these tribunals are to be set up again, a different spirit will prevail. I have no complaint against the spirit in which the Prime Minister made his statement, or against the regulations so far as they have been indicated to us, but I would point out that to some of these applicants it was a most serious affair. Some of the tribunals went the length of taking steps to deprive an applicant of his employment, and I will give two instances of that. The chairman at Gower, Swansea, remarked that he could not understand why the education authority should appoint such teachers as the applicant. At St. Helens—and this was a unanimous tribunal—the chairman said:
    "All the members of this tribunal will agree with me that the education committee at St. Helens should take into serious consideration whether a gentleman who has such views in regard to honouring his King is a proper person to teach the young people of St. Helens. We shall forward this decision to the St. Helens Education Authority."
    When tribunals exercise their powers in this way, we should take every precaution that there shall at least be an appeal, even if a decision is unanimous. I do no press the matter further than that,

    733
    but to me it seems obvious that the position of an applicant is not sufficiently safeguarded in lines 6 to 8, and that by excising those lines we should give him the same right of appeal as belongs to the tribunal if the tribunal is not unanimous. That is my whole point, and I trust the Minister will give us some assurance in this matter.
    4.37 p.m.
    Mr. Greenwood: The Government have gone some way to meet the point put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), and it is clear now that there will be, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) said, recourse to the procedure which he went through before. To that extent, therefore, my right hon. Friend's point is met, but the other point of the proviso is, I think, important. Yesterday there was a similar proviso in a Government Amendment to Clause I, dealing with the hardship tribunal, and I handed in a manuscript Amendment to leave out that proviso. Unfortunately, owing to the pressure of debate, that Amendment of the Government's was not reached, and it was carried automatically, so that I had no opportunity to move my Amendment to it. I think I was right on Clause I in asking that that proviso should have been withdrawn, but if there was a case for it there, the case for it here is a hundred times stronger, and if the Government are not prepared to go much further at least I hope they will delete their proviso. My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge (Mr. Barr) has referred to unanimous decisions made in the heat of war of a most unfair kind, and I see no practical reason why, if a local tribunal is unanimous, it is proved to be right. I see no reason why, because of the unfortunate character of a tribunal, a man who may be as conscientious as another man who appeared before a more reasonable tribunal should be deprived of any kind of redress. I do not suppose the Government will go the whole way—they have not shown much sense of reasonableness up to now in Committee—but although I admit that they have gone some way towards meeting my right hon. Friend, if not so far as he would wish, I think it would be right for them to withdraw this proviso in their Amendment, and then retrospectively to withdraw too the similar proviso in Clause 1.
    4.40 p.m.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison): We are very much obliged to hon. Members in all parts of the Committee who have contributed to this discussion, because it is our earnest desire to make these provisions with regard to conscientious objectors as fair as they can be made. With regard to the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), I think, as the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) said, the main point of his Amendment is covered by the Amendment of the Government which comes later on; and I think the Committee is much obliged to the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol for the clarity which he shed upon the position. One thing that I would say about this matter is that when my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was speaking, we were discussing only this single Amendment, and it was only when you, Sir Dennis, very properly suggested that we might debate the whole question that the larger aspect of the matter was opened. Now that it has been opened, it appears that the only thing which is now between the Government and hon. Members opposite is this particular question of whether the right of both parties, the Minister and the applicant, to appeal shall be differentiated in any degree. As it stands, the proviso to the Amendment to which the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) has drawn attention and which is sought to be deleted by the hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mr. Barr) gives, in terms, the right to the applicant to appeal only when the decision of the tribunal against him is not unanimous.
    I am bound to say that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, and I, having listened to the discussion, feel that there is very great substance in what has been said in favour of making the right of appeal of the parties equal in both cases. The Minister in charge of this matter will have an overriding responsibility to see that the Act is fairly and equitably administered, and consequently it was our intention to give him the right to appeal and intervene on behalf of applicants as well as against them if a proper case occurred. There are certain administrative points in connection with this matter that we want to discuss, and if I say that I accept, on behalf of the

    735
    Government, the principle that the applicant and the Minister should be given the same status as regards the right to appeal to the appellate tribunal, I hope that the Committee will accept that assurance and that the Amendment will be withdrawn on the assurance that we will introduce appropriate words on the Report stage to make that principle effective. The only reason why I do not accept the particular words at this moment is that, having read this Amendment, I am not quite certain whether this is the most appropriate way of doing what we desire to do. It is merely a matter of wording, and there is no point of principle between us. We desire to make the conditions as fair as they can be made, and we shall welcome the assistance of hon. Members in any part of the Committee in doing so. Though we may have a difference of opinion as to the best way of doing it, there is no difference between us in what we desire to do.
    4.44 p.m.
    Mr. Greenwood: Do I understand now that the Government have accepted the principle that all people shall be treated alike, whatever kind of tribunal they come before? Has the principle been accepted? We are working under very great difficulties, because we have only one day for the report and Third Reading stage, and we must, therefore, be quite clear what undertaking is being given by His Majesty's Government. Is it in effect the withdrawal of the proviso? If not, it does not satisfy us. If it is that the proviso will be withdrawn, and that the appropriate words to meet the point will be moved, I will advise my right hon. Friend not to press his Amendment, while reserving his right on the Report stage; and in the interval I would suggest that there might be consultation as to the form of words to be inserted. We must be perfectly clear where we stand before we withdraw the Amendment.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. Silverman: There are two ways in which the applicant and the Minister could be put on an equality. One would be to give both of them an absolute right of appeal. One way would be to give neither of them an absolute right of appeal, but when the right hon. Gentleman says that he accepts the principle
    736
    of this Amendment, I take it that what he means is that there should be an absolute right of appeal, both to the applicant and the Minister, and not that there should be only a qualified right of appeal for both.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: My desire is to place the Committee in possession of the facts. I do not think there is any difference between us which would justify a prolongation of the discussion upon this matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) has drawn attention to the proviso, the effect of which is to limit the right of the applicant to appeal, whereas, on the other hand the right of the Minister to appeal is not so limited. It is our desire that the applicant shall have the same right of appeal as the Minister. I would, at first blush, say that the proper way to do it, would be to remove the restrictions on the applicant's right of appeal, by providing that, even if the tribunal were unanimous, he should have the right of appeal. I only ask the Committee to give us an opportunity to consider the matter further and to consult, if necessary, with hon. Members opposite, so as to get the most appropriate form of words. I hope that that assurance will satisfy the Committee and that we may be allowed to proceed, as hon. Members desire to discuss other very important matters on this very important Clause.
    4.47 p.m.
    Mr. McGovern: The Minister has gone a long way to meet the wishes and objections of hon. Members in connection with these tribunals. He gave an assurance earlier that the personnel of the tribunals would not consist of military people, but I would point out these words in the proposed addition to the Clause:
    "The Minister or any person authorised by him shall be entitled to be heard on any application or appeal to a tribunal."
    Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that those who represent the Minister at these tribunals, will not be military people? It is true that during the last War a person appearing before a tribunal had the same right of appeal as the military. Yet at these tribunals one always found military gentlemen who completely dominated the proceedings and most of the local busy-bodies who

    737
    sat on these courts were terrified to oppose the will of these military gentlemen. I ask that there should be no repetition of what happened then. Some of these military men were very insulting in their manner and treated the persons who appeared before them as if they were already in the Army.
    I went before a tribunal in Glasgow, and the first thing said to me by the military gentleman was, "Take your hands out of your pockets." I had to remind him that my hands were in my own pockets. Then, he told me that I would not be allowed to appear before a military tribunal in that manner, and I said I was not likely to appear before a military tribunal. The insults offered to people in these tribunals were humiliating to many a man who would not assert himself, as I could upon such occasions. Military people ought not to be allowed to appear on behalf of the Minister. If the Ministry selected a legal gentleman who knew how to conduct himself, I would have no objection but the "brass hats" should not be employed at these tribunals. The tribunals should be free from military influence of any kind because, wherever they are, the assumption of these military gentlemen is that they must rule the roost. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will give us an assurance that there will be no military men, either on the bench or appearing for the Minister.
    4.51 p.m.
    Mr. Dingle Foot: I welcome the decision of the Minister, and as his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is here, may I express the hope that this admirable principle which has been advocated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and accepted by the Minister, will be applied when next we consider the system of appeals by unemployed men from courts of referees to the umpire.
    Mr. Lansbury: There is a saying to the effect that a lady convinced against her will is of the same opinion still. [HON. MEMBERS: "A man."] I disagree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) but I propose to take right hon. Gentlemen opposite at their word. I assume they mean what they say and that on the Report stage, after consultation, they will bring forward a proposal to deal with this
    738
    matter satisfactorily. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Barr: In view of the assurance which has been given, I do not propose to move the Amendment to the proposed Amendment standing in my name.
    Question, "That the proposed words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    4.54 p.m.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, in page 6, line 5, after "section," to insert
    "or the appellate tribunal if satisfied on appeal."
    The object of the Amendment is to give the appellant tribunal power to make the same kind of orders as the local tribunal.
    Amendment agreed to.
    4.55 p.m.
    Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page 6, line 11, to leave out paragraph (b).
    I do so in order to obtain from the right hon. Gentleman the clearest explanation possible of what is meant by this paragraph and how it will work out in practice. The paragraph states that a local tribunal shall by order direct that the applicant
    "shall be conditionally registered the condition being that he must engage in, and perform, some work designated in the order as being, in the opinion of the tribunal, of national importance;"
    What is the Government's interpretation of the words "work of national importance"? Apparently, the tribunal will be in a position to determine that any kind of work is work of national importance, whether it is of real national importance or not. What guidance will the tribunals receive regarding the interpretation of these words? Is "work of national importance" to be confined to munitions work, coal-mining, agriculture, engineering and shipbuilding, or what limitations are to be placed upon this term? Further, once the tribunal have determined that certain work is of national importance, are they to direct the applicant to secure work in a particular industry or service? Who is to find the work for him? Will it be the duty of the tribunal to direct the applicant to a certain occupation, and, if so,

    739
    how is that to be done without injuring the employment of other people in that occupation? In a district where a number of such persons have to be found work, is it possible that some of those already engaged will be dismissed, in order to make room for the newcomers?
    May I also ask whether it is the intention, once a tribunal has directed a person to engage in work of national importance, that he is to receive the wages normally paid in that industry or occupation? Is he to receive the recognised trade union rate of wages, or will the tribunals be directed to notify such persons that the payment which they will receive for this work of national importance, whether in factory, field or mine, will be comparable with the payment which is to be made to the Militiaman? If they are to receive the smaller sum, is the employer to derive the benefit of the difference between a Militiaman's pay and the trade union rate of wages? We have been told by various Ministers that this Bill was prepared very hurriedly and that there was not time to think out many vital details. I regard this as one of the most vital details. If a later Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman is accepted, a person who is set to work of national importance will have to remain there for 12 months. Is such a person to remain on a particular farm or in a particular factory during the whole of that period?
    Here is a series of questions which I would like the right hon. Gentleman to answer. Assuming a person has gone to the tribunal and is designated to a kind of work which is supposed to be of national importance. Assuming that he is a munition worker, will he be permitted to go back to his own job in his own factory, or will the tribunal have the power to send away a skilled munition worker from the factory where he has been regularly engaged, to some other factory? I assume the right hon. Gentleman has in mind what directions the tribunal will be able to give. Suppose an individual happens to be an agricultural labourer. He appears before a tribunal and they allocate him to work of national importance. Will they be obliged, under directions, to allow him to remain in agriculture and, if so, would they be permitted to allow him to return
    740
    to the farm where he was originally engaged? If the applicant happens to be a coal miner, and he must do work of national importance, will it be the desire of the Government that in such a case he should be allowed to remain in coal mining, since coal mining is generally regarded as work of national importance?
    Who will determine what is work of national importance? When I look around the country I find hundreds of occupations and services that are all of national importance. Indeed, it is difficult to find a large number of occupations or services that are not of national importance. I remember during the last War that the master of one hunt was able, on application to a tribunal, to secure the release of every individual engaged by that hunt. Would the right hon. Gentleman regard a street sweeper as a person engaged in work of national importance? I should think that a street sweeper in keeping the streets clean helps to free us of epidemics, so that we do not need doctors. Some people would suggest that doctoring was a work of national importance but that a street sweeper's job was of no importance at all. Has the right hon. Gentleman any advice on the point as to what is or is not work of national importance? Suppose the right hon. Gentleman had a tribunal at Timbuctoo and there appeared before the tribunal a postman, who was entitled to be designated to work of national importance. Is it in the mind of the Minister that that particular individual, working for the State, will be able to remain in his own occupation because, presumably it is work of national importance, or is it conceivable that some of the spirit engendered during the last War may prevail on some of the tribunals, and the postman might be sent to work in agriculture, as being work of national importance, and the postman's job would have to be taken over by a skilled agricultural labourer? We saw ludicrous situations like that occurring regularly during the last War.
    I "should like to ask one fundamental question, to which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reply. Will the person called up for work of national importance, at the conclusion of his 12 months work—
    Mr. E. Brown: There is not an obligation for 12 months but for six months.
    Mr. Williams: The Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the Chancellor of the Duchy says: In page 6, line 12, after "register," insert:
    "for the period of one year beginning with the date on which he is so registered."
    I presume the right hon. Gentleman will explain that Amendment when we reach it. However, six months will suit my argument just the same. Are we to understand that after the person has been engaged on work of national importance, whether for six months or 12 months, he will enjoy the same rights and privileges under Clause 6 as the person who enters the Service and performs his six months' training? Will he be entitled to claim the right of reinstatement in his previous occupation, and if he is not reinstated, will the same fines and penalties against the employer apply in his case as would apply to the person who does his six months' military training?
    I can recall many horrible experiences during the last War of conscientious objectors who were buffeted about all over the place. I can recall a personal instance, which it would not be out of place to mention, as a warning to the Minister, if the spirit of what the Prime Minister said the other day is to be fully carried out by the tribunals to be set up. For my sins, during the last War I had to appear before a county tribunal, and when I arrived there I discovered that the chairman was one of the largest coal royalty owners in the area. It was well known to me that the Coal Owners' Association and the royalty owners were not overhead in love with me. They would have done anything to remove me from the colliery where I was engaged as workers' representative. I knew the moment I entered the town hall that unless I had a 22-carat case I should not have a chance in life. It did not matter to the chairman of the tribunal that I had four brothers and three brothers-in-law in the War, and that I had a widowed mother. What concerned them was inflicting hardship upon the individual who came before them in certain circumstances. I want to see the spirit of the Prime Minister's words faithfully observed by the tribunals who are to determine these cases.
    I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say whether the right of reinstatement in employment of the person now under discussion will be equal in every particular to the rights and privileges of any
    742
    other person. Can he say what is regarded as work of national importance, what kind of industries a person or persons may be sent to in certain sets of circumstances, and whether they will be permitted to remain in their own industry, workshop or mine, or whether they can be moved about from town to town merely because that subjects them to the maximum discomfort, and discouragement, because they are pursuing their own conscience? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will satisfy us that appropriate guidance will be given to these tribunals to ensure that the applicants will be fairly and squarely dealt with, and that now we are providing facilities for conscientious objection the Government will do it thoroughly and not leave any nasty taste in the mouths of people in the country.
    5.11 p.m.
    Mr. Sandys: I rise to oppose the Amendment. In my view it should have been paragraph (a) which the hon. Member moved to delete. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour or the Chancellor of the Duchy to explain, as the hon. Member has asked them to explain, what is in their mind as to the nature of the work of national importance which those who come under paragraph (b) will be asked to undertake? In Sub-section (2) three grounds, (a), (b) and (c) are enumerated on which a person may claim to be registered as a conscientious objector and to obtain exemption from the necessity of undergoing military training, and under Sub-section (5, b) he may be required to undertake work of national importance. I should like my right hon. Friend to state specifically, if he can, what is this work of national importance. The first of the three grounds is that the man conscientiously objects to being registered in the military training register. Clearly, he is not being registered in the military training register, and therefore in that case the requirement to undertake work of national importance does not affect that conscientious objection. The second ground is that he conscientiously objects to undergoing military training. Again, to undertake work of national importance should not conflict with his conscientious objection to undergoing military training. Then we come to the third ground, that he conscientiously objects to performing combatant duties. Again, his conscientious objection to performing com-

    743
    batant duties should not conflict with the requirement that he should undertake work of national importance.
    Mr. Stephen: On a point of Order. Are we not discussing the leaving out of paragraph (b) of Sub-section (5)? Evidently, the hon. Member is discussing leaving out the whole of the paragraphs.
    The Chairman: The hon. Member was going a little wide, but I think he was in Order.
    Mr. T. Williams: I said that we were moving to delete the paragraph in order to get an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Stephen: I put an Amendment on the Order Paper to leave out the whole of the paragraphs, but it has not been called. Therefore, I object that my Amendment should be discussed on another Amendment in this way.
    Mr. Sandys: I am in the same unhappy position as the hon. Member. I had an Amendment to leave out paragraph (a) of Sub-section (5) but I find that, without straying from the rules of Order, I am able to say all that I wished to say on my Amendment. I am not straining the rules of Order in any way. I wish to learn from my might hon. Friend precisely what is the nature of the work of national importance which a tribunal can impose upon conscientious objectors under paragraph (b), which the hon. Member has moved to delete. That is the purpose of my remarks. I hope the right hon. Gentleman in his reply will make it clear how this paragraph (b) applies to the three grounds mentioned in Sub-section (2), and whether all the people coming under these three categories could not without conflicting with their conscience undertake work of national importance under paragraph (b).
    5.16 p.m.
    Mr. Messer: I do not see how the Minister is going to show that occupations will be considered of national importance if the paragraph is left as it is. One of my objections to the paragraph is that the local tribunal is itself to decide, for the words are "in the opinion of the tribunal." One well remembers during the last War some really exaggerated instances of what was considered to be work of national importance. If these tribunals
    744
    are to be regarded by the people most concerned as giving justice, it will be because there is a recognition of the fact that they are working on the same lines, and that one tribunal will not consider the work of a hunt as of national importance and another tribunal consider the scaring of crows as of national importance. As a matter of fact, the tribunal will regard as work of national importance that which relates most closely to the area with which they are concerned. I shall be glad to hear whether there is any intention of putting a schedule of occupations before them which are to be considered as occupations of national importance to which the tribunals can work.
    5.18 p.m.
    Mr. Crossley: There are two points I should like to put to the Minister about paragraph (b). It occurs to me that the words are very vague, and perhaps they have been purposely left vague in order to allow the tribunal discretion in various cases. I should like to know whether these men will be employed in groups or in corps. It seems to me it will be a far more satisfactory method, where it is possible, to employ these men on some form of national service in definite corps for a definite number of months. Many hon. Members of this House will be very concerned if these men in time of war are out of danger to a much greater extent than the militiaman. It is the concern of hon. Members that these men should not be better off than the men who are to be conscripted as militiamen. The other point I want to raise is this: What is going to be the position of these men in regard to wages? There, again, I hope that by taking up this attitude and by claiming exemption under this paragraph they will not be better off from a monetary point of view than men who are conscripted as militiamen. Many of us are anxious on these points. As I understand most of the Amendments are out of order, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make the position clear.
    5.20 p.m.
    Mr. McGovern: I am rather amazed at the desire for social equality which I find among a section of Tory Members. They are desirous that men who are placed on work of national importance should not be better off than a militiaman. To begin with, that is a reflection on the condition in which militiamen are placed.
    Mr. Crossley: They are very definitely going to be on work of national importance.
    Mr. McGovern: But why should the hon. Member be better off than a militiaman? This is a desire for cheap labour. The idea in the mind of some hon. Members is to shepherd these men in the same way as Dr. Ley shepherds them in Germany in labour camps. Behind all this agitation are a number of hon. Members of this House who have very large stakes in the country. Behind the names of eight hon. Members who subscribe to doctrines of this kind 67 companies in this country are represented and they are anxious to place the workers who have a conscientious objection to war in a position where the heel of oppression and poverty can be placed upon them. It is typical of the attitude of some hon. Members. We start by giving pledges to treat conscientious objectors in a decent manner, but now these hon. Members are looking for every opportunity of penalising them, of humiliating them and treating them in the most contemptible manner possible. Let me show from an extract the holding of some people who want to place these men in this position. The right hon. Member who is largely behind the Bill is the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) and he is a director of 14 companies, including the South-West Africa Company, the Southern Railway Company, Camel Laird, Marks and Spencers, and others, representing a capital of £170,000,000.
    The Chairman: The hon. Member is breaking one of the rules of order. References in regard to the interests of any hon. Member when there is no question of that kind involved on the issue before the Committee are out of order.
    Mr. Bevan: Is it out of order for an hon. Member to point out the commercial undertakings with which hon. Members are associated?
    The Chairman: I can only express the hope that hon. Members will not waste time. There is no question about it that under the present Amendment these references are not in order. I do not want to argue as to the circumstances in which it may be permissible to do something of this kind, but it certainly is not permissible on this particular Amendment.
    Mr. Bevan: In the absence of any information from the Government as to the nature of the work these men are to do, surely it is open to us to point out that these men may be put in the employ of persons who are hon. Members of this House or in commercial undertakings with which hon. Members are associated, and that in that case hon. Members expose themselves to the charge of recruiting cheap labour under the guise of dealing with conscientious objectors.
    The Chairman: The whole question which the hon. Member has in mind can, I think, be discussed without any personal references.
    Mr. McGovern: I am not clear as to your ruling on this matter. I heard Lord Runciman's holding mentioned in the House, and I should like to know whether your ruling means that I am not permitted to cite the holdings of people behind this Bill and to show the general desire for cheap labour.
    The Chairman: I do not think the hon. Member can do that. The phrase "people who are behind this Bill" is a little vague.
    Mr. Stephen: If there are hon. Members who are supporting the proposal that these men shall be put on work of national importance at a rate of remuneration which shall not be greater than that of militiamen, is it not relevant for us to object to these conscientious objectors being employed in the workshops and factories of these people?
    The Chairman: No doubt that is so, but the hon. Member is putting a hypothetical case. My point is that although these matters might be raised in certain cases and in certain circumstances, there is nothing to justify them being raised on this Amendment.
    Mr. Stephen: My hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) was suggesting that the Minister should accept the Amendment so that it will not be possible for hon. Members in this House to get cheap labour as a result of paragraph (b), and he was pointing out hon. Members who would get cheap labour as a result of its retention.
    The Chairman: I would suggest, in the interests of hon. Members who are criticising the Bill, that they should not waste

    747
    time on hypothetical points of order but should allow the hon. Member who is speaking to continue. In this case I must ask the hon. Member to accept my quite definite ruling that he is out of order in giving the names of particular hon. Members of the House and stating what he considers to be their interests in any particular concern.
    Mr. McGovern: If that is your definite Ruling, Sir Dennis, I will, of course, accept it.
    Sir Arnold Wilson: Thank you very much.
    Mr. McGovern: If the hon. Member becomes insulting, I also can become insulting. I know he has no greater desire than to put the workers of this country under the military heel and the Hitler heel. He has shown that by the way he has associated with Franco, along with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour.
    The Chairman: I am obliged to the hon. Member for his ready acceptance of my Ruling. I wish it to be understood that it was a Ruling especially on this particular case.
    Mr. McGovern: I accept that, Sir Dennis, but because of an impertinent remark that was addressed to me by an hon. Member, I am claiming the right to reply to that impertinent remark in an impertinent way. I hope no accusation will be made against me that I want to shorten the discussion of this Bill. I do not want to do so, and the only short thing I would like to do would be to destroy the Bill altogether.
    With regard to the Amendment, I submit that there is a desire on the part of the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Crossley) and other hon. Members that there should be some methods of penalising conscientious objectors in connection with work of national importance. The point has been stressed that they should not be placed in a position superior to that of Militia men from the financial point of view. My answer to that is that there is a desire on the part of a large number of hon. Members to place not only conscientious objectors, but the mass of the workers, under a Hitler system in this country, and that these hon. Members are more in sympathy with the
    748
    methods of Hitler and Dr. Ley than they are concerned with dealing with conscientious objectors in a really decent manner.
    If the pledges that have been given in this respect in the House are to be taken at their real value, and if it is the intention to treat conscientious objectors in a proper way, then we say that they should not be made the victims of the spleen of a section in the country and should not be placed at the disposal of employers who might be looking for cheap labour either on farms or in industrial undertakings. Hon. Members may desire not to place conscientious objectors in a preferential position, but at least do not place them in a position in which they will put other members of society in a preferential position by reason of the fact that they will get cheap labour. [Interruption.] Does the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) dissent?
    Viscountess Astor: May I say that we had conscientious objectors on our farm during the War, and they got the same wages as other people? People did not take advantage of them, and could not do so.
    Mr. McGovern: The Noble Lady says that during the War they had conscientious objectors on their farm, and the conscientious objectors were paid ordinary wages and given ordinary conditions. That is just the thing which hon. Members behind her are trying to prevent. They want these men as slave labour, as a sort of chain gang. I am glad to see the Noble Lady back from her victories of yesterday at the Unionist Conference. I may say, in passing, that if it were a question of placing a young man before a military tribunal, I think it might be preferable that he should be there rather than in the hands of the women in that association. I would rather tackle the jungle. At the same time, the whole of my sympathy is with the Noble Lady.
    I hope this Amendment will be accepted and that there will be no desire to penalise these men in any way. I could understand the objective of hon. Members if they were attempting to place everybody in the country on the standards of the militia men. There might then be some argument for this. The best way of dealing both with military service and with

    749
    war would be to place every person on the same footing as the militia men; we should then have less talk about dealing with conscientious objectors in this way. I hope that this Hitler method of dealing with conscientious objectors will not be accepted in this country, although I know that a large number of hard-hearted and brass-faced Members would like to do so.
    5.38 p.m.
    Captain Sir Derrick Gunston: I hope the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his discussion of the antics of my Noble Friend.
    Mr. McGovern: One would think she was a performing animal.
    Sir D. Gunston: I want to refer to an important point raised by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), which I think the Committee has to consider. I assume that the conscientious objector is a man of great moral courage, and that if he found himself in an air raid or in hostilities, his physical courage would be equal to his moral courage. I think it must be admitted that in this Clause we are treating the conscientious objector in quite a different manner from the way in which we are treating any other section of the community—I am not objecting to that—and we are giving him a greater chance of not serving than we are giving to any other section of the community.
    I do not believe that the conscientious objector who does not go as far as is foreseen in Paragraph (a) of Sub-section (5) wants to avoid serving. What he wants to avoid is military service. I am sure he does not want to be placed in a position of financial advantage as compared with ordinary militia men. I think we have to be very careful, or we may put the militia man at a disadvantage. Let me give an illustration. Suppose there were two young men who had both started a poultry farm next to each other. Under this Clause, the man who had a conscientious objection to military service but not to national service might be allowed to continue as a poultry farmer, whereas the man next door who had no conscientious objection would not be allowed to do so, if we assume that work on a poultry farm in this case is not of national importance. The man who was called up would feel himself aggrieved.
    750
    There might be a danger of creating great suspicion between one section of the community and another. I hope that the Minister will give some answer on this point.
    There is another point I would like to put to my right hon. Friend. As we are allowing a differentiation between work of national importance and military work, I think the differentiation should be as wide as possible. If it is clear that the work of national importance is very far from being work of any military character, and cannot be connected in any way with military matters, there will be more people ready to do work of national importance and fewer people likely to claim exemption under paragraph (a). The points I have raised are important ones, and I think that this is one of the most important discussions on the Bill.
    5.42 p.m.
    Mr. E. Brown: This Amendment raises issues of far-reaching importance, not only from the point of view of the terms of the Amendment itself, but from the point of view of other issues, such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys). I will do my best to answer the many questions that have been asked. It must be clearly understood that, from the very structure of the Clause, this issue raises practical difficulties of a formidable character. It is for that reason that the Clause is drawn in a vague way, and the duty is placed on the tribunal, and not upon the Minister, of settling what is work of national importance. I cannot undertake to give a long schedule of what I think is or is not work of national importance. One hon. Member said that it might be munition work, but I will say straight away that I cannot imagine that is the kind of work which a man who has been judged by a tribunal to be a conscientious objector could be asked to do as work of national importance.
    Mr. Stephen: They did in the last War.
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Member refers to the last time. I will try to explain that this Bill and the situation now are different from the position last time. As I said in reply to an interruption by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) on another Amendment, the structure of this Bill is entirely different from the operations last time. The Bill

    751
    falls into two parts. The first is entirely civil, and the second is military. The civil part of the Bill is concerned with the civil Ministers, and has to do with a series of civil tribunals, medical examinations, conscientious objection, and calling up. It is not until that has happened that the military part comes up. The structure of this Clause is based on our experience of dealing with the very difficult, subtle and complicated problems of conscience, and we have tried to learn some lessons from the past. Great hardship was experienced by many in working out in war time how to deal with men who had a conscience. This Bill, and particularly this Clause, attempts to deal with the main lesson which was learned then. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood asked some specific questions. The answers are to be found in the Bill, and they were also given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his speech in the Second Reading Debate. It was found that there were three main classes of men coming within the realm of conscientious objectors. First, there were those who had a conscience so strong that they not only objected to military service, but objected to having anything to do with the military machine in any way. That very strong conviction, held with great fervour, in many cases, though not in all, on religious grounds, raised in the Army impossible problems for all concerned. We had, I hoped, learned that lesson.
    Mr. Stephen: On a point of Order. This Amendment refers simply to paragraph (b), but the Minister of Labour is discussing the whole position. I am raising this point of Order because I had an Amendment on the Paper which was not called and which dealt with the whole question. I think it ought to have been called, and I raise this point of Order in order to make my protest.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): That is not a point of Order.
    Mr. Stephen: I raise the question with you whether the Minister of Labour is in order in dealing not only with paragraph (b), but also with paragraph (c) and all the sections of conscientious objectors?
    Mr. Brown: All I was doing was to try and show the meaning of paragraph (b) with reference to the other paragraphs.
    752
    It is impossible for any Member of the Committee to understand the meaning of (b) without having regard to (a) and (c).
    The Deputy-Chairman: The Minister is correct. The hon. Member must not challenge the way the Amendments are selected. We selected this Amendment in order that the matter might be discussed in its fullest aspect.
    Mr. Maxton: Do I understand that your Ruling is that on an Amendment to delete paragraph (b) we can discuss the whole issues involved in this Clause?
    The Deputy-Chairman: Certainly not.
    Mr. Brown: Referring again to paragraph (b), the second class were those with conscientious objections to taking life but no objection to serving in the Forces in order to save life. Those who had objections to military service in any form felt a double urge. The first was the urge of public opinion. Public opinion was very strong that those who had conscientious objections ought not to be at an advantage compared with those who served in war-time. The second urge was that of the man in that position who felt he would like to do work of national importance if it was not of a military character. That was the experience of war-time.
    I do not disguise from the Committee nor from myself that paragraph (b) will raise in peace-time even more difficulties than were raised in war-time. There is a much greater number of jobs of national importance in war-time than in peace-time for the local tribunals to decide upon, and then there are the formidable industrial reactions of any action that may be taken under this Clause. Nevertheless, I felt that, balancing these two urges, we ought to make the effort. That is why we have drawn the Clause in the vague way in which it has been drawn and have laid down general directions to the local tribunals in deciding what is or is not work of national importance, with, of course, the right of appeal for the applicant if he thinks he is aggrieved. If the question of wages is mentioned, I cannot imagine that in peace-time, however people may think about it, it will be possible to put a man in industry or agriculture on a different rate of wages from the normal wages for the industry.

