Sitting of 15 May 1939

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Colne Valley Water Bill,
London County Council (Money) Bill,
Methodist Church Bill [Lords],
South Staffordshire Water Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  NORTH-WEST MIDLANDS JOINT ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL,
  "to confirm a Provisional Order made under Section one of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1922, relating to the North-West Midlands Joint Electricity Authority," presented by Captain Austin Hudson; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 139.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    COMMUNAL RIOTS.
    Mr. Dayasked the Under-Secretary of State for India particulars that have been supplied to him of the number of British Europeans that have been killed and/or injured, in any communal riots in British India during the previous three years?
    The Under-Secretary of State for India (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): I have not heard of any British European having been killed or injured in any communal riot in British India between 1st April, 1936, and 1st April, 1939.
    Mr. Day: Am I to understand that under the Government of India Act the
    958
    question of law and order is now solely a matter for the provincial governments?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: That is so.

    MARITIME DRAFT CONVENTIONS.
    Mr. James Hallasked the Undersecretary of State for India what measures have been taken by the Government of India in regard to the draft conventions and recommendations adopted by the Twenty-first (Maritime) Session of the International Labour Conference in 1936?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of two reports by the Government of India, stating their conclusions in regard to the draft Conventions and Recommendations adopted at the Session in question.
    Mr. Hall: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Government of India are not prepared to adopt these recommendations as regards the conditions of officers and seamen, because the British Government have not ratified the Convention; and will he make representations to the British Government, since the Government of India have expressed their sympathy with this Convention, to have some move made in that direction?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: It is true that ratification by India was, in some cases, dependent on ratification by the United. Kingdom. Questions regarding the action of the United Kingdom should be addressed to the appropriate Minister.

  BURMA-CHINA ROAD.
  Sir Arnold Wilsonasked the Under-Secretary of State for Burma (1) what sums have been expended in Burma upon the construction of the Burma-China road; and what contribution to the cost has been made from the British Treasury or from other sources in view of the fact that it is at present being used solely by Chinese Government-owned or controlled lorries for the transport of military stores consigned to that Government and not for general merchandise;
  (2) whether the recent construction of a motor-road connecting Burma with China through the territory of the Shan States was undertaken with the prior consent of the Shan chiefs; and whether such construction is consistent with the general tenour of our engagements with those States?
  Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Up to 31st March last rather less than 3¾ lakhs of rupees, say £27,700, had been spent on the improvement of the Lashio-Kyuhkok road. No contribution towards this expenditure has been made from any source outside Burma. Except for the 11 or 12 miles nearest China the road is not new construction but is a well-established fair-weather road, the improvement of which to an all-weather standard is in line with the general policy of road improvement approved by the chiefs of the Federated Shan States. Though the traffic that has used the improved road up to the present may be mainly as described by my hon. and gallant Friend, it is open to all classes of traffic.
  Sir A. Wilson: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman bear in mind that the economic and biological consequences of this road, after the present emergency is over, are likely to be serious; and would he give serious consideration to the defence of Burma against unauthorised immigration from China?
  Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I would not say that the permanent consequences will be serious but they are recognised as being important.
  Mr. Sorensen: What is meant by the "biological consequences" of this road?
  Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The hon. Member must not ask me to explain my hon. and gallant Friend's question.
  Sir A. Wilson: Mixed marriages.

  EUROPEAN SITUATION.
  Mr. Boothbyasked the Prime Minister whether he can give any further information regarding the negotiations between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?
  Mr. Vyvyan Adamsasked the Prime Minister whether he will now indicate the willingness of His Majesty's Government to conclude a military pact of reciprocal guarantee embracing France, Russia, and Great Britain?
  Mr. Dayasked the Prime Minister particulars of the way in which the proposals received from the Union of Soviet
  960
  Socialist Republics differ from those submitted to them by His Majesty's Government?
  Mr. Cocksasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government have received any proposal for a joint non-aggression pact between Russia, France, and Britain, or between Russia, France, Britain, and Turkey, or between Russia, France, Britain, Turkey, and Poland; and whether he can make any statement on the subject?
  Mr. Cocksasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government will consider approaching the French Government with a view to giving a joint guarantee to defend the independence and integrity of Soviet Russia against aggression?
  Mr. G. Straussasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the official statements issued from Moscow, he will now state the nature of the Soviet Union's proposals which were rejected by His Majesty's Government?
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): His Majesty's Government are now awaiting a further communication from the Soviet Government, and I cannot at present amplify the statement which I made on 10th May. My Noble Friend, who will be attending the forthcoming session of the Council of the League of Nations, which opens on 22nd May hopes to have an opportunity of pursuing conversations with the Soviet representative on that occasion.
  Mr. Boothby: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the exchange of memoranda through the ordinary diplomatic channels, is the best method of conducting these negotiations under existing conditions; and can we have an assurance that the negotiations will be continued by direct personal contact between the representatives of the two Governments?
  Mr. Day: Can the Prime Minister say whether a defence pact that would be fully reciprocal has been proposed by other nations?
  The Prime Minister: I have said that I cannot amplify my previous statement.
  Mr. V. Adams: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the agreement with Turkey will not facilitate an understanding with Russia?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot say.
  Mr. G. Strauss: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why he is unable to give, in broad outline, the proposals of the Soviet Government for a comprehensive security pact with this country; and does he not feel that this country is entitled to know what such a proposal is, since the safety of the people largely depends upon it?
  The Prime Minister: I have said on a number of occasions that I do not think that these negotiations are facilitated by discussions taking place in public as to the particular stage which the negotiations have reached.
  Mr. Strauss: Have not these proposals been turned down?
  Mr. Cocks: Do not the Government think that the conclusion of a pact would be the best way of preventing altogether any kind of aggression in Europe; and, in reply to my Question No. 26, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that such a guarantee would help to consolidate the peace front in Eastern Europe?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot discuss these matters until I am in a position to give further information.
  Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Can my right hon. Friend say why so many people on the other side want to make these negotiations impossible?
  Mr. Arthur Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to recognise Slovakia as an independent State?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): In order to facilitate the conduct of normal business His Majesty's Consul at Bratislava has, on my Noble Friend's instructions, sought and obtained from the Slovak Government recognition as His Majesty's Consul for Slovakia. The Slovak Government have been informed that His Majesty's Government regard this step as amounting to de facto recognition.
  Mr. Henderson: Are the Government satisfied that the Government of Slovakia are quite independent of political control from other quarters?
  Mr. Butler: I have given the hon. and learned Member the answer to his ques-
  962
  tion, which is that we have given them de facto recognition.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Do His Majesty's Government propose to recognise the de facto annexation of Italy by Germany?
  Mr. Boothbyasked the Prime Minister whether the Governments of Poland or Rumania have made any formal objection to the conclusion of a pact of mutual assistance between this country and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?
  The Prime Minister: The views of the Polish and Rumanian Governments have not been given formal shape, but their general attitude towards the negotiations which His Majesty's Government are conducting with the Soviet Government is known, both as a result of the visits of the Polish and Rumanian Foreign Ministers to this country and through diplomatic channels. It would certainly be inappropriate for me to disclose the views which have been thus expressed, more particularly as the recent visits of the Assistant Commissar for Foreign Affairs to Bucharest and Warsaw will have given an opportunity for an exchange of views between the representatives of the Soviet Government on the one hand and of the Rumanian and Polish Governments on the other.
  Mr. Boothby: May we take it that there is no objection in principle to the conclusion of some form of agreement between His Majesty's Government and the Soviet Government?
  Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Is not this another of those questions which are likely to make the conclusion of successful negotiations difficult?
  Mr. Cocksasked the Prime Minister what obligations have His Majesty's Government to defend Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania against aggression; and whether, in the event of Russia being involved in war as a result of defending any of the States against aggression, His Majesty's Government are under obligation to come to the aid of Russia?
  Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government are under no obligations to these States except such as may derive from their membership of the League of Nations. I

  963
  can add nothing to the statement made earlier to-day by the Prime Minister on the progress of Anglo-Soviet discussions.
  Mr. Cocks: Arising out of the answer to the second part of my question, will the Government consider closing this obvious gap in the peace front, thus securing the co-operation of Russia by removing one of the objections to the British proposals recently formulated on behalf of that Government?
  Mr. Butler: I cannot add anything to the statement made, but naturally all such matters will come under review.
  Mr. Bossom: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the invaluable aid given by Great Britain to these small countries when they got their independence in 1919, and will he keep this matter in mind in the negotiations with Russia?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Wedgwood Benn: When the right hon. Gentleman says we have no obligations to them, has he overlooked our position as a guarantor of Memel?
  Mr. Butler: The answer which I gave originally represents the position.
  Mr. Benn: That is to say, the Government, have not recognised any obligation as a joint guarantor with other Powers for Memel?
  Mr. A. Henderson: Is it not a fact that the Government have obligations to all these countries under the provisions of the League Covenant?
  Mr. Butler: As I have said several times to-day, my original answer said that.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Prime Minister whether any communication was made by the German Government to His Majesty's Government prior to the denunciation by Germany of the German-Polish Agreement?
  Mr. Butler: No, Sir.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it not without precedent for a Government to denounce an agreement of this nature without consultation with the Governments upon whom it laid some responsibility for the denunciation, and it is not impossible to carry on international relations under such conditions?
  Mr. J. J. Davidson: Does it not depend on which Government you are dealing with?
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: May I have an answer?
  Mr. Butler: I cannot say whether there is any exact precedent, but I have given the answer to the hon. and gallant Member's question, which was that no communication was made to us.
  Mr. Dalton: Is it not a violation of the agreement signed by the Prime Minister and Herr Hitler that there would be consultation on all such matters?
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Prime Minister whether he has any further statement to make respecting the recent conversations with Monsignor Godfrey and the Vatican proposals for peace in Europe; whether he will inform the House of the precise proposals of the Vatican; and whether he has any statement to make respecting their reception by Germany and Italy?
  Mr. Butler: I have been asked to reply. I have no statement to make on the subject. As the hon. Member will doubtless have seen in the Press, "His Holiness has not made any formal proposals. The last part of this question does not, therefore, arise. I can assure the House, however, that His Majesty's Government are naturally most sympathetic to any steps which His Holiness may think can usefully be taken with a view to furthering the interests of world peace.
  Mr. Sorensen: Have His Majesty's Government been in touch, or are they likely to be in touch, with the Vatican, regarding this matter?
  Mr. Butler: We should be interested to receive any communication from His Holiness, but His Holiness has not made any proposals.

  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  Mr. Moreingasked the Prime Minister whether transport facilities are yet available for British business men who desire to travel between Hankow and Shanghai?
  Mr. Butler: On 17th April some 20 passengers were conveyed in British ships from Shanghai to Hankow and on 29th

  965
  April some 50 passengers including all the British subjects who wished to do so left Hankow for Shanghai. But regular facilities are not as yet available and discussions on this subject are proceeding with the competent Japanese authorities.
  Mr. Moreing: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that crumb of comfort, may I ask him to take this question up with the Japanese Government and press very strongly on them the great hardship not only to business men but their wives and families caused by these restrictions on facilities for traffic on the Yangtse; and will he also say whether he has had any further discussions with the officers and the Admiral commanding the China station on the matter, as I asked him to do on 13th March?
  Mr. Butler: All such contacts have been maintained, and His Majesty's Government realise the seriousness of the situation described by the hon. Member.
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether, with the object of focussing world opinion upon methods of warfare which entail wholesale massacre of civilian populations, he will consider approaching other governments to organise collective representations to Japan in favour of abstention from such aerial attacks as have been made on Chungking?
  Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Ambassador in Tokyo has made strong representations to the Japanese Government urging that from a humanitarian point of view, as well as in Japan's best interests, stringent instructions should be sent to restrict attacks to recognised military objectives. Sir R. Craigie observed that in the case of the Chungking air raid, casualties appeared to have been suffered almost exclusively by the civilian element of the population. My Noble Friend understands that representations on very similar lines have been made to the Japanese Government by the Ambassadors of other countries.
  Mr. Henderson: In view of the great damage caused by these raids would it not be possible for the Council of the League, which is meeting shortly to consider this question, to pass a resolution similar to the resolution passed in September of last year by the League Assembly?
  Mr. Butler: That is a matter for consideration but an initiative would be necessary.
  Mr. Sorensen: Have replies been received from the Japanese Government?
  Mr. Butler: Not on this matter.
  Mr. Boothby: Have any special arrangements been made for the security of His Majesty's Embassy?
  Mr. Butler: In the representations made it has been pointed out that His Majesty's Embassy and Consulate have been hit in these raids.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: In regard to the initiative at Geneva, will the Government bear in mind that the Japanese have systematically destroyed all the ports in territory which is still in Chinese hands?
  Captain Alan Grahamasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the organised propaganda against British interests in those districts of China controlled by the Japanese; whether his information shows that this anti-British activity is instigated by the local Japanese authorities; and whether he will call the attention of the Japanese Government to the grave danger to friendly relations between Great Britain and Japan if such attacks are allowed to continue?
  Mr. Butler: Recent reports from His Majesty's Consul-General at Shanghai, who raised the matter with his Japanese colleague in the early part of last month, show that this propaganda activity has diminished in intensity. The situation will continue to be watched, and representations will be made if necessary.
  Sir John Wardlaw-Milneasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement regarding the seizure by the Japanese of the steamship "Sagres"; and what action the Government is taking in the matter?
  Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government are awaiting a reply to the representations which were made to the Japanese Government, and which I described in my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton ((Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) on 4th May.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is this ship still under Japanese control?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it not possible to take some steps to secure the release of the ship?
  Mr. Butler: I will certainly investigate the matter.
  Sir John Haslamasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a British-owned newspaper in Shanghai published on 1st March the names and addresses of 34 opium dens in the Shanghai district outside the jurisdiction of the Shanghai Municipal Council which have been licensed by the Japanese authorities for $500 each per month; and whether he will make strong representations to the Japanese Government on the necessity for immediately suppressing opium traffic in the area under their control?
  Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend has received a report to the effect that before 1st March there were some 34 opium hongs in the western extra-settlement area at Shanghai, which is under Japanese control, and that since this date four more have been established there. These hongs are licensed by an Opium Monopoly Bureau, to which it is believed that they each pay a monthly fee of some $500. The question of an approach to the Japanese Government in this matter is under consideration.
  Sir J. Haslam: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he remembers that I have been asking this question for some time now, and cannot something be done to stop this abominable traffic?
  Mr. G. Strauss: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the licensing and authorisation of opium dens is a complete innovation?
  Mr. Butler: In reply to the last supplementary question, I think that is the case. In reply to the former, I am aware of my hon. Friend's pertinacity, and I hope it will be rewarded.
  Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement concerning the bombing of the civil population of Chungking, Chuanchow, and other Chinese towns by invading Japanese aircraft?
  Mr. Butler: Complete particulars of the bombing of Chungking are not yet avail-
  968
  able, but His Majesty's Ambassador in China reported on 10th May that the casualties among non-combatants resulting from the raids of 3rd and 4th May were estimated at 1,600 dead and approximately the same number wounded. It was feared, however, that the full casualty list would be found to be even higher when excavations were completed. At Foochow some 180 casualties resulted from the raids of 25th and 28th April, but the damage to British property was slight. At Ichang 40 buildings are reported to have been destroyed, and there were 40 casualties as the result of an air raid on 8th May. My Noble Friend has received no detailed reports of raids on Chuanchow or other Chinese towns.
  Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Prime Minister whether he has received reports upon the action being taken by the Japanese naval authorities in excavating a base for submarines at Yulinkang, on the South coast of the Island of Hainan?
  Mr. Butler: My Noble Freind has seen a report to this effect, but has so far received no confirmation of it from official sources.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider instructing a British Agent to inquire into this matter?
  Mr. Butler: The question of taking steps to inquire into the truth of the report is at present under consideration.
  Mr. Noel-Baker(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement concerning the invasion and occupation by Japanese armed forces of the International Concession at Kulangsu and concerning the declaration by a Japanese naval authority that similar action might be necessary in the International Concession at Shanghai?
  Mr. Butler: On the morning of nth May, the chairman of the Amoy Chamber of Commerce, a strong supporter of the local Provisional Government set up under Japanese auspices, was shot at Kulangsu, and later died. His assailant escaped. The same evening an armed Japanese naval party of between 100 and 200 men landed and started to patrol the Settlement, searching private houses and making many arrests. His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo has been instructed to protest against this forcible interference with the municipal administration at

  969
  Kulangsu, which was established by an agreement between the Chinese Government and the foreign Treaty Powers, including Great Britain and Japan. As regards Shanghai, the Japanese Government can be under no misapprehension as to the unfortunate results on Anglo-Japanese relations which would be produced, were similar action to be taken by the Japanese in the International Settlement there.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Has the right hon. Gentleman had any assurance that the occupation of Kulangsu is merely temporary?
  Mr. Butler: I am awaiting an immediate report from His Majesty's Ambassador, and, when it is received, my Noble Friend will be able to give the hon. Member the information.
  Sir Percy Harris: Are the Government in close contact with the United States of America; and are they making similar representations?
  Mr. Butler: I understand it is reported, though I have no official confirmation, that the United States Commander-in-Chief in South China has arrived at Amoy from Soochow in the United States destroyer "Bulmer."
  Mr. Thorne: Has any effort been made to put an end to this unfortunate quarrel?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Gallacher: Has any protest been made to Japan about this invasion?

  SPAIN.
  Mr. Davidsonasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Ambassador in Spain has been invited to attend at the victory march of Italian and Spanish troops in Madrid; and what reply has been returned?
  Mr. Butler: The Spanish Government have invited His Majesty's Ambassador to attend the Madrid parade, together with the Service Attaché's. This invitation has been accepted.
  Mr. Davidson: Did His Majesty's Goverment, in accepting the invitation, take into consideration the fact that many of these Italian troops were responsible for the death of British sailors?
  Mr. Gallacher: Is there any truth in the statement that His Majesty's Government intend handing over Gibraltar as a triumphal gift?
  Sir Archibald Sinclair: Are we to understand that His Majesty's Ambassador will attend this parade and will be saluting Italian troops who have been responsible for the death of British sailors?
  Mr. Butler: I said quite clearly that His Majesty's Ambassador has been invited to this parade and has accepted the invitation.
  Mr. George Griffiths: Does this not show on which side His Majesty's Government have been all the time?
  Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman: Is it not a fact that the French Ambassador also has been asked to be present?
  Mr. Thurtle: Does not His Majesty's Government think that decency would have been better observed by declining this invitation?
  Mr. Butler: I understand that other accredited representatives of foreign Powers in Spain have also been invited, and that it is in accordance with international practice for foreign representatives to accept official invitations of this nature from the Governments to which they are accredited.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it not the case that the Italian troops who will be participating in this victory march will be in Spain in violation of the terms of the Anglo-Italian Agreement?
  Mr. Butler: I cannot accept that. Italian troops, we have been informed by the Italian Government, will leave Spain at the conclusion of this parade.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher—
  Mr. Speaker: We cannot debate this question now.
  Mr. Davidson: May I give notice that, owing to the very unsatisfactory reply, I will raise this question at the first available opportunity?
  Mr. Bellengerasked the Prime Minister what is the present position regarding the claim against the Spanish National Government for damage caused by their actions to His Majesty's Ship "Hunter"?
  Mr. Butler: It is hoped shortly to reach an estimate of the final cost of the damage to His Majesty's Ship "Hunter." A claim for this damage and a claim for compensation in respect of those killed and injured will then be presented to the Spanish Government.
  Mr. Bellenger: Am I to understand that no money claim has been lodged against the Spanish National forces in respect to this matter?
  Mr. Butler: I think the hon. Member must understand the answer that I gave. It is hoped shortly to reach an estimate of the final cost of the damage, after which a claim for the damage and compensation in respect of those killed and injured will be submitted.
  Mr. Bellenger: But is it not correct to say that the right hon. Gentleman stated in this House that an estimate of the cost had already been prepared and a claim lodged against the Spanish National authorities some time ago; and is it the intention of His Majesty's Government to prosecute this claim with energy and insistence?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, certainly. In any previous statement that I made I said, no doubt, that notification of the claim had been made, which is the usual practice. An estimate of the final cost has not yet been arrived at, and when it is, a claim will be submitted.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Prime Minister on what date the civil war in Spain officially terminated; what numbers of Italian troops have left or entered Spain since that date; whether any communication has been made by His Majesty's Government to the Italian Government since that date relative to the withdrawal of Italian troops; whether His Majesty's Government regard the pledge of the Italian Government to withdraw Italian troops from Spain on the completion of the war as having been fulfilled; and whether the pledge extended to war material as well as to men?
  Mr. Butler: At midnight on 1st April General Franco issued a communique stating that the war was over. Since that date His Majesty's Government have no information that any Italian troops have entered Spain. As the House has already been informed, withdrawals have been taking place but it is not possible to give
  972
  exact figures. The occasion of the victory parade which is shortly to be held at Madrid has been stated by the Italian Government to be the date after which Italian men and war material will be withdrawn from Spain. No recent communication on this subject has been addressed to the Italian Government.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it not the case that the terms of the Anglo-Italian Agreement provided for the withdrawal of Italian troops upon the completion of hostilities in Spain, and not upon such an unspecified date as the victory march? Is it not clear, therefore, that the presence of Italian troops in Spain to-day is a violation of the Anglo-Italian Agreement, and that the presence of His Majesty's Ambassador at the victory march will be setting the seal of the approval of His Majesty's Government upon this violation?
  Mr. Butler: I cannot accept so legalistic and unfriendly an interpretation.
  Sir A. Sinclair: Surely it is not a matter of interpretation but a matter of plain English? Did not the Agreement say that at the moment the civil war was over the troops would be withdrawn forthwith?
  Mr. H. G. Williams: Can my right hon. Friend state whether the Great War, according to our Act of Parliament, finished in August, 1919?
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher—
  Mr. Speaker: This is about the sixth supplementary question which the hon. and gallant Member has asked on the same subject.
  Miss Rathboneasked the Prime Minister whether he will report on the use made by the British Red Cross of the £50,000 grant made to them from the Treasury for the assistance of Spanish refugees in France or elsewhere; how much of the money has been expended and on what purpose; and what plans have been made for future expenditure?
  Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government have confidence in the ability of the British Red Cross to use the funds at their disposal in the most appropriate manner. General Fitzgerald, medical expert to the British Red Cross, is leaving for Perpignan again on 16th May to investigate the question of medical supplies. I understand that about £24,000

  973
  has so far been spent, chiefly on clothing, which appeared to be the prime necessity.
  Miss Rathbone: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is still a grave shortage both of medical necessaries and personnel in the refugee camps in Spain, and that they are inadequate for the separation of different kinds of diseases; and will he provide the House with full information of how the Red Cross is meeting these needs and use his influence with the Red Cross to see that they are met?
  Mr. Butler: If the hon. Member will read my original reply, she will see that I said this medical expert was proceeding to Perpignan for the purpose of looking into the question of medical supplies.
  Miss Rathboneasked the Prime Minister what reports, and at what dates, have been presented by the commission sent to Spain to investigate the bombardment of civilian populations; whether the reports have been, or will be, presented to the League of Nations; and whether he will cause these to be embodied in a White Paper and made available to Members of the House?
  Mr. Butler: I have been asked to reply. As the answer contains a tabular statement I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the answer:
  Ten reports were furnished on the following dates, in respect of bombardments of the following towns:

  22nd August, Barcelona.