    753
    In answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thornbury (Sir D. Gunston), who raised the issue as between one man and another, his illustration will show the wisdom of leaving it to the local tribunals to determine what is work of national importance. I am afraid that when we are dealing with a question of this kind, as, indeed, in most affairs in human life, it is not always possible to give absolute justice, but I think that we have drawn this Clause to meet the real experience of the last War and to make this Bill what I think the Committee would like to make it, conscription without persecution. While I have no doubt that formidable industrial problems will arise, we may, by our usual practical methods, be able to solve them as the cases arise in the course of the experience of the next few months.
    Mr. T. Williams: May I ask two questions to which the right hon. Gentleman failed to reply? After a tribunal has despatched a person to work of national importance, must the person find a job or does the tribunal undertake to help him to find the job? Does the person referred to enjoy the same rights and privileges as the militiaman does under Clause 6?
    Mr. Brown: The answer is "No." The conscientious objector is enjoying a special liberty which is not enjoyed by the bulk of those in the class affected by the Bill, and we feel that this is a burden which he will really have to bear him-Self. With regard to the jobs, it might work out both ways, but the duty is certainly on the tribunal to help.
    Mr. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman give guidance to the tribunals where a person appears before them and they set him on work of national importance, that if he happens to be engaged on a form of work that is of some national importance they will be discouraged from sending him away from his own occupation if he is not to enjoy the rights and privileges under Clause 6?
    Mr. Brown: I think that will be the common sense of it. Apart from munitions work, there are a number of persons in the 60,000 of 20 to 21 in the schedule of reserved occupations who are already doing jobs which, though not of a war character, might very well be regarded as work of national importance.
    Mr. Sandys: Did I understand my right hon. Friend correctly that a tribunal would be able to fulfil paragraph (b) by merely telling the man to go on at his own job on full pay?
    Mr. Brown: It might be in the national interest for that to be done.
    Mr. Crossley: The right hon. Gentleman did not answer the question whether in any circumstances he envisages the employment of these men in bodies?
    Mr. Brown: I did not omit that question because I failed to appreciate the point, but because I thought my answer covered it. It is not within my province.
    5.55 P.m.
    Mr. Bevan: The Minister seems to have made a genuine attempt to answer some of the questions that have been raised, but he has not fully appreciated the situation which is likely to arise in his efforts to be fair to the militiaman while at the same time trying to be fair to the conscientious objector, and vice versa. We are not now dealing with war, but with an anticipation of war, because although it is military training which is proposed under the Bill, the Clause about conscientious objectors has war in mind. What the Government have done is to import into a military training Measure categories that are applicable to war conditions because they have imported into it work of national importance. It is easy to describe work of national importance in war time, but not very easy to describe it in peace time. At least, it is far more difficult to do so because in peace-time a vast variety of work is of national importance, whereas under wartime conditions it would be restricted considerably.
    There are certain categories of men in which it is easy to see what will be done by the tribunals. There is the man who is a conscientious objector to participation in the military machine in any way. He is easy to deal with. There is the man, on the other hand, who was anticipated in the Prime Minister's speech, who is prepared to be identified with the military machine and even with fighting, provided it is the care of the wounded and things of that sort. That category of conscientious objectors will have to be trained for that work and there will be no difficulty in their going to camp and in proper instruction being provided for them

    755
    in order that when war breaks out they will be able to do that class of work. It is not the full combatant's work, but it is, nevertheless, work for which training is required. There is another class who object to being so closely associated with the actual fighting, but who are prepared to take part in Civil Defence. For that work they will require training also. There is another class who will not fall into either of these categories, but who are prepared to undertake in war-time work of national importance in which at the moment they are not engaged. They are also easy to deal with because they will be trained in a particular industry which in time of war will fall under that category.
    We have, therefore, three classes of conscientious objectors who will have to be trained for the class of work to which they have no conscientious objection. There is the other class, the general class of conscientious objector, who provides the major difficulty; but it seems to me that it is rather foolish to disturb a man from his occupation because he is a conscientious objector merely in order to make him put up with exactly the same hardships as the man who has no conscientious objection at all. If a man working as an engineer or an electrician has a conscientious objection, is he to be disturbed from his occupation merely because his friend working at the same bench has not a conscientious objection? If we do that it seems to be carrying the disturbance of civil life unnecessarily far, merely in order that one man may suffer the same hardships as the other.
    I should have thought the best thing would be to leave the man at his occupation unless it can be shown that there is work of immediate national importance for which there is such an overwhelming shortage of labour that he ought to be asked to undertake it. As to the position taken up by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) such a man, unless he is under some special State Department, must have exactly the same rates of wages as other people, and if he is to be paid the same rate of wages obviously the hardship inflicted upon him is less than that inflicted upon the man who is undergoing military training. But that is inevitable in the circumstances of the case. There would be far more objection from these benches if the Government
    756
    exposed itself to the charge of recruiting cheap labour. It would be folly for hon. Members to expose themselves to a charge of that sort merely because they want to be punitive and to give the conscientious objector the same burden of hardship as the man who has no conscientious objection. So it seems to me that we are trying to import premature difficulties into the Bill. These difficulties will occur in war, but then they can be resolved far more easily.
    There is one other point on which I should like information. The Bill says that the conscientious objector must engage in work of "national importance." That might give a tribunal the power to indicate that he must work for a particular employer. Would it not be desirable to speak of "a class of work of national importance," so that the tribunal would be estopped from indicating a particular job or a particular employer, only saying to the man, "You must find work in that class of employment"? That would save the court from exposing itself to the charge of recruiting labour for a particular employer. It might be possible on Report for us to get an Amendment of that sort included. I believe that many of the difficulties are arising because we are trying to swallow the Clause as a whole without realising that there are many categories with whom the tribunals would find it comparatively easy to deal, and I hope that the tribunals will not take it from this Debate that they are always to disturb the conscientious objector merely in order that he should be put into the same category as the man who has to undergo military training.
    6.6 p.m.
    Sir. A. Wilson: The defenders in this House of conscientious objectors are going much further than the Peace Pledge Union. In its publication of 19th November, 1938, the Peace Pledge Union gave the following advice to its members:
    "There is a vast field of socially necessary-work in peace time, certain to be disregarded in war in which the pacifist will find ample scope for service on behalf of the people he lives among—the cultivation of neglected land, the repair of country roads, and houses, reafforestation, solace for the aged and the sick and the despairing."
    If we are to do justice both to the conscientious objector and the militiamen, if we are to prevent bitter ill-feeling and jealousy arising between man and man in

    757
    the same village we ought to be careful to see that the conscientious objector does not profit in pocket by his conscientious scruples. No genuine ones will desire to do so. Many conscientious objectors are anxious to have this made clear to the world. They wish the honesty of their conscientious objections to be apparent. They will greatly prefer, at least in war, and possibly in peace, a system which will guarantee that they would not be better off than the militiaman. If we accept that view then the ideal course, if practicable, would be to provide public works service corps camps in which they would do the very things proposed by the Peace Pledge Union.
    Mr. Lansbury: I think the hon. Member has not really done justice to the Peace Pledge Union. They wanted all that work undertaken voluntarily apart from any State control.
    Sir A. Wilson: I cannot answer for the Peace Pledge Union although I read its publications.
    Mr. Lansbury: But if the hon. Member quotes he should quote it all through.
    Sir A. Wilson: I could quote it at great length. A Peace Pledge Union manifesto is a lengthy document. I accept without question the right hon. Gentleman's caveat: he is a high authority on the subject; but I want to revert to my point that the ideal system, if practicable would be to have public works service camps, controlled by conscientious objection officers so that there could be no possibility of victimisation.
    Mr. Bevan: What sort of public works are they to undertake?
    Sir A. Wilson: Works of drainage, of afforestation—work for the State and for the State alone, for whatever wages is paid to the militiamen.
    Mr. Collindridge: Would not a better alternative be to make up the pay of the militiamen to the equivalent of the pay of the conscientious objector in industry engaged on works such as the hon. Member mentioned?
    Sir A. Wilson: I do not think I need follow that line of argument. I have said that genuine conscientious objectors do not wish to be in a more favourable position than militiamen. Let us look abroad to see how the conscientious objector is dealt with there. In Russia
    758
    they are required to serve in hospitals for infectious diseases and in the more awkward and unpleasant forms of civil work. That would not be resented by a genuine conscientious objector. It is here that in my submission the Bill has gone wrong. It should not speak of works of national importance but of works that are socially necessary. We perhaps rather over-estimate the numbers involved. In the last War there were only 22,000 conscientious objectors of all kinds and in all categories—
    Dr. Edith Summerskill: What is the authority of the hon. Member for making that statement about Russia, because I visited hospitals for infectious diseases in Russia and did not find one conscientious objector?
    Sir A. Wilson: It may be that by the time the hon. Lady visited Russia the conscientious objectors had decided not to maintain their scruples. I should be glad to give the hon. Lady my authority for my statement. I have it in black and white in a book printed by, I think, the Carnegie Endowment for Peace a few years ago, I think in 1929 or 1930.
    Dr. Summerskill: I was there in 1932.
    Sir A. Wilson: By that time conscientious objection had, presumably, been liquidated. Of some 22,000 conscientious objectors in the last War only 1,200 refused any form of national service and went to gaol as a result. I think we are over-estimating the likelihood of any large number of persons appearing who have absolute conscientious scruples. In Canada in 1917 they did better by giving statutory exemption only to persons with religious scruples. I saw with regret in the "Times" to-day a statement by some representatives of the Free Churches which seemed to regard the conscientious objector to any form of service to the State, however far removed from military service, as a sort of heroic figure. Conscience is not the monopoly of the conscientious objector. There are great numbers of men whose consciences lead them to fight in defence of what they believe to be right and there are great numbers of Christian men who hold this belief and have the tradition of 18 centures behind them—
    The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt, but the hon. Member is getting very far away from the Amendment.
    Sir A. Wilson: I readily bow to your Ruling. The result of the omission of this paragraph would be that conscientious objectors would remain in their civil occupations. That would inevitably arouse fierce jealousies and resentments. The object of the Bill is to get men for a particular service. We do not want further to encourage the conscientious objector. I trust that the Government will consider seriously establishing public works camps to which all conscientious objectors will go unless they can show very good reasons to the contrary.
    Mr. T. Williams: Although I do not feel that the Minister's explanation was altogether satisfactory, I think it was the only reply he could give in the circumstances and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. Stephen: I object. I want to say a few words because I think it is as well that it should be made plain that this discussion shows that conscientious objectors are to be treated most unfairly. In his reply the Minister said that this time would be different from the last time, and that they had learned by experience. My impression is that the retention of this paragraph and similar paragraphs shows that the Government do not realise the lessons that were to be learnt from the last time. That has been made plain also by the attitude of hon. Members opposite. I believe that the tribunals to be set up to deal with this matter and to decide upon work of national importance will be no more tolerant or broad-minded than hon. Members who have taken part in the discussion from the other side of the Committee.
    The hon. Member who preceded me said he was greatly concerned about the case of two poultry farmers, one who was 20 years of age and had no conscientious objection to military training and the other a conscientious objector. The hon. Member feared lest one man might be allowed to remain upon his poultry farm and said it would be very unfair to the man who went. I would put another analogy to the hon. Member. Suppose he himself were a poultry farmer next door to the man of 20 who went as a militia man for is a day. Would this man not feel aggrieved that the hon. Member had been allowed to remain on the poultry farm and take advantage of the
    760
    other man having to leave? His grievance would be just as great if, instead of the hon. Member, a young fellow like himself were left in that position. Hon. Members opposite say: "We are anxious to deal justly by conscientious objectors, but there will be a fearful outcry among others who have had to go." My experience during the last War was that the men who had the most consideration for the conscientious objectors were those of the rank and file at the front. Again and again the jingo patriots at home, and the sort of people who handed out the white feathers and all the rest of it, made trouble at our meetings, but when members of the rank and file came along there were always some who were willing to take part and run the meeting, asserting themselves against the jingoism which has been characteristic of this Debate. I lay down the proposition that members of the tribunals which the Government are setting up will be no more broad-minded or clear-minded than the hon. Members who are opposite to me.
    I see upon the Order Paper an Amendment suggesting that conscientious objectors shall be registered in an agricultural training register and shall be employed upon farms, taking the place of persons called out for special courses of military training and at no greater remuneration than if they had been registered in the military training register. How can I expect that tribunals, in spite of what the Minister of Labour has said to-day, will give the generous decisions suggested by the right hon. Gentleman? It is as well that the Committee should realise this position, and also that the proposal to set up camps for the purpose suggested by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) in which to put men who are to do work of national importance, paying them only the same as the militiamen, is the German system. [Interruption.] The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) asks, "Why not?" The answer is that the people who normally work on the land at the present time will play old Harry if you start to introduce cheap labour of that sort in competition with them, and to do afforestation. The foresters of this country would have a very great deal to say about any scheme for reducing their standard of life by the introduction of cheap conscientious-objector labour.

    761
    These suggestions show clearly the mind of hon. Members opposite and their desire to use the present emergency to get cheap labour for their various concerns. I cannot discuss paragraph (c), because that will come afterwards, but what has been said about paragraph (b) applies to it. I very much regret that I have not had the opportunity of discussing the wider questions involved, because I believe they have fateful consequences, and that all these things are helping to fasten industrial conscription upon the workers of this country.
    6.23 p.m.
    Mr. Turton: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) spoke as though paragraph (b) were drafted on the lines of the Amendment to which the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) has referred and we were registering persons to undergo training—the paragraph is concerned with peace time—and training the conscientious objectors for the work that they will have to do in war time. If that is so, there should be some reference in the paragraph to training rather than to work of national importance. I do not share the rather curious views of the hon. Member who spoke for the Independent Labour party that certain men should have a higher remuneration in their training than others, because I believe that the principle of equity among these boys of 20–21 years of age is of very great importance. I can see that there is an issue between the Independent Labour parry and the rest of the Committee on this matter. I do not want to go further into the point at the moment, but I join issue with the hon. Member upon it.
    I would ask the Minister to reconsider paragraph (b) between now and the Report stage. If he thinks he can draft these conscientious objectors into agriculture so that without any training they can be of value to the community the right hon. Gentleman is very much mistaken. If you want to keep a conscientious objector at his job I cannot see why he should not be dealt with under paragraph (a). The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale talked a great deal about the inequity of moving a man from his work, but the tribunals can always register a man under paragraph (a). If you want to fit a man to do agricultural work, you must give him six months' training. It is unjust that while he is under-
    762
    going that training he should be paid at a higher rate of remuneration than others who are undergoing training of a different kind. The hon. Member for Camlachie said that you would be giving the employer an advantage; if that is so, there is nothing to stop an employer from making a contribution to the proper Department for that purpose, but for the first month or so of the training the advantage to the employer would not be very great.
    If the hon. Member for Camlachie and I went on to agricultural work, of which I have some experience, he would probably not be of very great value for the first six months, but after the first six months he might be. I would like him to take up this challenge. I would like him to go into agriculture and to train. Up to six months he would not be of much value.
    Mr. Maxton: What are you doing yourself?
    Mr. Turton: It is of vital importance to the agricultural industry how paragraph (b) is worded. We are not at all satisfied with the present wording and hope that it will be improved at a later stage.
    6.27 p.m.
    Mr. E. J. Williams: The discussion has been not quite satisfactory because the Minister has been unable to tell us what is work of national importance. It would be far more satisfactory if the right hon. Gentleman could have told us exactly what that work would be. He has left it to the tribunal, but they are likely to import a great deal of prejudice into the matter. I would emphasise what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). One can appreciate precisely what will occur in the mining industry. During the last War persons engaged in the industry had exemption cards. Hon. Members will remember what happened. At the commencement of the War a large number of miners volunteered for service, and for some time the output of coal fell very rapidly. Ultimately, coal mining was scheduled as work of national importance and all those who were working therein were given exemption cards.
    I had some experience of the work at that time, and I can appreciate what it would be like again. A person engaged

    763
    in the mining industry may have a conscientious objection, and if it is left to persons on the tribunal to deal with him you may find a certain amount of local prejudice. He may have been engaged in propaganda for the Peace Society or the League of Nations, and it is possible that the tribunal might come to a decision that the individual should be moved from what is, in fact, work of national importance and sent to agricultural training for 12 months. After that training it seems that he is expected to revert to his normal occupation. We are dealing with peace time and not with war time, but it seems rather absurd that an individual should be called up and sent to another kind of industry to learn what that industry is, when he is already a skilled man, a man of craft, in another industry. In the Civil Defence Bill certain reserved occupations have been defined, apparently because they are occupations of national importance, and I suggest that attached to the present Bill there ought to be a list of certain reserved occupations defined to be work of national importance. If such a schedule were drafted by the Minister of Labour and supplied to the tribunal, the tribunal would know whether an individual came within a given category of reserved occupation, and might decide that it would be better to leave him in his present occupation.
    An unemployed person between the ages of 20 and 21, listening to this Debate, might regard it as rather singular. It would seem that, the moment he begins to register his conscientious objection to military service, work of national importance can be found for him. It is rather extraordinary that this stage has to be reached in order to find out precisely the kind of job that such an unemployed person can do. In discussing the deletion of paragraph (b), we are discovering that, in the minds of certain hon. Members opposite, it is not difficult at any time to find work of national importance if people are prepared to work for a certain wage. Apparently it would be quite easy, with the help of the Minister of Labour, to absorb all these young men in industry provided it can be done at the rate that is to be paid to the militiamen. I trust that the Minister will reconsider the whole matter, and that the Department will decide what is work of national importance and prepare a schedule of reserved
    764
    occupations, so that the tribunal may take the list as a guide when individuals come along with a conscientious objection to military service, and, if they are in an industry that is essential to the State in peace as well as in war, they will not be unduly disturbed.
    6.33 p.m.
    Mr. Mainwaring: It seems to me that underlying this discussion there is the question whether the possession of a conscience is an honourable or a dishonourable matter, but most Members opposite appear to be much more concerned about reducing this question of a conscience to safe limits. Presumably even those who drafted the Bill recognise the existence of a conscience in some persons in the community, but they also recognise that it is undesirable to multiply the number of such persons. This seems to me to be a remarkable thing in Christian England. The House opens its business every day with prayer, and we regard this country as a Christian country, but we are afraid that people will develop a religious conscience. I ask the Minister how he would deal with those Welsh religious denominations which lay it down as a denominational principle that they must conscientiously object to war. If the possession of a conscience is a dishonourable matter, and one to be penalised, that would involve penalising the whole religious denomination and telling them that they are wrong in being Christians and in developing this point of view, and that all members of the Welsh denominations of the age of 20 who are now in the mining industry must be removed from that industry. The right hon. Gentleman will be asked to penalise the members of his own denomination in Wales, to tell them that they have no right to a conscience of this kind and that they are to be penalised by being shifted out of the mining industry, because the possession of a conscience by a poor miner disqualifies him from being a soldier and from being a miner. What, then, is this member of a Christian denomination now going to be?
    Mr. Ede: Minister of Labour.
    Mr. Mainwaring: I am afraid I should have to disagree with my hon. Friend, because the possession of a conscience would disqualify him absolutely as Minister of Labour. No conscientious

    765
    objector can possibly qualify for that office. If you regard any person as honourably possessing a conscience, you cannot honourably proceed to devise ways and means of penalising him. If conscience is an honourable thing, it is dishonourable to penalise anyone for having it. I should say to any young man in this country, "If this Government or any power on earth asks you to do something that you disagree with, develop a conscience as quickly as you can; and let it be a Number One conscience, a hundred per cent. conscience that you will not do what other people try to dictate to you."
    6.40 p.m.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: May I express my disappointment at the Minister's absolute refusal to answer the question which was put to him from every conceivable angle by my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment? What we wanted the Minister to tell us, and what we ought to know, and further, what I am absolutely certain the Minister knows, is the meaning of the phrase "work of national importance." The right hon. Gentleman cannot expect us to believe that he and his advisers have not given a great deal of thought to this phrase, because, but for this phrase, there is very little in the paragraph that is of importance to the conscientious objector. The Minister must not blame me if I assume the right, because I have been forced to do so, to tell the Committee that we know very well what he has in his mind. He need not have rambled over certain experiences that we had in the last War, because in post-war years he has had a great deal of experience in the Department that he represents in the House as to the meaning of work of national importance. Obviously what he has in mind and proposes to model on the basis of this phrase is just what he has been practising within his own Department. There we have had work being done at militia men's wages, and I repeat that the reason why the Minister has not taken the Committee into his confidence this afternoon is that he dared not tell us what he has in his mind regarding this phrase.
    More than once we have had to accuse the right hon. Gentleman of laying down, in his reconditioning camps, the doing of work of national importance as the foundation for an extension of that work in time of war, or of comparative war. The work in these reconditioning camps
    766
    would be regarded as work of national importance, and, as I have said, the remuneration paid is roughly equal to, or perhaps a little less than, what will be paid to the conscript soldier. It includes such work as has already been referred to by supporters of the Government and of the idea of conscription of labour, namely, public works, afforestation, the making of roads, sewerage and drainage schemes, and water supply. That is largely the line along which the Minister of Labour is developing the camps he has established in different parts of the country. The Minister tells us that these conscientious objectors will not be put to work at less wages than are paid in industry, but his refusal to tell the House the definition that he and his advisers have in mind drives us to the conclusion that his intention is to place the conscientious objectors in enlarged camps, to ostracise them from the general industrial life of the country, and to get them, as he already has done, to work for the most reactionary local authorities in the country—Tory local authorities—on work of tremendous national and social importance. We must protect them. I hope that my hon. Friends will divide on this Amendment, because what is in the mind of the Minister is well known to us, and he has been acting upon it while he has been Minister of Labour.
    Mr. T. Williams: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    The Deputy-Chairman: Has the hon. Member the leave of the Committee to withdraw?
    Hon. Members: No.
    Amendment negatived.
    6.44 p.m.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, in page 6, line 12, after "register" to insert:
    "for the period of one year beginning with the date on which he is so registered."
    The object of this Amendment is to answer the question how long the man who has been conditionally registered must be subject to an obligation to perform this work. The answer to that question is that the obligation will continue for one year from the date of registration. This requirement does not appear to us to be unreasonable. Two obligations are required of the militiaman. The first is to undergo six months' training, and the

    767
    second, when that training is over, is to remain a member of the Territorial Army or of the Reserve for 3½ years. When my right hon. Friend made some reference to the time for which a man conditionally registered is obliged to perform work of national importance, one or two hon. Members may have thought that he meant to suggest that the period was only six months; but what he was anxious to suggest was that just as the militiaman has an obligation to do a first period of six months' training, so the man conditionally registered has also the obligation to do six months' work of national importance. After that six months is over the man conditionally registered is also obliged to do another six months work, or something approaching that, which appears to be the fair equivalent to the three years and six months' service in the Territorials or the Reserve to which the militiaman will be subject.
    Mr. John Morgan: Does that finally discharge him?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There is a Government Amendment on the Paper, to come up very shortly, which will deal with that.
    Amendment agreed to.
    6.46 p.m.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, in page 6, line 12, after "must," to insert "during that period."
    This Amendment is consequential.
    Mr. Lees-Smith: I understand that during the first six months the conscientious objector will be doing work of national importance. During the second six months is it laid down that he shall be working, or is there merely power to put him to work for part or the whole of that period?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The obligation is to do work of national importance for one year.
    Sir S. Cripps: The words are that he must during that period "engage and perform." Suppose he is told that he must get agricultural work or some other class of work, and that he cannot obtain it; what happens to him then? Can he get a certificate that he has done his best, or will he be penalised?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that this would be most unlikely to arise, but if it did there is an Amendment providing for his case to be reviewed.
    Sir S. Cripps: If the man cannot get employment at the work designated, should it not be possible to change the designation?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We will bear in mind the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman has made.
    Mr. Sorensen: When the tribunal gives its judgment that the man must do work for 12 months, does the work date from the time of the judgment?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: From the date of registration.
    Mr. T. Williams: Assuming that some person is directed to obtain some work of national importance and finds it extremely difficult, should he not be able to go back to the tribunal? Can the Measure be amended to provide for that?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No tribunal would order the man to obtain work which was non-existent.
    Amendment agreed to.
    6.49 p.m.
    Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page 6, line 13, after "some," to insert "class of."
    This is a manuscript Amendment, which I handed in a short time ago. The object is that a man may be ordered to perform "some class of work," instead of "some work." This would give power, for example, to order a man to undertake coal mining, but not to specify the colliery at which he should work.
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: As the hon. Member has indicated, we have not had much time to study this Amendment. I see no prima facie objection to accepting it, but I hope the hon. Member will allow us to consider the matter more fully between now and the Report stage.
    Mr. Williams: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman accepts the Amendment, but intends to re-examine it?
    Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. I recommend the Committee to accept the words and insert them now, but I reserve the right

    769
    to bring up the matter again on the Report stage if any objection is discovered.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The next Amendment selected is that in the name of the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen). We have had a long discussion on this matter. Does he still wish to move?
    6.51 p.m.
    Mr. Sorensen: I beg to move, in page 6, line 13, after "work" to insert:
    "of a civil character and under civilian control."
    I will be very brief, because I feel the shadow of the guillotine already falling on me. A great deal has been said concerning the exact placing of conscientious objectors on work of national importance. In every community or State this difficulty is bound to arise in some way or another. As the Clause stands now, it is not clearly defined that, in fact, work of national importance should be of a civil character under civilian control. I would point out that, under the existing Subsection it is quite possible for a tribunal to give work of national importance to an applicant, but in fact to make it of a military character.
    6.55 p.m.
    Mr. E. Brown: The Amendment conforms to our intention, and I will accept it in principle; but the Committee will understand that, when we look at it again, we may find it necessary to make some drafting alterations, while preserving the intention.
    Amendment agreed to.
    6.56 p.m.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, in page 6, line 15, after "importance" to insert
    "and shall then, without condition be finally registered in that register."
    This meets the point made by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. J. Morgan). When the year's obligation is over, the man is transferred to the register of conscientious objectors.
    Mr. J. Morgan: In the event of war breaking out, is the calling up of that individual finally disposed of?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: So far as this Bill is concerned. I could not go further than that.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, in page 6, line 33, after "shall," to insert:
    "require him to make a fresh application to a local tribunal, and upon any such application that tribunal may deal with him in like manner as on an original application, but if he fails to make such a fresh application when required by the Minister, the Minister shall."
    It was agreed some time ago that this Amendment and the next should be taken without Debate.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 34, after "register," insert:
    "as a person liable to be employed only in non-combatant duties."—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, in page 6, line 35, at the end, to insert:
    "(7) If while a person is conditionally registered in the register of conscientious objectors any change occurs in the particulars furnished by him in accordance with Subsection (1) of this Section he shall forthwith notify the change to the Minister in the prescribed manner, and if he fails to do so shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds and the Minister may transfer the name of any person found guilty of an offence under this Subsection to the military training register as a person liable to be employed only in non-combatant duties nowtithstanding that lie was conditionally registered or that he has attained the age of twenty-one years."
    The object of this Amendment is to oblige conscientious objectors to notify any change in the particulars they are required to give. It is the same obligation as is imposed in Sub-sections (5), (6) and (7) of Clause 1, save that if a conscientious objector is found guilty of failing to comply and is transferred to the military register, he is transferred only to undertake work of a non-combatant character.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 4, leave out Sub-sections (8) and (9).—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, in page 7, line 19, to leave out from "the," to "may," in line 21, and to insert:

    771
    "regulations made under this Act regulating the procedure of such tribunals as aforesaid shall make provision for the appellate tribunal to sit in two divisions, of which one shall sit for Scotland and."
    This Amendment provides for the setting up of an independent tribunal in Scotland. If it were not carried, the appeals from local tribunals in Scotland would have to be heard in England.
    6.59 p.m.
    Mr. Maxton: We are getting on very rapidly, and I am afraid I have not grasped the significance of the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary. They had something to do with Scotland. I gather that an opportunity is being given to set up an appeal tribunal in Scotland. What is the significance of the Amendment? I understood that that was arranged for in the Bill as originally drawn.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, if it were not for this Amendment there would be only one appeal tribunal. It was thought desirable that there should be a separate division of this tribunal to hear appeals from local tribunals in Scotland. Were it not for this Amendment many people in the division the hon. Member represents who felt themselves aggrieved would either have to travel to London in order to appeal, or the appeal court would have to travel to the hon. Member's division.
    Mr. Maxton: Then this is just an error in the drafting of the Bill which is being put right? It is provided in the Schedule that there shall be a tribunal in Scotland.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is not provided that there shall be two divisions. There would have been an appeal tribunal but there would not be separate divisions, so there would be no provision that appeals in Scotland should go to a division of the appeal court in Scotland. This puts it beyond question that appeals from Scottish local tribunals may be heard by the Scottish division of the appeal tribunal.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: Does the omission of Wales imply that we shall have to take the law into our own hands?
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Sorensen: I beg to move, in page 7, line 21, to leave out "may empower," and to insert "shall require."
    772
    I think it is necessary to put in these stronger words in place of the permissive words in the Bill as it stands.
    7.2 p.m.
    Mr. E. Brown: I think on reflection, if he thinks out the effect of the Amendment, the hon. Member will agree with me that we ought not to accept it. In the particularly subtle problems which have to be dealt with in matters of conscience it is best to have the atmosphere of the tribunals as informal as possible. A good deal of the evidence may be given by men who are honest and sincere which they would not give on oath, though it would be their conviction that their evidence was true. I want the Committee to understand exactly what is in our minds. I am convinced that the permissive way is the better way. To compel every single witness to give evidence on oath would not conduce to the advantage of the conscientious objector nor to the work of the tribunals. It is best to leave the experienced people who will be chairmen of the tribunals to judge whether or not the evidence is of the kind which requires to be given on oath or whether the cause of justice will not be best served if the atmosphere is less formal.
    Mr. Mander: Is it contemplated that the proceedings of these tribunals will be held in public or not as a general rule?
    Mr. Messer: I did not quite gather the full import of what the Minister said. I should like to know whether it means that the Regulations may empower, or whether they shall give the tribunal the right of administering the oath or not.
    Mr. Brown: The Bill is drafted so as to leave it to the discretion of the tribunals whether any particular evidence shall be required to be given on oath or not. The Amendment would make it obligatory to hear all witnesses on oath.
    Mr. Messer: This deals with the Regulations. When they are drafted, either they will or will not give power to the tribunals to call for evidence on oath. Is it that the Regulations may empower? Why should it not be that the Regulations will give the tribunal power to call for evidence on oath?
    Mr. Brown: That is exactly what we have done. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] It is permissive. If you put it the other way, the effect will be exactly what I

    773
    have explained would be undesirable, namely, that all evidence would be taken on oath.
    Mr. Attlee: The right hon. Gentleman has not got the point. As it reads, such Regulation may empower the tribunals to take evidence on oath. Therefore, it may empower them not to take evidence on oath.
    Mr. Brown: I have stated it as I understand it. If there is a point to be met, I will look into it.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: The Minister said he would like to inform the Committee what was in his mind. Could he tell us what sort of evidence he has in mind which would be taken on oath and what sort would not? I am asking out of curiosity. I should like to know. I think he is quite right in leaving the matter optional, but, in order that he may do what he has set out to do, would he answer my question?
    Mr. Brown: Evidence on a question of fact might be appropriate to be taken on oath, but questions of opinion might fall into the category of evidence which would not be taken on oath.
    Mr. Wedgwood Benn: The right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the point of my hon. Friend the Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer). He has to make Regulations. The Regulations "may empower." That is to say, they may not empower. That is to say that the tribunals may not take evidence on oath at all. They may have no power to take evidence on oath. The Minister has made no attempt to deal with that point. It is customary for draft Regulations to be laid alongside the Bill. Are there such Regulations in draft?
    Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman knows the answer to his own question. I have tried to meet the point and have shown what is in my mind and I have promised to consider it.
    7.9 p.m.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: The right hon. Gentleman's explanation leaves me with a feeling of considerable uneasiness. As far as I understood him he said that there were men and women who would come before the tribunals and give evidence on these extremely important
    774
    matters which they would not be prepared to repeat on oath. That is a very serious matter indeed because, if I recollect some of the proceedings about conscientious objectors during the War, statements were made which those who made them would certainly hesitate to repeat on oath. It seems a very serious position indeed if the tribunal, in deciding these important matters, is to be guided by statements which those who make them would not be prepared to repeat on oath. It seems to raise a very serious position indeed for conscientious objectors and I hope we may have some further explanation.
    7.10 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I share my hon. Friend's misgivings. I imagine that the Minister wants to give effect to the fine phrase that he used on a previous Amendment, when he hoped we should be able to get conscription without persecution. He and I are both Nonconformists and I know he has a great regard for the history of Nonconformity. We are now dealing with matters on which in general principle I am sure we are in complete agreement. Presumably these tribunals will be privileged places and there will be persons, especially after what he has said on an earlier Amendment, who will feel very aggrieved that their sons or relatives are going to be militiamen on a shilling a day while conscientious objectors, if they succeed in their conscientious objection, will be able to draw the ordinary civil pay. [Interruption.] That is what I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say might be the case. I can see jealous female relatives, who will not be very strong on reason when their susceptibilities are aroused, making the most slanderous statements. They undoubtedly were made on the last occasion. They cannot be prosecuted for perjury unless they are put on oath, and there is no guarantee in the answer the Minister has given that they will be put on oath. No action for slander would lie unless malice could be proved, and great difficulties would be placed on the conscientious objector in clearing his character from the kinds of statements that might be made. If the person was on oath and the statement was material, a prosecution for perjury could be instituted. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will undertake to consider the matter in the light of all the