  23rd August, Alicante (two reports).

  23rd August, Sitges.

  29th August, Torrevieja.

  17th October, Figueras.

  23rd October, Barcelona.

  11th November, Tarragona.

  25th November, Barcelona.

  2nd January, Barcelona.

  These reports were presented to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations by whom they have been published. As these documents are so readily available, my Noble Friend does not think that the preparation of a special White Paper would be justified.

  GREAT BRITAIN AND ITALY.
  Mr. Davidsonasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government have received any statement from
  974
  the Italian Government in accordance with that part of the British-Italian agreement which arranges for the exchange of supplementary military information; and has reference been made to the recent German-Italian military agreement?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. Exchanges of supplementary military information have taken place. The second part of the question does not arise, since the agreement is only concerned with the exchange of information about actual movements of naval, military, and air forces.
  Mr. Davidson: Is not the second part of the question covered by the agreement dealing with supplementary military information, which is not qualified in any respect in the agreement itself?
  Mr. Butler: Any such information simply refers to the actual movement of naval, military, and air forces.
  Mr. Davidson: Does that reply indicate that His Majesty's Government knew nothing of the impending German-Italian alliance?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Have not the Government received information about the movement of Italian troops in Spain since the agreement was made?
  Mr. Butler: I should want notice of particular cases.

  AUSTRIA (BRITISH CITIZENS, PREVENTIVE ARREST).
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make respecting Messrs. Jack Whitehead and William Allen, who were arrested and imprisoned at Graz in Austria, Greater Germany; whether he is aware that they are British cameramen belonging to the Association of Cine-Technicians; with what offence they have been charged; and what action he is taking to secure their release?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. Reports from His Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin indicate that Messrs. Whitehead and Allen are under preventive arrest at Graz and are awaiting the conclusion of an investigation by the authorities, who, it is understood, suspect them of having photographed buildings and objects of military importance. No charge has yet been

  975
  formulated against them, and it is assumed that if the evidence against them does not justify a formal warrant for arrest, they will be released. Meantime they have permission to communicate with their relatives, and His Majesty's Ambassador, who is watching the case closely, will continue to give to them, as British subjects, all the assistance in his power.
  Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any further action than that which he has outlined, is the Ambassador keeping in constant touch with these men, and has he made any representations to the German authorities regarding the arrest, apparently without any charge being made, of these two British subjects?
  Mr. Butler: I should like to reassure the hon. Member and the relatives of these men that His Majesty's Ambassador is watching the case very closely, and, of course, is using his influence to secure the release of these men or the formulation of a definite charge at the earliest possible moment.
  Mr. Day: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman state on what charge these men were arrested?
  Mr. Butler: I did indicate the charge.

  BRITISH AMBASSADOR, CHINA.
  Mr. Robert Gibsonasked the Prime Minister where the permanent headquarters of His Majesty's Ambassador to China are now fixed?
  Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Ambassador to China has permanent offices in Shanghai. This port has been found by experience to be the most convenient place from which the Ambassador can maintain touch with British interests and pay the necessary periodical visits to the headquarters of the Government to which he is accredited and to other places in China, such as Peking, at which branch offices of his Embassy are maintained.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Sir Thomas Cookasked the Minister of Pensions how many men totally disabled by the Great War have no disability pension; and how many of these are at St. David's Home?
  The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Rams-botham): I am glad to have this opportunity of correcting a misunderstanding which appears to have given rise to this question. There is no ex-service man totally disabled as a result of his service in the Great War, whose claim to pension has been refused by my Department. I may add that full opportunity has always been afforded to any ex-service officer or man to put forward any claim he may consider he has against my Department, and every claim is fully investigated. There are present 15 disability pensioners in the home referred to who are under treatment at the expense of the Ministry.
  Mr. Silverman: When the Minister says that there are no disabled men without a pension, does he mean that the Minister of Pensions, acting as judge in his own cases, has determined that there is no disability when a great many other people know that there is?

  AGRICULTURE.

    MARKETING BOARDS (PENALTIES).
    Mr. Dingle Footasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can now state what action he proposes to take to give effect to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on the Imposition of Penalties by Marketing Boards and other similar bodies?
    The Minister of Agriculture (Colonel Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith): I am glad of this opportunity to express appreciation of the speed and thoroughness with which the committee completed their investigation. So far as agricultural marketing boards are concerned the recommendations of the Departmental Committee fall into three main groups, namely, those that would require amendment of the law, those that would require amendment of schemes, and those requiring only administrative action by a board. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I are giving careful consideration to the recommendations in the first group, in consultation with the agricultural marketing boards, but it would not be possible, in any circumstances, to contemplate legislation this Session. The recommendations in the second and third groups fall for consideration by the boards themselves, and I am not in a position at present to indicate their views.
    Mr. Foot: How soon will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman be in a position to make a fuller statement under the second and third heads, and do the Government intend to legislate under the first head when time permits?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I cannot say when that time will be. We are now trying to get the board's views on the subject, and I hope there will be no delay in making a statement.

    GOVERNMENT POLICY.
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can now state the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to sheep, oats, and barley?
    Colonel Ropnerasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can now make a statement, with regard to the Government's Agricultural Policy, with particular reference to sheep, pigs and barley?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: As I stated in reply to my hon. Friend, I hope to be in a position to make a statement on sheep, oats and barley during the present week. As regards pigs, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave to a question asked by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) on 24th April.
    Mr. Boothby: When does my right hon. and gallant Friend expect to make a statement?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: There are still four working days.

    LAND WORK VOLUNTEERS.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in connection with the scheme for increased arable acreage, he will consider an opportunity of employing the services of the members of the Over Forty-Fives Association, Limited, and in addition will formulate some scheme of agricultural instruction for those applicants whose physique and qualifications seemed suitable?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: It is open to any member of the Over Forty-Fives Association to volunteer for service on the land in the event of an emergency in response to the National Service Appeal which has been issued. The question of the provision of facilities for training volunteers for land work is under consideration.
    Mr. De la Bère: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say what he is doing to encourage them? Does he remember what he said before he became Minister of Agriculture about putting a million men on the land? Is he aware that men are still leaving the land?

    MENTAL DEFECTIVES (WAGES).
    Mr. T. Williamsasked the Minister of Agriculture how many permits are now in force under the Agricultural Wages Regulation Act, 1924, where mental defectives are employed at wages less than the recognised rates; and how many are open permits, where no wage rates and hours have been fixed?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: The total number of permits of exemption from the minimum rates of wages granted by agricultural wages committee on grounds of mental deficiency which were in force on 30th September, 1938, was 1,781. In 35 of these cases no conditions were specified in the permits as to the wages and hours.
    Mr. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that certain homes for mental defectives are supplying men for this kind of work and that the employers are paying them just as much or as low wages as they can, and will he have this matter specifically inquired into and see what kind of treatment these mental defectives are receiving?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: If the hon. Member will give me any cases of which he has knowledge I shall be pleased to look into them.
    Mr. Williams: As the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has given must have been supplied by some person or persons cannot the right hon. Gentleman easily ascertain the facts?
    Wing-Commander James: Is it not the case that the Central Association of Mental Welfare, whose good work is so well known, keep a close eye upon the welfare of all these persons?
    Mr. Macquisten: Is it not the case that agricultural work is the best possible means of restoring sanity to men?
    Mr. Logan: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to see that all possible inquiries are made before permits are given?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Before these permits are given all the main sections of agricultural county committees are consulted, and, as far as I know, there has been no complaint.
    Mr. R. Gibson: Do the figures refer only to England and Wales, or do they include Scotland?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: They refer to England and Wales only.

    SHEEP GRAZING (GOLF COURSES).
    Mr. R. Gibsonasked the Minister of Agriculture what preparations he is making to utilise golf courses for pasturing sheep in the event of an emergency?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: The powers that it is contemplated would be conferred on the Government in the event of an emergency would enable all potential grazing land to be used to full advantage.
    Mr. Gibson: Have the expert advisers of the right hon. Gentleman considered the biological influence of pasturing sheep on the quality of the pasturage, and will he keep that point in view in considering this matter?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. De la Bère: But are not sheep far more important than the golfers who frequent the courses?

    MILK MARKETING BOARD.
    Major Procterasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the opinion expressed by the registrar at the King's Lynn Bankruptcy Court on the action of the Milk Marketing Board in stopping a dairyman's supplies for being a few days late with his cheques, he proposes to request that board to review their methods of dealing with such cases with a view to ensuring that the marketing schemes as a whole are not pre judiced?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I am informed by the Milk Marketing Board that the board's action in stopping this dairyman's supplies after due warning was in accordance with the contract entered into by the dairyman, who could have avoided such action by observing the terms of the contract after he had been requested to do so. The responsibility for administering the Milk Marketing Scheme rests with the board, and I am unable to direct the
    980
    board in the exercise of its powers, save in accordance with Section 9 of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931.
    Major Procter: Will the right hon. Gentleman recommend to the Milk Marketing Board that they should treat these men less harshly and give them more of the milk of human kindness?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I have said that I have no power to make such a recommendation to the board, but I would point out that the board did give this dairyman no fewer than four warnings.

  HERRING INDUSTRY BOARD (CHAIRMAN'S SALARY).
  Mr. Bellengerasked the Minister of Agriculture whether the chairman of the Herring Industry Board receives any other emoluments from public funds in addition to his salary of £1,600 per annum; and whether his appointment is a full-time one?
  Sir R. Dorman-Smith: The chairman of the Herring Industry Board does not receive any emoluments from public funds in addition to his salary and his travelling and subsistence allowances. His appointment is full-time.
  Mr. Bellenger: Is not the chairman of this board a retired officer, and does he not receive any pension for his services as an officer?
  Sir R. Dorman-Smith: That is another question, but I will look into it.
  Mr. Bellenger: Who is the chairman of this board? Is it Major-General Gibb, and does he not receive a pension from public funds for his services as an officer?
  Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I think the hon. Member has got the wrong name.
  Mr. Boothby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the chairman of this board is the best appointment which the Government have made for a long time?

  MILITARY TRAINING.
  Mr. Davidsonasked the Prime Minister the number of written protests against conscription which he has received from Scottish organisations?
  The Prime Minister: I have received approximately 90 telegrams and letters from various branches of Scottish organisations. These include 34 from various branches of the Labour party and the Independent Labour party; 19 from branches of the Co-operative Society; seven from branches of trades and labour councils and 34 from miscellaneous bodies.
  Mr. Davidson: Is the Prime Minister aware that these representations come from very influential sections of the community, for whose co-operation the Government are asking, and will those representations receive the same consideration as the representations from Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Boothby: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he deduces from this that Scotland is any less patriotic than any other part of the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Macquisten: Does the Prime Minister realise that a considerable percentage of the population of Scotland are not Scotsmen at all?

  BRITISH GUIANA (REFUGEES).
  Mr. T. Williamsasked the Prime Minister when the memoranda provided by the experts to the British Guiana Refugee Commission will be published?
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I have been asked to reply. The memoranda which were received with the report are now being printed and will be published as a Command Paper. They are of considerable bulk and will not be available in the ordinary course for another three or four weeks.
  Mr. Williamsasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the last two lines of paragraph 4, page 12, of the report of the British Guiana Refugee Commission, he anticipates that sufficient funds will be forthcoming from voluntary sources to conduct the trial settlement recommended in the last paragraph of the report?
  Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Prime Minister from what source it is intended to provide the £600,000 required to finance the first experimental settlements of refugees in British Guiana?
  Mr. Hannahasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the promising prospects of refugee settlement in British Guiana, he will consider a Government guarantee for a loan of the £600,000 ($3,000,000) considered by the British Guiana Refugee Commission to be the approximate cost of establishing and maintaining a trial settlement of 5,000 people for the first two years?
  Mr. MacDonald: As the Prime Minister stated in his reply to a question by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) on 12th May, His Majesty's Government assume that experimental settlement will be financed from private sources. The exact amount required will depend upon the scheme decided upon by the refugee organisations, and I cannot say yet what resources they may have at their disposal. As was stated in the previous reply, His Majesty's Government will help and co-operate in other ways in the settlement.
  Mr. T. Williams: In view of the fears and doubts expressed by the Commission, do the Government anticipate that the sum of money called for, 3,000,000 dollars or £600,000, is likely to be forthcoming from voluntary sources?
  Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Member will recollect that the Commission not only expressed some fears and doubts but also some hopes. It would be premature to make any kind of estimate as to the assistance which might be received from private funds.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the speculative nature of the hopes in which the Commission indulge, will the Government refrain from stimulating too great hopes in this enterprise, having regard to the urgent and desperate condition of hundreds of thousands of refugees in Germany now?
  Mr. MacDonald: In view of the urgent need, which we fully appreciate, I hope that hon. Members of the Opposition will not discourage unduly the hopes that can be centred in British Guiana. With regard to the general question, the House may rest assured that we shall keep in close touch with the refugee and other authorities on the matter, and will endeavour to do whatever is strictly practicable.
  Mr. T. Williams: If the optimism of the Government is so fully matured, will they back their hopes by providing a loan to the extent of the sum referred to in the Commissioners' report?
  Sir A. Sinclair: Will not the amount of the support to be anticipated from private and, especially from Jewish, organisations depend largely upon the amount of support which His Majesty's Government are giving to the Jewish National Home in Palestine?
  Sir Stanley Reed: Will the Government, before considering a loan for the settlement of refugees in British Guiana, give consideration to the prior claims of the overcrowded populations of the British West Indian Islands, particularly in Jamaica, Trinidad and Barbados?
  Mr. MacDonald: The importance of populations of the West Indian Islands will be kept fully in view by His Majesty's Government in considering this matter.
  Mr. Hannah: Are not the highlands of British Guiana quite unsuitable for negro peoples?

  CABINET MINISTERS (DIRECTORSHIPS).
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Runciman (London), Limited, are the managers of the Anchor Line; whether he will take this kind of case into account when considering the question of extending the rule against Cabinet Ministers holding directorships to include those of private companies and consider extending the ban on directorships to cover passive, as well as active, directorships?
  The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. For the rest, I am awaiting the note on the subject of directorships of private companies from the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) which I promised to consider on Tuesday last.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Runciman (London), Limited, of which the Lord President of the Council is a director, are not only the managers of the Anchor Line, but have the largest number of shares in the Anchor Line; and is it not in his capacity as director of
  984
  Runciman (London), Limited, that the Lord President of the Council is taking a share in controlling and directing the affairs of a public company, the Anchor Line?
  The Prime Minister: I think that is not the case. I am informed that the relations between Runciman (London), Limited, and the Anchor Line is that Runciman (London), Limited, are employed by Anchor Line, which is entirely independent of Runciman (London), Limited, to manage their fleet. Runciman (London), Limited, do not control the Anchor Line; the connection between the companies is that of employer and employed, the employer being the Anchor Line and the employé being Runciman (London), Limited. Runciman (London), Limited, receive a fixed annual payment from the Anchor Line, and a director of Runciman (London), Limited, is not necessarily also a director of the Anchor Line.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the number of shares held by Runciman (London), Limited, in the Anchor Line?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I am not aware of that, and I do not think it is relevant. It is a question of directorship and not of shareholding.
  Mr. Attlee: Is it not desirable that the rule as regards directorships should be strictly dealt with in the spirit as well as the letter?
  The Prime Minister: The question had better remain there until I have the note from my hon. and learned Friend to which I referred. As soon as I have that note I will consider the matter afresh.
  Mr. Macquisten: Should not the same doctrine be applied to trade union secretaries and directors of the co-operatives?

  ROAD ACCIDENTS (TELEGRAPH POLES).
  Mr. Viantasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been directed to the recommendation of the Select Committee on the Prevention of Road Accidents that, where a road is unsuitable for telegraph or telephone poles, they should be put on private land or the wires put underground; and, if so, whether he is able to state what the cost is likely to be?
  The Assistant Postmaster-General (Sir Walter Womersley): I have seen the recommendation. I am unable to say what cost might be involved, since there is so much room for difference of opinion as to the roads covered by the recommendation. I may add that over 90 per cent. of all Post Office wire is already underground and that overhead wires are not erected in any clearly unsuitable road or in any other road unless underground plant would be unreasonably costly.

  BROADCASTING (RELAY SERVICE).
  Mr. Dayasked the Postmaster-General whether he will now give particulars of the proposed charges to be made for the additional apparatus necessary to be used by telephone subscribers and the maintenance for the same in cases where they desire to instal the new broadcast relay service recently announced; and whether he can state when this service will be available to the public?
  Sir W. Womersley: Preparations are being made as rapidly as possible for the provision of this service, but I am not yet in a position to announce the charges or the date of introduction.
  Mr. Day: Would it be possible for telephone subscribers to use their existing wireless sets?
  Sir W. Womersley: Yes, Sir.

  TELEVISION.
  Mr. Kirbyasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that dealers in wireless sets and equipment in the North of England complain that they are suffering a serious restriction in trade, as compared to dealers in the London area, by reason of the fact that they have no field for the sale of television sets and equipment as have dealers in the London area; and whether he has received from dealers in the north any representations on this subject, and what was the nature of his reply?
  Sir W. Womersley: I have received representations from various quarters concerning the desirability of extending the television service to provincial centres. There are alternative methods of extending the service, and their respective merits
  986
  and costs are being actively investigated; but no decision has yet been reached. The various interests which have made representations have been informed accordingly.
  Mr. Kirby: Would the hon. Member use his influence with the British Broadcasting Corporation in order to hasten the extension of television services?
  Sir W. Womersley: My right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General is very anxious to do all he can to get it into operation as soon as possible.
  Mr. Day: Has any estimate been made of the prospective number of viewers in the Provinces?
  Sir W. Womersley: That would be a very difficult matter.

  MEMBERS' CLOAKROOM (MIRROR).
  Dr. Edith Summerskillasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider placing a mirror in the Members' cloakroom for the convenience of members of both sexes?
  Mr. Munro (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend will have this done.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Would my hon. Friend convey to my right hon. Friend that many Members do not wish to be associated with this request, and that I certainly am one of them?
  Mr. Munro: I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will, on reflection, withdraw his opposition.
  Sir W. Davison: May I express the hope that male members of the House will have priority in the use of the mirror as it is understood that ladies' hair is now permanently fixed for many months and cannot be rearranged at a casual mirror?
  Sir Gifford Fox: Will the Minister arrange that the mirror is not put in the entrance of the Members' cloakroom, but somewhere that will not prevent the entrance of Members?
  Sir R. W. Smith: Will there be much expenditure involved?

  TYPHOID, NOTTINGHAM.
  Mr. Liddallasked the Minister of Health whether he will publish the report of the findings of his own medical officer and of the medical officer of health for the city of Nottingham with reference to the recent typhoid outbreak there?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): As I have already stated, this outbreak did not present any special features of public health interest. My right hon. Friend sees no grounds for the issue of a report from his Department on the matter. The question of the publication of the report of the medical officer of health is one for the consideration of the Nottingham City Council.
  Mr. Liddall: Surely the injured parties should be permitted to know the findings of these officers, and not be, as up till now, denied all information?
  Mr. Macquisten: Will my hon. Friend point out to the Department and to the injured parties that the Public Authorities Protection Act will exclude them from actions for damages unless they take proceedings at once?

  CIVIL DEFENCE.

    EVACUATION.
    Sir John Mellorasked the Minister of Health whether he has yet come to any decisions as to the modification of areas provisionally scheduled as evacuation, neutral, or reception areas?
    Mr. Bernays: My right hon. Friend hopes to make a statement at an early date, possibly this week.
    Sir W. Davisonasked the Lord Privy Seal what arrangements are being made for the evacuation, in case of emergency, of mothers with young children who are not at school, and whose parents have arranged for places in the country to which they can be taken if railway or other travelling facilities are available?
    The Lord Privy Seal (Sir John Anderson): The Government's evacuation plans will not extend to the organisation of transport facilities for mothers with young children who prefer to rely on private arrangements for accommodation, but every endeavour will be made to avoid
    988
    undue curtailment of facility of movement where it is not against the public interest.
    Sir W. Davison: Is it not very desirable that, where parents can provide accommodation, they should not burden the accommodation for which the Government are making provision; and cannot such parents at any rate be informed of the nearest point to which men-children can be taken, to the accommodation reserved for them, seeing that many of them do not possess motor cars?
    Mr. Sandys: Would the Lord Privy Seal consider making a statement in the near future of the Government's views as to whether or not it is desirable that these private arrangements should be made on a large scale in evacuation areas?
    Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir; there will be an opportunity for a more detailed statement during the Committee stage of the Civil Defence Bill, and I think it would be best to endeavour to clear up those points on that occasion.
    Mr. McEnteeasked the Lord Privy Seal what will be the pay and allowances for those persons, other than teachers, who accompany priority groups one and two, if evacuation of these groups should become necessary; and whether these persons are to be employed in a full-time or part-time capacity?
    Sir J. Anderson: As regards those helpers who may volunteer to travel with evacuation parties and remain in the reception areas only for a day or two until the parties are settled in, board and lodging will be provided, and beyond that no question of pay or allowances would appear to arise. No terms of continuous whole-time service of such helpers have been settled, as it is not at present clear how far such service may be required.
    Mr. McEntee: Will not blind persons, for instance, require some kind of continuous attention; and will not provision be made for them?
    Sir J. Anderson: Certainly, continuous attention will he required in such cases, but the question is whether it will not be possible to rely for this on the services of people in the locality, instead of sending people specially from the evacuation areas.