    775
    circumstances. He has met us well on a good many points and I ask him not to close his mind finally on this.
    Mr. E. Brown: I do not want to close my mind, but my objection still stands. It is not a difference between "may" and "shall" but between "may empower" and "shall require." A conscientious objector should be able to call witnesses to give evidence not merely on matters of fact. A Minister of religion might be called to give evidence on his behalf, and it might be the kind of evidence which is not susceptible of being interpreted in terms of oath. It would be wise in the interests of the conscientious objector himself to leave the atmosphere of the tribunals as informal as possible.
    Mr. Attlee: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an instance of the kind of thing which cannot be sworn on oath? I find it difficult to grasp it. I cannot see the difficulty.
    Mr. Brown: I would like to oblige the right hon. Gentleman if I could, but I am thinking of the whole experience of the last time. I know how differently some tribunals would be affected, from what I have heard about them, if it were possible for witnesses appearing on behalf of the applicants on the ground of conscience to give their evidence under such strict terms as the Amendment would desire.
    7.16 p.m.
    Mr. Maxton: May I support the view that in the regulations that are drafted governing these people great care will be taken not to bring too much of the atmosphere of the law courts into the matter, and not to make it appear that a conscientious objector is a criminal who is appearing before judges, instead of a citizen taking a different view on a matter of national importance from that of the majority of the citizens? The relationship should not be the law court relationship. I admit—and I think that the statement of the Minister would cover the point—that there might be circumstances, as visualised by the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher), where there was spiteful evidence being brought before the court. The hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mr. Barr) will correct me if I am wrong, but
    776
    I think that the whole of his quotations were from courts-martial and not from either local or appeal tribunals.
    Mr. Barr: Tribunals attended by military representatives.
    Mr. Maxton: A person might not be a civilian witness, but a military representative. If a witness is allowed to go into one of these courts and say, "I know that this man did so-and-so and that therefore he is not genuine in his protestations at all," it ought to be possible for the sheriff in Scotland, or the county court judge in this country to say to such a person, "These are serious statements and I must put you on oath." That would be the proper and correct procedure, but I hope that it will not normally be the atmosphere in which these proceedings will take place.
    7.18 p.m.
    Mr. Messer: I believe that the Minister has got the idea of what is in my own mind, which appears to be rather different from that which has been expressed. If the Amendment is accepted it gives the Minister no option but to insist that the tribunal shall take evidence on oath. If he will use the word "shall" instead of the word "may," the regulations will contain reference to the tribunals and will empower them to call evidence on oath. That is desirable but it is quite undesirable to have the atmosphere of the police court and to let the conscientious objector go there with the idea that he is a prisoner and that evidence on oath has to be obtained and the result has to be in the nature of punishment or he is going to get off There are conditions and circumstances which one can easily foresee where it is essential that because of certain statements evidence shall be taken on oath.
    Mr. E. Brown: I do not think there was ever any difference between the hon. Member and me. I know exactly what is in his mind. I agreed to look and see whether there was any other form of words, and that is why I said that I would consider the matter, in order to make sure that it is the intention in certain circumstances that the tribunal "shall."
    Mr. Sorensen: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    7.20 p.m.
    Mr. David Grenfell: I beg to move, in page 7, line 22, to leave out "may," and to insert "shall."
    The Sub-section would then read,
    "and shall provide for enabling parties to proceedings before such tribunals to appear either in person or by counsel or a solicitor or agent."
    I hope that the Minister will find it as easy to agree to this Amendment as he did to the principle of the former one. It is desirable to replace a permissive word by a definite obligation on the tribunal. The Minister nods his head. If I am to take that as a sign of acquiescence, I need not prolong the Debate, as there are other Amendments that need to be discussed.
    Mr. E. Brown: I have considered this Amendment, and I find that it covers the points in question, and I have pleasure in accepting it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 23, leave out "such," and insert "the."—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
    7.21 p.m.
    Mr. Grenfell: I beg to move, in page 7, line 25, to leave out "agent," and to insert "by a representative of any trade union to which they belong."
    I realise that we have got to a matter of far more importance than almost anything we have hitherto discussed under the Bill. Last night we had an opportunity of discussing an Amendment containing this principle, and I would urge the Minister and the Committee to consider the great importance that we attach to this Amendment. We are now dealing with men who will be required to attend and give an account of their conscientious scruples in the matter of military service. These people will be placed by the very circumstances of the tribunal in a position very difficult to maintain. They will be men who hold different views from the great majority of their contemporaries and associates, and they will be under a kind of public disapproval, which it will be very difficult for them to overcome. They will be required to have taken certain preliminary steps before they get to this stage. The conscientious objector will have made his application and, if it is denied, he will make his appeal to the tribunal. The circumstances may be
    778
    entirely weighted against his appeal, so that he will require to have the utmost consideration, sympathy and assistance if he is to prove the validity and genuineness of his objection.
    Some of us are old enough to remember the operation of conscientious objectors' tribunals during the Great War, and I have very vivid recollections indeed of some of the circumstances of the hearings which I attended and in which I sometimes took part. I remember how sensitive and very intelligent and deeply conscious people found themselves almost unable to state their case because of the atmosphere and the environment of the court itself. I remember the way in which military representatives pressed their claims for the bodies and souls of the young men who appeared before these tribunals. I remember how very domineering, and indeed sometimes objectionable, was the behaviour of some of these military representatives. Unless a person has a very strong personality he cannot do himself justice. I remember that in some of the courts the very statement of a case brought derisive laughter and condemnation from the court itself, and in view of that experience I feel most strongly that the appellant should be entitled to take with him somebody who is competent and has a detailed knowledge of the conditions and limitations of the tribunal itself and is accustomed to act on behalf of men in negotiations and discussions of this kind.
    I do not know of any body in this country that can place at the disposal of an appellant in these circumstances more useful assistance than the trade union to which the man belongs. In our large trade unions we have in every locality men familiar with this kind of proceeding who are used to attending the county court on behalf of their members as well as conducting negotiations during trade disputes. I propose in the Amendment that there should be an obligation upon the tribunal to afford the opportunity for all parties to be represented by a trade union representative in order that the appellant may be given full justice in the appeal that he makes.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Does not "agent" include "trade union representative"?
    Mr. Grenfell: A trade union representative is not legally an agent. We want

    779
    to have it specifically stated that a representative of a trade union shall be entitled to represent an appellant. We want to be quite sure that an appellant does not surfer from lack of proper representation. We want to make certain in the Bill that the appellant shall have the right to call a representative of his trade union on his behalf without any cost. I do not know what the view of the Minister is on this matter, but I shall never forget one particular example of a man who appeared before one of these courts. He had rather a strong prejudice against being exposed in that way and he was far too sensitive to be able to make a full defence of his position. I remember the whole circumstances so well. When the opportunity was given to this man to state his conscientious objection, I remember the offensive way in which the case was dismissed. This sort of thing should be avoided.
    These are cases in which decency should be observed from beginning to end. We are giving these people the right of conscience, and if this nation does not recognise that conscience should be dealt with in a reasonable and decent way, we shall suffer very much indeed. I hope that the Minister will find it possible to accept the Amendment, and so make it possible to do away with many of the objections which existed during the previous War period. There is this difference on this occasion. We are not at war but at peace, and this is an additional reason why we should be very careful what we do. There is no excuse for the high feeling that was sometimes displayed during the last War, and I hope that the Minister will find it possible to accept the Amendment, or at least the principle of it, so as to make sure that an appellant who is a member of a trade union shall have the right to have his trade union representative by his side to advise and to speak for him.
    7.30 p.m.
    Mr. Stephen: I desire to support the Amendment. I take it that the Bill as it stands, where it has the word "agent" refers to a law agent, who is a Scottish solicitor, and I think the Amendment would materially improve the Bill. I would also like to suggest to the Minister that if the word "agent" had been taken, not in its legal sense in Scotland, it
    780
    would have been better still. I would like to see a term that would allow, for instance, a minister of religion who knows an applicant very well, and who knows that he has a religious objection, to appear. I think "agent" is a term wide enough to include a friend if it is made quite clear in the definition Clause that it is not merely the Scottish term "law agent." All that I think is necessary is to make it clear that it is not a law agent who is intended. A trade union representative would be an appropriate man in many cases, and in other cases it could be another individual.
    7.31 p.m.
    Sir Ralph Glyn: What we are trying to achieve is to allow any man to have his best friend, as it is called in the Navy, to appear for him if he is in trouble. It is a well known expression. I do not see why you should cut out the word "agent," because in Scotland it means something definite, and if the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment would agree not to take out the word "agent," but to keep it in and to add "or best friend," it seems to me that that would cover the whole case. You would, I think, get into trouble if you differentiated between who was and who was not your friend. The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) felt that the point would be met by the word "agent" in its wider sense, but it also has in Scotland a particular sense, and I think that ought to be retained.
    Mr. Stephen: The term that the hon. Member is proposing has also a legal sense, and it would be better simply to put in the word "friend."
    Sir R. Glyn: I do not mind putting in "friend" instead of "best friend," but I do not like to specify a particular person whose occupation is laid down, because it might confuse the issue.
    7.33 p.m.
    Mr. E. Brown: I am bound to say that I listened with great sympathy to the powerful speech of the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell), and I am prepared to accept the Amendment as it stands on the Paper. When we looked at the Amendment, we thought that it was not necessary to add it here, because it was covered by the term "agent." I do not know what "agent" means, and

    781
    nobody does. I am not prepared, therefore, to put in a word of that kind which I do not understand and which has in law no meaning in this Bill. When we put it in the Bill, we thought it meant a law agent. I am not prepared to put that word in in a wider form than that, but I am prepared to accept the Amendment, because I realise that it will give great confidence to the tribunals to have responsible people acting as friends for those who go to give evidence before them.
    Mr. Collindridge: In consequence of the acceptance of the Amendment, I am prepared to withhold any remarks that I was going to make upon it.
    7.34 p.m.
    Lieut.-Commander Agnew: I have no objection whatever to good trade unionists who value the social services which their trade unions perform for them employing the services of trade union representatives when attending these tribunals; but what will be the position of many workers in this country who do not belong to a trade union? If this Amendment is carried, they will be penalised, because they will not be in a position to invite any friend or agent in the ordinary common-law sense to appear for them. The Minister of Labour has said that when the Bill was drafted the term "agent" meant a Scottish law agent, but, of course, when the courts come to interpret and administer the Act, they will not worry about what the Minister of Labour said it was thought to mean. They will say, "What is an agent?" And they will say, "An agent is a man who is appointed to act for another in any capacity." Therefore, if the Committee consent to cutting out the word "agent," they will be depriving people who never could have a trade union of the valuable assistance which an ordinary friend of theirs, who knows them well, might be able to give them. I hope, therefore, my right hon. Friend will reconsider his decision.
    Mr. Buchanan: I am thinking about university students, who obviously have no trade union. What is to be their position? They will have to go unrepresented, according to the present position.
    7.37 p.m.
    Mr. Silverman: I understand that when the right hon. Gentleman put the word "agent" into the Bill, he meant it in
    782
    the narrow sense of a law agent in Scotland. The hon. and gallant Member for Camborne (Lieut.-Commander Agnew) said the courts would probably put another interpretation on it, but with that I do not agree. What worries me is this: If you are proposing to take out the word "agent," what will be the position of an applicant from Scotland who wants to be represented by a lawyer?
    Mr. E. Brown: His case would be covered by the Clause as it stands.
    Mr. Silverman: I understand then that that point is covered. But suppose a man in any country, England or Scotland, does not desire to be represented by a lawyer and has not a trade union representative. He will be in the position, as I understand it, of having to go alone, and I do not think that that can be right. There are a great many unemployed people in this country, who, through no fault of their own, have fallen out of trade union benefit and are not, therefore, in a union or entitled to call on the services of a trade union representative. There are other people too, such as university students, who are not in a trade union; and, remember, we are dealing with people between the ages of 20 and 21, and what you might say at a later age with regard to the duty of a worker to join a trade union and about its being a correct penalty for him to suffer if he chooses not to join a union, cannot be right to say of a young man of 20 or 21. Therefore, I think the right hon. Gentleman will be making a mistake unless the Clause, as it finally appears, does not provide, first, for representation by lawyers, then for representation by trade union representatives, where that form of representation is appropriate, and finally, what is not provided for, representation by anybody at all whom the applicant may prefer.
    7.41 p.m.
    Sir Joseph Lamb: I do not object to the Minister accepting the Amendment, but what I do object to is taking out the word "agent." This Bill has an application very much wider than is covered by trade unions, and a man who is not a member of a trade union would have to be represented by a solicitor. There is no other representation that he could have, and I object to that. I had experience in the last War as a representative, and there were occasions when I had to say that I would refuse to appear for a

    783
    person if he employed a lawyer, because the lawyer made big charges and did nothing except ask me to represent him. Consequently, from, my own experience, I say that the Minister should leave in the word "agent" or some other word, like "representative."
    7.42 p.m.
    Mr. Graham White: I welcome at once the acceptance of the Amendment in so far as it recognises the position of the trade union representatives and defines their position under the Bill, but I sincerely hope the right hon. Gentleman will not leave the matter there. It seems to me that the Sub-section as it now stands imposes a limitation of a very wide1 character. There can hardly be any Member of this Committee who in the last week or so has not had some experience of difficult cases among the student class—and I have already had them in the legal class—who would, under this Subsection, have no right of representation whatever; and I appeal to the Minister not to leave the matter as it is now proposed to leave it.
    7.43 p.m.
    Mr. Edmund Harvey: I would like to add my appeal to the appeals that have come from all quarters of the Committee to the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman emphasised, very rightly, the importance of the sittings of the tribunal being informal, and he used that argument against making insistence upon the use of judicial oaths compulsory on all occasions. On the same ground, it is very desirable that an applicant should be able to be represented by a friend, whether the term be "a friend" or "other representative"—it might be a relation, an uncle, or a father, or some older friend, or a companion of like age. In any case, an informal representative would be for many people of the greatest help. It is from no hostility to the insertion of words ensuring the rights of the representatives of trade unions that I am speaking, but I would beg the Minister to reconsider his decision with a view to making an addition in the sense that has been suggested.
    7.44 p.m.
    Mr. Batey: I am glad the Minister has decided to accept the Amendment, and I think he has been very wise in doing it, but I feel, with others, that he should
    784
    give some consideration to the question of bringing in any other person whom an applicant might want to represent him. I have here a letter from a man in my division whose son is at college. This lad was 20 years of age in last January and he cannot be a member of a trade union. If he had to go before a tribunal, his father would want to go with him. Why should he not be allowed to go with him?
    Mr. Kirkwood: Or his mother.
    Mr. Batey: I think the Minister ought to reconsider this matter before the Report stage with a view to providing a form of words which would allow any other person besides a representative of a trade union to attend.
    7.46 p.m.
    Mr. E. Brown: I cannot undertake this evening to make any further concession but I have, as I always do, listened with profound interest to this discussion, and a point which has had great weight with me, is the plea about the attendance of relatives or friends. I cannot, however, undertake to go any further at the moment. The way of a Minister who makes concessions is always a hard one, because directly he makes one concession others are demanded. I promise the Committee, however, that I will consider very carefully what has been said and especially what has been said about relatives and friends, but I cannot say any more than that.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Do not grow tired of well-doing.
    Amendment agreed to.
    7.48 p.m.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, in page 7, line 31, after "tribunals," to insert:
    "and to any witnesses whose attendance is certified by any such tribunal to have been necessary."
    The object of the Amendment is to enable travelling and subsistence allowances to be paid to witnesses who attend a tribunal. As the Bill is drawn, these allowances can be made to applicants but they cannot be made to witnesses, and it is proposed that, where the attendance of witnesses is certified by the tribunal to be necessary, these allowances should be paid.
    Mr. Maxton: While not opposing this Amendment which, I think, makes a useful concession, I wish to enter a caveat about certification by the tribunal. There was a case recently in which an ordinary prisoner came up against this problem. He asked for the attendance of some ten witnesses and the sheriff certified for three hostile witnesses but refused to certify for seven friendly witnesses. I should like to know from the Minister what will be the basis of this certification. Am I right in assuming that after a preliminary hearing, the appellant may claim that certain witnesses should be heard and that the court will then consider whether those witnesses are necessary or not? Is it the case that only if the court certifies that the witnesses are necessary can they be summoned and have their expenses paid? It seems to me to be an awkward principle in legal procedure that an appellant should have as witnesses only those people of whom the court approves.
    Mr. E. Brown: The hon. Member and all those who are acquainted with procedure in Scotland, know that all kinds of preliminaries are necessary in Scotland. What is intended here is to simplify procedure and to provide that any witnesses whose attendance is certified by the tribunal to be necessary, after the usual preliminaries, shall have their expenses paid.
    Amendment agreed to.
    7.52 p.m.
    Mr. James Griffiths: I beg to move, in page 7, line 32, after "allowances," to insert:
    "including compensation for loss of remunerative time."
    The Minister said that one effect of making a concession was that it induced the people to ask for more, and while I admit that he has made one or two very good concessions on this part of the Bill, I hope he will not refuse the further concession for which I now ask. Had we been able to do so last night I would have moved a similar Amendment in relation to the hardship committees, and I hope the Minister will take this request into account as regards both the hardship committees and the tribunals to deal with conscientious objections. I would point out that the provision which I propose to insert already applies to the courts
    786
    of referees under the Unemployment Insurance Acts. It appears to me that the structure of the tribunals has been borrowed very largely from the structure of the courts of referees. Indeed the Minister proposes to draw the membership of the hardship committees from the panel which already exists of workers and employers in connection with the courts of referees. Why not, then, include this provision as well and allow everyone who suffers loss of remunerative time, that is loss of wages, by appearing before any of these tribunals, to be compensated? That will preclude any suggestion that anyone is being penalised or handicapped by having to appear before a tribunal.
    7.55 p.m.
    Mr. E. Brown: I would ask the hon. Member not to press the parallel between this Measure and the Unemployment Insurance Acts too far. There is, I would point out, a distinction between the case of those who have to go before medical boards and those who will appear before the hardship committees or the tribunals to deal with conscientious objections. The Government say to a man after he has registered, "You shall go to a medical board," and therefore there is a statutory duty to see that the man's travelling expenses and subsistence allowances are paid and also any loss he may suffer in wages. But the position is not the same in the other cases, where a man goes of his own volition, to plead hardship or to plead that he has a conscientious objection. In those cases, we pay travelling expenses and subsistence allowances, but I do not think that we would be justified in going any further than that. On broad general grounds of principle, I do not think that those who seek to make use of the machinery of Clause 3 can consider themselves ungenerously treated if they receive travelling expenses and subsistence allowances, and I must advise the Committee not to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Shinwell: Has the right hon. Gentleman in mind any scale which will form the basis of the remuneration of the persons concerned?
    Mr. Brown: We have in mind scales somewhat similar to those under the Unemployment Insurance Acts.
    7.58 p.m.
    Mr. Benn: We are passing this Bill under extraordinary conditions. It is

    787
    necessary for external reasons to get it through at once, but it cannot be made operative without regulations and scales. Has the Minister those regulations and scales ready? If not then obviously it is no good rushing the Bill through with this indecent haste. If they are ready, why not lay them before the House? I put this specific question to the right hon. Gentleman. When does he propose to lay these regulations before the House?
    Mr. Brown: The answer is that I will do my statutory duty under the Bill and as required by Parliament, as expeditiously as the circumstances permit.
    Mr. Benn: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by doing his statutory duty? It is just nonsense. His statutory duty, his Parliamentary duty, is to inform us of the regulations which are to govern the operation of this Measure. I suggest that he has not got any regulations any more than the Government have got arms for the men whom they are calling up to be trained. All they want is to get the Bill through, and that is why we are being driven into passing it in such a hurry. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us a straightforward answer. He must know whether or not, as this thing is so urgent, he has draft regulations ready. Can he give an answer without any of the trappings of the overflow meeting, and tell us when the regulations will be laid before the House of Commons.
    Mr. E. Brown: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman recognises that I have sufficient drawing power to attract an overflow meeting. I am surprised that so good a democrat should appear to belittle great democratic institutions. He knows very well that if I did produce draft regulations before the Bill had received the Royal Assent he would accuse me at once of overrunning my powers, on the ground that I had no power to issue any regulations until Parliament had decided the matter.
    8.1 p.m.
    Mr. Silverman: I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman has the power of attracting overflow meetings, particularly at the Employment Exchanges. We all recognise, too, that the overflow at the exchanges is growing day by day. In the
    788
    distinction which the right hon. Gentleman has sought to draw he has done something which I think the whole Committee has been trying very hard not to do. He has drawn a distinction, on merit, as it were, between those who apply for examination on conscientious grounds and those who appear before the medical board without making any such claim. Although the matter may appear to him to be a small one, I think the principle is a big one. The distinction is sought to be drawn for the first time, when, up to this point, the whole Committee has cooperated to remove any kind of stigma in regard to the matter.
    The right hon. Gentleman's distinction is a false one. He said that in the case of a medical examination the man was compelled by law to attend, whereas in the case of the tribunal he was there voluntarily and could choose whether he would go or not. That is not true. The right hon. Gentleman is laughing. I cannot see anything humorous about the matter. Perhaps he will acquaint us with the nature of the joke.
    Mr. E. Brown: The last thing I should desire to do would be to show discourtesy to the hon. Member. He must not think that I was not attending to what he was saying. There are times when a Minister may think and may show by his demeanour that he may be able to add to the knowledge of the Committee by giving information relevant to the subject.
    Mr. Silverman: If the right hon. Gentleman would like to contribute something to the knowledge of the Committee, in order to save time, then I should be only too glad to give way to him. He must not, however, blame me if I am sensitive and if I have not that considerable degree of intelligence which enables me to determine, when the right hon. Gentleman is laughing, what is the information which is in his mind and which he desires to convey by his laugh. What I was trying to say was that it is fallacious for the right hon. Gentleman to assert that when a man attends before a medical tribunal he is compelled, and that when he seeks to establish his conscientious objection before another tribunal, he is not compelled. There is no such distinction. He is compelled in both cases. The only result of the conscientious objector not attending before the tribunal is that he is

    789
    put on the military register, a place where by law, if the Bill becomes an Act, he ought not to be. His presence before the tribunal is just as much a duty imposed op on him by this Bill as is the presence of any other applicant before a medical tribunal. It is not possible that in one case attendance is voluntary and in the other case it is compulsory.
    If that be so and there is no such distinction as the right hon. Gentleman has sougth to establish, then I think he might reconsider the matter and treat both applicants who appear before both kinds of tribunals exactly in the same way, and either pay for loss of remunerative time or pay nothing in both cases. I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to draw a distinction between the two, or do anything which will have the effect of imposing a stigma upon one applicant and not upon the other. That is exactly what we have all been trying to avoid.
    8.6 p.m.
    Mr. Grenfell: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will reconsider the term "subsistence," and when he comes to determine the scale of allowances have regard to the fact that a large number of people may be compelled to lose working time and to suffer pecuniary loss, because of their interest in these proceedings. It may be that they are an acquaintance or a relative of the applicant, and that they can testify to certain habits or conduct of the appellant, which evidence may be required in order that justice may be done. There is no reason why that man should be out of pocket and should suffer pecuniary loss because he is present at the public proceedings which have to determine the issue. That is quite different from the case of the person who goes to plead his own case before the court of referees. I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider this matter, and if he can give us that promise we will not press the Amendment. Will he consider that a witness who goes to court may lose a substantial sum out of his week's income and only get bare expenses of travelling to the place where the hearing is held. I hope he will give an undertaking to reconsider the point and so arrange the scale of allowances that where a man loses, say, a day's wage, some compensation should be given to him for that loss.
    8.8. p.m.
    Mr. McEntee: I should like the right hon. Gentleman to consider the matter from the standpoint of the distance a man may be called upon to travel in order to attend the tribunal. He may lose a couple of days' work, or even more in some cases, because of the very long distance he may have to travel. The point has been made that there is really no such thing as voluntarily attending before the tribunal. The whole Bill is compulsory, and these people have to attend. Having made it compulsory that a man must attend one kind of tribunal, either the medical board for examination, so that he may be certified whether he shall or shall not go into the Army, or the tribunal which hears his appeal as a conscientious objector—in both cases the provisions of the Bill are compulsory. In view of the compulsory character of the Bill and the very long distance that a man may be compelled to travel if he is desirous of giving evidence on behalf of a friend or, it may be, a relative, his claim ought to receive the favourable consideration for which we ask. In both cases the applicant should be treated the same. I hope the Minister will at least give us a promise that he will reconsider the matter.
    8.10 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I am very disappointed that the Minister has not seen his way to accept the Amendment, and if I base my argument on the supposition that he is not going to accept it, that does not mean that I think he ought not to accept it. Inasmuch as he is not prepared to pay for loss of remunerative time, will he see that included in the instructions to the chairmen of the various tribunals there shall be a statement saying that as far as possible they should arrange to hold their meetings at times reasonably convenient for the people, who may be deprived of the privilege that is given to them by this Clause if the time of meeting is fixed at inconvenient hours. That is clearly a concession that ought to be made. I would pay tribute to the way in which the Board of Education holds its inquiries at which parents are entitled to be present, in the evening so that parents can be there. There may be some districts where it would be the most helpful to hold the meeting of the tribunal in the evening, and in other places it might be the more convenient to hold it in

    791
    the morning or the afternoon. I do hope that this matter will be brought to the notice of the chairmen of the tribunals.
    8.12 p.m.
    Mr. E. Brown: The suggestion of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has my entire sympathy, and we will do our best to see that it is carried out. On the major point that has been raised, I always regret saying "No" to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr.
    Grenfell), who always puts his case so reasonably and with such force, but we discussed this matter carefully before we decided to make this distinction, and I think we are justified in the distinction. Therefore, I regret that we cannot accept the Amendment.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 133; Noes, 244.

    Division No. 113.]

    AYES.

    [8.13 p.m.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Parker, J.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

    Hardie, Agnes

    Pearson, A.

    Adamson, W. M.

    Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)

    Pethick-Lawrenes, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

    Hayday, A.

    Poole, C. C.

    Ammon, C. G.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Price, M. P.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehavan)

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Banfield, J. W.

    Hicks, E. G.

    Ridley, G.

    Barr, J.

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Riley, B.

    Batey, J.

    Hollins, A.

    Ritson, J.

    Bellenger, F. J.

    Hopkin, D.

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)

    Benson, G.

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Sexton, T. M.

    Bevan, A.

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

    Shinwell, E.

    Bromfield, W.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Silkin, L.

    Brown, C. (Mansfield)

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Silverman, S. S.

    Burke, W. A.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Simpson, F. B.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Sloan, A.

    Chater, D.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lathan, G.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

    Lawson, J. J.

    Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)

    Cocks, F. S.

    Leach, W.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Collindridge, F.

    Leonard, W.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Cove, W. G.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Stephen, C.

    Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

    Logan, D. G.

    Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

    Daggar, G.

    Lunn, W.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Dalton, H.

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Thorns, W.

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Thurtle, E.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Day, H.

    MacLaren, A.

    Tomlinson, G.

    Dobbie, W.

    MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

    Viant, S. P.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Ede, J. C.

    Marshall, F.

    Watson, W. McL.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Maxton, J.

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Frankel, D.

    Messer, F.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Gallacher, W.

    Milner, Major J.

    Westwood, J.

    Gardner, B. W.

    Montague, F.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Gibson, R. (Greenock)

    Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Muff, G.

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Noel-Baker, P. J.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Groves, T. E.

    Paling, W.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

    Beechman, N. A.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

    Bernays, R. H.

    Cartland, J. R. H.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

    Blair, Sir R.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Albery, Sir Irving

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)

    Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)

    Bossom, A. C.

    Channon, H.

    Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)

    Boulten, W. W.

    Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)

    Apsley, Lord

    Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)

    Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)

    Colfox, Major W. P.

    Assheton, R.

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Colville, Rt. Hon. John

    Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

    Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

    Conant, Captain R. J. E.

    Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

    Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

    Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)

    Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanat)

    Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

    Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)

    Baxter, A. Beverley

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Cox, H. B. Trevor

    Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B (Portsm'h)

    Bull, B. B.

    Critchley, A.

    Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

    James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

    Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

    Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

    Jarvis, Sir J. J.

    Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)

    Cross, R. H.

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

    Crossley, A. C.

    Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Keeling, E. H.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Cruddas, Col. B.

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

    Rosbotham, Sir T.

    Culverwell, C. T.

    Kimball, L.

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    De la Bere, R.

    Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

    Rowlands, G.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    Denville, Alfred

    Lancaster, Captain C. G.

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Latham, Sir P.

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Doland, G. F.

    Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Salt. E. W.

    Donner, P. W.

    Leech, Sir J. W.

    Samuel, M. R. A.

    Dugdale, Captain T. L.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

    Sandeman, Sir N. S.

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    Levy, T.

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Eastwood, J. F.

    Lewis, O.

    Selley, H. R.

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

    Liddall, W. S.

    Shakespeare, G. H.

    Ellis, Sir G.

    Lipson, D. L.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Elliston, Capt. G. S.

    Little, Sir E. Graham-

    Shepperson, Sir E. W.

    Emery, J. F.

    Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Entwistle, Sir C. F.

    Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Errington, E.

    Loftus, P. C.

    Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

    Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)

    Lyons, A. M.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

    Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

    MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

    Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

    Everard, Sir William Lindsay

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

    Spans, W. P.

    Findlay, Sir E.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)

    Fleming, E. L.

    McKie, J. H.

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Foot, D. M.

    Maitland, Sir Adam

    Storey, S.

    Fox, Sir G. W G.

    Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

    Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

    Furness, S. N.

    Mander, G. le M.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Gluckstein, L. H.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

    Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

    Medlicott, F.

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Goldie, N. B.

    Mailer, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Gower, Sir R. V.

    Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.

    Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

    Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

    Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

    Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

    Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

    Titchfield, Marquess of

    Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

    Touche, G. G.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Munro, P.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

    Nall, Sir J.

    Turton, R. H.

    Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

    Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

    Walker-Smith, Sir J.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Hambro, A. V.

    O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Warrender, Sir V.

    Hannah, I. C.

    Peaks, O.

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Wayland, Sir W. A.

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Wells, Sir Sydney

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

    Petherick, M.

    White, H. Graham

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

    Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth)

    Pilkington, R.

    Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

    Higgs, W. F.

    Porritt, R. W.

    Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)

    Holmes, J. S.

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Hopkinson, A.

    Purbrick, R.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Radford, E. A.

    Wragg, H.

    Howitt, Dr. A. B.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    York, C.

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)

    Rankin, Sir R.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hunter, T.

    Rayner, Major R. H.

    Lieut.-Colonel Harvie Watt and Captain McEwen.

    Hutchinson, G. C.

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.