    AIR-RAID SHELTERS.
    Mr. Dolandasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that under present enactments and regulations no person, except those receiving Government free shelters, is allowed to construct an air-raid shelter in his garden or elsewhere without first submitting plans to the district surveyor obtaining his approval thereto and paying certain fees; that the district surveyor covering part of the Wandsworth Borough is now inspecting shelters in the gardens of residents and leaving them notices as to their liabilities under the Local Government Act; and will he take steps to prevent these shelters being rated?
    Mr. Bernays: The administration by local authorities of the enactments relating to the control of buildings is not a matter in regard to which my right hon. Friend has any authority to intervene. As my hon. Friend is doubtless aware, the Civil Defence Bill contains provisions applicable to this matter, but I have no reason to think that local authorities are not exercising their powers and discharging their duties under existing enactments in a proper manner. The question of assessment for rating purposes is governed by the Rating and Valuation (Air-Raid Works) Act, 1938.
    Mr. Doland: Does not the Civil Defence Bill relate to factories and commercial buildings only and not to private shelters in gardens?
    Mr. Bernays: It relates to private shelters erected under any of the powers conferred by the Bill.
    Mr. Doland: Are we to have such a breach of equity?
    Mr. Selley: Is my hon. Friend aware that district surveyors are administering an Act of Parliament and not local bylaws, and are anxious to have their position made clear? Will he look into the matter from that point of view?
    Mr. Bernays: Yes, Sir. The position of these surveyors is that they are undertaking a statutory duty.
    Mr. R. C. Morrison: Is it not a fact that certain districts in Great London are already rated for buildings that are used exclusively for A.R.P.?
    Mr. Bernays: If the hon. Gentleman will let me have particulars, I will inquire into them.

  NATIONAL SERVICE (LOCAL AUTHORITIES' STAFFS).
  Mr. Lyonsasked the Minister of Health the decision which has been reached by the Skegness Council with reference to the make-up of pay of any employés of the council who may be mobilised for service in the Forces or in Civil Defence; and whether he will issue directions that in all such cases the difference between prevailing Service rates and civilian incomes should be paid by the local authority during the full period of Service?
  Mr. Bernays: I have obtained from the Skegness Urban District Council a copy of a minute of a meeting recording their resolutions on the subject to which my hon. and learned Friend refers, and I am sending him a copy. My right hon. Friend has no power to issue directions to local authorities on this matter. He has, however, already issued a circular to them in connection with the contemplated legislation in regard to the pay and superannuation of their employés called up for National Service in the event of an emergency. The position of employés, affected by the Military Training Bill and the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Bill is now receiving my right hon. Friend's consideration.
  Mr. Lyons: Is it a fact that the Skegness local authority have decided that they will not make up the amount to men who are called up for National Service, and if that is the case will the Department, whatever legal power they may have, make strong representations about this public scandal?
  Mr. Bernays: My right hon. Friend has already issued a circular to local authorities on the matter. It is not possible to give a specific direction.
  Mr. T. Williams: Is not the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons) an advocate for reducing rates?
  Mr. Lyons: Is the reply which has been given to the local authority of the nature which I have indicated?
  Mr. Bernays: I have already indicated its nature.
  Mr. George Griffiths: Has not the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) anything to say about this matter?

  AERO-ENGINE FACTORY, SCOTLAND.
  Mr. T. Johnstonasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has any statement to make regarding the establishment of further aircraft manufacturing facilities in Scotland?
  The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Kingsley Wood): Yes, Sir. I am glad to be able to inform the House that arrangements have been made with Rolls-Royce, Limited, under which they will establish and manage, on behalf of the Air Ministry, a new factory for the production of Rolls-Royce aero-engines in the vicinity of Glasgow. It would not be in the public interest to disclose the capacity of the proposed new factory, but I am glad to say that it will provide a substantial volume of employment.
  Mr. Johnston: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate when it is proposed that operations should begin, and now many men will be employed when the factory is working at full capacity?
  Sir K. Wood: It is hoped that the factory will commence production in 12 months' time. The cost of the factory will be several millions of pounds, and the number of men employed will be of the order of 10,000.
  Mr. Davidson: Is a Scottish firm engaged in the building of this factory?
  Sir K. Wood: As regards the construction of the factory, Scottish firms will be invited to tender and will be given an equal opportunity with other firms of securing contracts.
  Mr. A. V. Alexander: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate to the House at some time the basis of the contract between Rolls-Royce, Limited, and the Air Ministry? I observe that they are rapidly increasing their profits.
  Mr. Macquisten: There is no conscientious objection to the erection of that factory going to Scotland.

  FOOD DEFENCE PLANS.
  Sir Charles Cayzerasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the Food Defence Committee has yet had under consideration any scheme for the distribution of cheese in the event of war; also if this body has received the assistance of any outside persons for the formulation of the scheme; whether any makers or manufacturers of English cheese have been called into such consultations; and whether arrangements can be made to invite the assistance of the National Association of Creamery Proprietors which represents approximately three-quarters of the manufacturers of all varieties of English cheese.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison): The answer to the first two parts of the question is in affirmative. With regard to the remainder, so soon as the plan is sufficiently advanced the trading interests concerned (including associations such as that mentioned) will, as in similar cases, be consulted.

  ACCIDENT, LUTON.
  Mr. Thorneasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he can give any information in connection with the accident at the Vauxhall motor works at Luton, where the chief officer of the private fire brigade was killed; and what was the case of the accident?
  Sir J. Anderson: The cause of this regrettable accident is to be investigated at the coroner's inquest, which has, I understand, been adjourned until 25th May, and it would not be proper for me to anticipate the result of that inquiry. I think, however, that, for the reassurance of the public, I may properly inform the House that the bomb used in this A.R.P. exercise was not one approved by my Department or in general use. The House will, I am sure, join me in expressing sympathy with the relatives of the deceased.

  INTERNATIONAL SUGAR COUNCIL.
  Captain Arthur Evansasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to give the House a full report of the decisions arrived at by the executive committee of the International Sugar Council?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Cross): I understand that the executive committee of the International Sugar Council has concluded its meetings and that it has made recommendations which are being communicated forthwith to the members of the council. These recommendations are confidential, but I understand it is hoped that the council's decision will be known by the end of this week. If my hon. and gallant Friend will put down a question for next week, I hope that it will then be possible to make a statement.
  Captain Evans: Are the Government entirely satisfied that, in the absence of amendment, the machinery of the International Sugar Council is designed adequately to safeguard the interests of British producers in the Colonies and of British consumers of sugar in this country?
  Mr. Cross: That is quite another question.
  Mr. Thorne: Would the hon. Gentleman like to know my views on this sugar question?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. V. Adamsasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that sympathies in this House with the Jewish and Arab sides in the Palestine question are by no means divided according to party alignments; that in the forthcoming Debate on Palestine a number of Members of all parties will wish to be heard; that ii the Debate is limited to one day opportunity will be available only to Members of the Front Benches, Privy Councilors, ex-Ministers, and a few back bench Members; and whether he will therefore, to ensure a wider and more representative Debate, allow at least two days of Parliamentary time to the discussion?
The Prime Minister: Perhaps my hon. Friend would be good enough to await the statement which I propose to make at the end of Questions.
Mr. Attlee(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister when the White Paper regarding policy in Palestine will be published, and vhether it is intended to make arrangements for an early Debate?
The Prime Minister: The White Paper will be published on Wednesday, 17th May, and will be available in the Vote Office at 7 p.m. on that date. It is proposed to arrange for a Debate before the Whitsuntide Recess, but, in view of the congested state of Parliamentary business, it will not be possible to allot more than one day to the Debate.
Mr. Attlee: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider that point? There is a very widespread interest in this most important subject in all quarters of the House, and it seems that, largely, the final word does not lie with His Majesty's Government, but with the international body at Geneva; and surely they should have an opportunity of getting a very full view of what the House thinks on the matter?
Sir A. Sinclair: In view of the strong feeling in all parts of the House, and the large number of Members who would wish to take part in the Debate, I hope that the Prime Minister will consider giving us at least two days for the Debate.
The Prime Minister: I am in rather a dilemma on this matter. I quite recognise that there is a great deal of interest in it, and that many hon. Members might wish to express views on it; but, on the other hand, we have a Parliamentary programme before us which is in a very congested condition, and it is extremely difficult to see how we can work every thing in.
Mr. Gallacher: Cut down the Recess.
Mr. Macquisten: Make shorter speeches.
Mr. Crossley: As almost every Privy Councillor on the back benches happens to take one side in the Debate, I wonder whether it would not be possible for the Prime Minister to consider the allocation of Friday of this week plus Monday, or one day of next week, for the Debate?
The Prime Minister: Perhaps my hon. Friend would await the further statement I am going to make directly.
Mr. V. Adams: Is it essential to conclude this Debate before the Whitsuntide Recess? Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind the suggestions contained in my Question 45 to-day?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Member asked me whether I would give two days.

995
That is a question that I have already answered. I do not think I have anything further to say.
Mr. Adams: I think, with all respect, that the Prime Minister misapprehended me. The purpose of the question just now was to ask whether it was necessary to have this Debate concluded before that date.
The Prime Minister: I have endeavoured to explain that we have such a congested programme that we have no spare time at our disposal.
Mr. Adams: Could it not, therefore, be postponed until after the Recess?
Mr. Gallacher: Is the Prime Minister aware that on Scottish days speeches are limited to 15 minutes?
Mr. R. Acland: Would the Prime Minister consider whether we could not suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule and go on?
Mr. Attlee: Would the Prime Minister consider whether the matter could not be discussed through the usual channels, with a view to finding a way out?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I shall be very glad to do that.
Mr. Attlee(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether an opportunity can be given for a Debate on the pay and allowances of the militia during the present week, and whether he can announce the business to be taken on Friday?
The Prime Minister: Supplementary Estimates for the Defence Services have been presented, and will be circulated to Members to-morrow morning. Conversations have taken place through the usual channels, and arrangements made for these Estimates to be debated on an Allotted Supply Day on Wednesday. As a result of this re-arrangement of business, it is necessary for the Committee stage of the Reserve Forces Bill to be taken to-morrow on the conclusion of the Committee stage of the Military Training Bill. I shall move the necessary amendments to the Time-table Motion at a later stage to-day.
This re-arrangement of business, which has been agreed to through the usual channels will, I am afraid, necessitate a
996
further postponement of the Civil Defence Bill. I was not able to be in my place at Question Time on Thursday, but I have made myself aware of the views which expressed on both sides of the House as to the desirability of proceeding with the Civil Defence Bill. The Government would like to conclude the Committee stage of this Bill as early as possible, and I would invite the co-operation of hon. Members in all parts of the House in an endeavour to complete this stage before we adjourn for Whitsun.
The business on Friday will be: Supply: Committee (6th Allotted Day—1st part). The Foreign Office Vote will be put down in order to discuss the international situation.
Mr. Attlee: When will the White Paper which, I understand, will be issued in regard to pay and allowances of the militia, be available, and when will he Supplementary Estimate be available?
The Prime Minister: Under this procedure no White Paper will be necessary, because, as I stated, there will be a Supplementary Estimate circulated to Members to-morrow morning. That will, of course, contain all the necessary information about the pay and allowances proposed.

SPAIN.
At the end of Questions—
Mr. Davidson: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the intention of His Majesty's Government to be officially represented at the victory march past in Madrid on the 19th instant, where Italian soldiers will parade, in direct contravention of the terms of the British-Italian Agreement, signed by representatives of His Majesty's Government and the Italian Government.
Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that that is. a Motion which would not conform at all to the Rule laid down in Standing Order No. 8 with regard to this kind of Motion, This is not a matter of urgercy.
Mr. Benn: As the Government have given instructions to our Anbassador to appear in a few days on this occasion, is it not a matter of urgency flat the House should have an opportunity of countermanding these instructions?
Mr. Speaker: If the House should desire to discuss it, no doubt it will be able to do so. It is not necessarily a matter of urgency under the Standing Order.
Mr. Davidson: May I submit to you, with all respect, that we have a British-Italian Agreement signed by representatives of both countries. The wording of that Agreement is very definite. It states very definitely that, on the cessation of hostilities, at the end of the war, Italian troops should be forthwith taken away from Spain. Further, His Majesty's Government placed this Agreement before the House, and gained the approval and consent of the House of Commons. Therefore, I submit that this decision to attend a parade where Italian soldiers are directly contravening a decision of this House is a matter of urgent public importance, and, on that basis, ought to be discussed by the House.
Mr. Speaker: I have no doubt that this matter will be discussed by the House, probably at an early date; but certainly it does not come under the rules relating to Standing Order No. 8.
Mr. Davidson: Can you indicate, Sir, whether the Government ought not, in view of the circumstances of this Agreement, to give the House full knowledge of this decision without being asked through a question on the Order Paper by a back bencher?
Mr. Speaker: That is certainly not my duty.
Mr. De la Bère: How does all this talk help British interests?
Mr. Silverman: Does not the urgency of the matter arise out of the fact that this proposed parade is to take place imminently, and, unless the House has an opportunity to discuss it as a matter of urgency, it will be too late to discuss it at all? Does not urgency arise out of that, within the meaning of the Standing Order?
Mr. Speaker: I have indicated once or twice that it is not a matter of urgency under Standing Order No. 8.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
James Little, Esquire, for the County of Down.
CIVIL ESTIMATES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1939).
Estimate presented,—of a further sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1940 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 123.]

JARROW CORPORATION BILL.
Reported, with Amendments [Title amended], 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.

MILITARY TRAINING BILL AND RESERVE AND AUXILIARY FORCES BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME).
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Order [10th May] be read and amended as follows:
Leave out sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph B, and insert:
(1) Committee stage of the Bill.
Proceedings on any instructions relating to the Bill, and the Committee stage of the Bill, shall be proceeded with immediately after the conclusion of proceedings on the Military Training Bill on the fifth day allotted to that Bill, and shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour and 30 minutes after the conclusion of the said proceedings on the last mentioned Bill.
Sub-paragraph 5 of paragraph C, line 5, after the second 'the,' insert 'Committee or'."—[The Prime Minister.]
4.0 p.m.
Mr. Batey: I hope that the Prime Minister is going to reconsider this Motion. The Motion means that when the Committee have finished the Military Training Bill to-morrow night about 12 o'clock, for an hour and a-half we shall go on to discuss the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Bill. That will prolong the sitting until 1.30 in the morning. There could not be a worse time for this House to finish than 1.30 a.m. The majority of Members on this side depend on buses, trains or trams to get to their homes. At 1.30 in the morning all buses, trams and trains are stopped, and Members have to get home as best they can. I fail to see why the Prime Minister should propose this Motion. It fixes an hour and a-half for the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Bill and that is not enough. But in any case why could not the Prime Minister have arranged that the hour and a-half be taken on Wednesday afternoon, from 1.15 to 2.45 p.m.? We could then have the discussion without sitting up late at night.
I would suggest, as an Amendment to the Motion, that after the word "minutes" we should insert the words "after 1.15 p.m. on Wednesday." Under the Guillotine Motion the House is compelled to sit until midnight instead of the Government asking the House to sit an hour earlier in the afternoon, which we could easily do. We are going on with late sittings when there is no need for them. I think the Government should be
1014
prepared to accept my suggested Amendment to the Motion.
4.2 p.m.
Mr. Stephen: I want to say a few words on this Motion. There is one point that has worried me a great deal in connection, with the Guillotine Time-table. I regret that there has been no opportunity presented for discussion of the position of Scotland under the Military Training Bill. I wonder whether the Prime Minister could give us an assurance that there will be an opportunity for discussing whether Scotland should be included in that Bill or not. There is a very widespread view in Scotland that Scotland should not be included, or at least that Scotland should have an opportunity of deciding for itself what is to be its position in the matter. I take the opportunity of this Motion for protesting at the way in which Scotland has been treated, in that it has not been given an opportunity of deciding its position under the Bill.
Mr. Gallacher: I wish to give support to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey)—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) wishes to move an Amendment to the Motion, but I am not able to accept it because it is inconsistent with the first part of the Motion. The first part of the Motion says that the Committee stage of the Bill shall be proceeded with immediately after the conclusion of the proceedings on the Military Training Bill, and the hon. Member wishes at the end of the Motion to postpone the proceedings until the next day.
4.4 p.m.
Mr. Gallacher: I want to say a word or two in support of the idea which is contained in the remarks of the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey). For myself I do not mind sitting up all night, but: there is no reason why we should not start our business earlier in the day. I consider that if we were given an opportunity to do justice to the Military Training Bill we should start our business in the morning, and if necessary go on until the next morning.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member can make a speech on the original Motion but not on the Amendment, which I have not accepted.
Mr. Gallacher: I got a feeling when the Prime Minister was speaking to-day that there was a possibility of his altering the Time-table, not by giving us an extra hour and a half after midnight but by taking an hour and a half off the Timetable. Instead of cutting down the Timetable and limiting the discussion of the Military Training Bill, the right hon. Gentleman ought to consider utilising Whitsun week for a further discussion of this subject.
Mr. Silverman: Would not the purpose of my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) be met if the word "immediately" were deleted from the Motion, and at the end there were added the words that he desires to include?
Mr. Speaker: I have already said that I do not propose to accept the Amendment.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
"That the Order [10th May] be read and amended as follows:
Leave out sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph B, and insert,—
(1) Committee stage of the Ball.
Proceedings on any instructions relating to the Bill, and the Committee stage of the Bill, shall be proceeded with immediately after the conclusion of proceedings on the Military Training Bill on the fifth day allotted to that Bill, and shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour and thirty minutes after the conclusion of the said proceedings on the last mentioned Bill.
Sub-paragraph 5 of paragraph C, line 5, after the second 'the,' insert 'Committee or'."

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  MILITARY TRAINING BILL.
  [4TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 12 th May.]
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  MILITARY TRAINING BILL.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Reinstatement in civil employment.)
    4.8 p.m.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Colonel Llewellin): I beg to move, in page 12, line 31, to leave out "service," and to insert "training."
    1016
    This Amendment is consequential to one that I moved on Friday.
    Mr. Maxton: I wish to be ready to vote on this Amendment at the appropriate time, but would it be asking too much to request the Minister to let us know what he has said, for we could not hear him.
    Colonel Llewellin: I am very sorry, for I spoke as loudly as I could. I said that this Amendment was consequential to one that I moved on Friday, which was then accepted by the Committee.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The Chairman: Mr. Naylor.
    Mr. Mander: Before the hon. Member whom you have called moves his Amendment, am I right in thinking that my Amendment—In page 12, line 32, after "conditions," to insert "of work and hours not lower than the standard conditions of the trade"—which appears before that of the hon. Member, can be discussed on the one that is now called?
    The Chairman: It depends very much on the interpretation of it. The hon. Member no doubt will try to discuss it.
    4.11 p.m.
    Mr. Naylor: I beg to move, in page 12, line 33, to leave out "applicable to him when he was," and to insert:
    "which would have been applicable to him had he not been."
    This is something more than a drafting Amendment. Throughout these discussions Members have declared their desire to cause as little inconvenience as possible to the young men who are to be called up under this Bill. This Clause deals with the position of apprentices who are subject to differential treatment according to the years they are serving. It also applies to young men whose increment of wages alters from year to year according to their age. If the words now in the Clause remain as they are they would mean that after serving six months a young man going back to the workshop could be told by the employers that he had to start again where he left off. I think all hon. Members will agree that the maximum inconvenience a young man can suffer under the Clause is the loss of wages that will ensue in the event of his returning to work on the same terms as when he left work. I am hoping that the Minister will accept my Amendment.

    1017
    It may be that he has in mind that an apprentice, or a young man who is not an apprentice, will have the right to apply for a postponement of his call-up, but I want to point out that that would result in the apprentice postponing his period of training at a time when he would have been receiving higher wages had he been in the workshop.
    Therefore, if Ministers are desirous that these young men shall be put to the minimum inconvenience as a result of this Measure, they must agree with us that it will be as well to accept such an Amendment as this, and that it is better for these young men from every point of view that they shall be allowed to serve immediately they are called up, and not be expected to defer the period of training until such time as their wages may be considerably more, and, therefore, the loss the greater as a result of such a postponement. A young printer of 20 to 21 years of age is not necessarily in the last year of his apprenticeship. A boy may be apprenticed at 14, 15 or 16 years of age, and if he has to serve for seven years, it means that his remuneration as an apprentice increases until he is 21, 22 or 23 years of age. This Clause is intended to protect the apprentice against the unscrupulous employer. There are good employers, and there are not so good employers; there are employers who have more regard for law than for justice. If we leave the Clause as it is worded, it will mean that an employer can say to a young man when he returns, "The Section in the Act of Parliament says that I must reinstate you on terms not less favourable than what you had when you were called up." That would mean that a young man would have to serve another six months on his term of apprenticeship and would lose the higher wages he would otherwise have received. If the Act finally reads as we desire it to read by the insertion of this Amendment, a man will enjoy the same conditions as he would have if he had not been called up. This is a measure of simple justice, which, I hope, the Minister will accept.
    I would like to mention another reason why he should be very careful in not allowing the Bill to go forward as it now is. The Minister of Labour said on Friday last that men engaged on Government work of national importance, and who had secured exemption as conscientious objectors, would be allowed to
    1018
    continue on that work undisturbed. I ask the Minister to consider what would be the position. You may have two young men working side by side on Government work of national importance. One is a conscientious objector who has secured exemption and will not suffer the loss of a single penny by virtue of the fact that he remains at work instead of going for military training. The other young man, also on work of national importance, has cheerfully accepted the call and goes away for six months. If the present wording of the Clause remains, he comes back on terms not less favourable than those which he enjoyed when he left work for training. That means that when he comes back he will have, perhaps, missed possibilities of added increment and of promotion in spite of the fact that he answered the call for service. In these circumstances the Minister would be justified in saying that possibly, after all, the draftsmen of the Bill were too ready to adopt a phrase that certainly does not apply with equal effect to all classes of men called up for military training. I hope that it may be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment, in which event I am sure that my hon. Friends will not desire to prolong the discussion.
    The Chairman: May I call the attention of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) to the point which he put to me just now? He will observe that his actual Amendment cannot be discussed or put to the Committee now because we have passed it. He says that the subject matter or the point with which he wishes to deal in the Amendment in his name on the Order Paper is somewhat similar to the point arising on this Amendment, and perhaps he would wish to put it shortly on the Amendment now before the Committee.
    The Minister of Labour The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown) rose—
    The Chairman: I was wondering whether the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton wished to make any observations.
    Mr. Mander: No, Sir; not now.
    4.21 p.m.
    Mr. E. Brown: It will be, perhaps, for the convenience of the Committee if I say at once that the point which the hon.