    Amendment made: In page 7, line 33, leave out "he," and insert "the Minister."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    8.23 p.m.
    Mr. Stephen: I am glad of an opportunity of saying a word on this Clause. I regret that the Amendments I had on the Order Paper were not taken. I should
    794
    like to have had an opportunity of discussing the question whether there should simply be a notification by people who had a conscientious objection to military service and training, or whether there should be the elaborate machinery proposed in this Clause. In my opinion there is no need for all the elaborate machinery which is set up. The hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) has said that during the last War there were only 22,000 conscientious objectors, and that

    795
    about 7,000 suffered penalties because their conscientious objection was not recognised. Those being the numbers out of the millions who were called up, I wonder whether it would not be a saner proposition for this Committee to recognise plainly and bluntly that there is such a thing as a conscientious objection to military service and training, and having recognised that there is a conscientious objection which is to be respected, the Committee ought not to arrogate to itself the right to try to provide ways and means of judging another man's conscience. It simply cannot be done. It is not possible to devise any machinery by which this can be decided.
    In the last War, there were those 7,000 men who suffered, many of them receiving sentences merely because they affirmed their conscientious objection; and after the War was over, there was practically universal agreement that those men had been acting truly in accordance with their conscience. It always will be a stigma upon the fair name of this country that those people were penalised unjustly, for they were penalised unjustly if they had a genuine conscientious objection to military service and yet had to suffer penalties because they were not able to get through the tribunals that were set up. The Minister said that we are learning from the past and seeking to avoid the mistakes that were made in connection with those people during the War. On the benches behind the right hon. Gentleman, there are hon. Members who have shown that their attitude of mind on this question is precisely the same as the attitude of mind which meant that these people had to suffer during the last struggle.
    The Minister showed that he had a somewhat broader mind and a more generous appreciation of the problem than many of his own supporters; yet I think that on the last Amendment he himself showed that he did not fully appreciate the problem. There was in his mind the idea that in this Clause we are conferring some favour upon the men who have a conscientious objection to war. We are not giving them any favours, but only seeking to act justly towards them. I wish that the Minister had tried out the simple method of preparing a register of those people who have a conscientious
    796
    objection to military service, and of providing no other machinery than the register. By this means they would intimate their objection, their objection would be recognised, and they would not be called upon to serve. If this were done, the number of those who objected might be small or it might be large. If it were a small number, there would be no need for anything further; and if it were a large number, and the Government thought that people were sheltering under this objection who really had no conscientious objection, then would be the time to deal with the question by attempting to devise machinery. I ask the Minister even now to reconsider the whole problem in that way. I believe that when the Military Training Bill reaches the Statute Book, the overwhelming majority of the people in some parts of the country will be willing to abide by the law in that respect—
    It being Half-past Eight of the Clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 10 th May, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Medical Examination.)
    8.31 p.m.
    Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, in page 7, line 39, after "time," to insert:
    "(not being earlier than the tenth day after the date of the service of the notice)."
    If hon. Members will examine this Subsection, they will observe that no specific provision is embodied for the purpose of calling up the men for medical examination within a certain period. It is for the purpose of correcting this omission that I have moved this Amendment. In my submission, a reasonable time ought to elapse between the notice being served on the man and his appearance for the purpose of the examination. For example, the man ought not to be called up the day after the notice has been placed in his hands. Several days might well elapse before he makes his appearance as determined by this Clause.
    I submit, further, that a man would require to make necessary arrangements, presumably with his employer, who might

    797
    be embarrassed if several men were required to leave their employment at very short notice, and possibly there might be domestic arrangements which would have to be fulfilled. Consequently, it would be desirable for the Minister to provide a specific number of days in which the man could make the necessary arrangements. I presume that the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to make a concession on this matter; otherwise, the provision rests entirely within the discretion of the Minister, which would seem to me to be invidious. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to make the concession, or at any rate to make it specific within the Clause that a certain number of days must elapse between the calling-up notice and the appearance of the man for the medical examination.
    8.34 p.m.
    Mr. E. Brown: The Amendment moved by the hon. Member raises two issues. First of all, the Amendment would make the period for the notice with regard to the medical examination be the same as that for the calling up. Secondly, it raises the question of the time that should elapse between the serving of the notice and the medical examination. On the first point, I think the Committee will agree that the Bill is right as it is, subject to a discussion of the second point. In the case of the calling-up notice, we should not call the man up at once but would give him time to make his arrangements before going away for the six months' period.
    The other case is not the same. The medical examination may take a short time; it may be half a day, or even a couple of hours if the man happens to live near where the medical board is. He may require a day or a day and a half or a couple of days in order to attend the examination and in that case it will be inconvenient to all concerned to have too long a period of notice. I am, however, weighing what the hon. Member has said about putting a period of notice in the Bill. I should prefer that the Bill should not state a definite period, because it is better in these matters to have a little elasticity. It is in our minds to provide two or three days' notice for the medical examination. That in ordinary cases will be ample to enable the man to make his arrangements. Therefore, I do not think it necessary to put a definite period of notice in the Bill unless the Committee feel strongly that it ought to be in.
    Mr. Shinwell: May I put two further points to the Minister on the submissions he has made? The right hon. Gentleman said that examinations would not take up much time. We have not been told the number of medical boards that will be established and a man, particularly in a rural area, may have to go a long distance to be medically examined. That will take up a considerable time, in addition to the delay that will be experienced if there are a large number of men waiting for examination. Moreover, it is unwise to have a condition of uncertainty as regards the time in which men must appear for medical examination, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will insert some provision so that between the notice and the actual examination a certain time will elapse.
    8.38 p.m.
    Sir Robert Young: I hope the Minister will fix a period which will be reasonable. A large number of workers are sent away from their places of employment and there may be a delay in the delivery of their notices. If a period is not in the Bill the Minister ought to make sure that a reasonable time is given.
    Mr. E. Brown: That is what is in my mind. I have said that a little elasticity is desirable and that is why I do not want to tie myself down to a certain number of days. There will be about 120 medical boards, so that, except in very scattered parts, there will not be long delays. The point of the hon. Member for Newton (Sir R. Young) reinforces my plea that it is necessary to have elasticity as to the period of notice. We want to get the examination done as rapidly as possible, but if the circumstances are such that another day might be allowed, I shall be able to give it if the period is not laid down in the Bill. If it is in the Bill my hands will be tied.
    8.39 p.m.
    Mr. George Griffiths: All the people who are in work at the present time are not working five or six days a week but are on short time, and I suggest that they should be called up for medical examination on a day when they are not working.
    Mr. Brown: I think we could probably do that.
    Mr. Griffiths: But it does not say so in the Bill. Under the Bill a lad might

    799
    be called up on the very day he is working; he will lose a day's wage and he will not be recompensed for it.
    Mr. Brown: The next Amendment deals with the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised.
    8.40 p.m.
    Mr. Richards: The Minister has mentioned the difficulties of communication in the rural areas, and I could give instances where unemployed men are called up to a centre in their county and it takes them a day to get there and another to get back. The margin ought to be considerable in the case of men in those circumstances, and I would like the Minister to interpret what has been said by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) in a generous way, and not confine the period to two or three days, which will be impossible in some cases.
    8.41 p.m.
    Mr. McEntee: In my industry I know many young fellows who are in lodgings. They get a job away from home and they do not inform their landladies where they are going. They go away for a week or fortnight and return when their jobs are finished. It would be impossible to serve a notice on them, and I hope that in any regulations that will be made circumstances like those will receive consideration and that they will not be put into operation oppressively.
    8.42 p.m.
    Mr. McGovern: Can the Minister give a definition of the form of notice which will be sent to these men? I frequently have cases of individuals who are summoned to rent courts by a notice. The notice is sometimes handed to another person in the house who signs for it. The postman accepts that, but the notice does not always get to the person for whom it is intended. I have had to go to the court half a dozen times to get cases
    heard again because the individual concerned did not receive the notice. There are, too, often cases of summonses which do not reach the persons concerned and decisions are given in their absence. I hope that if men are to be subjected to penalties and compelled to prove that they have not received the notice the maximum period of notification will be given in order to ensure that the individuals receive the notices.
    Mr. James Hall: I am surprised to hear the Minister talk of two or three days' notice, because I represent an industry in which young men are carrying out road transport duties and are often away from home for a week. They travel from place to place in a tramp-steamer-on-wheels method and they get right away from the centre without anyone at home being able to get into touch with them. I do not think the Minister wants to create difficulties for these young people or to land them into difficulties, and if there is a real degree of latitude it will be not only helpful for them but will avoid many difficulties.
    8.45 p.m.
    Mr. E. Brown: I think it will be found that two or three days' notice will be ample in most cases, but we know from our industrial experience, which is very great, what an extraordinary variety of conditions there are in occupations, and we shall do our best to meet any difficulties which may arise. We are providing that there shall be elasticity and we shall act reasonably in the light of our industrial experience.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: How will the next Amendment meet the case which I put forward a moment ago? I have looked at it and cannot see that it covers the point at all.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 135; Noes, 234.

    Division No. 114.]

    AYES.

    [8.47 p.m.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Bellenger, F. J.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

    Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

    Benson, G.

    Collindridge, F.

    Adamson, W. M.

    Bevan, A.

    Cove, W. G.

    Alexander, Fit. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

    Bromfield, W.

    Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

    Ammon, C. G.

    Brown, C. (Mansfield)

    Daggar, G.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Burke, W. A.

    Dalton, H.

    Banfield, J. W.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Barr, J.

    Chater, D.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Batey, J.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Day, H.

    Dobbie, W.

    Lathan, G.

    Ritson, J.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    Lawson, J. J.

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Ede, J. C.

    Leach, W.

    Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Leonard, W.

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

    Leslie, J. R.

    Sexton, T. M.

    Foot, D. M.

    Logan, D. G.

    Shinwell, E.

    Frankel, D.

    Lunn, W.

    Silkin, L.

    Gardner, B. W.

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Silverman, S. S.

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Simpson, F. B.

    Gibson, R. (Greenock)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Sloan, A.

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

    McGovern, J.

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    MacLaren, A.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Grenfell, D. R.

    MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

    Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    Mander, G. le M.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Groves, T. E.

    Marshall, F.

    Stephen, C.

    Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)

    Mathers, G.

    Stewart. W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Maxton, J.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Messer, F.

    Thurtle, E.

    Hardie, Agnes

    Milner, Major J.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Hayday, A.

    Montague, F.

    Tomlinson, G.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Viant, S. P.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Muff, G.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Watson, W. McL.

    Hicks, E. G.

    Noel-Baker, P. J.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Westwood, J.

    Hollins, A.

    Paling, W.

    White, H. Graham

    Hopkin, D.

    Parker, J.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Pearson, A.

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

    Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Poole, C. C.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Price, M. P.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Kirby, B. V.

    Pritt, D. N.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

    Riley, B.

    Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Anderson.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

    Cox, H. B. Trevor

    Hambro, A. V.

    Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

    Craven-Ellis, W.

    Hannah, I. C.

    Albery, Sir Irving

    Critchley, A.

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)

    Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)

    Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

    Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth)

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

    Higgs, W. F.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

    Assheton, R.

    Cruddas, Col. B.

    Holmes, J. S.

    Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

    Culverwell, C. T.

    Hopkinson, A.

    Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

    Davies, C. (Montgomery)

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

    De la Bere, R.

    Howitt, Dr. A. B.

    Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)

    Baxter, A. Beverley

    Denville, Alfred

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Hunter, T.

    Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

    Doland, G. F.

    Hutchinson, G. C.

    Beechman, N. A.

    Donner, P. W.

    Jams, Sir J. J.

    Bernays, R. H.

    Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)

    Blair, Sir R.

    Dugdale, Captain T. L.

    Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Eckersley, P. T.

    Keeling, E. H.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

    Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

    Boulton, W. W.

    Ellis, Sir G.

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Elliston, Capt. G. S.

    Kimball, L.

    Bracken, B.

    Emery, J. F.

    Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

    Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)

    Entwistle, Sir C. F.

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)

    Errington, E.

    Lancaster, Captain C. G.

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)

    Latham, Sir P.

    Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

    Everard, Sir William Lindsay

    Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

    Fildes, Sir H.

    Leech, Sir J. W.

    Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

    Findlay, Sir E.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Fleming, E. L.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

    Brown, Brie-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

    Fox, Sir G. W. G.

    Levy, T.

    Bull, B. B.

    Furness, S. N.

    Lewis, O.

    Burghley, Lord

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Liddall, W. S.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Gluckstein, L. H.

    Lipson, D. L.

    Cartland, J. R. H.

    Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

    Little, Sir E. Graham-

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Goldie, N. B.

    Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

    Channon, H.

    Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.

    Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

    Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Loftus, P. C.

    Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Lyons, A. M.

    Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

    Grin, Sir E. W. M.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Colfox, Major W. P.

    Grimston, R. V.

    MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

    Colville, Rt. Hon. John

    Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)

    Maclay, Hon. J. P.

    Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)

    Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

    Maitland, Sir Adam

    Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S.G'gs)

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.

    Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

    802

    803

    Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

    Rayner, Major R. H.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

    Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Medlicott, F.

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

    Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

    Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Thomas, J. P. L.

    Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Rosbotham, Sir T.

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Titchfield, Marquess of

    Mitcheson, Sir G. G.

    Rowlands, G.

    Touche, G. C.

    Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Turton, R. H.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

    Salt, E. W.

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

    Samuel, M. R. A.

    Walker-Smith, Sir J.

    Nall, Sir J.

    Sandeman, Sir N. S.

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

    Schuster, Sir G. E.

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

    Selley, H. R.

    Warrender, Sir V.

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

    Shakespeare, G. H.

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Shepperson, Sir E. W.

    Wayland, Sir W. A

    Peake, O.

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Wells, Sir Sydney

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

    Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

    Petherick, M.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Pensonby, Col. C. E.

    Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

    Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)

    Porritt, R. W.

    Spans, W. P.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Wragg, H.

    Purbrick, R.

    Storey, S.

    York, C.

    Radford, E. A.

    Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Rankin, Sir R.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Mr. Munro and Captain McEwen.

    8.56 p.m.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, in page 7, line 40, at the end, to insert:
    "and where such a notice has been served on any person, the Minister may, at any time while that person remains liable to be called up for military training under this Act, cancel the notice or cause to be served on him a further notice varying the original notice by altering the place or time at which he is thereby required to submit himself to medical examination."
    The object of the Amendment is in part to meet the point put forward by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths), who seemed a little uncertain about the intention of the Amendment next after the one which has just been disposed of. I should like to assure him that the Amendment which was moved by the hon. Member for Sea-ham (Mr. Shinwell) in a slightly different form preceded the one which I am now moving but which is actually on the Paper as the first to be proposed to the Clause. It was a very natural mistake. The object of the Amendment is to enable a medical notice to be cancelled and another notice, varying the original notice if need be, to be issued. This is a power which, under Clause 5, the Committee will be asked to pass in regard to the ordinary calling-up notice, and it seems desirable that the same provision should apply to medical notices. This power will obviously be to the advantage
    804
    of the authorities and very often even more so to the individual applicant.
    8.58 p.m.
    Mr. Shinwell: I should like for the purpose of elucidation to ask the Minister in what conditions he envisages this Amendment being required to operate. I cannot conceive of any conditions in which a medical notice might be varied, unless in a wholesale fashion in relation to a large number of men. For example, if a man received a notice calling him up for medical examination at a particular time and to a particular place, and if in the course of two or three days he received a notice cancelling the original notice and asking him to appear on another day and time at another place, it might create a feeling of uncertainty, although we know there is no specific provision as to the period which should elapse between the notice being served and the appearance of a man before a medical board. I hope that no such feeling of uncertainty will be created by the Minister by a provision of this kind. I should like to know whether the Minister visualises variation or cancellation in a wholesale fashion of these notices or whether the Amendment is intended to apply to individuals.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: Is this not a case of suiting the convenience of the medical boards and not that of the persons con-

    805
    cerned? The Amendment says that the Minister shall have the power, but it does not state that variation shall take place on the application of the person who has received the notice. A person gets a notice, and unless the Minister cancels that notice and gives him a chance to appear on a date favourable to himself he has to go at the Minister's convenience or at the convenience of the board. I hope the Minister will make this matter a little clearer.
    Mr. Richards: What is the extent of the period during which a person remains liable to be called? May that period extend in certain cases to six months? Is he liable to have a notice, have it withdrawn, have a new notice, have that withdrawn, and then a new notice again? For what length of time can that procedure be adopted?
    9.1 p.m.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I assure the hon. Member who has just spoken and the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) that they are unduly apprehensive. There is nothing sinister in this proposal at all, and the same provision is proposed for Clause 5. It may well be that a postponement or variation is desirable from the point of view of the board or of the individual applicant. Circumstances might arise to make it impossible for the medical board to interview applicants on a particular occasion. It is not in the least likely that that would happen frequently—indeed it may never happen. But, for instance, some important members of the board may be taken ill. Under the existing position there would be no power to send out a different summons from the medical board. As to the applicant, he may find it impossible or highly inconvenient to attend, or he may be ill, and in those cases it would be impossible for him to attend in response to a communication received from the medical board. The medical board must be enabled to send out another notice summoning the man to attend. The board would be unduly handicapped were there no provision of this kind, and the interest of the man himself, in respect of which the hon. Member for Hemsworth is right to be solicitous, would not be met.
    9.3 p.m.
    Mr. Messer: I understood when we were on the other Amendment that I should hear why it could not be accepted, but I
    806
    have not had my doubts set at rest by the explanation which I have just heard. I assume that the notices will be posted; every hon. Member knows that when a letter has been wrongly addressed it takes more than 10 days to come back from its wrong destination, by way of the Returned Letter Office, to the sender. Consequently, there will be people to whom calling-up notices have been wrongly addressed and who will not have received the notices. I understand they will be liable in regard to the notices which they have not received. The Amendment which the Minister has moved might cover that point but his explanation does not do so.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: When the letter comes back, the sender will realise that it has not been received.
    Mr. Messer: It will not have been received within the 10 days.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If this Amendment is carried there will be power to send out another notice.
    Sir R. Young: Are these notices to be signed?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: They are to be sent out in the name of the Minister.
    Mr. Shinwell: It is not clear yet what is the purpose of this provision. The hon. Gentleman said, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths), that it was intended to enable fresh notices to be sent by medical boards if some person were unable to attend or if a member of the board could not be present. Surely this Amendment is not intended to meet only those cases. Are we to understand that there is no other purpose?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman may understand that fully. There is nothing sinister about it.
    Mr. Shinwell: I am not suggesting that there is.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: A man may be liable to pay a fine for not responding to a summons. It is obviously desirable to be able to send another summons to prove beyond doubt the readiness of the man to respond. Such a provision is in the interests of the applicant as well as of the medical board, and it means nothing more than that.
    Mr. McGovern: Is not the individual required to sign something to prove that he has received the notice?
    9.5 p.m.
    Mr. Poole: Is the Minister, in seeking power to issue a further notice to amend a previous notice, prepared to accept responsibility for any loss of time or wages that the individual may suffer as a result of the alteration of the notice? It is the practice in many cases for men to have to make application for leave of absence, and such application may have to be made as long as seven days beforehand. The man may have obtained leave for a particular day, and on the day before, or even on the morning of the same day, may receive an amending notice saying that he is not required on that day. Will the Minister reimburse him for his consequent loss of wages?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I could not accept full responsibility in the way that the hon. Member suggests, but the Minister has a general power to meet loss of remunerative time, and there is no reason to assume that if a man, through no fault of his own, arrived when the medical board was not sitting, because he had not received the cancelling notice in time, quite obviously he would have lost remunerative time.
    Mr. Poole: But what will happen if, even though he may not turn up, he does not receive the amending notice in time to cancel the leave of absence which has been given him? Will he be compensated for that loss of time and also for his loss of time in attending on the day when he is actually required?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That question is too hypothetical for a categorical answer. I think it might be left to the Minister to see that, if people lose remunerative time, they are not penalised.
    9.7 p.m.
    Mr. McEntee: I do not feel that the hon. Gentleman's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Richards) is sufficient. He says that there is nothing sinister about the Clause, but the hon. Gentleman himself was attached to a very sinister organisation at the time of his appointment to his present office, and I remember that the matter was raised in the House.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: He has finished with them now.
    Mr. McEntee: I think he has mended his ways, but what I have in mind is that this Measure may be administered by people some years hence, and, although the present Minister and Parliamentary Secretary may be quite genuine in their desire that it should be administered in the way they say, and although there may be nothing sinister so far as they are concerned, it may be administered in a sinister way by someone who wants to be sinister at some time in the future, and I think a definite guarantee ought to be given against such a possibility. I am not at all satisfied with the words it is proposed to insert, and I think the matter ought to be further considered with a view to preventing the possibility of a man being called up over and over again.
    Mr. Cartland: I notice that the Amendment gives power to vary the notice by altering the place or the time. Does that mean that the place and the time can be varied?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The notice may vary the place and the time, or it may vary the place or the time.
    9.9 p.m.
    Mr. A. Jenkins: The Minister is seeking to gather to himself all the power in connection with this Measure, and the individual, apparently, will receive no rights at all. The whole discretion in the matter will be placed in the hands of the Minister, and I do not think that that is quite fair to the individual. Some people may be prepared to trust certain Ministers, and undoubtedly there are some who would not trust any Minister, but in any case the House ought to have more power over a case of this kind than it will have if the Amendment is passed. I understand that the notice is to be served in the ordinary way by delivering a letter, and the person to whom it is addressed has not to sign for its receipt, but if he does not turn up in accordance with the notice for medical examination, he is liable to prosecution, and I take it that the onus would be upon him to prove that he had not received the notice. If that is not so, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us, but clearly by this Amendment the Minister is taking to himself absolute power of discretion and the individual has no rights at all. I think it is now clear why the Minister declined to accept the previous Amendment asking

    809
    for 10 days' notice. He talked about two days' notice, and the maximum distance we have been able to get in extracting anything from the Minister is that under the regulations the Minister may have one day's or two days' notice or more according to the discretion of the Minister. I think it ought to be made much more definite, and I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to say what is to be the attitude with regard to the person who has not received notice to attend a medical tribunal when it is alleged by the military authority, whoever it may be, that the notice has been sent to him.
    9.11 p.m.
    Sir Alan Anderson: Several Members of the Committee appear to be alarmed about the measure of discretion that the Minister is reserving to himself to meet hard cases. In this life we are liable in almost every direction to grave injury from the action of an insane or tyrannical Minister, and we cannot always provide against that. We allow Ministers much latitude, and generally we do not suffer from doing so. In this matter of notice we are liable in our ordinary lives to enormous inconvenience through not having sufficient notice, but it does not happen generally. I do not suppose that one hon. Member out of 10 knows how much notice must be given to him before he is summoned on a jury, or, if he has a little difficulty with the police about driving his car, what notice has to be served upon him, and yet we are not put into really grave difficulty because of it. In this matter, which is going to touch all of us so closely, it will be very easy for the Minister to avoid difficulties, and he is asking us to allow him latitude with regard to the giving of this notice. I suggest that we might take our courage in both hands and let him have his latitude.
    9.13 p.m.
    Mr. J. Hall: I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to say that one of the reasons why power is being sought to make these alterations is that in the event of a young man not being able to attend for medical examination on the day notified an opportunity would be given him to attend on another day. I wonder whether that indicates that some clemency is going to be exercised instead of putting into operation the penal provision in Clause 3 in case of failure to comply with
    810
    the regulation. Are we to assume that instead of that penal provision operating a measure of clemency will be exercised and if so is the Minister prepared on Report to put in words indicating that the clemency which he suggested in introducing the Amendment will operate in all these cases.
    9.15 p.m.
    Captain Heilgers: The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. A. Jenkins), who mentioned the question of prosecution under Sub-section (3), seemed to me to be on the wrong tack. Surely, by this Amendment, the Government are preventing the possibility of anyone being prosecuted if he fails to turn up at the medical tribunal on the first occasion. Therefore, they are saving the applicant. Perhaps I might relate an experience of my own. During the War, I was unable to attend a medical board, in consequence of having contracted influenza. I was given another chance by that board, and, as a result, I got two months' extra leave.
    Amendment agreed to.
    9.16 p.m.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, in page 8, to leave out lines 1 to 3.
    This is purely a drafting Amendment. A person not liable for military training is not liable for medical examination. Conscientious objectors are not liable for military training; and, therefore, they are not liable for medical examination.
    9.17 p.m.
    Mr. Batey: We need a far fuller explanation from the Minister as to why these lines are to be deleted. These three lines are in the interests of the conscientious objector. The deletion will mean that a notice may be served on the conscientious objector, whereas that cannot be done now. A conscientious objector might then have notice served on him every three months. If he has once been placed on the register, notice should not be served on him again.
    9.18 p.m.
    Mr. Messer: It is clear that these lines in the Clause are an added safeguard. It is conceivable that there will be mistakes—a thing that is not unknown with Government Departments—and it is desirable that those who have been through the experience of appearing before the tribunal should have the safeguard of

    811
    being able to point to the law, in order to show that they ought not to have been summoned again. If this does not appear in the Act, there is nothing to prevent notice being sent to conscientious objectors, and the penalties provided for those who do not respond to the notice will operate, notwithstanding that exemption has been granted. It is very important that this paragraph should remain, in the interests of conscientious objectors.
    9.19 p.m.
    Mr. Shinwell: We are entitled to a great deal more information. The Clause says:
    "Provided that a notice under this Subsection shall not be served on any person whose name appears in the register of conscientious objectors."
    This is quite specific in its intention. Why is it to be withdrawn? The Parliamentary Secretary—who has left his place; probably for a good reason—has stated that this is merely a drafting Amendment. Surely it cannot be merely a drafting Amendment. He said that it was no longer necessary. Are we to understand that, in the absence of this negative provision, there is within this Bill, in some Clause which for the moment appears to be obscure, provision that the Minister, in his discretion, could serve such a notice on a person who has registered as a conscientious objector?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: No.
    Mr. Shinwell: Then why should this provision be removed? Why not be specific, and make it clear, beyond all possibility of doubt, that a person registered as a conscientious objector shall not be served with a notice to be called up for medical examination?
    9.21 p.m.
    Mr. McEntee: I would like to know the meaning of the words in the Clause. The Clause says:
    "The Minister may cause to be served on any person liable to be called up for military training …"
    Does that include conscientious objectors of between 20 and 21? If so, the words which it is proposed to leave out should remain in the Bill. If, on the other hand, that excludes conscientious objectors, I can see the point of view of the Minister. But it would appear to me that the term,
    812
    "any person liable to be called up for military training"
    includes every one between the age of 20 and 21. Let me draw attention to the word "any." The Minister has power to call up everybody who is liable for military training, with the proviso that:
    "notice under this Sub-section shall not be served on any person whose name appears in the register of conscientious objectors."
    If the Minister can assure us that the provisions of the Clause do not apply to conscientious objectors, I should think that he is right in bringing forward the Amendment; but I have very great doubt about it.
    9.23 p.m.
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I hope to convince the Committee that my hon. Friend was right in saying that this is a purely drafting Amendment, designed to remove words which are quite unnecessary. Clause 3 lays down, in distinct terms, that
    "A person shall not be liable to be called up for military training under this Act, so long as he is registered in the register of conscientious objectors"
    That makes it clear that conscientious objectors are not liable to be called up. The Clause with which we are dealing excludes all who are not liable to be called up for military training—for example, conscientious objectors. If hon. Members will look back to Clause 3, Sub-section (5), which we have already passed, they will see all these registers referred to. There are three distinctly mentioned. (a) The applicant may be placed finally on the register of conscientious objectors. That will make him quite free from being called up for military service, (b) He may be conditionally placed on that register, and called up for work of national importance, (c) He may be registered in the military training register for non-combatant duties only. If he is registered in the register of conscientious objectors, even though there is a condition that is attached to it, that is the register he is on and, under Sub-section (7), he cannot be called up for military service. If he is registered in the military training register as a person liable to be employed only on non-combatant duties, he can be called up for medical examination, and it is highly proper that he should be, because a man employed on non-combatant duties has as much right to have it ascertained that his health

    813
    will stand it as anyone else. I hope now that the Committee is quite satisfied that the Minister has power to call up only those who are liable for military service. These are the governing words at the start of the Clause and, as the two sections of conscientious objectors are not liable, they cannot be asked to come up. The words are surplus and should be removed.
    Mr. McGovern: If the tribunal decides that a man is not a real conscientious objector, can he be removed from the roll of conscientious objectors and placed on the military roll, and can he then be called up?
    Mr. Butcher: I wonder what would be the position of men conditionally registered that they must engage in and perform some work designated in the Order as being of national importance. It seems to me that it is desirable to make sure that the work so designated shall be within their health and strength.
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: The position of a man who is registered in the register of conscientious objectors with a condition attached to it is that as long as he is on the register he cannot be called up for military training. There is a provision already passed saying what happens to a man who fails to comply with the conditions. He has a right of appeal to the appellate tribunal just as if he were being taken for the first time, but as long as he is on the register of conscientious objectors, whether conditionally or unconditionally, he cannot be called up. If these words were left in it would not make any difference to the hon. Member's point because the words are, "No notice shall be served on any person whose name appears on the register of conscientious objectors."
    Mr. McGovern: Supposing a man appeared before the tribunal and was turned down and refused to accept any form of service, could he then be placed on the military role? If so, this will be giving you a power that you did not possess previously to call him up for medical examination.
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: If the tribunal decided against him, either by saying that he was not a conscientious objector at all or that he ought to be put in one section of the conscientious objector's register, if he appealed and the decision of the
    814
    tribunal was upheld that he was not a conscientious objector at all, he would be placed on the military role. The point about men who are conscientious objectors with a condition attached to it is one that is new to me, in the sense that I have not given much thought to it, but I think it would be a matter very difficult to legislate for as a general rule, because the varieties of national service are very great and, whereas military training should be preceded by medical examination, it might not be so necessary in other forms of service.
    Mr. Butcher: I was only wondering whether the Minister would have power to designate the work of national importance in which the man should engage.
    Amendment agreed to.
    9.33 p.m.
    Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 8, line 5, after "boards," to insert "and an appellate medical board."
    This Amendment must be read in conjunction with, and as a preliminary to, a later Amendment in my name which seeks to insert at the end of the Clause:
    "Any person who is aggrieved by the determination of a medical board may within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner appeal to the appellate medical board."
    The two Amendments together are designed to secure that a person who is not satisfied with the decision of the medical board, either because the board is seeking to say that he is fit for military training or that he is not fit for it, should have an opportunity of appealing to an appellate medical board. I recognise that the Bill has been prepared in a great hurry, and there are natural omissions, but it is strange to me that there should be an appeal in the case of a person who claims that his calling up would involve him in hardship, and in the case of a person who is a conscientious objector but who is found by a tribunal not to be one, but that there should be no appeal in the case of a person who is found by a medical board to be fit for training, but who takes the view, possibly for good reasons, that he is not so fitted.
    I am wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman takes the view that the medical profession is less infallible than the members of a board set up to consider whether a person is a conscientious objector or not. Unfortunately, the Bill lays down no standard of medical fitness.