    1019
    Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor) has put in the Amendment is a very sound one. There will, no doubt, be changes of wage rates, and the issue is much wider than that of apprentices. But the point is an important one, and I propose to accept the Amendment, subject to any redrafting that we might want to make in relation to the structure of the Bill.
    4.22 p.m.
    Mr. Mander: There are two points I want to put with regard to this Amendment. The first is that the word used is the word "applicable," and I would like to know precisely what that means. Does it mean the standard rate, because there may be cases where a man is being paid by an employer, say, 10s. below the standard rate recognised for the particular trade? I hope that the Minister will see that the word "applicable" means applicable in accordance with the fair wages clause and the appropriate standard recognised by trade unions. It will make a great deal of difference if the word "applicable" means the rate of wages that the employer chooses to give. That is a matter of very great importance, and the purpose of the Amendment I have put down, but which I am not going to discuss now, was really to do what, I think, may possibly be covered by the word "applicable," namely, to make sure that the proper rates are to be paid and that there shall be no undercutting.
    The second point is to reinforce what the hon. Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor) has said, only from another point of view. There are other industries, and perhaps I may be allowed to quote one with which I am familiar. The rates agreed by the National Joint Industrial Council for the paint, colour and varnish industry provide that persons of 19 get 39s. 4d., persons of 20, a minimum of 46s., and persons of 21 receive 55s. It is very important that a young man going away at 20 and coming back at 21 shall receive not the 46s. which he was receiving, but the 55s. I gather from what the Minister said that that is the intention, but perhaps he will be good enough to deal with the other point which I have put.
    4.24 p.m.
    Mr. E. Brown: It was because I wanted to look into the full meaning of the word
    1020
    "applicable" to make sure that we are dealing with the appropriate word, that I said that we might have to look at the drafting of the Bill on Report, although the substance of the Amendment is, in our judgment, quite right. That answers the second point which the hon. Gentleman has just put. With regard to the first point, it is estimated that some 200,000 men will be called up, and they will be men from all sorts and conditions of industry. They will be from industries which are, like the industry to which the hon. Member referred, regulated by collective agreements, and also from industries where there are no such agreements. What we are proposing to do in the Bill, now being corrected by the Amendment, is that when a young man comes back he shall not be treated less favourably than he was being treated when he went. Now we have altered that so that he shall have applied to him any changes which may have taken place in the period, and that will be applied equally to those outside of agreements as to those inside agreements. We cannot undertake to alter the whole industrial structure in one Amendment of this kind.
    Mr. Logan: Are the Committee to understand that that really means that loss of time will not be counted against these men, and that when they return the full benefit of wages will be obtained as if they had been at work all the time?
    Mr. Brown: I want to be quite clear on this matter. In two or three years' time there might even be a reduction in rates of wages, and it is bound to cut both ways, but—and the hon. Member is correct—if in that period of six months while a man is doing his training he comes into a grade which is higher or the wage rate fixed by mutual agreement has gone up, he will get the advantage of that just as if he had not been called up.
    Mr. Mander: I am not clear on one point. If a man, when he goes away, has been paid say 5s. below the general Industrial Council rates, will he when he comes back be able to say to his employer that the rate applicable to him is the Industrial Council rate and that he must pay him that rate, or can the employer pay him the old sweated rate as before?
    Mr. Brown: If the man is in an industry covered by an industrial council he will receive the rate applicable when

    1021
    he comes back, which is what the hon. Member wants.
    Mr. Shinwell: The assurance of the right hon. Gentleman is satisfactory so far as it goes, but I hope that when he comes to a final decision the definition of "applicable" will be as wide as possible. There is a great diversity both of occupations and conditions in industry, and, if the definition were strictly on the lines suggested by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), it might be found that a very large number of persons were excluded from the provision which might be inserted or the Regulation which might be issued by the Minister. There are many occupations where there are no standard conditions and no industrial council, and no machinery for determining wages and conditions, and, obviously, the Minister must provide for contingencies of that sort. However, we accept the assurance of the Minister on the understanding that he will make the definition as wide as possible.
    Mr. Brown: I do not want to leave the Committee under a misapprehension. I think that no alteration will have to be made. As far as I can see at first sight the Amendment can stand as it is, but we want to be sure that we are not adopting words which may have a meaning which will not be taken by the industries concerned. But as far as I can see, the words can stand as they are.
    Mr. George Griffiths: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean the words of the Amendment?
    Mr. Brown: Certainly.
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: In view of the alteration that the Minister is prepared to accept, I should like to know how it would work in connection with local government and Government servants under the rules affecting superannuation. I hope that the Amendment when it is made will cover the point that the months spent with the colours will rank as recognised service for superannuation as though the men had been at work. I suggest that if the Minister is legally advised that the point is not quite met by the Amendment, we may have an assurance that at a later stage the rules of the superannuation fund for local government employés and for
    1022
    teachers who are local government servants will be so drafted as to make sure that this period counts as recognised service.
    Mr. E. Brown Mr. E. Brown indicated assent.
    4.31 p.m.
    Mr. Cluse: I am glad that the Minister of Labour is prepared to meet us on this Amendment, which is not quite as narrow as he understands.
    Mr. Brown: My point is that it is not as narrow as the Mover suggested. It is very wide.
    Mr. Cluse: It applies to thousands of apprentices who have rates of pay which increase as their years of apprenticeship increase. There is this further point, that if an apprentice is not called up at once it may happen that by the time his period of military service has finished he may be out of his apprenticeship. I do not know whether the Minister has thought of the position of an apprentice who on returning and finding that his apprenticeship has ended also finds that the employer has no contract to give him journeyman's wages. Reference has been made to superannuation for municipal servants, but apart from the superannuation question there is the annual increment which arises as their service goes on. I hope the Minister will remember that question as well as the question of superannuation.
    Mr. Ede: In reply to the point that I put, the right hon. Gentleman nodded his head. May I take that as assent to my suggestion?
    Mr. E. Brown: What I meant was that it is no use giving an answer now. The point arises later on another Clause.
    Amendment agreed to.
    4.33 p.m.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 12, line 40, to leave out "four," and to insert "twelve."
    The Clause provides that in the case of an employer who does not carry out the obligation of reinstating a man who has been called up for service, he may be brought before the court and on conviction be fined £50. That fine may afford some satisfaction to the feelings of the man who has not been reinstated, but it will not help him otherwise. Later on the Clause says that in such a case the

    1023
    employer may be ordered to pay the man an amount equal to four weeks' remuneration at the rate at which remuneration was last payable to him by the employer. In the case of a man whose employer treats him in this way and does not reinstate him on the conclusion of his military service, four weeks' remuneration is an altogether inadequate solace for him, and the object of my Amendment is to provide that, instead of four weeks' remuneration, the man shall be entitled to 12 weeks. In other words, the Amendment fixes the remuneration at two weeks for each month of his six months' military service. I think this proposal will commend itself to the sense of fairness of the Committee, and I cannot anticipate that the Minister will not be able to accept it.
    4.35 p.m.
    Mr. T. Smith: I do not know whether the Minister is prepared to accept the Amendment is readily as he accepted the last one, but I think it would be right for him to do so. The general purpose of the Clause is to ensure that when a young man is called up for his six months' service he comes back into industry on the same terms and conditions as when he was called up. In the majority of cases the employers will carry out the provisions of this Clause in a fair manner, but I am wondering whether we have made the penalties quite as severe upon the unfair employer as we ought to have done. In saying that, I have in mind the experience that we have had at one time or another in the mining industry. As I read the Clause, an employer may say: "You have done your six months' service, but I do not intend to employ you any longer in this firm, and I am prepared to go to court and be fined £50 and pay you four weeks' wages in order to get rid of you." That is the full penalty that can be applied to the employer if he fails to reinstate the man.
    If this Bill had been the law of the land when two or three hon. Members of this House and myself were 21 years of age, it is just possible that we should not have been here now. There were colliery managers who would have given more than £50 and four weeks' wages to have got rid of us; and they said so. Perhaps some hon. Members opposite will agree that it would have been a good thing for the employers if they had done so. I
    1024
    worked at a colliery where the general manager told me that if ever he could kick me from Sheffield he would do so.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: They wanted to send me to New Zealand.
    Mr. Smith: I have been to New Zealand, but under different conditions from those under which they wanted to send my hon. Friend. There are employers and managers of firms who in certain individual cases would be prepared to pay more than £50 and four weeks' wages to get rid of certain men. I am sorry that the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), which proposed as an alternative to a £50 fine, three months' imprisonment, has not been called. The £50 fine will not be paid by the colliery manager but by the firm. It will be no penalty at all on the manager, but if he had to stand the risk of three months' imprisonment it would certainly be a bigger deterrent than a £50 fine. That would do more to stop the injustice that might be done to the young man who is not reinstated.
    The payment of four weeks' wages is not a sufficient penalty. I agree wholeheartedly with the Amendment of 12 weeks now proposed, and I hope the Minister will accept it. If he is not prepared to accept it, I hope that hon. Members opposite, in fairness to these young men who will be called up for service, will do their best to see that the Minister does accept what we regard as a very fair Amendment.
    4.39 p.m.
    Sir John Haslam: Before the Minister rejects or accepts the Amendment, may I draw his attention to the Amendment that stands in my name and the names of several of my hon. Friends—in page 12, line 39, after "reinstate," to insert "the amount of the fine imposed, and." In that Amendment we meet the point of view in regard to the four weeks' wages fine, and at the same time we award the fine to the person who suffers. I am trying to look at this subject from the point of view of the magistrates sitting on the bench. We should be in a difficulty in adjudicating on a case when we knew that the fine went, as it does in Lancashire, to the Duchy of Lancaster, where they have quite enough money. They have not hitherto received fines of