    815
    It does not declare what is to be the purpose of the medical examination, whether a person is to be fit for military training or whether he is to be fit for military service. The two standards may be quite different, according to whether you desire persons merely to undergo training or whether they are to be regarded as subsequently fit for military service. I can see the possibility of a person being regarded as medically fit for traniing but not medically fit for active service. At any rate, the Bill lays down no standard which the medical boards are to consider in examining the men who come before them. As the right hon. Gentleman said, there are to be 120 different medical boards, and in the absence of any direction it is conceivable that there will be a variety of standards which the medical boards will adopt in examining men that come before them. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is desirable that there should be a uniform standard so that every person who is called up for medical examination will know the purpose of the examination and the standard that will be laid down by the board.
    It is proposed within a very short time and under great stress to examine something like 300,000 men, and if that figure is correct it will mean that on the average every medical board will examine something like 2,500 men. I have comfidence in the medical profession, but I do not think that anyone in this Committee, not even members of the medical profession themselves, would claim that doctors cannot make mistakes, and a board which has to examine something like 2,500 men under great stress will be liable to make serious mistakes. I do not wish to impugn the honesty of the medical boards, but they have been given some sort of indication in this Bill as to what they are to work to. They are being told that they are expected to produce two men out of every three. They will be examining 300,000 men, and this Bill states that they are to find 200,000 fit men. Medical boards will tend to work on something like that basis and accept at least two men out of three, and they will possibly be on the safe side. That is the test that has been put before them in the Bill itself. Therefore, I suggest that for all these
    816
    reasons, it is essential that the man who considers that he has been aggrieved by the decision of a medical board should have an opportunity of going to some higher tribunal as have men who are aggrieved by other decisions on earlier Clauses. The advantage of an appellate medical board would, among other things, be that they would be able to deal with these case on a uniform basis. There would not be the disadvantage of having 120 different medical boards with the possibility of varying standards of fitness being laid down by the different boards. In some diseases—and I would mention heart disease as one—there are great possibilities of differences of opinion arising between different medical men. A person who may have suffered from heart disease for years may come before a medical board for examination, and quite likely, in the hurry of his examination the medical board may not ascertain or discover that such a person has heart trouble. In cases like that, even if in no other, persons should have the opportunity of being able to put their position before an appellate board, with such evidence as the Minister may prescribe in the rules to be followed by the medical boards, possibly the production of a medical certificate or something of that sort. In cases where there is the possibility of a genuine difference of opinion between different medical men, a person liable to be called upon to undergo what might be a very strenuous course of training which might detrimentally affect his health should have an opportunity of putting his case before an appellate medical board. For these reasons, I hope that the Minister will see his way to accept the principle of setting up an appellate medical board in cases where a person feels himself aggrieved by the decision of the medical board.
    9.42 p.m.
    Dr. Haden Guest: I should like to support the Amendment, if not entirely for the same reasons as my hon. Friend, at any rate for some of them. I think that the Minister will find that it will be essential in practice to have appellate boards, not only from the standpoint of the man who is being examined but also from the standpoint of the medical board itself. There are, as my hon. Friend mentioned, cases of heart disease, and also of eye trouble, ear trouble and other special complaints, and it is really a question of

    817
    having a consultant service available, and the simplest way, from the Army point of view, is to have an appellate medical board. There should be a superior medical board to which either the appellant, if he is not satisfied—and I confess that I do not think it will be likely to happen in a great many cases—can appeal or, on the other hand, the medical officers themselves constituting the board can appeal if they have very difficult cases with which to deal. I know that to be the fact because I have had two classes of experience relating to this matter.
    Once for a short time I was medical officer to reinforcements at Etaples during the War, and it was part of my duties to inspect drafts which had been sent over from England. A large number of men sent over from England at that time were in a very bad state of health and had obviously been rushed over there. There ought to be some check on that sort of thing. It was due, no doubt, to pressure at that time, and the same pressure would not arise in present circumstances. Secondly, after the War I was for a considerable period a member of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal of the House of Lords which had to consider cases of appeal from decisions of the Ministry of Pensions. In many of those cases we had to go into very delicate matters as far as diagnosis was concerned. They were very difficult cases, and we spent a great deal of time upon them and subjected individuals concerned to X-ray examination, and so forth, which cannot be done in the ordinary way. From the standpoint of the appellant, and of the doctors who make up the medical boards, it really will be essential to have some tribunal of that kind to which either side can refer and can appeal.
    It would also be very interesting if the Minister could tell us something of what the medical standards are to be. Are they to be the standards which are set up for admission into the Army, or are they to be some other standards? There will certainly be standards of medical fitness, because no one, least of all the medical profession, wants to have people joining the Army who promptly become casualties, but it would be interesting if we could have, if not now, on some appropriate occasion, some description of what the physical standards will be. It will be possible now for the first time, taking
    818
    a cross section of the population from 20 to 21, to get a view of what the conditions are of those people who were born in the immediate post-war years, and that will be an extremely interesting test from the medical point of view. One point on which I did not agree with my hon. Friend was when he said that the medical boards might be working to a standard of trying to pass two out of every three men appearing before them. I think that the medical profession is rather more objective than that, and that the doctors who are examining these people will try to be quite objective and fair, but however fair and objective they are, there are always questions of doubt, and for the sake of the boards themselves, as well as for the sake of those who are being examined, I think an appeal tribunal would be a distinct advantage.
    9.47 p.m.
    Dr. Summerskill: I wish to endorse everything that has been said by my hon. Friends the Members for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) and North Islington (Dr. Guest). I feel not only that the Government should accept this Amendment, but that they should welcome it, because by giving these men an opportunity to appeal, you are only giving them an elementary right which is enjoyed by every worker in the country to-day. I feel that a man who has been diagnosed as unfit, or as fit, should have a right of appeal. We are not only seeking to give a man who is fit an opportunity to appeal, but we are also seeking to give the young enthusiastic lad who is very anxious to play his part, but who has been diagnosed as unfit, an opportunity to appeal against a diagnosis which he may consider as wrong. I fully agree with the hon. Member for Peckham when he said that these doctors may make a mis-diagnosis because they are overwhelmed with work, and I am sure that every conscientious doctor will feel much happier during these examinations if he knows that the patient has a right to appeal. If any hon. Member of this House were examined to-morrow and told that he had some grave physical defect, I am sure he would not accept that verdict without immediately going to Harley Street and getting a second opinion.
    Mr. Charles Brown: It would depend on who he was.
    Dr. Summerskill: Certainly, the best doctors are not necessarily all in Harley

    819
    Street. This Bill is based on the assumption that the medical profession is infallible, and if the Government do not accept the Amendment, they are in fact making these doctors the arbiters of the fate of these men. I well remember the Cancer Bill that was discussed in this House recently, when hon. Members on both sides of the House got up and protested against the Bill having a Second Reading, and they illustrated their arguments by quoting cases of mis-diagnosis which they had known during their lifetime. Therefore, I ask the Minister to accept this Amendment, because if the Bill is allowed to go through in its present form, many men who may perhaps feel that they have not had a square deal from the medical profession will suffer from a sense of grievance.
    9.50 p.m.
    Major Milner: It is rarely that I find myself altogether in agreement with members of the medical profession, and I press this matter of an appellate tribunal because my hon. Friend the Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) was very strongly in favour of it. I remember some years ago appearing on a pension appeal before him, when he gave a verdict against me, and I was very strongly of opinion that I ought on that occasion to have had the opportunity to appeal. In my experience the opinions of the medical profession are as varied as the colours in the spectrum, and in these matters it is surely not only necessary that justice should be done, but that it should appear to the common mind to be done. In my view, therefore, it is essential that there should be an appeal tribunal. Even my hon. Friend the Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill) must, I think, agree that the knowledge of the medical profession is really only comparative. They know a little more than they knew a thousand years ago, but there is still a great deal more to be known. The profession of the law, of course, has a great advantage, because the law is an exact science, which medicine is not. Seriously, however, I hope the Minister will see his way to accept the Amendment. It is extremely desirable in matters of opinion that there should be an opportunity to appeal. I do not think the question need be laboured, but I strongly support the Amendment.
    9.53 p.m.
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: Perhaps it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I state the view that the Government take on this matter now, so that the Committee shall not have to go on discussing this question without having the other side of the matter put before it. It is always best to get both sides of a question of this character. It is from no difference as to the object which the movers of the Amendment seek that the Government advise the Committee to take a contrary course. We believe that rather than have one board and an appeal thereto, you ought to concentrate on getting the strongest possible boards in the first instance, examining the men with as much care as possible in the first instance, and, indeed, if you do that, it is very hard to find any medical authority to which a properly constituted board could be considered as inferior enough to appeal. This is a matter—though I admit that there have been difficulties in drafting, through lack of time—of policy, come to on its merits by the Government, because they hold the other view to be the better one.
    Let me remove one or two misapprehensions that have been entertained. I am sure that the medical profession would not enjoy the suggestion of the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) that they would take two out of three, no matter what they thought of the men. I believe the honour of the profession to be such that they will take quite a different view of their responsibilities and will treat it as their duty not to put any man into the Service unless they honestly believe that he is fit to undergo his training. The next point is the assumption that there will be a considerable amount of stress and strain about these examinations. I would remind hon. Members that nothing like war-time conditions will prevail in this case and steps will be taken to make sure that every man is examined with ample time to spare, and the Bill makes it clear that if the board have not time to complete an examination in one day, they can go on to another day.
    What is the position? What is the reason for having a medical examination? From the man's point of view, it is to secure that nobody is subjected to military training unless he has been examined carefully to make sure that there is no

    821
    concealed or other defect in his constitution which would render it dangerous to him or bad for his health to undergo that training. If you have a board such as I have described, I do not think that to rely on a system of appeals would be the right way. It is not everyone who would appeal, and I submit that we should rely not upon appeal as a check, but upon creating the strongest possible board in the first instance, and making sure that every man is thoroughly examined. That is the course which we propose to adopt. The medical men on the board will, normally, be five general practitioners of established reputation. I say general practitioners for this reason. The ills to which flesh is heir are so numerous that you could not, for instance, get a nose, ear and throat specialist to act, and make sure that he was a proper man to deal with all these cases. There may be nothing wrong with the nose, ear or throat of the person who is being examined, but he may have some concealed defect of a different character. Therefore, we propose a strong board of five general practitioners who, though they may not have specialist knowledge, have in the course of their experience gained a wide knowledge of all the ills from which the human constitution can suffer. One of the five is almost certain to spot anything wrong with any man coming before them.
    Mr. Silkin: Will there be a definite direction that every member of the board will see every person who is examined, or is it likely that a person going up for examination will be seen by only one of the five?
    Mr. Morrison: I understand that what is proposed is a board of at least five who will work as a team. They will take counsel with each other and if there is any difficulty in distinguishing a man's particular condition, they can all examine him to make sure.
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: The Minister used the expression "at least five." Is it intended that there shall always be five?
    Mr. Morrison: The intention is that five shall be the normal number. But if one of the medical men could not turn up on a particular occasion and there were only four, I should not like it to be thought that that would invalidate the examination. The normal number, however, will
    822
    be five. Not only are there to be five general practitioners, but there is power in the Bill for them to call in a consultant or consultants, whenever they like.
    Mr. Paling: The board can do that, but not the man?
    Mr. Morrison: The idea is that if the medical officers on the board are confronted with some particular trouble or difficulty on which they would like to have the advice of a specialist, there is a provision in the Bill enabling them to take that advice. If we start from the assumption that we are taking every step to secure the strongest possible medical board in the first instance, I ask the Committee to consider what follows. The question then arises, where can you find an appellate body to which you could appeal from such a board? In the case or the law, to correct the errors of one court you set up an appellate court, composed of men probably of longer experience and greater knowledge of the law. In the case of the medical profession, if you have five experienced practitioners, with the advice and assistance of consultants at their disposal, examining these men, there is no appellate court which you can set up which will have any greater weight in the medical profession. There is no such thing as a body of medical opinion to which you can appeal as a higher authority on this matter of examining men, than the medical board itself. There is no question of two levels of knowledge in this matter. There is only one, and that is the best medical knowledge that can be achieved.
    Dr. Summerskill: Suppose that the five general practitioners disagree on the condition of a man's heart and call in a heart specialist or consultant. Suppose the consultant diagnoses the case and makes a report on the man's condition. Then you will be taking the word of one man. We suggest that possibly that heart consultant might be wrong. Why should one heart consultant have the final word?
    Dr. Guest: I understand the Minister to suggest that the board should have the right to call in consultants. I think that might so some way to meet us on the question of the appellate board, but it is a one-sided arrangement. The medical board has the right to call in a consultant.

    823
    Would it not be fair that the man, if dissatisfied, should have the right to ask to be sent to a consultant if he had reason to think that there was something wrong with him which had not been diagnosed on the first examination? I do not say that such cases would occur often, but that would give the man a feeling of security if he could be sent either to a consultant of his own choice, or one chosen from a panel. If the Minister gives this right on one side, he should give it on both sides.
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: The hon. Lady the Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill) suggests that the consultant might be mistaken. The capacity for human error is no doubt infinite, and even if you had an appellate tribunal of doctors they might all be wrong. I do not deny that this is a theoretical possibility. The hon. and gallant member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) referred to another profession with a higher degree of infallibility. Both professions, however, make mistakes, the difference being that the mistakes of one are buried six feet underground, while the mistakes of the other swing six feet high in the air. If you cannot achieve absolute and theoretical certainty in medical matters, you can get the highest concentration of skill and knowledge and apply it in the first instance, when the man is first before you, so that you need not wait for him to appeal about some present or latent defect. I do not see how you can set up any tribunal of greater authority than is proposed.
    In regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest), namely, that besides allowing the board the right of appeal to a consultant we might consider the advisability of the man having that right of recourse, it is a new idea and I will certainly consider it, because I am anxious to meet as far as possible any just feelings in this matter. But I frankly say that the conception we have is that a medical board of general practitioners, together with consultants, will consider themselves as charged in conscience to look after the interests of the man in the first instance. It is not a question of anyone having an appeal against them as if they were a hostile body. The fact is that they themselves will, in the public interest, in the interest
    824
    of their own profession and certainly in the interests of the man, so execute their task as to safeguard all interests. Those are the considerations which influence us, and I hope that with that assurance the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.
    10.8 p.m.
    Mr. Paling: I think really the answer to this Amendment has been given on a previous Amendment to the last Clause. That was in regard to the appeal that the Minister had and the man himself had not. If I remember aright, speakers on the other side admitted that for the Minister to have a right of appeal and the man not to have such a right, was unfair, and because of that unfairness the Minister gave way and accepted our Amendment. Now the same principle is involved. It is proposed to give a right of appeal to the medical board and not to the man. The board, strong as they will be, are to have the right to send a man to a consultant, but the man himself is not to have the right of appeal. If it was right for the Minister to give way on the previous Clause, I think it is equally right on this.
    While I have every respect for the general practitioners and for the great part they play in our lives, it may well be, and it is so, that the knowledge and experience of the general practitioner does not allow him to be able to diagnose a good many of the ailments from which people suffer. That is recognised by virtue of the fact that the board have the right to send a man to a consultant. If a board of five is liable to make a mistake, then I think the man ought to have the right of appeal against them. I hope the Minister will look at the matter from that point of view. I do not see it could do the Government any harm from the point of view of getting men. I think it would probably do them a lot of good. I hope the Minister will see the reasonableness of the Amendment and give the right of appeal to both sides.
    10.11 p.m.
    Mr. Poole: It is a remarkable argument that has been advanced by the Minister. He said that even if we had this court of appeal they might all be wrong. Surely, if there is the possibility of the appellate court being wrong, there would be less likely to be an error of diagnosis than if the diagnosis were left

    825
    completely in the hands of the initial body. I should like the Minister to consider the procedure he has adopted in other parts of the Bill. He says they are going to make the initial medical examination so fundamentally certain and sure and they are going to do the very best to ensure that there is absolutely no error committed by the body who will examine the man, that there will be no need of appeal. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that in making that assertion he is drawing a very invidious comparison with other provisions in the Bill? He tells us that that the examination is to be made by a body so fundamentally capable that there is no need for subsequent appeal, and yet when he establishes a court to consider the conscientious objections of an individual he is giving the man a right of appeal. If there is to be an appeal on the part of the conscientious objector, I cannot conceive how the Minister can advance an argument that when a man is medically examined the examination will make it absolutely unnecessary to have any court of appeal.
    It is in the interests of the Minister and the Government that they should have absolutely sound men, beyond any doubt, in the initial stages. It will be to the greatest possible interest of the militiamen that you should have, without doubt, Ai men at the beginning. Therefore it is in the interests of all concerned that there should be this court of appeal. The Minister says that in legal affairs there is a higher court which is a more supreme authority than the lower court, and that they are able to form a judgment, but that practice is not followed in this part of the Bill. In the legal and appellate tribunals which are being set up under another Clause, you make your first tribunal as strong as possible by appointing a county court judge, with four or five members as the body, while the appellate body that is to have a more supreme authority is to be presided over by a barrister or a solicitor.
    If it is necessary that there should be a court of appeal when you are examining merely the conscience of a man, is it not more fundamentally necessary that you should have a court of appeal when you are examining a man's physical state? I do not think it will be possible for every man who comes before the medical board to receive a medical examination by all the five members who compose
    826
    the board. If the right hon. Gentleman is hoping to achieve that, he will have achieved something which was never achieved during the last War and has never been achieved in such an examination in any of the Services. The Minister will be well advised, in the interest of the scheme as well as in the best interest of the men, to accept the Amendment and let them have this right of appeal to a court of appeal.
    10.16 p.m.
    Mr. Lewis: The hon. Member for Went-worth (Mr. Paling) in supporting the Amendment said that there was provision for an appeal on the one side and that, therefore, in his view it was only fair that provision should be made for appeal on the other side. That is not the fact. There is no provision made for the Minister to appeal and, therefore, there is no appeal on the one side, and the complaint that this is a one-sided arrangement falls to the ground. If there was provision for the Minister to appeal, then it would be only right there should be provision for the man to appeal.
    Mr. Paling: I said that in a previous case the Minister had a right of appeal and, therefore the man was also given a right of appeal. In this case the board has a right of appeal, but the man who is being examined has no right of appeal.
    Mr. Lewis: But the board is not "one side" in this case.
    10.17 p.m.
    Mr. Garro Jones: I want to add one or two observations in the hope that the Minister has not closed his mind to the suggestion put forward. I think the right hon. Gentleman has lost sight of the growing tendency in medical science to rely on teams of specialists for diagnosing obscure diseases. If an hon. Member opposite thought he was suffering from some disease he would go to his general practitioner and perhaps on his recommendation would consult a specialist in Harley Street, but in the last resort, if he was really anxious about his condition, he would adopt the modern method and subject himself to a detailed diagnosis by a team of specialists in one of the modern clinics which have been established around London and other parts of the country. In this case we are not dealing with the average healthy individual or with the

    827
    individual who is suffering from an easily recognisable disease. In such a case I would trust a team of general practitioners. But the cases in which difficulty is going to arise and in which mistakes and disputes may arise are those where people are suffering from some obscure disease, which no amount of skill and experience will enable a general practitioner to diagnose successfully, and in which the latest developments of modern science are required.
    Take the case of tuberculosis. I believe there is an X-ray system of diagnosis which proves to be conclusive when no amount of mere empirical tests will reach a decisive conclusion. Then there is the bacteriological method of diagnosis and the endocrinological method. These are the three or four different kinds of specialists who, in the last resort, are the only ones who can make an exhaustive diagnosis in the case of any particular disease. It is that type of case which, I think, if not properly diagnosed, will lead to the greatest amount of difficulty. No general practitioner and no single specialist will have the necessary equipment. These cases will not arise one in a hundred, one in two hundred, or even one in a thousand with men between 20 and 21, but when they do arise, as they do in the pensions cases, they will cause endless argument and difficulty for all the parties concerned. They can be resolved only by a team of specialists, such as that which operates at Windsor and such as the two or three in and around London. Has the right hon. Gentleman taken medical advice on this particular proposal? He has rejected the advice of my hon. Friends, but if he wishes to adopt the most up-to-date technique, he will recognise that there are certain exceptional cases—one in a hundred—in which there ought to be an appeal to a body that is more authoritative and experienced and more well equipped than any body of general practitioners or any single consultant can be. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the matter on those lines.
    10.22 p.m.
    Lieut.-Commander Agnew: I think those who support this Amendment do so very largely under a misapprehension. When the Committee were considering the Clauses relating to appeals with regard to conscientious objection, they decided
    828
    very properly that an appeal should lie from both sides to the appellate tribunal. The nature of the problem which the initial tribunal and the appellate tribunal have to decide is not actually a question of facts but really a question of opinion, and indeed it is not practicable to cut open a man's head to see whether he has a conscientious objection by inspecting the grey matter inside. The tribunal can only form an honest opinion and record it, and both sides are given the right to appeal in order to make sure that the opinion is the best one that can be obtained. With regard to the problem we are considering under this Clause, however, the nature of it is essentially to determine the facts.
    Mr. Messer: Would the man's head be cut open?
    Lieut.-Commander Agnew: No, but they will use—I hope the medical Members present will correct me if I am wrong—all sorts of fiendish instruments in order to discover whether a man has or has not certain ailments or inherent weaknesses.
    Mr. Poole: Does the hon. and gallant Member agree that in many cases it is necessary for the man to be put under an anaesthetic and certain inquiries to be made into his interior in order to arrive at a correct diagnosis, and does he suggest, when he draws a parallel with cutting open a man's head in order to see what is his opinion, that the board should have power to cut open a man in order to see whether there are any internal disorders?
    Lieut.-Commander Agnew: Of course, I do not hold that a man should be cut open in order to see whether he is fit, because I should think that any board would discover that the man was not fit if they had to resort to such a drastic process in order to make sure. The point I want to make is that it is essentially a question of facts which they have to discover. Suppose there is what I submit will be a comparatively rare case, where the board is in some genuine doubt, not as to the nature of the complaint, but as to whether the man has the complaint to such a degree that it renders him unfit for military training. Suppose that they are in genuine doubt as to whether they ought to record a decision that he is fit to be called up for service, or the reverse.

    829
    In such cases as that the board will not come to a decision, and that is where Sub-section (2) will come into play. The board will refer the case to the consultant examiner who will examine the man and report back to the board. Reinforced by the specialist knowledge of the consultant examiner, the board will then determine what their decision is to be. There is no appeal at all. It is merely a deferring of a decision until the additional specialist knowledge is obtained.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: Suppose the man is in doubt?
    Lieut.-Commander Agnew: If the man is in doubt he will be told by the board. The man is not a doctor and will not be competent to say whether he was fit for service. I do not think anybody will seriously say that in all cases submitted to the board the man will be able to determine—
    Dr. Guest: Will the hon. and gallant Member permit me as a doctor to say that any doctor who examines a man who is himself in doubt would desire for his own sake to have another opinion.
    Lieut.-Commander Agnew: I recognise that the doctor would desire the man to have another opinion, and it is for that very reason that the Minister has announced that the board shall consist not of one person, but of five persons. Where a doubt is so great that the board feels it cannot take a decision, it is referred to a consultant examiner and, reinforced with his opinion, they come to a decision on the case. Therefore, the man's rights are preserved and the board has every opportunity of functioning as well as any medical board can.
    10.28 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: My mind goes back to the period 25 to 21 years ago when I used to see medical boards functioning, and I am bound to say I did not observe that dead level of, I do not know whether it is mediocrity, or whatever the quality is that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy seems to think is the characteristic of the medical profession. I never observed it. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) seemed to think there was something lacking in the diagnosis of my hon. Friend the Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) when he came
    830
    before him and in those days it was alleged that doctors did vary. It is highly essential now that there should be a reasonable uniformity in these matters. I will put the case of the man who is rejected. Let us assume that he goes back to his civilian employment and applies for another job in a couple of years' time. He is asked where he did his military service and he replies that he did not do any, but that he appeared before a medical board and they turned him down. There are many callings in which that man will suffer a severe disadvantage if he has to make that answer, and I suggest that the man who is rejected may very well desire to have an opportunity of being submitted to some medical tribunal so that the question of his condition may be resolved. I wish to know exactly what instructions will be given to these boards, because I am sure the Chancellor of the Duchy will recall that towards the latter part of the War there was an order that no man was to be advanced more than one category in a day. The hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) recollects it.
    Dr. Guest: No.
    Mr. Ede: Well, he was, I understand, at what the soldiers used to call "Eetaps." We have known of men who were paraded on three successive days. One the first day they were Category C, the next day B, and within 48 hours of having been examined they were A. Everyone with experience of what happened towards the end of the last War knows that that is a fact. Are the instructions to be that a certain standard is to be attained, or will it be said, "The quota required from the number available is so much and your proportion of the total is so many"? Those of us with experience of how the Army deals with this matter in times of stress feel that the most explicit assurances should be given on that point. I do not hold a very high opinion of the medical profession. I think veterinary surgeons have a far more difficult task. No doctor knows what is the matter with you unless you tell him. Oh, I have seen "The Citadel," and I was confirmed in my view of a good many things by the understatements of "The Citadel." After all, a veterinary surgeon has to find out what is the matter with his patient. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that there are good

    831
    grounds for our misgivings on this matter, and, as I have said frankly, I am thinking more of the man who is rejected than the man who is taken in—I do not know what the words "taken in" ought to signify but of the man who is passed. I am sure that in normal times a doctor will not pass a man who is going to fail too quickly, but if a man is rejected he may, as a result, find himself severely handicapped in civilian life afterwards. At the beginning of the last War some of the finest athletes in the country were refused for the Army. I sincerely hope that the Minister will give us a rather better answer than we have had up to the present.
    10.34 p.m.
    Captain Heilgers: I am sure that the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) is quite capable of telling the doctors what is wrong with him. Contrary to the hon. and gallant Member for Camborne (Lieut.-Commander Agnew) I am not entirely happy about this Amendment. When I was in the Army the idea of an appeal never entered into my head, but we are dealing with something that affects the whole of a man's life, and I was much impressed by the argument of the hon. Lady the Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill) when she said that in ordinary life all of us when we are told something by a doctor with which we disagree immediately fly to get a second opinion. A consultant is provided for here, but while the consultant is often satisfactory to the doctors he is not necessarily satisfactory to the patient. There are to be five doctors on the tribunal, and I think they are not likely all to be wrong, in spite of what has been said. I have enough confidence in doctors to believe that when there are five of them and they are unanimous they are likely to be right.
    Mr. Ede: Did you ever see five, except at a funeral?
    Captain Heilgers: I did not catch the hon. Member's interruption, but he certainly seems to be very cheerful about a rather gloomy matter. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter on these lines: Where there is not unanimity among the five doctors who comprise the tribunal, the applicant should be notified and should be given the right of appeal to an appellate tribunal.
    10.36 p.m.
    Mr. McEntee: I hope that the Minister has not closed his mind entirely to the appeal that has been made to him from both sides of the Committee. I have no prejudice such as other Members have shown against the medical profession. My father was a doctor, so that I have had some association with the profession. My personal experience of doctors makes me doubt very much their ability always to say what is the condition of anyone. It is 45 years since I went in front of a doctor with the object of joining the friendly side of a society, where a medical examination was necessary. I was already a very active and prominent member of that society, but I was refused admission to the friendly society on grounds of health, being told that I was not medically fit.
    I asked the doctor who rejected me whether he would submit me to a consultant, and because of the standing that I had in the society I obtained that privilege. I was submitted to a further examination on a future occasion by the doctor with the consultant present, and both of them rejected me. I had no further right of appeal, and from that day to this I have not joined that society. My own medical practitioner said that the other doctors did not know what they were talking about—he did not say so in those words, but that was the effect. Ultimately, to test the matter, I went to another society to find out what its doctor would say, and in that case I was passed as in every sense fit. I joined the society and remained in it for many years. That was 45 years ago that I was rejected as medically unfit to draw benefit from an ordinary society, and if that could happen in such circumstances is it not likely that mistakes will be made at times when there will be congestion because of the hurry, in spite of all that has been said by the Minister?
    I hope that the Minister will not lose sight of his own remarks in relation to the suggestion of my hon. Friend who seconded the Amendment. Even if he cannot accept the Amendment as it stands—I hope he will, but if he does not I shall have the opportunity of voting against it—I hope he will reconsider giving a right of appeal to the man concerned; an appeal, if not to a medical appeal tribunal, to a consultant. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member

    833
    for South Shields (Mr. Ede) is perhaps the most important in connection with this Amendment. I have made it so often that I feel it intensely and I am sure that most hon. Members will have met with the point. I am thinking of the man who is rejected and who carries that fact with him through his life whenever he applies for a job. I hope that a man who is placed in that position by his rejection by a medical board will at least have the right to appeal, if not to a tribunal, to a consultant, so that he may, as no doubt he will in some cases, get a reversal of the original decision.
    10.41 p.m.
    Sir Edward Grigg: I have no very strong feeling on the question whether the appeal should be to a tribunal or to a consultant, but I should like strongly to support the plea which has now been made by Members in all quarters of the Committee in favour of allowing a man who has been rejected the right of appeal against the decision. It is a very serious thing for a man at the outset of his life to be rejected as unfit by a board of that kind. It may tell against him all his life, and I do not think it is fair to leave him in that position without giving him a right of appeal of some kind. In France the very greatest importance is always attached to the medical examination. It is carried on with a good deal of ceremony, in many cases with the mayor present. The greatest attention is paid to the manner in which it is done, and, when a young man is passed as fit for service in the Army, the mayor shakes him by the hand and congratulates him on having been passed as fit to serve his country. To be found unfit is a stigma that applies to a man throughout his life, and, where there is such a possibility, it seems proper that he should be given a right of appeal, whatever the doctors may think about him. My right hon. Friend has undertaken to consider the point. Cannot he go a step further and give us an undertaking that the man will have a right of appeal from the decision of a board who, however great their experience, are after all fallible?
    10.44 p.m.
    Mr. David Adams: It has been said that this is a temporary Measure, but presumably it would be a quite easy and necessary transition for these arrangements which prevail in a time of peace to
    834
    be utilised in war conditions, so that we are in effect legislating for war conditions also. The original board is to consist of five medical practitioners, but I am not certain that that will give a feeling of great confidence generally, particularly among those who have wide municipal experience. Everyone knows that there is in the medical profession a tendency to specialise, and that the medical practitioner to-day has not as a rule had wide general experience. Conscripts coming before these boards may be examined by one medical practitioner only, and, as a result of that examination, may be passed direct into the Army. Medical practitioners to-day generally do not deal with anything out of the normal. They immediately pass such cases to either the municipal hospitals or the voluntary hospitals, where the specialists are congregating. At almost all of our leading hospitals there are specialist clinics, to which the general practitioners send their patients as a matter of routine. Therefore, the members of these boards will not have the experience which would enable them to deal with the diverse cases that may come before them.
    I would call attention, by way of contrast, to what the House of Commons has designed for the protection of the man who has a grievance in connection with unemployment benefit. Let me give an example arising out of a case which recently came to my knowledge. In a mine there was a dispute with the management, and a number of men were off work. They applied—successfully as it happened—for their unemployment benefit. What is the procedure in that matter, of relatively trifling importance, both to the individual and the community? First, the workpeople apply for standard benefit. Let us assume that the case is a difficult one, and the application is turned down. They then have a right of appeal, and the case is gone into in great detail by the appeal court. The court may decide not to grant benefit. Again, the man has a right of appeal to the referee. Surely the conscript for the Army should have an inalienable right to pass from the first board to the appellate board.
    Question put, "That these words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 146; Noes, 239.

    Division No. 115.]

    AYES.

    [10.50 p.m.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    Noel-Baker, P. J.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

    Groves, T. E.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

    Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)

    Paling, W.

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Parker, J.

    Ammon, C. G.

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Hardie, Agnes

    Pearson, A.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)

    Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Banfield, J. W.

    Hayday, A.

    Poole, C. C.

    Barnes, A. J.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Price, M. P.

    Barr, J.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Pritt, D. N.

    Batey, J.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Beaumont, H. (Batley)

    Hicks, E. G.

    Ridley, G.

    Bellenger, F. J.

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Riley, B.

    Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

    Hollins, A.

    Ritson, J.

    Bevan, A.

    Hopkin, D.

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Bromfield, W.

    Jagger, J.

    Rothschild, J. A. de

    Brown, C. (Mansfield)

    Jenkins, A. (Pentypool)

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Buchanan, G.

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Sexton, T. M.

    Burke, W. A.

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

    Shinwell, E.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Silkin, L.

    Chater, D.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Silverman, S. S.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Simpson, F. B.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Collindridge, F.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Cove, W. G.

    Lathan, G.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

    Lawson, J. J.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Daggar, G.

    Leach, W.

    Stephen, C.

    Dalton, H.

    Leonard, W.

    Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Leslie, J. R.

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Logan, D. G.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Lunn, W.

    Thurtle, E.

    Day, H.

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Tinker, J. J.

    Dobbie, W.

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Tomlinson, G.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Viant, S. P.

    Ede, J. C.

    McGovern, J.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    MacLaren, A.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

    MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

    Watson, W. McL.

    Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Foot, D. M.

    Mander, G. le M.

    Westwood, J.

    Frankel, D.

    Marshall, F.

    White, H. Graham

    Gallacher, W.

    Mathers, G.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmere)

    Gardner, B. W.

    Maxton, J.

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Garro Jones, G. M.

    Messer, F.

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Milner, Major J.

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Gibson, R. (Greenock)

    Montague, F.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Muff, G.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Nathan, Colonel H. L.

    Mr. Adamson and Mr. Whitley.

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Naylor, T. E.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

    Bull, B B.

    Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

    Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

    Burghley, Lord

    Dugdale, Captain T. L.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

    Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

    Dunglass, Lord

    Albery, Sir Irving

    Butcher, H. W.

    Eastwood, J. F.

    Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)

    Cartland, J. R. H.

    Eckersley, P. T.

    Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

    Assheton, R.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

    Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)

    Ellis, Sir G.

    Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Elliston, Capt. G. S.

    Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)

    Channon, H.

    Emery, J. F.

    Balniel, Lord

    Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

    Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)

    Entwistle, Sir C. F.

    Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

    Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

    Errington, E.

    Bernays, R. H.

    Colfox, Major W. P.

    Everard, Sir William Lindsay

    Bird, Sir R. B.

    Conant, Captain R. J. E.

    Fildes, Sir H.

    Blair, Sir R.

    Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)

    Findlay, Sir E

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)

    Fleming, E. L.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Cox, H. B. Trevor

    Fox, Sir G. W. G.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Furness, S. N.

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Critshley, A.

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Bracken, B.

    Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

    Gluckstein, L. H.

    Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)

    Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

    Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

    Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)

    Crossley, A. C.

    Goldie, N. B.

    Brass, Sir W.

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Gower, Sir R. V.

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Cruddas, Col. B.

    Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

    Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

    Culverwell, C. T.

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

    De la Bère, R.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Denville, Alfred

    Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

    Donner, P. W.

    Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

    836

    837

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.

    Maxwall, Hon. S. A.

    Selley, H. R.

    Hambro, A. V.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Shakespeare, G. H

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Medlicott, F.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Hannah, I. C.

    Mailer, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

    Shepperson, Sir E. W.

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Mills, Major J. O. (New Forest)

    Smithers, Sir W.

    Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

    Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

    Somervall, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Mitcheson, Sir G. G.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

    Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

    Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

    Hapburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

    Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

    Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth)

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

    Spens, W. P.

    Higgs, W. F.

    Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)

    Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.

    Munro, P.

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Holmes, J. S.

    Nall, Sir J.

    Storey, S.

    Hopkinson, A.

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

    Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

    Horsbrugh, Florense

    Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Howitt, Or. A. B.

    O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Hutchinson, G. C.

    Peake, O.

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

    Jarvis, Sir J. J.

    Petherick, M.

    Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Titchfield, Marquess of

    Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Touche, G. C.

    Keeling, E. H.

    Porritt, R. W.

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

    Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

    Prootar, Major H. A.

    Turton, R. H.

    Kimball, L.

    Purbrick, R.

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

    Radford, E. A.

    Walker-Smith, Sir J.

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

    Lancaster, Captain C. G.

    Rankin, Sir R.

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Latham, Sir P.

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Rayner, Major R. H.

    Warrender, Sir V.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

    Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

    Wayland, Sir W. A

    Levy, T.

    Raid, W. Allan (Derby)

    Wells, Sir Sydney

    Liddall, W. S.

    Richards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

    Lipson, D. L.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

    Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

    Rosbotham, Sir T.

    Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)

    Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Loftus, P. C.

    Rowlands, G.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

    Russell, Sir Alexander

    Wragg, H.

    MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

    McKie, J. H.

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    York, C.

    Maclay, Hon. J. P.

    Salt, E. W.

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Maitland, Sir Adam

    Samuel, M. R. A.

    Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

    Sandys, E. D.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Manningham-Buller, Sir M

    Schuster, Sir G. E.

    Captain McEwen and Captain Waterhouse.

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Scott, Lord William

    10.59 p.m.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: I beg to move, in page 8, line 15, at the end, to insert:
    "(3) The result of any such examination shall be entered in the records of the person examined, and such entry shall be conclusive evidence of the person's physical condition and state of health at the time of examination."
    Every Member of this Committee who takes his duties seriously should be prepared to support this Amendment. I base that statement upon the experiences of many of my hon. Friends and of hon. Members opposite with regard to ex-service men. Many hon. Members, particularly those coming from industrial centres, are familiar with such phrases as "The condition of the person is not attributable to war service" or, "It is not directly arising out of war service." It is based upon that experience and those phrases that we desire to have this Amendment inserted in the Bill. I want
    838
    to relate one or two of my own experiences to show the necessity for the Amendment. Hon. Members who have served in the Armed Forces, particularly during the last War, will remember that on many occasions we could not take our clothes off, sometimes for days and days, and that, especially if a man is subject to wounds or disease, is bound to affect his whole physique. In addition to that, particularly when we were first called up, we had to sleep on boards, on concrete, and on steel on many occasions, and that also is bound to affect a man's physique, particularly later in life. I remember an experience that I had when marching from the quayside at Boulogne up to St. Martin's camp. No provision had been made to accommodate us that evening, and as we were marching up St. Mary's Hill, if I remember the name aright, it poured with rain, with the result that the whole of the unit that I was with

    839
    to reinforce the Tank Corps slept on Boulogne station that evening, wet through. We say that experiences of that character are bound to affect a man's physique, and it cannot be measured until later in life, when it may be he finds that he is suffering from rheumatism or some other disease of that character, and it is then difficult to trace a man's physical condition to his war service.
    We agree with the Minister when he said a few moments ago that every man when he was enlisted received a thorough medical examination. If that is so—and all those who have had experience know that it is so—we say that it logically follows that when a man enlists you get on his attestation paper his medical history, and that paper, if a man is certified on it as medically fit, should provide the Army authorities with conclusive evidence of his physical condition. Therefore we say that the whole of the Members of the House ought to be prepared to support this Amendment, because everyone who has had anything to do with the armed forces knows that if anything I am understating the case. They ought to be prepared to support this Amendment in order that the young men who are coming forward should not be subjected to the experiences to which my generation were subjected.
    I do not know whether it matters, but I have had my attention drawn to the fact that on this very important Amendment there is no Member of the Cabinet present in the Chamber. I know that we are living in serious times and that Cabinet Ministers are very busy, and I am the first one to make allowances for their difficulties, but I do say that when we are considering serious questions like this, affecting the lads who belong to our people, and when we see the way in which they were treated last night, with one treatment for the lad who belongs to us and a different treatment for the lad who belongs to other people, I say that the least we are entitled to expect is that some Member of the Cabinet who could take the responsibility of accepting this Amendment should be present.
    11.5 p.m.
    Mr. Shinwell: I rise, mainly to direct the attention of the Committee to the fact that for the purposes of this Debate the Front Bench opposite is occupied only
    840
    by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, while on the back benches sits the Minister of Pensions, who is, perhaps, the most competent authority on this subject in the House. I think the Committee ought to be treated with courtesy, and that we are entitled to suggest that not only the Minister of Pensions, but the Secretary of State for War, whose Bill this is, should be in his place to reply to the important and substantial issue raised by this Amendment. Moreover, let me remind the Government and the Committee generally that we are operating under the Guillotine. I see the occupants of the Front Bench have now been reinforced by the Minister of Health who is indeed competent to express an opinion on a matter of this sort because of his professional qualification and because he has had I believe experience of military duties. But it seems to me that in the circumstances, the Committee ought to be treated with greater respect than has been shown to it. I know that within the Rules laid down as a result of the Guillotine Motion, we have no power to move to report Progress otherwise I should certainly do so. I can only say that it seems a most extraordinary and indeed monstrous thing, that the Committee should be placed in the position in which it finds itself.
    On the major issue, I hope the Government will see their way to accept this reasonable and moderate Amendment. There is nothing in it to which they can possibly object. We are not asking for more than the Amendment describes. [Laughter.] I mean exactly what I have said. There is no ulterior or partisan motive behind the Amendment. It is a perfectly straight Amendment which would improve the Bill and protect the interests of the men who are to be called up under the Bill. All we ask is that the result of the medical examination should be entered in the records of the person who has been examined. No one can take any exception to that proposal.
    "and such entry shall be conclusive evidence of the person's physical condition and state of health at the time of examination."
    There can be no exception to that. If the Government oppose an Amendment of this kind we are entitled to entertain very deep suspicion that they intend to take advantage of the absence of such a provision in order to safeguard themselves against any legitimate claim that may be presented in the future.

    841
    I agree with the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith), which was practical and sincere and based on his own experience. I agree with what he said about the experience in connection with claims presented by ex-service men. There is scarcely one hon. Member who has not had sorrowful experience of having received communications in response to letters they have addressed to the Minister of Pensions. They have usually begun by expressing the regret of the Minister. The Minister is usually oozing with sympathy, but practical effects are generally absent. Because of our experience in connection with these claims of ex-service men and because of the fact that there are innumerable cases, one might say countless cases, where ex-service men, in spite of the medical diagnosis when they were first enlisted and when they were pronounced fit for service, have been refused pensions allowances and grants because it was held that their disease was not attributable to war service. It is a most scandalous business that we cannot raise the question of ex-service men to-night when we are dealing with men who some day will be ex-service men.
    I am glad that the Minister of Labour is now present. He is entitled to leave the House—
    Mr. E. Brown: I can assure the hon. Member that I have been engaged on public business.
    Mr. Shinwell: I was about to say that the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to leave his place for a while, because he has been in constant attendance in the previous proceedings. He has been in a kindly and generous mood, and has made concessions which we value very highly, although we have not received all the concessions to which we think we are entitled. I hope that now he has arrived, and particularly in view of his own experience as an ex-service man, he will be ready to make the concession for which we are asking.
    11.15 p.m.
    Mr. Buchanan: I think this Amendment is very important because it will affect men who will be ex-service men later on. I am not going to deal with the problem of the men who served in the last War. Hon. Members are familiar with it, and understand it. They have all had
    842
    pathetic cases put before them. The lesson of our experience in the cases we have lost should be a warning to safeguard the cases of the future. Our experience ought to have the effect that we shall see to it that we safeguard others from being put in the same position. I want to deal with the men who will join the Army, the militiamen. It is the same case, but far worse than the case of those who served in the War. The man who served in the last War had certain rights. He had the right of appeal to a tribunal, and before going there the whole history of his case was set out in writing. He had the right to bring medical evidence and legal assistance, and further he had the case against him fully set out. In addition the tribunal had as a member an ex-service man, which was to some extent a guarantee that he would get decent treatment.
    What is the position now? It is much worse. The man who joins the Army has no appeal except to the Chelsea Commissioners, who never give a decision in writing. No case is set out. The man cannot be represented, nor can he bring medical evidence, or see the case against him in writing. He cannot have legal advice. All that happens is that the Chelsea Commissioners meet, decide his case, and from that decision there is no appeal. His position is far worse than that of the man who served in the War. The Chelsea Commissioners decide the case in the man's absence; he knows nothing of the proceedings and his only resort is to his Member of Parliament, who may or may not be successful in getting a review. The Member of Parliament can only go to the Secretary of State for War who may ask the Chelsea Commissioners to reconsider the case. I know the case of a man who joined the Army in the ordinary way, served for four years, and was then discharged suffering from some form of rheumatic fever. When he appealed to the Commissioners, they said that before he joined he had suffered from this rheumatic fever. In this case, there is to be no appeal by a legal man or a doctor to the tribunal, and there is to be no ex-Service man on the tribunal. The case is to be decided in private.
    On this issue I ask for common decency and fairness, and for the same treatment to be accorded to the militiaman as would be given to the ordinary

    843
    criminal appearing before the courts. The Amendment asks for a simple thing. It asks that if a man is passed as being A.I, then afterwards that record shall stand, and no efforts shall be made in future to demolish that record. Surely, that is a reasonable thing to ask. The doctor's sworn evidence that a man is A.I should be taken, after he is discharged as medically unfit, as conclusive evidence that the man was a fit man when he joined up, and therefore, is entitled to the generosity of the State for the suffering through which he has gone. I trust that the Committee will accept the Amendment. I have been told that hon. Members opposite have at heart the interests of the ex-Service men, and I have no reason for disbelieving that; but I would take it as a practical earnest of that statement if to-night they made this concession to the soldiers who are to be called up.
    11.23 p.m.
    Sir Joseph Nall: The hon. Members who have moved and supported the Amendment have made out a case which superficially at any rate makes a very strong appeal. I do not for one moment suggest that the main appeal which they have made is wrong, but I feel that we should remember that there is a vast difference between the man who joined up for service overseas in practical service conditions, and who served for three or four years in the War, and the present case, where we are dealing with young fit men who are joining up for six months training at home in peace conditions, with practically none of those risks which the ex-Service men of the last War had to face. What is to happen at the end of that six months' training? The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) spoke of the man who is A.I, and apparently has a clear health record, which should be marked up and be in his possession thereafter. What of the man who is A.2 or C.3? The reasons for this presumably will be marked on the certificate, and after his six months' service in the Army, that certificate will be in his possession for the remainder of his life. Will every employer to whom he goes be entitled to ask to see the certificate? If he is not A.I, if he is any grade less than that, the possession of that certificate may well prejudice him for all the years to come.
    844
    Moreover, this Amendment is being argued on the ground that this first medical examination as to fitness to undergo this short period of training at home under peace conditions will determine at some later date, if a man is mobilised for service abroad, his fitness for such service. I apprehend that that is not the case. At present, when a man joins the Territorials, he is medically examined, but if mobilisation comes and the Territorial Army is embodied, every man has to be medically examined as to whether he is fit to serve overseas.
    Mr. Silverman: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has read the Amendment recently, but he seems to have overlooked the last words. Nobody is suggesting that the medical certificate should be conclusive of the state of health, but that it should be conclusive of his physical condition and state of health at the time of the examination. It is no more than that.
    Sir J. Nall: That does not alter my argument. The point is that when he joins for this short period of six months he has to be furnished with a certificate and unless anything happens to him thereafter presumably that certificate stands until it is altered, and it may never be altered. If he is in a category below AI he will be branded as below AI for the rest of his life. If he is remaining in the Army for the rest of his life there may be some point in it, but if he is only doing six months service in peace-time training conditions, which is very different from overseas service in war, he may be prejudiced later when he returns to civil life. The argument I was making before I was interrupted was that this preliminary of first examination is not one on which overseas service in time of war depends. The recruit, having been examined and accepted, does not go overseas on the strength of that examination in time of war, but if the Territorial Army is mobilised to-morrow every man has to undergo another examination. All I am suggesting is that we should not confuse the considerable difficulties that have arisen in the case of ex-service men in consequence of war service for three or four years with the circumstances in which a man is being examined as to-whether he is fit to undergo six months training at home in time of peace.
    11.29 p.m.
    Dr. Guest: A point to which no reference has been made concerns the standards of medical fitness on which the examination will be made. I am told it will not necessarily be the War Office standard, and we ought to know what it is. With regard to this medical record, it is necessary to have it for all purposes, including the purposes of the Army itself. The record ought to be of a much more exhaustive character than the usual record of an Army examination. What the hon. Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall) has just been saying is right as far as it goes, but he does not understand that there are a large number of conditions, such as nasal, eye and ear conditions, on which the whole question of validity or otherwise may depend in the future, and unless they are noted now there is no evidence for or against them. They then merely become a matter of medical opinion.
    The hon. Member said that men were joining up for a short period of service. Six months is a reasonably long period, not too long, but they are not necessarily joining up for a short period only. They are joining up for whatever may come—ready to face a war, and presumably joining because there is some definite danger of war eventuating in the near future. It is true that in any sensibly-conducted unit they would be examined again before they were sent overseas, but that does not make it any less desirable to have a record of the exact physical condition of the man when he was first examined. I suggest that that examination ought to be very much fuller than is usual in the Army, because otherwise it will lead to disputes in the future. It is not only under the conditions of service overseas that a man's constitution is undermined. The condition of some men who suffered from the effects of the last War were the outcome of bad arrangements, overwork, and even accidents in this country before they went overseas, and it would be valuable to have a record of the man's condition more on the lines of an insurance examination than an Army medical examination. We ought to be told what are to be the standards of that examination, because until we know that we do not know with what standards a man will have to comply and how far he can meet the physical strain.
    11.33 p.m.
    Mr. Stephen: I strongly support this Amendment. Most Members have had experience, and it has, no doubt, been similar to my own, of the treatment of ex-service men. Very often it has been almost impossible for the Ministry of Pensions to help a man because of the weakness of the system of medical examinations in the past. At the beginning of the last War it was notorious that the medical examinations were of the most cursory character. Many men were drafted into the Army who ought not to have been accepted, and they suffered exceedingly, and afterwards those men presented difficult problems in the matter of compensation and pensions. We are now introducing conscription and the Government ought to utilise the experience of the past, and if this Amendment is accepted I am sure that the medical examinations will be more carefully made. I am in correspondence with the War Office at the moment regarding the case of an athletic young man who joined up and took part in one of the boxing championships of his regiment, or his division or his area. He had a bad knock and was afterwards invalided out of the Service. He went insane, and was invalided out of the Army. The Army said: "We have nothing to do with it. He was examined by the doctor, who found no connection with the blow that he got or with anything else that happened when he was in the Service. We cannot accept any responsibility for his condition." The hon. Lady the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) brought forward a similar case, and only because she had the assistance of a medical specialist was she able to get justice done on that occasion.
    Here is an opportunity to give a safeguard to men whom we take into the Army. The Amendment will make it impossible for a medical adviser to the Minister to say: "There must have been something wrong with this man. His condition must be due to his history, and has nothing to do with his Army service." I am sure that hon. Members opposite will bear out what I say and will see the importance of accepting the Amendment, Ministers should accept the Amendment for their own protection against their own medical authorities. So many Ministers have tended to get a reputation for hard-heartedness that was not fair, because

    847
    they had medical advisers who seemed to think it their business so to arrange things that there would be 100 per cent. proof why no pension should be given. Their idea has been that the country desired such economical expenditure that cases should be ruled out if there was any possibility of doing so. I hope that position will be changed. The Amendment will give a great deal of protection to the young men. They should be given a decent medical examination, and if they prove to be sound and well, and break down in the course of their training, the authorities should be compelled to give them adequate compensation and pension rights. It is not right to send out these young men, and then to say to a widowed mother: "His training had nothing to do with it."
    11.39 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: I am inclined to agree that it would be well if these examinations were much more exhaustive than they are, but I cannot help feeling a doubt whether it would be to the advantage of the man who is to become a Militiaman to have the various facts entered upon his record card. I am also inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) that it would be a greater protection for the dependants than for the man himself. When a man is passed as fit for military service, it does not necessarily mean that he is a perfect specimen of physical manhood. Such a thing probably only exists in one case in 50,000. Practically all of us, although we may be fit enough to do military service or our ordinary civilian duties, have some slight physical defect, and it cannot be to the advantage of a militiaman to have entered on his medical record the fact that he has a tendency to flat feet, or a slightly varicose vein, or that he showed signs of having had tubercular trouble in his early youth. Personally I think that, from the point of view of his securing employment when he leaves the Army, it would be much better that these slight physical defects should not be recorded.
    11.41 p.m.
    Dr. Summerskill: I think that the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken, and the hon. Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall), are labouring under a misappren-hension about medical records. It has
    848
    been said that it would brand a man for life if any record were kept showing that he has flat feet, varicose veins, and so on; but every one of these youths who will be called up is already on the list of a doctor under the National Health Insurance Acts, and a record already exists of their physical condition. An employer has only to demand a certificate of health from the boy's insurance practitioner for all these things to be revealed. Therefore it is quite wrong to say that another record will damn a boy in any way.
    When I read this Amendment, it seemed to me so modest that I could not imagine the Minister refusing to accept it. It only asks that the doctor shall follow modern medical practice; it is just as elementary as telling one of the five doctors on the board to use a stethoscope in examining a heart, or to use an ophthalmoscope in examining an eye. It is obligatory on the doctors who work under the National Health Insurance Acts to keep records. A careful investigation is made into these records two or three times a year, and any doctor who fails to keep accurate and complete records is fined very heavily after the first offence. The only doctors who refuse to do this are those who have insufficient clerical help. I suggest that there will be plenty of clerical help available for these boards, and that the doctors will not labour under any difficulty in that regard. I suggest that if the Minister refuses this very simple Amendment, there must be some ulterior motive.
    11.45 p.m.
    Mr. Shinwell: On a point of Order. May I suggest that, in view of fact that the Guillotine falls within a quarter of an hour and this is a most important Amendment, we ought to have a reply from the Minister?
    The Chairman: That is not a point of Order.
    Mr. Wedgwood Benn: May I draw attention to the fact that this Committee has never had the assistance during the whole day of the Minister whose Bill this is—the Secretary of State for War? It has been, and is now, I understand, to be addressed by an Under-Secretary, whose name is not even on the back of the Bill.
    11.46 p.m.
    Colonel Ropner: I can promise hon. Members that I shall not detain the Committee for more than two minutes. The whole Committee had a feeling of sympathy for the hon. Gentleman when he presented the case for the Amendment. I do not think he was concerned with the rigidity of the medical examination. He was trying to ensure that if the health of the Militiaman suffered by reason of his service he should receive proper compensation. But I am by no means convinced that the Amendment would have the effect he desires. There are a large number of latent diseases, such as tuberculosis and deafness, which may be inherited and become obvious only later in life, and which by no stretch of imagination could be attributed to service. This Amendment could secure only a kind of instantaneous photograph of the state of health of the recruit, and no sort of indication of his health in later years or the life he had led after the examination. It might give the militiaman a false sense of security, and would not do what its supporters expect.
    11.48 p.m.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd rose—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Benn: It is only because of the gag that the Government have the impudence to put an Under-Secretary up to reply.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) has been obviously aware for the last five minutes that I was going to reply, because he has protested three times against it. It is rather singular that he should now express such surprise.
    Mr. Benn: I said it was only as a result of the gag that the Government have the impudence to put up an Under-Secretary to answer the case for the Amendment.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I should have been able to deal in somewhat greater detail with some of the interesting points that have been advanced had more time been devoted to this Amendment. On a Bill of this magnitude it is the practice, on both sides, that Ministers should divide up those sections of the Bill which more particularly affect their Departments, each taking that part of the Bill which appears to be more relevant to their particular administration.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does the hon. Gentleman really suggest that the question of medical examination is a matter for the Ministry of Labour? Is it not a matter which ordinarily comes within the purview of the Secretary of State for War? I have had experience myself of the War Office and have had to deal with precisely these matters. The Ministry of Labour has never had anything to do with this subject.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman has, not for the first time, shown a complete lack of appreciation of the Bill. He says he has had experience of the War Office but neither he nor anyone else has had experience hitherto of a compulsory military training Bill such as this. It is that fact which makes his recollections of singularly little application this evening. Of course, this is a matter more properly dealt with by the Ministry of Labour than any other Department. We are now dealing with a civilian process. Men are asked to go before a medical board by a notice issued on behalf of the Minister of Labour. On this process depends the question whether or not he is served with a military training notice. After he has been served with such a notice he comes within the purview of the Secretary of State for War when he has been called up.
    I am afraid, in spite of the arguments which have been adduced, it is quite impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment, for reasons which, I think, hon. Members opposite, and not least the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths), who is not always slow in picking up points of this kind, will on further reflection find are in the interest of the men themselves. If a man has received a clean bill of health on his examination, that should be conclusive evidence of his state of health at the time. Correspondingly, if he does not receive a clean bill of health, it will be conclusive evidence that he was not in a good state of health at the time. Hon. Members have, perhaps, not appreciated that, as the Amendment is worded, it means that any such record would be taken as conclusive evidence for all purposes. It would be conclusive evidence for the purposes of a whole variety of other Acts of Parliament and other proceedings in ordinary life, such as workmen's compensation, and it would certainly happen that the interests of many people whom we are anxious to help

    851
    would be prejudiced if an Amendment in these words were carried. The purpose of the Bill, and of this Clause of the Bill, is to see that only men who are fit for military training are taken for military training. [Interruption.] I cannot give way.
    The Chairman: I must ask that the Committee should be allowed to hear the Minister.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the Committee will allow me to go over that again, the object of this Clause is to see that only fit men are taken for military training. A record will be made, and a report of the medical examination will be entered in the man's record. The hon. Lady the Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill) seemed to suggest that no record would be kept. Of course there would be such a record, and it would be conclusive for this Bill and for all purposes connected with the Bill that on the particular date when the man was examined he was in the state of health that the record showed him to be. As has been pointed out by an hon. Member behind me and by one or two other hon. Members, no useful purpose would be served either in the interests of the man or the community by accepting an Amendment in these terms. It is essentially a matter for regulation, and it is intended that regulations shall be made. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith) referred to men who might become ill while undergoing their training—men who had had a clean bill of health when they were first examined. The record taken at that time would be available as evidence and proof of the state of a man's health when he was examined. The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) drew a picture, which, I think, was very much overdrawn, of men returning broken in health and in spirit as a result of military training. If a Regular soldier, who was fit when he joined the Army—and if he was not fit he would not have been allowed to join the Army—either on service or through service, suffers an accident or undergoes an illness which for some time incapacitates him or injures his health, there are provisions in the Army Regulations to meet the hardship.
    Mr. Stephen: I challenge the hon. Gentleman to disprove the truth of my statement.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The privileges that apply to the Regular soldier in this matter would apply also to Militiamen who are to be recruited under this Bill when it becomes an Act. [Interruption.] If the Committee are interested, I will endeavour to make myself heard and briefly tell them the form of administration to be adopted by the medical board. It is intended as a matter of administration that they should group the men into four categories. Those in the bottom category would not be called up for training. Those in the top three categories would be available to be called up for training, but the nature of the duties for which they would be called up would vary with the category, so that those who were in the third category, that is, near the exclusion line, would not be called upon to undergo such arduous training as would imperil their health, and those who were in the first and second categories, and in that order, would have the more severe tasks allotted to them. I cannot believe, in the light of this explanation—
    Mr. E. Smith: What explanation?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The explanation I have given of the working of the administration. I agree that it would have been a more eloquent and audible explanation if the hon. Gentleman had not interrupted me. In the light of this explanation, the Committee will see that the position is amply covered, and I ask them to reject the Amendment.
    Mr. Buchanan: Can the Minister say that even under this Bill a man would have any right of personal appearance before the board or of bringing medical evidence to claim a pension?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: When a man passes under military control he will have the privileges that the Regular soldier enjoys.
    Mr. Buchanan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Regular soldier now has no right of personal appearance before any board, and will he give this man and the Regular soldier the right of appearance before the board?
    It being Midnight, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 10th May, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided; Ayes 132, Noes 229.

    Division No. 116.]

    AYES.

    [12.0 m.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Groves, T. E.

    Parker, J.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

    Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Pearson, A.

    Adamson, W. M.

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

    Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)

    Poole, C. C.

    Ammon, C. G.

    Hayday, A.

    Price, M. P.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Pritt, O. N.

    Banfield, J. W.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Barnes, A. J.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Barr, J.

    Hicks, E. G.

    Ridley, G.

    Batey, J.

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Riley, B.

    Beaumont, H. (Batley)

    Hollins, A.

    Ritson, J.

    Bellenger, F. J.

    Hopkin, D.

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

    Jagger, J.

    Rothschild, J. A. de

    Bevan, A.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Bromfield, W.

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Sexton, T. M.

    Buchanan, G.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Shinwell, E.

    Burke, W. A.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Silkin, L.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Silverman, S. S.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Simpson, F. B.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhiths)

    Collindridge, F.

    Lawson, J. J.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Cove, W. G.

    Leach, W.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

    Logan, D. G.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Daggar, G.

    Lunn, W.

    Stephen, C.

    Dalton, H.

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Day, H.

    McGovern, J.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Dobbie, W.

    MacLaren, A.

    Tomlinson, G.

    Dunn, E. (Rather Valley)

    MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

    Viant, S. P.

    Ede, J. C.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Badwellty)

    Mander, G. le M.

    Watson, W. McL.

    Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

    Marshall, F.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Frankel, D.

    Maxton, J.

    Westwood, J.

    Gallacher, W.

    Messer, F.

    Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

    Gardner, B. W.

    Milner, Major J.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Garro Jones, G. M.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    Gibson, R. (Greenock)

    Muff, G.

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

    Nathan, Colonel H. L.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbnry)

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Noel-Baker, P. J.

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Oliver, G. H.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    Paling, W.

    Mr. Mathers and Mr. Anderson

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

    Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

    Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

    Cruddas, Col. B.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

    Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

    Culverwell, C. T.

    Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

    De la Bère, R.

    Apsley, Lord

    Bull, B. B.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Assheton, R.

    Burghley, Lord

    Denville, Alfred

    Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

    Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

    Donner, P. W.

    Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)

    Butcher, H. W.

    Dugdale, Captain T. L.

    Balniel, Lord

    Cartland, J. R. H.

    Duggan, H. J.

    Baxter, A. Beverley

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Dunglass, Lord

    Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

    Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)

    Eastwood, J. F.

    Beechman, N. A.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Eckersley P. T.

    Bernays, R. H.

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

    Bird, Sir R. B.

    Channon, H.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Blair, Sir R.

    Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)

    Ellis, Sir G.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

    Elliston, Capt. G. S.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Emery, J. F.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Conant, Captain R. J. E.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)

    Entwistle, Sir C. F.

    Bracken, B.

    Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'sfr S. G'gs)

    Errington, E.

    Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)

    Cox, H. B. Trevor

    Everard, Sir William Lindsay

    Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)

    Craven-Ellis, W.

    Findlay, Sir E.

    Brass, Sir W.

    Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

    Foot, D. M.

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Crossley, A. C.

    Fox, Sir G. W. G.

    Fremantle, Sir F. E.

    Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

    Samuel, M. R. A.

    Furness, S. N.

    Loftus, P. C.

    Sandys, E. D.

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Scott, Lord William

    Gluckstein, L. H.

    MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Selley, H. R.

    Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

    McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

    Shakespeare, G. H.

    Goldie, N. B.

    McKie, J. H.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Gower, Sir R. V.

    Maitland, Sir Adam

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

    Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.

    Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)

    Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

    Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

    Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Grimston, R. V.

    Markham, S. F.

    Smithers, Sir W

    Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

    Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

    Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

    Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

    Guinness, T. L. E. B.

    Medlicott, F.

    Spens, W. P.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.

    Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'1'd)

    Hambro, A. V.

    Mellor. Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

    Storey, S.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

    Hannah, I. C.

    Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    Mitcheson, Sir G. G.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Haslam, Henry (Horncattle)

    Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

    Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

    Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

    Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

    Nall, Sir J.

    Titchfleld, Marquess of

    Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth)

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

    Touche, G. C.

    Higgs, W. F.

    Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Holmes, J. S.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Turton, R. H.

    Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Horsburgh, Florence

    Peake, O.

    Walker-Smith, Sir J.

    Howitt, Dr. A. B.

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)

    Petherick, M.

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Hutchinson, G. C.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Warrender, Sir V.

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    James, Wing-commander A. W. H.

    Porritt, R. W.

    Watt Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie.

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)

    Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

    Wayland, Sir W. A

    Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Wells, Sir Sydney

    Keeling, E. H.

    Radford, E. A.

    Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

    Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

    Rantsbotham, H.

    Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

    Rankin, Sir R.

    Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)

    Kimball, L.

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Knox Major-General Sir A. W. F

    Reed. A. C. (Exeter

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Reed, H. S. (Aylesbury)

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Lancaster, Captain C. G.

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

    Wragg H.

    Latham, Sir P.

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

    Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    York C.

    Leech, Sir J. W.

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Rowlands, G.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Levy, T.

    Russell, Sir Alexander

    Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Mr. Munro.

    Liddall, W. S.

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Lipson, D. L.

    Salt, E. W.

    The CHAIRMAN then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions on Amendments moved by the Government, of which notice had been given, and the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at Midnight at this day's sitting
    Amendments made:
    In page 8, line 20, leave out "convicted," and insert "found guilty."
    In line 22, at the end, insert:
    "(4) A notice served on any person under this section shall cease to have effect if, before the date on which he is thereby required to submit himself to medical examination he ceases to be liable to be called up for military training under this Act."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]
    Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 239; Noes, 124.

    Division No. 117.]

    AYES.

    [12.11 a.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

    Baxter, A. Beverley

    Bracken, B.

    Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

    Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

    Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

    Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

    Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)

    Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)

    Beechman, N. A.

    Brass, Sir W.

    Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)

    Bernays, R. H.

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Apsley, Lord

    Bird, Sir R. B.

    Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Blair, Sir R.

    Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

    Assheton, R.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

    Baillie Sir A. W. M.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)

    Boulton, W. W.

    Brown, Brig-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

    Balniel, Lord

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Bull, B. B.

    Burghley, Lord

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Radford, E. A.

    Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

    Rankin, Sir R.

    Cartland, J. R. H.

    Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth)

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Higgs, W. F.

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.

    Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

    Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)

    Holmes, J. S.

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Channon, H.

    Hewitt, Dr. A. B.

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)

    Rothschild, J. A. de

    Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

    Hutchinson, G. C.

    Rowlands, G.

    Colman, N. C. O.

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. ft.

    Conant, Captain R. J. E.

    James, Wing-commander A. W. H.

    Russell, Sir Alexander

    Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (Wst'r S. G'gs)

    Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

    Salt, E. W.

    Cox, H. B. Trevor

    Keeling, E. H.

    Samuel, M. R. A.

    Craven-Ellis, W.

    Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

    Sandys, E. D.

    Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

    Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

    Scott, Lord William

    Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Crossley, A. C.

    Kimball, L.

    Selley, H. R.

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

    Shakespeare, G. H.

    Cruddas, Col. B.

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Culverwell, C. T.

    Lancaster, Captain C. G.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Latham, Sir P.

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)

    De la Bère, R.

    Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Leech, Sir J. W.

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Denville, Alfred

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Smithers, Sir W.

    Dormer, P. W.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

    Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

    Duggan, H. J.

    Levy, T.

    Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    Liddall, W. S.

    Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

    Dunglass, Lord

    Lipson, D. L.

    Spens, W. P.

    Eastwood, J. F.

    Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)

    Eckersley, P. T.

    Loftus, P. C.

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Storey, S.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

    Ellis, Sir G.

    McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Elliston, Capt. G. S.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Emery, J. F.

    Maitland, Sir Adam

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Entwistle, Sir C. F.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Errington, E.

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

    Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

    Markham, S. F.

    Titchfield, Marquess of

    Everard, Sir William Lindsay

    Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

    Touche, G. C.

    Fildes, Sir H.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Findlay, Sir E.

    Medlicott, F.

    Tufnell, Lieut. -Commander R, L.

    Foot, D. M.

    Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

    Turton, R. H.

    Fox, Sir G. W. G.

    Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Fremantle, Sir F. E.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Walker-Smith, Sir J.

    Furness, S. N.

    Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

    Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Mitcheson, Sir G. G.

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    Gluckstein, L. H.

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

    Warrender, Sir V.

    Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Goldie, N. B.

    Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

    Wayland, Sir W. A.

    Gower, Sir R. V.

    Munro, P.

    Wells, Sir Sydney

    Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.

    Nall, Sir J.

    Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

    Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

    Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

    Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)

    Grimston, R. V.

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

    Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Guinness, T. L. E. B.

    Peake, O.

    Wragg, H.

    Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.

    Petherick, M.

    York, C.

    Hambro, A. V.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Hannah, I. C.

    Porritt, R. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

    Captain Dugdale and Lieut.-Colonel Harvie Watt.

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Procter, Major H. A.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Bellenger, F. J.

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

    Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

    Bevan, A.

    Day, H.

    Adamson, W. M.

    Bromfield, W.

    Debbie, W.

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

    Buchanan, G.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    Ammon, C. G.

    Burke, W. A.

    Ede, J. C.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Banfield, J. W.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

    Barnes, A. J.

    Collindridge, F.

    Frankel, D.

    Barr, J.

    Cove, W. G.

    Gallacher, W.

    Batey, J.

    Daggar, G.

    Gardner, B. W.

    Beaumont, H. (Ballsy)

    Dalton, H.

    Garro Jones, G. M.

    858

    859

    Gibson, R. (Greenock)

    Lunn, W.

    Ritson, J.

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Robinson, W. A, (St. Helens)

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Sexton, T. M.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Silkin, L.

    Grenfell, D. R.

    McGovern, J.

    Silverman, S. S.

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    MacLaren, A.

    Simpson, F. B.

    MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Grovel, T. E.

    Marshall, F.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)

    Maxton, J.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Messer, F.

    Stephen, C.

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Milner, Major J.

    Stewart, W. J. (H'ghfn-le-Sp'ng)

    Hayday, A.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Muff, G.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Nathan, Colonel H. L.

    Tomlinson, G.

    Hicks, E. G.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Viant, S. P.

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Noel-Baker, P. J.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Hollins, A.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Watson, W. McL.

    Hopkin, D.

    Paling, W.

    Welsh, J. G.

    Jagger, J.

    Parker, J.

    Westwood, J.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Pearson, A.

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Pethick-Lawrenee, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Poole, C. C.

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Kirby, B. V.

    Price, M. P.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Pritt, D. N.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Lawson, J. J.

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Leach, W.

    Ridley, G.

    Mr. Mathers and Mr. Anderson.

    Logan, D. G.

    Riley, B.

    Whereupon The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to made his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-marrow.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  SOLICITORS BILL [Lords].
  Ordered, That so much of the Lords Message [4th May] as communicates the Resolution, "That it is desirable that the Solicitors Bill [Lords] be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament," be now considered.—[Mr. James Stuart.]
  So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution."—[Mr. James Stuart.]
  It being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed To-marrow.
  It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twenty-three Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.

SCOTLAND.
  EDINBURGH FERRY ROAD.
  EDINBURGH FERRY ROAD.
  WESTERN ISLES (PIERS).
  WESTERN ISLES (PIERS).
  WATER SUPPLY (STORNOWAY).
  WATER SUPPLY (STORNOWAY).
  SANDWICKHILL SCHOOL, ROSS-SHIRE (WATER SUPPLY).
  SANDWICKHILL SCHOOL, ROSS-SHIRE (WATER SUPPLY).
  EDUCATION LOANS, RENFREWSHIRE.
  EDUCATION LOANS, RENFREWSHIRE.
AGRICULTURE.
  MILK MARKETING BOARD PENALTIES.
  MILK MARKETING BOARD PENALTIES.
  TRACTORS (PRODUCER-GAS).
  TRACTORS (PRODUCER-GAS).
  DEFENCE DEPARTMENTS' LAND PURCHASES, CUMBERLAND.
  DEFENCE DEPARTMENTS' LAND PURCHASES, CUMBERLAND.
  FOOD DEFENCE PLANS.
  FOOD DEFENCE PLANS.
  ALLOTMENTS.
  ALLOTMENTS.
  PIGS.
  PIGS.
  FISHING INDUSTRY.
  FISHING INDUSTRY.
  FOOTBALL MATCHES (PUBLIC SAFETY).
  FOOTBALL MATCHES (PUBLIC SAFETY).
  JUVENILE OFFENDERS (COURT PROCEDURE).
  JUVENILE OFFENDERS (COURT PROCEDURE).
  EXPLOSIONS, LIVERPOOL (TEAR-GAS BOMBS).
  EXPLOSIONS, LIVERPOOL (TEAR-GAS BOMBS).
  LICENSING JUSTICES.
  LICENSING JUSTICES.
  ALIENS (NATURALISATION).
  ALIENS (NATURALISATION).
  POLICE COURT CONVICTION, ENFIELD.
  POLICE COURT CONVICTION, ENFIELD.
  MOTOR VEHICLES (OFFENCES, BIRMINGHAM).
  MOTOR VEHICLES (OFFENCES, BIRMINGHAM).
EDUCATION.
  DEFECTIVE SCHOOLS (WALES).
  DEFECTIVE SCHOOLS (WALES).
  MILK-IN-SCHOOLS SCHEME.
  MILK-IN-SCHOOLS SCHEME.
  UNIVERSITY PROFESSORSHIPS (WOMEN).
  UNIVERSITY PROFESSORSHIPS (WOMEN).
CIVIL AVIATION.
  NEWCASTLE AIRPORT (PILOTS).
  NEWCASTLE AIRPORT (PILOTS).
  FREE MEALS IN SCHOOLS (LIVERPOOL).
  FREE MEALS IN SCHOOLS (LIVERPOOL).
  HESTON AIRPORT.
  HESTON AIRPORT.
  WEST INDIES AIR SERVICES.
  WEST INDIES AIR SERVICES.
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  RESERVE AIRMEN (WITHHELD PAY).
  RESERVE AIRMEN (WITHHELD PAY).
  AUXILIARY AIR FORCE (BADGES).
  AUXILIARY AIR FORCE (BADGES).
  EUROPEAN SITUATION.
  EUROPEAN SITUATION.
  WORLD'S FAIR, NEW YORK (DAGENHAM PIPERS).
  WORLD'S FAIR, NEW YORK (DAGENHAM PIPERS).
  CZECHO-SLOVAKIA (BRITISH CREDITORS).
  CZECHO-SLOVAKIA (BRITISH CREDITORS).
TRANSPORT.
  ROAD ACCIDENTS (CHESHIRE).
  ROAD ACCIDENTS (CHESHIRE).
  TOLL BRIDGES.
  TOLL BRIDGES.
  SUGAR SUPPLIES.
  SUGAR SUPPLIES.
  LIFE INSURANCE (REPUDIATED POLICIES).
  LIFE INSURANCE (REPUDIATED POLICIES).
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYÉS (TERRITORIAL SERVICE).
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYÉS (TERRITORIAL SERVICE).
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS (DISALLOWED CLAIMS).
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS (DISALLOWED CLAIMS).
  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (RATING STATISTICS).
  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (RATING STATISTICS).
  ANTI-TUBERCULOSIS SERVICE, WALES.
  ANTI-TUBERCULOSIS SERVICE, WALES.
CIVIL DEFENCE.
  EVACUATION.
  EVACUATION.
  VOLUNTARY AID DETACHMENTS.
  VOLUNTARY AID DETACHMENTS.
  RETAIL MOTOR INDUSTRY.
  RETAIL MOTOR INDUSTRY.
COAL INDUSTRY.
  PRODUCTION STATISTICS.
  PRODUCTION STATISTICS.
  MINES ACCIDENTS, SOUTH WALES.
  MINES ACCIDENTS, SOUTH WALES.
  COAL-CUTTING MACHINES AND CONVEYORS.
  COAL-CUTTING MACHINES AND CONVEYORS.
BRITISH ARMY.
  CAMOUFLAGE.
  CAMOUFLAGE.
  CLOTH CONTRACTS.
  CLOTH CONTRACTS.
  NATIONAL DEFENCE COMPANIES.
  NATIONAL DEFENCE COMPANIES.
  HOME-GROWN FOOD SUPPLY.
  HOME-GROWN FOOD SUPPLY.
  OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS.
  OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS.
  5TH GLOUCESTERSHIRE REGIMENT.
  5TH GLOUCESTERSHIRE REGIMENT.
  SOLDIERS' PAY (STOPPAGES).
  SOLDIERS' PAY (STOPPAGES).
  MOBILISED TERRITORIALS (FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS).
  MOBILISED TERRITORIALS (FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS).
  MILITARY TRAINING BILL (SOLDIERS' PAY).
  MILITARY TRAINING BILL (SOLDIERS' PAY).
  CONTINENTAL ARMIES (PAY AND ALLOWANCES).
  CONTINENTAL ARMIES (PAY AND ALLOWANCES).
  AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  ROYAL NAVY (ELDERLY PENSIONERS).
  ROYAL NAVY (ELDERLY PENSIONERS).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
BRISTOL WATERWORKS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
LONDON BUILDING ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
CROYDON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

MARRIAGES VALIDITY BILL. [H.L.]
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to remove doubts as to the validity of certain marriages; and to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

CAMPS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
4.16 p.m.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, in proposing that this Bill be given a Second Reading I would say that all of us must remember a debate that took place in your Lordships' House at the beginning of the year, in which many of your Lordships took part and suggested proposals some of which have proved to be of the greatest use in the drafting and preparation of this Bill. If you will look at the Bill your Lordships will see that it is a very short one; but I do not think that therefore we ought to feel that it is by any means unimportant.
1008
Your Lordships are all very well aware of the genesis of this development. It was made first and foremost to supplement in a small way our main efforts for evacuation, which are based on billeting. We have always made it quite clear from the beginning that we did not feel it was likely that camps could ever be in any sort of way a substitute for billeting, but, in so far as they are there, they might be very useful as a supplement to billeting. The feature of this proposal which has most attracted the public imagination is the fact that, if these camps are not needed for the purposes of war, then they have a very definite, positive and permanent use for the purposes of peace.
This general interest in and appreciation of the importance of camping has been growing for many years. Boys' clubs and girls' clubs, the boy scout and many other juvenile organisations, have every year been taking their members to the country, and the growth of various other movements has shown the increasing interest taken in the subject. I think we all feel that no one in the country has done more as a pioneer of this idea than His Majesty the King himself, who first started what we all have come to know as the Duke of York's Camp. In addition to what we are doing, the National Fitness Council have lately approved something over twenty proposals for assistance to voluntary agencies. The position at the moment with regard to school camps—and I think we are really discussing the subject to-day primarily in terms of school camps—is that at the present moment there are in existence twenty local education authority school camps. In the Special Areas there are sixteen additional camps giving a fortnight a year to children to the number of 44,000. The intention under this Bill is to construct another fifty camps. Whether the funds that have been made available will be able to provide exactly that number or not, has yet to be ascertained from experience. Taking into account what has been done and what it is intended to do under the Bill, we can say that when the new camps are erected approximately 300,000 school children a year will have a fortnight in the country.
Some of your Lordships may say that in relation to the elementary school population in towns that is not enough. While we all feel that it is desirable to do as much as possible, I think we should

1009
also be prepared to admit that that is a very good start. As President of the Board of Education, and therefore as one tending to look at this question rather from the point of view of getting the maximum amount cut of the camps for the benefit of the children, I think there is a lot to be said for treating this as an experiment and trying to learn what we can from what has been done. Inevitably, in the first camps that we build, even if we do not actually make mistakes, we are bound to find things which can be improved later in the general layout and construction of buildings. It seems to me that really this opens a new field in the technique of education. These are going to be school camps, but it would be the greatest pity and the greatest waste if these children were taken to the country and we then proceeded with the normal process of education. The health side, physical fitness, gardening, the organisation of social life spent together, the feeding of the children, the enjoyment of instructive leisure in the countryside, learning what to look for in the countryside and how to treat it, bringing a practical element into the study of biology that is of necessity very theoretical in the towns—all these possibilities open out before us. Therefore we are right, to a certain extent, to regard this as a beginning, as an experiment.
Now, if I may, I will turn for a moment to the clauses of the Bill. I have said that our intention is to erect fifty camps. Of those forty-three will be in England and seven in Scotland. If we cannot quite complete that number, I think the problem for the moment before us is to get on with the full number we can construct, and at a later date we can consider the future. Under Clause 1 of the Bill, provision is made for a Camps Corporation to carry out the work outlined in the Bill for England and Wales. There is already in existence a special Housing Association for Scotland and to that Association is handed over the task for Scotland. For carrying out this work £1,200,000 is provided under this clause. Under Clause 2 powers of compulsory purchase are given, and in the matter of protection of private interests, your Lordships will notice that the procedure adopted will be that provided in the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, with all its safe-
1010
guards. We hope very much that it may not be necessary to call these compulsory powers into operation—a great deal of survey work has been done and there are very few signs that it will be necessary—but if we are going to get on with the task we felt it necessary to have these powers.
Your Lordships will see that Clause 3 contains exemptions from various building and planning restrictions. I think that is a point that may well, at first sight, cause a little concern to some of your Lordships, but I can give you an assurance that it is the intention of the Ministry of Health to consult closely with local authorities on all questions of siting and planning, including the provision of services and so on. Local authorities will have the right to make representations to the Minister before final approval is given. The Camps Corporation have been fortunate enough to be able to arrange for Mr. Tait, a member of a very well known firm of architects, surveyors and planners, to be at their disposal for consultation with regard to the buildings themselves. I hope your Lordships will agree that that is a very important point, because we are going to put camps in rural surroundings, and I personally feel it is vital that we should see to it that buildings are erected of a type that shall become a part of the countryside and not be a permanent eyesore. That is very important for the future of the camps themselves, because unless that is done they will be a permanent source of resentment to everyone living around them. In addition, I am glad to say—though I am afraid I cannot at the moment announce the name, because we have not yet had a reply—that at the suggestion of the Minister of Health the English Camps Corporation have in the last few days written to a gentleman who I think would commend himself to every one of your Lordships for his knowledge and experience of town and country planning, inviting him to be a member of the Corporation.
We pass to Clause 4, which deals with a point that was brought up at considerable length by a number of your Lordships in the debate which we had in February. It makes provision for using what one might call the "permanent core of unemployed" in the work of construction. I am afraid it may not apply to very large numbers, because the great bulk of this work will be thoroughly

1011
skilled work. But in so far as it is possible this clause will be operated, and the method of its operation will make it possible for compensation to be given to the Corporation for any cost that may thereby be entailed. I think that is also an important point, and I remember venturing to mention in that debate that it would be most regrettable if we were to give a limited sum of money to the Camps Corporation and then decrease their power of providing camps by compelling them to use less efficient labour at greater expense. That possibility, however, is provided against. Finally, Clause 5 provides for an annual report to be laid before Parliament. I think your Lordships will agree that, when we set up these outside bodies or corporations to spend public money and carry out important public functions, it is desirable that their work should be kept in the closest touch with Parliament and that powers of Parliamentary criticism should be maintained.
I have tried to lay before your Lordships very briefly the main provisions of this Bill, and I hope you will agree that the sooner its provisions are passed into law the better, so that we may get on with the construction of the camps. In the meanwhile, during the last few months, the Corporations, although perhaps formally not in existence, have not been idle. In England and Wales already twenty-five sites have been approved, and the Scottish Association have also been active. In fact, I have been told that, although they are only to have seven camps, they have already approved no fewer than ten sites, so it certainly looks as though they have been most active. I think we shall also be reassured, from the point of view of getting on with the task, by knowing that we have been fortunate enough to obtain the services of one of your Lordships, the noble Lord, Lord Portal, as Chairman of the Camps Corporation for England and Wales; and the noble Lord, Lord Traprain, as Chairman of the Scottish Association. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl De La Warr.)
4.35 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Addison, as a former
1012
Minister of Health, would have wished to be here to support this Bill, but he is presiding over the County Agricultural Committee of which he has been appointed Chairman by His Majesty's Government, for certain war preparations, and he could not attend. He asked me to express our support of the Bill in principle and to make one or two brief observations. I rather wish the administration of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, could be under the noble Earl as Minister of Education. As we understand it, these camps are to be used principally for children and, in the holiday season, for Boy Scouts and other juvenile organisations, and it seems more appropriate that the Board of Education should have them rather than the Ministry of Health. However, the principle is good and we welcome it.
Apparently the original idea was to provide these camps for evacuation purposes, and, as I have followed the debates in your Lordships' House and in another place, the idea of using them for educational purposes, and for children's holidays as a change from overcrowded cities, and so on, was a secondary thought, an afterthought. Never mind about that; out of evil has come good, and we hope that the management and provision of these camps will be a permanent part of our educational and holiday system. We furthermore regard this measure as only a beginning, and we hope, if the experiment—as it is, of course—is successful, it will be extended in the future as more money is available and as the Treasury can be forced to disgorge. I hope that the position of certain semi-philanthropic societies who have done much pioneer work in the way of providing camps for families—not only for children—will be safeguarded and that they will be recognised and brought into consultation. I am thinking particularly of the Co-operative Holidays Association, of which the most reverend Prelate the Archbishop of York is president and which since 1893 has done very good work in this direction and has blazed the trail for this whole policy.
Now I touch on a very thorny subject: why are these camps to be used only for children or juveniles in the holidays? You have a yearly increase in the number of workpeople who are receiving holidays with pay. Some alarm—this is where the subject is thorny—has been

1013
generated among those who manage the commercial camps, the holiday camps that cater for people who desire to take their holidays in this kind of way on a commercial basis: they fear that there will be unfair competition. Then there has also been a very shrill cry of alarm from the seaside landladies, and so on. We think, however, that this alarm is really without foundation. The annual increase of about a million people in the past few years, and in the people who will get holidays with pay, means a vast new class of people who for the first time will have the opportunity of getting away with their families for an annual holiday. It is difficult to see how they are to be catered for. Your Lordships know perfectly well that in the brief holiday season the seaside and holiday towns are very overcrowded as it is, and now you have these millions of extra families—not of persons, of families—seeking for places at which to take their holidays. I should have thought that these camps, especially if more of them were built, could be used in the holiday season, not only for school children but also for adults and their families.
I desire to say on behalf of my noble friend that while we welcome the arrangement for children being taken away under their teachers for a fortnight's class, as has been envisaged, in addition to that some of the camps at any rate should have accommodation for adults, which is slightly different from the accommodation required for children, so that adults could use them in the holiday season. I have had a little to do with the commercial camps and have taken an interest in them. They are very well run, but are rather costly—they must be, with the amenities and pleasures that are provided—for the ordinary artisan's family. They are all right for a young, well-paid workman who is a bachelor, or for professional men or shopkeepers, but the ordinary artisan and his family find it too expensive to go to a commercial holiday camp. Therefore there is a gap which I think the Government might help to fill by this Bill in the future, by providing for the families of lower-paid workmen who now get holidays with pay, or in other cases without pay, places where they can get good and cheap holidays under healthy conditions. That would be of great benefit to the health of the community, and I hope that that aspect of the matter
1014
has not been lost sight of. I repeat that we are not deaf to the possible alarm of those who run commercial camps, but I do not believe that they need suffer any unfair competition.
The only other matter to which I wish to refer is this. It is a question which I would like to ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. He has told us about certain sites having been already surveyed and chosen in England and Wales and Scotland. When will work be commenced on these camps, and when will the camps be ready? The season is slipping away. The Bill was brought into your Lordships' House on May 4. It is now May We have been a long time about this matter. Starting with the idea of having camps for evacuation, I should have thought that the Government might have moved in this direction at least a year ago. I must express my regret to the Leader of the House at the continuing slow pace of the Government in these matters. I am not referring now to the Navy, but to the general slow pace of the Government's progress in these matters. They are far too dilatory, and they must really wake up to the need of speed. This is one more example of their slow progress, and I would ask when are these camps going to be ready for this and their original use of evacuation?
4.43 p.m.
LORD ELTISLEY: My Lords, I would like to make observations on one or two points. I think there is no one who will criticise or cavil at the objects of this most excellent Bill. At the same time, there are one or two matters which I think should receive a little more consideration on the Committee stage than they have yet obtained. For instance, what safeguards are going to be incorporated into the Bill when it becomes an Act to ensure that there shall in every case be a competent person or persons to deal with discipline in the camps and to ensure decent standards of management and control? The Bill leaves all reference to that unsaid. Presumably this company which is going to be set up will have that matter properly provided for, but I should have been glad if the Bill had imposed some obligation on the company making it definitely responsible for general decent standards of control of the camps. I think that too much importance cannot be attached to that aspect of camp life.

1015
One great advantage of the camps will be to bring better health and fitness and I am quite sure that in this matter of permanent camps we are taking desirable steps for the good and advancement of our people.
4.45 p.m.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, neither do I rise to put any obstacle in the way of this Bill or to speak in any private or landlord interest, but there is one point on which I think the Bill should be strengthened and that is from the local government point of view. I am always rather disappointed that the Benches opposite do not champion local government in this House more than they do. We hear the champions of the preservation of commons and footpaths, and so on, but it is very seldom that we hear a good word from the Party opposite for local government. One would have thought that making haste was not always the quickest way to get good results, and in particular one would have thought that if you were going to achieve quickly an object you had very much at heart, you would consult those who knew most about the circumstances concerned. Those, of course, in this case, are the local authorities. Now this Bill has fallen into the same trap, if I may use that word, into which other Bills have lately fallen, in that it does its very best to eliminate the local authorities before it is too late.
We have an instance of that, in the first place, in the abolition of the by-laws as far as these particular camps are concerned. To that I do not raise any particular objection, but I do raise a very particular objection to the fact that the consultation with the local authority, in the shape of the town-planning authority, has been entirely eliminated from the Bill until after action has been taken. My own county council, who will be recipients of some of these children, have addressed themselves to the County Councils' Association on this point. The local authority, the town-planning authority in our case, have now spent rather more than ten years in a most careful and detailed survey of their own countryside. They have allotted certain areas as rural and agricultural zones, others as business zones, and others as development zones, and so on, and they have acquired very full and useful knowledge
1016
of the use to which land in their district can be put. They are obviously the people to be consulted first.
This Bill, whatever may be the intentions of the Minister who will apply it—and I was glad to hear from the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that it is intended to keep in touch with the local authorities—does in effect cut out the town-planning authority until action has already been taken. A little further on in his speech the noble Earl underlined this fact by saying that the Corporation had already definitely approved of twenty-five sites in England and Wales. He did not say "approved after consultation with the local authority," and presumably that consultation has not taken place. It is true that in the Bill the local authority, and the town-planning authority, are to be notified when camps are to be proposed, but they are not consulted. This to my mind, is one weakness in the Bill, and anyone who had experience of the use of land in a hurry during the last Great War will, I think, agree with me that it would be a mistake to regard this, as I think the noble Lord opposite pointed out, as a purely emergency and evacuation measure, and nothing more.
I notice that the Minister who introduced this Bill in another place used these words:
"The companies will make arrangements for the use of camps by holiday makers of any kind."
In fact there is no saying for what purpose, or for what people, these camps may not be used, and we have to look a long way ahead. It is, therefore, essential that the authorities and the local services, who know the local possibilities and know the questions of drainage, supplies, etc., should be consulted from the very beginning, and be in an authoritative position to be consulted. That is the point which I really want to make, and which I hope to raise again on the Committee stage. It is a point that was touched upon by, I think among others, Mr. Ellis Smith in another place, and I do not feel that this House would like legislation to pass through which did not support the position of local government authorities in this matter.
4.51 p.m.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, this question of camps and various issues con-

1017
nected with it were debated in your Lordships' House less than three months ago, and on that occasion such general approval was expressed of the principles and underlying ideas of camps that it is not surprising that to-day your Lordships' House is full, and that there is a general measure of support for the Bill introduced by the Government. In the few remarks I shall make I shall mainly put queries to the noble Earl, in order to elicit from him information on certain points. First of all, what is the present attitude of the local education authorities? How far are they prepared to play up and utilise the camps? The noble Lord who has just spoken has indicated the very important part which they are inevitably bound to play. These camps provide, I understand, for the accommodation during the course of a year of about a quarter of a million elementary school children. There are roughly four and three-quarter millions of elementary school children, so it is quite easy to see that only a very limited proportion of the elementary school population will have an opportunity of spending a fortnight in these camps. I hope that the noble Earl's reply to that will be that this is only a first step, and that the attitude of the education authorities is such as to indicate approval and support. Nothing would be so tragic as to have these camps built and that they should be unoccupied in any part of the year.
That brings me to the vitally important question of finance. I notice that the Government propose to give a grant in aid of 20 per cent. to education authorities for elementary school children, but that the grant is to be increased to 50 per cent. for secondary and technical school children. I wonder why that difference has been made. I would like to press the noble Earl and ask him to use his influence with the Treasury to have the grant to education authorities increased from 20 to 50 per cent. for elementary school children, more especially as, I understand, Scottish educational authorities are to have the advantage of a 50 per cent. grant. I do not quite know why they should have such a much bigger grant than is made in England. The second purpose for which they are to be used is for juveniles between the elementary school age, fourteen, and nineteen, when, under the new Act, they will go into Service. I hope
1018
very much that the preliminary negotiations indicate that the big voluntary organisations are ready and willing to use these camps in holidays times. I do not quite know on what principle—perhaps the noble Lord could tell us—the charges are fixed which will be made to these voluntary organisations. Is it going to be the same as for the education authorities? What is to be the price charged for the use of a camp when it is used by one of these voluntary associations? And is it necessary to make any adaptation in the structure of the camp in order to accommodate this different type of youth?
Then I would like to say a word in support of a third section of the community, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi—namely, those millions of people who are for the first time going to have holidays with pay. Noble Lords know that a certain number of firms have up to date provided holidays with pay, and the tragic thing is that in a large number of cases the men and women who have had an opportunity of taking a holiday away from home have not been able to afford it. At one time the boarding-house keepers and those who are associated with the commercial camps were afraid of the competition of these new camps. I believe that that fear is unfounded. In the commercial camps charges range, I understand, from £2 5s. to £3 3s., and when it comes to lodging houses by the seaside the total which a man going with his wife and children would have to pay, including railway fares and other expenses, could easily run up to £5 a week. As a large proportion of these wage earners have an income of something like £3 a week, it is quite obvious that unless a limited number of the camps are earmarked for their use we are really going to make no substantial provision towards assisting this very large section of the population in this matter. I believe it is to the interest of the boarding-house keepers and the commercial camps to encourage these wage earners to start taking a holiday away from home in these Government camps. If they do that, later on, particularly if they get an increase in wages, they will be able to go into the slightly more expensive commercial camps, or patronise lodgings at the seaside.

1019
When we were discussing this three months ago I quoted a statement from the Manchester Guardian that there were something like 600,000 children who were never able to get away from home at any time of the year for a holiday. When we talk of holidays with pay for adults, let us remember the need of their dependent children, and when we urge the Government definitely to earmark one, two or three of these camps for the use of these millions of people—I believe it is nine millions or, if you include dependents, nearly twenty millions—who will be getting paid for holidays, let us remember that at the present moment they will not be able to go away from home for their holidays. If the Government propose to do that, it is quite evident that they will have to earmark some of the camps, because a camp which is built on the dormitory principle is not suitable for providing accommodation for a family. During the debate three months ago I asked the noble Earl whether the Government would rule out the possible acquisition of country houses, and I understood that he indicated that it would not be ruled out. I do not know whether he can give us any information on this, because it seems to me that the Corporation might acquire one or two country houses which would be eminently suited for this adult population that I have been speaking about.
One other point. There has been some discussion as to whether these camps should be built in the open, or whether an attempt should be made to conceal them, and thereby provide shelter from raids. I believe that if an attempt is made to conceal them in woods or in valleys that will in effect be an invitation to any raiding squadron to bomb them. If they are obviously school camps out in the open a raiding aviator is far less likely to drop a bomb on them than if they are concealed, and he gets the impression, possibly, that they are connected with munitions or a military camp. I was very glad the noble Earl was able to indicate that the Corporation would to a certain extent give employment to young unemployed, partly for the purpose of re-equipping them physically, and I hope he will do what he can to keep that in the picture. I am perfectly certain that the Government, by the introduction of this measure, are initiating and launching
1020
a movement which has enormous possibilities for good for both the juvenile and adult populations.
5.1 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I want to join with noble Lords who have already spoken in welcoming this Bill. A Minister has rarely been able to introduce a Bill which has met with such universal welcome from all sides and all Parties. I am not concerned with this Bill so much as an emergency measure as with it as a very valuable peace-time social reform. When the present tension and strain are over we may look back upon these camps as one of the few happy results of these times. I welcome this Bill because it will do something to bridge the gulf between town and country. It is sometimes hardly realised how wide that gulf is. In our great towns there are a very large number of children who, notwithstanding all the efforts of country holiday funds, know nothing whatever about the country, its sights, its objects, or its interests. They grow up into citizenship, and the country is still something entirely remote from them. They are not interested in it or in its problems. This state of affairs is a real danger, for a country suffers from grievous weakness when its agriculture is so neglected. These camps also, I understand, will be used in holiday times for boys and girls between the ages of fourteen and twenty. That, again, is a valuable contribution to the solution of a real problem. One of the great difficulties which organisers of boys' clubs have had to face is finding camp sites. I remember spending months some years ago, trying to find a suitable site for a boys' camp within reasonable reach of London, and completely failing to do so. These camps will be used in the holidays for these boys and will thus be of great value.
There are one or two points I want to raise. One has already been raised by the noble Viscount who has just spoken—namely, what is the meaning of a grant of 20 per cent. instead of 50 per cent.? It does seem strange and I think this lower grant may possibly affect the usefulness of these camps. Another point is the great importance of considering not only the position of these camps in relation to towns and traffic and so on, but the actual site. I have known many

1021
camps which have been placed in beautiful surroundings but which have had to be evacuated whenever the weather became bad. I have known camps bought at considerable price which afterwards have been discovered to be built on clay soil or in some position liable to flooding. Experts from the centre do not always discover these weaknesses in time, and it is very important that local advice should be consulted. I was once offered, not far from London, a most attractive-looking site almost as a gift. I went to see it. Everything looked most attractive, and I was rather surprised that such an excellent site should not have been built over. I asked a porter at the railway station if he knew anything about this place and why it had not been built over. "Oh," he said, "it is flooded every five years." There are sites which, in dry weather, in a fine summer, are most suitable for a camp, but which, if the weather is unfavourable, are quite impossible.
I hope also due precautions will be taken about health. Illness can run very rapidly through a children's camp. Sometimes parents, unwilling to disappoint their children, allow them to go when there is some risk of their developing an infectious illness, and when they are in the camp the conditions are so different from the conditions of their own homes that all sort of complaints may very easily arise. The question of health is a very serious one in connection with camps of, say, 300 children. Though sometimes the local medical officer of health may be quite able to deal with the problem, not every medical officer of health is capable of dealing with the problem of 300 or more children suddenly brought into his district.
The last point I want to make has already been lightly touched on by one noble Lord who spoke earlier. However important these matters are, it is even more important that there should be the right kind of manager for these camps. The whole success of a camp depends not so much on the site as on the manager. A camp can very easily be turned into a bear garden if there is an incapable manager. A manager who is only a disciplinarian leads to rebellion; a manager who is only a good organiser, without imagination, soon has a camp in which everyone is bored and irritable; and the manager who is simply
1022
sympathetic, without discipline, very soon has a camp which is chaos. Just as you need a certain amount of training for successful managers of housing estates, so for these camps you need really experienced people. The children will be there not only for education. They will have to be cared for during their leisure hours. They will not be going home to their games or their meals. There will be long hours to fill up. Unless something is provided for children to do in these hours, the difficulties will be very great indeed. That is true of older children, but no one can deny the importance of it to the younger children of whom we are now thinking. Therefore, quite apart from the educational arrangements which will be made for these camps, I hope steps will be taken to see that in every case there is a thoroughly capable manager. I share with others who have spoken the regret that so few of these camps are to be started, but I look upon this as an instalment. The noble Lord, Lord Portal, who is to be at the head of this movement, has such driving power and is such a capable organiser that I quite hope that within a very short time there will come an irresistible demand for more of these camps.
5.9 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I should like to support this Bill in general and to congratulate the Government on introducing it. Like my noble friend Lord Phillimore, I should like to make some observations on Clause 3, which allows these companies, with the consent of the Minister, to override town-planning schemes. I know that these camps are urgently required, and I know too, that very valuable safeguards have been inserted in the Bill in another place to ensure that the voice of local opinion is heard before final approval is given. Nevertheless the fact remains that we are adding one more to that list of bodies who, in certain circumstances, have a right to override not only town-planning schemes, but agreements which have been sanctioned by the Minister and by Parliament, and in respect to which large sums of money may have been paid. This list is already considerable, and, unless I am much mistaken, in these days of emergency it is likely to be added to. In those circumstances I think it is inevitable that some doubt should arise in the minds

1023
of town-planning authorities as to whether it is worth their while spending any further money on preservation at all.
I do not say that they would do so in any spirit of defiance, but simply because of the uncertainty; they do not really know where they are. I admit that this question of amenities must come as a secondary consideration in these days, but I think it would be a pity if all further work of this nature were to stop, particularly in view of the fact that so many of the schemes are now reaching their final form. I personally think that the attitude of the planning authorities will be very much affected, not so much by the precise wording of any safeguards as by the spirit in which those safeguards are administered. We were reminded the other day by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, that there does exist a type of administrator who is always prepared to listen to reason but only after he has made up his mind. If the system of consultation is to be decision first and consultation afterwards, I am not very sanguine about the future of amenity preservation in this country, but if there is to be co-operation with the town-planning committees from the first instance about these proposals I shall feel more hopeful. I should like to stress what my noble friend Lord Phillimore has already said, that these town-planning authorities need not necessarily be synonymous with delay and obstruction. They do have, as other speakers have pointed out, special knowledge of such things as drainage and water supply, and their knowledge may expedite rather than delay operations. I hope the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will use such influence as he has to see at any rate that method should be given a chance.
5.14 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, there has been a chorus of approval of this Bill, and I am just a little bit afraid that, arising out of so much approval and so many hopes, there is a danger here that we may have a disappointment if we do not clear our minds as to what this Bill does and what the possibilities are. I was very glad to hear the noble Earl who introduced the Bill say that, although the genesis of this Bill was primarily the idea of supplementing the places available for evacuation, nevertheless the purpose of the Bill was
1024
a much more limited one, and that is to provide holiday camps for school children. Now, if I may say so, I think that is the right line to take. Above all, what we must avoid is falling between two stools. These fifty camps, even for school children, are of course not enough for the amount of holidays that we all hope will ultimately be able to be had by school children. Still less are they of any use for evacuation from a practical point of view, and still less are they really of any use for the holidays-with-pay people to whom several noble Lords have referred.
I think it is essential that this matter should be proceeded with by stages and in a sensible way. It is no use trying to do too much at once. I, like other noble Lords, was perhaps disappointed at first at the small scope of this Bill, but on reflection I have come round to the point of view that it is right to have an experiment in the first instance. Moreover, I think that it is right to have this particular experiment of camps for school children, and I hope that there will not be an attempt to combine also with the experiment of holiday camps for school children holiday camps for workers who are going to get holidays with pay. The two matters are entirely different. The planning and the management of the two kinds of camp will be entirely different, and I think it is much wiser to start with an experiment of camps for school children. As I understand from the noble Earl that that is now primarily the purpose of the Corporation which is going to run these camps, I would like to emphasize to your Lordships the importance of design in these camps. A camp for school children is an absolutely different thing from a camp for workers who are going to have holidays with pay. If such camps are to come, they must come later. I would differ from my noble friend who said he hoped that two or three of the camps would be reserved for workers who have holidays with pay. I do not think that is worth doing. I would much rather have this experiment for the school children completed. Get your experience, and then proceed to the other matter later on.
Incidentally, I would like to ask the noble Earl one question. Is it intended that these camps should be occupied all the year round? I do not know whether a decision has been come to on that, but,

1025
personally, I would favour the construction of the camps being such that they would be capable of being occupied all the year round. Obviously that is going to have quite a big bearing on the construction, layout and so on. A very important point has been referred to by at least two noble Lords, and that is the question of the staffing of these camps. There I would venture to ask the noble Earl whether it should not be suggested to the Corporation that they should look ahead and train their staff. You are going to have fifty camps coming into being more or less at the same time, and other people are erecting camps on the same lines. Should not the Corporation look ahead and be thinking of training personnel for the staffing and managing of these camps, because, as the right reverend Prelate said, the staff and managers of these camps will make or mar the whole experiment. Therefore preparation should be made well in advance for training and seeing that the management is on the right lines.
More than one noble Lord has said that we are beginning on a very big move indeed. If it is successful it has endless possibilities, and it is essential that we should make no false step in any direction at the beginning. If I may say one word about the future, I would refer to what one or two noble Lords have said about town planning. Of course we are all horrified to see that this Bill calmly overrides the whole of the town-planning regulations. That is simply astounding, and more especially so when you consider that these fifty camps are far from being the only camps which are to come into being in the next few years. Everybody is thinking about camping. As with hiking, we are all becoming camp minded now. Such people as local authorities are setting up camps, trade unions are setting up camps, progressive employers are providing camps for their workpeople; and that sort of thing is going to increase.
Now just consider the position. The town-planning authorities have been working, as my noble friend said, devotedly for years making surveys, and all these camps are going to be put down without regard whatever to the town-planning work which has been done. It really is astounding. It suggests Alice in Wonderland that such a thing should be contemplated. Far from disregarding the town-planning people, I should have
1026
thought that a special survey ought to have been undertaken through the medium of town-planning machinery, to know from which parts of the country camps should be excluded or to which parts camps could be relegated, one or the other. An immense amount of useful information is already in possession of the town-planning authorities, but, as my noble friend Lord Phillimore said, it is to be deliberately and wantonly disregarded. That is a staggering proposition. Then there is the very important point about the location of the camps. I would like to know from the noble Earl—he said the Corporation has already selected twenty-five sites—what advice the Corporation will have as to the location of sites. I am glad to hear they are going to appoint a town planner, but they have already selected half the sites and it seems to me to be rather late to be appointing a gentleman who has special experience.
The development of this matter may be very great. It is parallel, in a way, to the development of the housing movement in the last few years. We have found, to our regret, that it is impossible to build modern housing for the lower-paid working classes without a subsidy. From the figures which my noble friend Viscount Astor gave, it is clearly impossible at the present time to supply camps on a commercial basis for the holiday needs of workers who are now to be given holidays with pay. I am afraid it will continue to be impossible. I do not think any subsidy will be needed. I think the position is much better on that score than the housing position, but I do think the only hope of supplying suitable camps for the workers will be on a nonprofit basis. Although a subsidy will not be required, equally there will not be room for sufficient commercial profit to attract commercial enterprise. We must look for the extension of this movement through the medium of this Corporation or an extension of the Corporation's work. The most important points, therefore, are the staffing, the management which has been referred to, the linking up of this movement with town planning, and, above all, looking ahead and preparing for future development. Do not let us make the mistake of trying to combine this with evacuation. It is quite a different matter. We should concentrate on getting experience with these particular camps for school

1027
children and prepare the way development which will follow large scale.
5.23 p.m.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, the welcome given to this Bill is not surprising, but I think that something should be done to temper it by emphasizing a little more than has yet been done the extremely limited scope of the Bill. The Bill is good as far as it goes. The important question arises, how far does it go, and the reply, of course, is "Not very far." Finance has just been mentioned, but let us try and get the perspective of expenditure which is provided under this Bill for this purpose of establishing camps. By Clause I there is authorised an expenditure of £1,200,000 I think that I am right in saying that of that sum £1,000,000 is for capital purposes. The country is now spending in all about £3,500,000 a day on its national expenditure. Therefore, all that this Bill does is to find—as I say, most of it is capital expenditure—something equal to about eight hours of the national expenditure. Is that really the best that can be done?
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, referred to the number of children in elementary schools. He said there were 4,750,000. We may call it 5,000,000. It was 5,500,000 two or three years ago, but I expect the noble Viscount is right as to present figures. The noble Earl tells us that in all, perhaps, if things go well, about 300,000 children may have a fortnight's visit to these camps. That is a higher figure than was given in another place, when it was given as 200,000.
EARL DE LA WARR: I was taking into account existing camps.
LORD ARNOLD: That makes the matter clearer, but anyhow 300,000 out of 5,000,000 is only about one in fifteen—something like that. It is not a very impressive achievement. I do not think the Government are entitled to many congratulations over this Bill. It ought to be a much bigger measure. But the Government are always pleased with anything they do. They are very fond of presenting themselves with bouquets, and they seem to have an unlimited quantity of them—I will not say anything about their quality. The noble Earl was rather too
1028
enthusiastic about this Bill, and I will emphasize that later. The grant which he can give, as I understand it, is only 20 per cent., as against the average grant of, I think, about 50 per cent. I would very much like to know how that 20 per cent. has been arrived at. What are the processes of thought which have limited it to 20 per cent.? This expenditure on camps and on improving the conditions for outings for children and giving them some change is the best investment that the country can make. It is expenditure which will give a large return. There is no doubt about that. This is not a matter for argument or controversy, because statistics prove that after only a short stay in these camps the weight of children has increased by from two to five pounds. That is a very remarkable result, and therefore I cannot help thinking that this 20 per cent. is altogether too low. I hope that it will be increased.
Nothing has been said in this debate so far, I think, about diet. I do not know whether the noble Viscount, Lord Dawson, is going to speak—I always touch on anything which has to do with health with the greatest diffidence when he is present—but I think I am right in what I am about to say. He told us some years ago, and we all rejoiced to hear it, that the children of the poor are at any rate much better fed than they used to be. I will not put it higher than that. Yes, but I believe it is impossible to overestimate the health value to these children of having for a fortnight good regular meals if the diet is wisely and carefully chosen. If they can have them for a longer period than a fortnight so much the better. Important and valuable results will accrue particularly if those in charge of the camps arrange the diet—I speak with some experience—in accordance with the best medical information. Experience has shown that such a diet can be achieved at little more cost, and perhaps no more cost, than a different kind of diet which would not be nearly so beneficial.
There has been a great deal of talk this afternoon about this being an experiment. The noble Earl who introduced the Bill said it was an experiment and the noble Lord who spoke last referred to it as an experiment. Well, in the sense that it is on a larger scale than anything that has yet been done it may be an experiment, but as a matter of fact a great

1029
deal of pioneer work has been done in this country in the matter of providing camps and giving facilities for children to go with their teachers and receive instruction in camp. I hesitate to make a personal reference, but actually it is sixteen years since in conjunction with the late Mr. Frank Briant, M.P., I established a camp near the Kentish coast. In the intervening years thousands of visits have been paid to that camp by children with their school teachers. The local authorities have been most helpful. There has been no obstruction there. The camp has been used in that way during term time, but in holiday time, though it has been used to some extent for children, it has been used still more for youths, and indeed, rather later on, we tried the experiment, and it was successful, of having definite families there for holidays—a matter which has been referred to in the course of the discussion. Therefore this hope which has been expressed, that the camps might be used at any rate for youths, is one which ought to materialise, because it is a perfectly practical proposition. It has been done.
I should like in this connection to make a suggestion which I do not think has yet been made in any of these debates: that at any rate one or two of the camps should be set aside in the holiday period, not for youths, but for older girls and young women to go to for holidays, because they need a holiday just as much as the young men do. In these days, when there is plenty of efficient voluntary help from ladies and women workers, there would be no difficulty in getting such a camp properly managed and ordered. That suggestion should be taken into careful consideration.
I quite realise that there is a difficulty, if the camps are constructed purely on the dormitory system, in their being used for families during the holidays. Nevertheless, I do not believe that that difficulty is insuperable. At any rate I feet that it could be overcome to some extent if certain adjustments were made in the original planning of the camp. I am not speaking of the whole of the camp, because it is perfectly possible during the holiday season—I have done it myself, I have seen it for years—to have in the same camp children, youths and families, and they all mix up very well together. A portion of the accommodation might be so constructed that it
1030
could be used by families during a holiday.
A good deal of reference has been made in the debate to holidays with pay, and to the great demand which there will be for holidays. I should like to say this to the noble Lord who spoke last. It must be remembered that the workers will for the most part—it is true that holidays will have to be spread over to some extent, but for the most part—want to have their holidays in about two months of the year, from about the middle of July to the middle of September, because then the children are free. If this is so, it is not really a business proposition to construct camps which are only going to be used for two months in the year. Therefore it is very desirable to consider most carefully the use of parts of these camps for this purpose. The camps are there, and they are not needed for the school journeys and so forth at this part of the year. Speaking from experience, I think this is a matter which is capable of adjustment and should be very carefully considered. The figures of the cost of family holidays have been given to-day, and I am satisfied that they are greatly above what is actually necessary. I am certain from my own experience that the holidays can be provided for very much less, especially if these camps can be used. There is no question about it: the real cost is nothing like 45s. a week; it is far below that.
I should like to ask the noble Earl a question here, because it is very important. This Bill is widely drawn, as I understand it, and I hope it is going to be widely and reasonably interpreted. But is it the case that the Minister of Health has already indicated to the Camps Corporation that these camps should only be used for school children? I should like to know if that is so, whether that definite instruction has been given. It was said in another place that it had, and I was very much surprised, because it is a serious matter and I do not see any sufficient reason for such a restricted instruction as that. If it is so, why has it been done, and is it too late to alter it? Certainly, as far as I understand it, there is nothing in the Bill which would require that, and it seems to me a very unfortunate circumstance, to use no stronger word, if a very limited instruction of that kind has already been given. I urge that the

1031
matter should at any rate be left open until experience has shown—as it will show—that these camps can be used, not only for school children but also in the ways of which I have spoken. The next great social work of the future is to provide facilities and accommodation for holidays for working-class families. The scope is practically unlimited, and I do not think it is using any language of exaggeration to say that it would really be a national disaster if even the possibility of using some part of these camps for families were ruled out from the start.
I should like, in conclusion, to say something about the requisites of a good camp site, in support of what was so well said, if I may say so, by the right reverend Prelate. To begin with, I entirely agree with his point about the vital necessity of having the ground as far as possible a dry one, one which dries well and quickly, especially the playing-fields; otherwise, obviously, all kinds of difficulties arise. These may seem to be trifling points, but as a matter of fact they are of supreme importance and might make the whole difference between the failure and success of a camp. The provision is clearly all the more necessary because of the appalling climate under which we have to live in this country. Another thing which I think is most important is that the camp should be moderately near a fair-sized town and shopping centre, so that supplies and so forth can be delivered without any great difficulty. Thirdly, if possible, bathing facilities of one kind or another should be not far away. No doubt the camps themselves will have their own baths and so on, but bathing facilities are very important. Therefore, if it can be done, it is of course best to have the camp not far from the sea, not more than a mile away from the sea; probably about half a mile is the best. These camps are also to be available for evacuation purposes, and that means, unfortunately, that a good deal of the coast is removed from the area where camps will be put; but a good deal remains, and, if possible, camps should be placed near the sea. Of course, for people from some of the larger inland towns, those in the Midlands, there is a difficulty in getting to the sea. Failing
1032
that, if possible, there should be facilities for fresh-water bathing.
Another point which has not been made, and which I think is very important, is that I am sure it is a mistake to have a camp in too isolated a position, too far removed from what I may call the haunts of man. After all, it is not only the children who go to camps, but those in charge of the children, and that means a good many. Each camp requires a large staff, and if these children and their teachers and those in charge are dumped down in some remote spot in the country—again bearing in mind the unspeakable climate in which we live—the effect may be psychologically very depressing. I remember hearing of a lady who, with infinite trouble, had organised a holiday for some young women from a large town. There they were in a rural retreat; it happened to be a beautiful summer evening, and she was expatiating on the beauties of the countryside and trying to interest the girls in them. In the middle of what she was saying, one of them was heard to remark to her companion: "There'll be a fight going on in our street now!" You have to consider the psychology of the people. Most of them come from the big towns, and they do not want to be isolated and too far removed from the sights and scenes of man.
I have nearly finished, but I do want to emphasize that if a camp is to be a success—and I think the right reverend Prelate or some noble Lord spoke of this—various recreations and treats will have to be organised. They are essential, and that is one reason why the camps should not be put right away in the country, because it would make it more difficult for these things to be organised. My final word is this, and I express this as strongly as I can, and as a well-wisher of the general scheme: I do hope that this scheme or experiment, call it whatever you will, is not going to be smothered with red tape and official regulations. If it is going to succeed it will require a certain amount of voluntary help and assistance, which I know will be gladly given, but I do know that in certain social work which has been helped by the Government some voluntary helpers have had the spirit crushed out of them, and indeed almost broken, by red tape and regulations. The capacity of the official mind for regulations and restrictions seems to be infinite, and I hope very

1033
much that the Minister of Education, and the Minister of Health, will take care that this scheme is carried out in a reasonable spirit, and with plenty of common sense.
5.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT DAWSON OF PENN: My Lords, the interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, gives me cause for some concern, for I would put it to your Lordships that there is a real danger that this admirable Bill may come to nought if it strives to do too much. If we consider the extent, length and breadth of this Bill we must admit that the actual results produced by it will be small. Surely its justification is that it is a social experiment. It is going to teach us a great deal of what we at present do not know. It is going to do something in legislation which is constantly done in the fields of biological science, where, before we make a big mass venture, we put the thing through a trial. To my mind the worth of this Bill is that it is a social experiment. Nothing would imperil its success more than by going outside a limited ambit, and I submit to your Lordships that the right problem to commence with is the problem of youth. They have the first claim upon our attention. Is it not true, especially in the times in which we live, that more than ever before the future of this country will depend upon the quality of its youth?—and youth is not finding it too easy to grow up aright amidst the conflicts, doubts and uncertainties of this present world.
I take it that there seldom has been a time when youth has had more difficulties to face, and if for one moment I may look at it from a national point of view, it cannot be enforced too often that as we no longer are dependent upon methods of bringing the fittest to the top by killing off the weaklings, surely it becomes necessary for us, by acts of constructive statesmanship, to put before ourselves as the first necessity, the task of building for fitness. That is becoming increasingly important, because every year the future of this country depends more upon the quality of its people. Not only are the demands of the future likely to be greater than those of the past, but there may come a time when there will be fewer people in the country, and we shall have reached the time when the birth-rate is so low that there will be more places in the schools than there are children to fill them—when the reproduction rate is
1034
falling to such an extent that one hundred women during their child-bearing age produce only seventy-five girl babies—future mothers—and therefore are not replacing themselves. This is a state of affairs to which attention needs to be paid, but for the purposes of this Bill it means that we more and more will be dependent upon quality. Therefore all our attention in the matter of priority should surely be upon youth.
This venture of the Government's is no larger than is required for dealing with and the handling of youth, in order to construct and build up in them strength of body, strength of mind, and strength of character. I do not suppose any social workers, and least of all that part of the Government which is concerned with health legislation, would dispute that there are many problems which they do not yet see their way through. But if these camps are used aright they will do untold good. Mistakes undoubtedly will be made, but these mistakes will be rectified, and on the results of experience gained we shall be able to take big mass steps forward, as undoubtedly we shall have to do. It is quite true, as has been said, that if one looks now at the children rushing forth from our elementary schools at the end of the morning's school, it is a sight which does please one. There is very great improvement in their health and clothing, and they are getting a better chance. On the other hand, going to any assembly of youth, anywhere and of almost any class, one is compelled time after time to notice the large proportion who show defects of frame which are quite avoidable by proper education and care. I was yesterday present at a presentation of degrees, and saw a large number of youths taking their first degree in the University; and the number of times that I said to myself, "Look at the contrast between what is and what might be." There are certain things that cannot be cured; there are certain defects in people which are inborn; but the more you go about the more is forced on you the constant contrast between what is and what might be under proper conditions of care, education and outdoor surroundings.
May I give two advantages which would follow from these camps as far as children are concerned? Even a fortnight for children in these camps is an excellent thing. Many of them have hardly ever seen grass or trees for any length of time.

1035
They come there and in that fortnight get an entirely new view of life. If that is done for large numbers of children that will be one purpose of these camps. But there is another. What about open-air schools? In open-air schools children have fewer colds in the winter than the children in indoor schools. I have never seen any harm come to children from open-air schools. If the children are kept warm they catch fewer colds than other people, and they grow up more healthy. I have no hesitation whatever in saying that these camps could be used all the year round, whatever the weather, if they were properly built, and with great advantage to the inmates.
I referred just now to the painful contrast of which one is often conscious when one sees a mass of youth and one says: "Look at the difference between what is and what might be." Now these camps are going to alter that, and that is another way in which this experiment is so good. You can fill a camp with children of suitable age for a period of three or four months, if it is properly constructed for that purpose. They can be educated during that time; they can be put on proper diet; they can be given means of recreation, and they can learn a certain amount of self-government; and already we have knowledge which tells us that the difference in those children at the end of that three months compared with the beginning is somewhat startling. Evidence in support of that can be found in many directions. For instance, in the experiment at Aldershot. I have had the pleasure of witnessing the benefit obtained by those sub-fit youths. They are not well enough or strong enough or big enough to be taken as recruits, but they are put into camps and at the end of two or three months the change is marvellous. There is such encouragement from these experiments already made as to give us substantial hopes that these camps will be a means of building up a fit race. I do not mean only fit in body, but fit citizens. For that reason I would urge, following my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, that this Bill should be regarded as an experiment, and that the experiment should be a limited one: it should be limited to children. That is as much as you can take in for the moment, and by that means you will lay the foundations
1036
for building up a fitter race, and a better quality race, than we at present possess.
5.55 p.m.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, like every speaker this evening, I welcome this Bill, and, like the noble Viscount who has just spoken, I hope that the Government will find it possible to keep these camps open all the year round. I am sure that would have very good results. There is just one point to which I would like to call attention, which was brought to my notice by the National Association for Permanent Holiday Camps. That body consists of well over 100 members, and does a great deal to improve the standard of holiday camps, so that it can be said that people who go to those camps have a better time than they would otherwise. It is true therefore that this body has done for several years some pioneering down a road which only now His Majesty's Government are following. For that reason I think this point with which they are concerned should be considered by the Government. It is this, that it costs at least as much to maintain a private camp as a Government camp of equal size; therefore your Lordships will see that Government camps are going to have a very great advantage over private camps if they compete with them in any way.
This point was called attention to, very properly I think, in another place, but the Amendment was withdrawn on an undertaking from the Minister in charge that it was not the intention of the Government to let these Government camps compete with private camps. Of course, one is very glad to hear that that is so, but my experience is that it is always much better to get an assurance like that into a Bill than to have a verbal promise from a Minister, if only because that Minister will not be there permanently. So I would very much like the noble Earl who will shortly reply for the Government to say a word about this, and, if he cannot put his assurance into the Bill, that he will give us some explanation as to why he cannot. What I would really like to see him put into the Bill is some assurance that not only will the Government camps not compete with private ones, but that as far as possible the two will work together, thus bringing together private enterprise and State enterprise.
5.58 p.m.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies to the discussion on this matter, I should like in very few words to support the criticisms made by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester respecting the size of the grant which is to be made. I am aware of all the difficulties, and I have no sort of right now to speak for any local authority, but I am sure that the local authorities concerned will be very cautious in their use of the scheme unless the grant is increased. The local authority has a difficult task to perform. The ratepayer has a disagreeable way of hitting back when he thinks his pocket is being injured, and if that gets hold of the people's minds these camps may not be used at all, or may not be used to the extent that they should. I am quite aware that the noble Earl in this matter has to face an unemotional Treasury, and he may not be able to get from them all that he himself might wish, but I do suggest that this is important. This camp movement is one of liberation, and it may bring returns to us of unexpected magnitude and value. It would be a pity if, at the beginning of the experiment, the initial efforts were stopped, for in this case parsimony might really prevent future growth. I say nothing about the scheme being limited to 200,000. That seems to be a number that fascinates the mind of the Government at the present time, but I hope in this matter, if not in others, the idea will grow and the number increase.
6.1 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, first of all may I thank your Lordships for the very warm welcome you have been good enough to give to the Bill? Many points have been raised, and it is only right that I should try to deal with a certain number of them. Others have been rather in the nature of suggestions than of questions, and I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I do not deal with them, but I give a definite undertaking that I shall put them before my noble friend Lord Portal as suggestions. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said he wished the Camps Corporation had been responsible to the Board of Education rather than to the Ministry of Health; but the major points dealt with in the Bill have all to do with the Ministry of Health, and your Lordships need have no fear of
1038
any lack of co-operation between the Departments. Your Lordships may have noticed that Sir Edward Howarth, late Deputy Secretary of the Board of Education, is to be Managing Director of the Corporation, and no one is more capable of keeping the Corporation in touch with the educational world.
The noble Lord, Lord Arnold, made, if I may say so, a number of most useful suggestions based on long and practical experience. I would like to tell him particularly that I shall put the suggestions before those who are responsible for the running of the camps. Many of your Lordships have brought up the question of the discipline and organisation of the camps—the noble Lord, Lord Eltisley, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, and also the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh. Lord Balfour suggested we should train a body of managers; that is certainly an interesting proposal which needs consideration. On this general question of discipline I would point out that these children will be going under the care of their teachers or, if it is a matter of clubs and not schools, under the charge of their club leaders. Your Lordships can therefore take it that they will be under very careful control.
Many noble Lords have raised what I myself laid some emphasis on, and that is the most important question of the effect of these camps on the life and amenities of the countryside. I would like to emphasize to noble Lords the care which my right honourable friend the Minister of Health intends to take with regard to these matters. It is perfectly true that in subsection (2) of Clause 3 he does cut out the normal procedure under the Town and Country Planning Act, but I hope your Lordships will agree that in subsection (3) he really brings back a good deal of what my noble friend Lord Gage referred to as the spirit of co-operation between the Government and these authorities. Your Lordships will notice that in every case copies of the plans and specifications have to be forwarded to the responsible authorities, and these authorities will have power to make representations to the Minister. As under the Town and Country Planning Act the ultimate arbiter in case of appeals is the Minister of Health, and as in fact under this subsection (3) the ultimate arbiter is the Minister of Health, he is really

1039
doing very little more than short-circuiting formalities.
In addition to that, I have already mentioned the composition of the Corporation. I do not think I mentioned that we had already asked Mr. Percy Thomas, who is President of the Royal Institute of British Architects, to be a member of that body, but I did mention that we have asked another gentleman, most specifically connected with town and country planning, and I referred, in addition, to the advice that the Corporation hope to get on this matter from Mr. Tait. I hope therefore your Lordships will realise that this is a matter we take very seriously, and there should be no fear whatsover that we are going to neglect it. One other point was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, and that was the question of whether there should not be a survey of all the sites available in the whole country. That is a proposal I should certainly like to lay before my right honourable friend the Minister of Health, because even if we cannot do it with this first batch of camps, I see no reason whatsoever why something along that line should not be carried out if there is to be any future development in this direction.
Finally, might I stress to your Lordships that one of the main reasons why I, personally, was so very keen on proceeding along the line of having a single Camps Corporation was that the work should be carried out on an orderly basis? An alternative way would have been for the Government to make grants to individual bodies and individual local authorities. In many ways there was a great deal to be said for that method, but it would have meant there would have been no orderly development along the very lines on which noble Lords have been been speaking to-day. The fact that we are doing this centrally through a Camps Corporation will, I hope, be taken by noble Lords as showing that we intend to carry out this development on a proper and carefully-planned basis. Noble Lords have referred to the question of using these camps for the dual purpose of dealing with children and with the problem of holidays with pay. I am very glad to feel that the authority of the noble Viscount, Lord Dawson, is behind us in saying that we should really tackle
1040
first problems first. I feel all the more confident that I am not taking up a mere departmental line in saying that I, personally, am pleased that we are dealing with the children first. That does not mean to say that there is not this other problem of holidays with pay that has got to be faced, but we are only discussing fifty camps dealing with a comparatively limited number of children, and I feel sure we are right to concentrate our efforts.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, asked how long these camps would be used during the year, and the noble Viscount, Lord Dawson of Penn, made the point that he would like to see them used for twelve months. It seems to me that is one of the things in regard to which we have to experiment. During the debate we had two or three months ago, I think I gave your Lordships an indication that we were making our estimates on the basis of five months user of the camps. Since then we have extended our ideas, and I think we should be able to use them for a longer period. There is nothing to prevent us, as we proceed, finding that we can use them for most of the year, but whether parents would desire to have their children go to the country in mid-winter is a matter which we need not, I think, really consider. But this is certain, that the camps will be definitely built for winter use. They will be heated, as indeed they must be, because if they have to be used for the purpose of evacuation they would probably have to be used in mid-winter.
I think one of your Lordships asked about the use of country houses. Actually out of the list of twenty-five that I gave of provisional sites that have been approved only two include country houses. It has been found that the cost of conversion of country houses is too heavy. That reminds me of something that I have made a note of with regard to the question of planning. I think the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, misunderstood me when I said that twenty-five sites have been provisionally approved. He said that the local authorities had heard nothing about them. The reason why local authorities have not yet been consulted with regard to these provisional sites is that they could not be consulted by a body that at present is not in existence. Your Lordships will realise that the Camps Corporation,

1041
although it has been functioning to some extent, will not have a corporate existence until this Bill is passed.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Does that mean in future, when this body is a corporate body, that they will consult the local authorities in advance?
EARL DE LA WARR: Definitely; and it means also, with regard to the sites that have been surveyed as a preliminary, that there will naturally be a proper form of consultation.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Will that formal consultation, which will naturally come, refer to the sites themselves?—because that is a point at issue.
EARL DE LA WARR: Oh yes, I think that is made clear, surely.
LORD PHILLIMORE: No.
EARL DE LA WARR: Well, that is a point in regard to which I would like to give an answer to the noble Lord on a future occasion One noble Lord raised a point about concealment. I am not sure that the point is really of very great importance. There will only be eight or nine not very large hutments, and I do not think, whether concealed or not concealed, they are going to be much of a target. But that, I know, is a point which is in the minds of the Corporation, and one that is being considered.
Finally, may I particularly thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester for a point that he made, which seemed to me to be of very great importance He said that what we are doing here might do something to increase the understanding between town and country. I think that touches upon one of the real tragedies of the present time. One sometimes hears landlords complaining of the behaviour of people in the country, and it is a tragedy that so many people should have so little knowledge of the country that, when they get there, they are not always able to treat the country with that respect that I think they would have for it if they knew more about it. I was told the other day, by one who looks after a club in London, that when he took a small group of boys to the country and showed one of his younger boys a field of potatoes, the boy would not believe that potatoes grew in fields.
1042
He said potatoes did not come from fields, they came from shops. We smile at that story, but I think behind it lies a deep and terrible tragedy, and one to the solution of which I hope this Bill will at least make some small contribution.
Then a number of your Lordships raised the question of the amount of grant. It does seem, as one noble Lord suggested, perhaps rather an anomalous position that it should be 50 per cent. in Scotland and 20 per cent. in England, but as a matter of fact it is not quite so unreasonable as it may seem. The reason why Scotland is able to pay 50 per cent. is that they get a block grant amounting to 11–80ths of whatever they spend, they can allot their block grant as they like, and they choose to use a certain amount of it in giving a higher grant for camps. In England our whole grant formula is a very complicated one, which I am only just begining to grasp myself after being at the Board of Education for six months, and I shall not venture to trouble your Lordships with it. But everything that comes outside that grant has hitherto been 20 per cent., with one or two small exceptions. Many of your Lordships have raised this point, and it is a matter that I am certainly prepared to bear in mind. I do not think that your Lordships would expect me to say more at the present moment. I thank your Lordships for the way you have received the Bill and I ask you now to give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LIMITATION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD MAUGHAM): My Lords, I move that the Commons Amendments to this Bill be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
[The references are to Bill No. 19.]
Clause 7, page 5, line 43, after ("entitled") insert ("in possession").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the first is a drafting Amendment, and I move that we agree with it.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 18, page 10, line 39, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
("(3) The right to receive any principal Sum of money secured by a mortgage or other charge and the right to foreclose on the property subject to the mortgage or charge shall not be deemed to accrue so long as that property comprises any future interest or any life insurance policy which has not matured or been determined.")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I move that we agree with the Commons in this Amendment. It requires a little explanation. Subsection (3) of Clause 18, when it left this House, was defective in that it only actually covered the case where the mortgage was on a single future interest. In a case where the mortgage comprises present interests as well, or two or more future interests which will fall in at different dates, it was not clear what the effect of subsection (3) of Clause 18 would be. Accordingly the present Amendment from the other place has this effect, that it will secure that the operation of the Statute is postponed until the last future interest falls into possession or, where the property comprises a life insurance policy or policies, the date when the last policy matures or is determined. With that explanation I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 11, line 28, at end insert:
("(b) where the property subject to the mortgage or charge comprises and, future interest or life insurance policy and it is a term of the mortgage or charge that arrears of interest shall be treated as part of the principal sum of money secured by the mortgage or charge, interest shall not be deemed to become due before the right to receive the principal sum of money has accrued or is deemed to have accrued.")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment also is one that requires some explanation. The object of the Amendment is to secure that where there is a mortgage on future interests
1044
and the mortgage deed contains, as is not at all uncommon, a capitalisation clause according to which the interest is capitalised until the principal becomes due, the Statute ought not to run, and is designed according to the Amendment not to run, as respects claims for interest until it begins to run as regards the principal debt. It would obviously be a considerable hardship to both parties if the mortgagee were compelled to bring actions in respect of claims for interest in order to preserve his rights at a time when the actions might be profitless. That is the matter with which this Amendment is concerned—to prevent that hardship. I beg to move that the Amendment be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 23, page 14, line 36, after ("and,") insert ("either receives any sum in respect of the principal or interest of the mortgage debt or")
Clause 23, page 14, line 40, after the second ("the,") insert ("payment or").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Amendments to this clause are to remedy a somewhat curious omission in the Bill as it left your Lordships' House. The object of the Amendments is to secure that where a mortgagee is in possession of mortgaged land and the Statute is running in his favour by virtue of Clause 12, any payment by the mortgagor, whether in respect of principal or interest, shall be treated as starting the Statute running afresh. As the clause was drafted originally, it was doubtful whether the receipt of such a payment would amount to an acknowledgment of the mortgagor's title or equity of redemption, and even if it were an acknowledgment there might be cases where there was no receipt in writing to fulfil the requirements of Clause 24 (1). It is clear, I think, that if a mortgagee receives a payment he ought to be treated as acknowledging the rights of the mortgagor to redeem the mortgage, being rights which are obviously appropriate to the case of payment to the same extent as they are appropriate in the case of acknowledgment. I beg to move that these two Amendments be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 27, page 18, line 9, leave out ("agreement")
Clause 27, page 18, line 10, after ("arbitrator") insert ("or to agree to the appointment of an arbitrator")
Clause 27, page 18, line 42, at end insert ("and subsections (3) and (4) thereof shall have effect, in relation to an arbitration under an Act, as if for the references to the arbitration agreement there were substituted references to such of the provisions of the Act or of any order, scheme, rules,
1046
regulations, or by-laws made thereunder as relate to the arbitration")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, there are three Amendments on the Paper to Clause 27 which can be taken together. They are all mere drafting Amendments and I beg to move that they be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past six o'clock.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the Petition for the following Bill:
London County Council (Improvements).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

FALMOUTH DOCKS.
Petition of the Falmouth Docks and Engineering Company under their Common Seal praying for leave to introduce a Bill to authorise the Falmouth Docks and Engineering Company to construct a new quay; to confer further powers upon the company; and for other purposes, together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (IMPROVEMENTS): PETITION FOR BILL.
Examiners Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee.
METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
DROITWICH CANALS (ABANDONMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
STROUD DISTRICT WATER BOARD ETC., BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
WALSALL CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

DUNBARTONSHIRE ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1939.
Special Order in respect of the Parishes of Arrochar, Kilmarnock and Luss, and part of the Parish of Rosneath in the County of Dunbarton:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.