    1025
    this description, but they receive fines from motor car prosecutions. We believe that if the man made out his case that he has been wrongly treated, he should be given the amount of the fine. The court costs would be paid in any case. We think that the right person to receive the money should be the person who suffers.
    I shall probably be met by the assertion that this is an innovation, contrary to legal precedent, except in regard to the common informer. I have, however, two eminent legal gentlemen who support my Amendment. Moreover, before I put the Amendment on the Order Paper I consulted the ex-Attorney-General and the present Attorney-General who, on the spur of the moment, could not raise any objection to it, although they may have been able to concoct an objection since then. There was no objection on their part, and therefore I put the Amendment on the Order Paper. I would ask the Minister of Labour to give careful consideration to my Amendment when he is considering the Amendment now before the Committee, because I believe, although it is an innovation in law, it is just and equitable. We are constantly introducing innovations. This Bill is an innovation.
    Mr. McEntee: On a point of Order. May I ask what Amendment we are discussing? Are we discussing the Amendment that has been moved by my hon. and gallant Friend?
    The Chairman: Yes, that is so. I do not think the hon. Member for Bolton (Sir J. Haslam) is out of Order in raising his point. There is no reason why he should not say what he has done on consideration of the Amendment before the Committee.
    Sir J. Haslam: I have nothing further to say except that I hope the Minister will consider the Amendment in the name of myself and my colleagues. We believe that it really meets the wishes of the proposers of the present Amendment, the wishes of the Government, and it does justice to the person who will suffer by non-reinstatement.
    4.43 p.m.
    Mr. Mander: I support the Amendment because I think the penalties in the Clause are not adequate to deal with the offence. I am afraid it is going to be
    1026
    difficult to get at the employer who refuses to reinstate a man, and therefore I think the penalties ought to be adequate. Since the hon. Member referred to one alternative, perhaps I might allude to another possible alternative. My suggestion would be that the penalty should be a continuing one: that, instead of being limited, as the Government want to limit it, to four weeks' wages, or as this Amendment would limit it to 12 weeks' wages, it should go on indefinitely, until the employer has agreed to reinstate the man. He should go on having to pay him his weekly wage until he chooses to do what the law and the courts say he should do. In those circumstances, I think he would reinstate the man. That would be far more satisfactory than simply paying him a month's wages or three months' wages. However, I support the Amendment that has been moved, and I hope that it will be accepted by the Government.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: I hope the Parliamentary Secretary is not going to oppose the Amendment. Like the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), I should have preferred some other Amendment as preferable to the one which has been under discussion. I want to put a point which, perhaps, the Minister of Labour and the Parliamentary Secretary have not considered. If a man gets 12 weeks' wages he will also get 12 weeks' stamps, and if he gets these 12 stamps on the top of the 26 weeks which he has served he gets more than 30 stamps during that period, and it puts him in statutory benefit, whereas if he only gets four weeks' wages he is not in benefit. The hon. Member for Norman-ton (Mr. T. Smith) has spoken of employers who would be delighted to get any man who is a good sound trade unionist out of his employ. Some of us know what has happened in the mining industry. We have had to fight inch by inch to maintain the wages list which has been signed by the employer and the representatives of the employés. I do not speak of the managing director, because he very seldom sees any of the workmen, but managers many a time have made the statement that they wish they could get rid of a man, and that at the first chance they would do so. That is their attitude. In my opinion this Clause

    1027
    is nothing but camouflage; it is eyewash. It does not say that the magistrates "shall" but that they "may," and it must be remembered that the four weeks' wages and a fine of £50 are a maximum. They may fine an employer £5 or one week's wages. What are 12 weeks' wages to a man who has lost his job? I am glad that the Prime Minister is listening to this Debate. I wish he would get up and accept the Amendment without wasting any more time. At any rate, I hope the Government will see the reasonableness of the proposal and accept it.
    4.48 p.m.
    Mr. Messer: There is one aspect of this problem which, I think, the Government should consider. Personally, I regard this Clause as one which will be most difficult to administer. It will be a difficult job to ensure that there shall not be any victimisation, there are so many reasons which employers can find that it will not be difficult for them to take advantage of the Clause, as it provides that it shall be a reasonable defence that it was not reasonably practicable for him to take them on. Anybody who knows anything of seasonal industries knows that if a man loses his employment at the beginning of the slack period there is no opportunity for him at all anywhere to be reinstated in that trade or calling, but if the calling up notice is applied to him at the beginning of the slack period and carries him into the busy period, he will be all right for his job because the employer will want him. If he is called up for his six months' training and his time of reinstatement in his job happens at the beginning of the slack period, the employer may be able to prove that it is not reasonable to engage him, and if he can get away with that, then to give a man four weeks' compensation is unfair. I am not so concerned with the punishment of a bad employer; I am more concerned with the victim, and from that point of view the Amendment is quite reasonable. I hope the Government will take a serious view that it is quite reasonable that a man who is being robbed by the Government of an opportunity of continuing in his job should get three months' wages, because he has been prevented by the necessity of his being trained in military service from earning money which he would otherwise have got. I am certain
    1028
    that the Government do not want to deprive any member of the working classes of wages which he would have been ordinarily getting but for the necessity of military training. If that is true, they cannot oppose the proposal, which is a reasonable one, that he should get 12 weeks' wages instead of four.
    4.51 p.m.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I rise to support the Amendment. The Clause as it stands limits the employé's right to four weeks' wages. To my mind that is wholly inadequate. It is perfectly true that perhaps the larger number of employés are under their terms of service subject to one week's notice or even less, but that does not mean that there are not other employés who in their terms of service are entitled to longer notice. In the North of England there are certain long-term hirings which would certainly not be compensated by four weeks' wages, and in the circumstances it seems to be wrong that an employer who is so unpatriotic and so little interested in his employés that he dismisses them, should get out under the Bill more cheaply than he does under common law. For that reason I welcome the Amendment. My regret is that it is limited to 12 weeks' maximum. I would rather it had been the minimum.
    4.52 p.m.
    Mr. Tinker: I hope that the arguments which have been used will have some influence on the Minister. I have always understood that the House of Commons is a place where matters can be argued, that we can debate a point in order to influence the Minister who is in charge of a Measure. On this particular point, I think something more should be done for the man who is not taken back by his employer. I do not think there will be many employers who will resort to an unfair attitude towards those who are called up, but we know that there will be bad employers who will resort to any excuse in order to escape their liability. If a man is called up for the defence of his country and is not taken back by his employer after his period of training, the court may decide that the man has been unfairly treated and his employer may have to pay anything up to £50 or four weeks' wages. What we are asking is that there should be an extension of these penalties as a deterrent for the few employers who may attempt to do that kind

    1029
    of thing. In any case, it is not for the Government Front Bench to defend the bad employer, and I think they should listen to the arguments which have been put to them from all sides of the Committee. In our view, we think it is reasonable to protect the man who is not taken back by his employer and that the Government should accept the Amendment. The appeals which have been made from all parts of the Committee, by the hon. Member for Bolton (Sir J. Haslam) and the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Thorneycroft) ought to add a little extra strength to the arguments which we have put forward, and I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary will not turn the Amendment down. If he cannot accept it this afternoon, I hope he will promise to consider it before the Report stage and see what can be done.
    4.55 p.m.
    Mr. Logan: I trust that the Government will accept the Amendment and I will give the Committee the reasons why they should do so Having a knowledge of the last War and remembering the many thousands who came home to the City of Liverpool, I do not want to see a repetition of what took place then. There were many in the engineering trade, which suffered from dilution during the War, who had to go to the War and then found when they came back that their jobs were occupied. I trust that by reorganisation we can avoid that happening again should, unfortunately, war take place. It is no use the Minister on an Amendment of this description saying that it can be brushed on one side. It is our responsibility to see that the best conditions are brought about, and therefore, a question of this kind cannot be roughly thrown aside. If patriotic subjects are taken into the Army as being absolutely essential for the welfare of the nation, and if penalties are to be imposed we have a responsibility to see that the penalties are imposed. In this Clause, with regard to penalties, it is not "shall" but "may." Take the question of the £50. It is all very well to talk flippantly about £50. If a man who has returned has lost his job it is a different matter when the action arises in the court. When the magistrates are sitting they will say that it will be very hard to impose a £50 fine on the employer, and, therefore, £50 will not be the penalty. It will be within the consideration of the
    1030
    magistrates to decide that the penalty shall be 40s. The other compensation is also something that "may" be and is not "shall" be.
    What is going to happen? When he comes out of the Army after six months' training he may lose his situation. The young man in his twentieth year, having fulfilled six months in the Army, the employer may get the benefits of the Bill and make money while the man who has given his services to the country will lose his job, and the question of a fine is a consideration which does not matter. Those who are of an age for military service claim our protection. It is proposed that we should fix such a standard that men who serve in His Majesty's Forces, on returning to civil life, will have to make application for poor relief. I am sure that is not the way in which the Committee wants to deal with this position. If an employer does not give a man what he ought to give him as a matter of equity, the man ought to be entitled to receive the statutory benefit, if he has the 12 stamps on his card. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour will listen to me. I will wait until he has finished his conversation with his colleague. [Interruption.] I am not going to talk to benches.
    The Chairman: The hon. Member will recollect that he may address Members only through the Chair.
    Mr. Logan: I am sure you will realise, Sir Dennis, that my observations were not addressed to you personally. I ask the Minister to consider the responsibilities of the Committee in regard to this matter. I ask him to consider the question of the statutory benefit to which the man will be entitled if he has 12 stamps, the question of recourse to the Poor Law if the employer refuses to reinstate the man, the question of the optional treatment in regard to the £50 fine, which is a maximum, so that the magistrates may set any amount they decide; and the question of the man's home. I am sure that hon. Members do not desire that when a man has done his period of service and then does not get his job back, he should have to go to the Poor Law for relief. I ask the Minister to accept the Amendment, which I think would be the most equitable and reasonable way of dealing with the matter.
    5.2 p.m.
    Mr. Spens: I am very much inclined to support the Amendment. The Committee will realise that the question of penalties will arise only in cases where the employer has no defence of any sort. In the provisions following the one with which we are now dealing, a number of reasonable defences are stated which an employer can put forward, and it is only when all these have failed, and it is held by the court that the employer has deliberately committed an offence by definitely refusing to reinstate a man whom he ought to have reinstated and has a job to which he could have reinstated him, that the question of the penalty arises. I think the danger in extending the period as regards the amount to be paid to the man is that undoubtedly there would be a certain number of men who would think that the mere refusal of the employer to reinstate them absolved them from making any sort of attempt to obtain a job during the 12 weeks. The man would go to the court and say that the employer had refused to reinstate him and that he wanted 12 weeks' wages and a fine of £50 to be imposed on the employer. The Committee ought to realise that the ordinary rules as regards a person claiming what is in the nature of damages for lost employment ought to apply. The law is that there is an obligation on such a person to mitigate the damages; that is to say, to use his best endeavours to obtain alternative employment. I do not think it would be safe to assume that every workman who was refused employment by an employer would automatically get 12 weeks' wages. It is for this reason that I think there is no danger whatever in extending the period to 12 weeks.
    If this were done, the practical position would be this. A fortnight or three weeks after the man had come back, the prosecution would take place, and the court would have to consider what was the position. If the offence were proved—if there had been an absolute refusal to employ the man—the court would have to consider what it ought to do. If it was a bad offence, or a second or third offence, no doubt there would be a fine of £50. What would the man get? That would depend on his particular situation. If he had been refused a job in an industry in which there were very few other jobs, and consequently very little chance of his get-
    1032
    ting other employment, the case would be one in which he ought to get more than four weeks' wages, and I do not think that three months would be a very exaggerated period up to which he might claim. At the same time, I am certain it will not be an automatic arrangement; but if it is administered fairly—[Interruption.] While there may be employers on the bench, there are certain to be representatives of the workmen on it as well. On many benches the number of representatives of what are called the working classes far exceeds the number of representatives of the employers. If it is administered fairly, it seems to me that the possibility of awarding up to 12 weeks' wages might very well meet the very varied conditions affecting the individual men. Therefore, I cannot see what real danger there would be in accepting the Amendment.
    5.7 p.m.
    Mr. Shinwell: I think there is general agreement on all sides of the Committee that four weeks' wages as compensation is grossly inadequate, and in view of the opinions that have been expressed from all quarters, I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour will accept the Amendment. I do not believe that there are good employers in the country who would refuse compensation to the extent of 12 weeks' wages if called upon to pay it. There may be bad employers who would be unwilling to do so, but surely, we ought not to legislate in order to support those employers who are unscrupulous enough to take advantage of the position in which they find themselves under the Bill. I want to correct a misapprehension on the part of some hon. Members. There seems to be an assumption that the four weeks' compensation, or whatever may be agreed upon, is to be paid automatically if a man is not reinstated. That is not so. The hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) has made a useful contribution in support of the Amendment. A man must, in the first instance, give notice to his employer that he proposes to apply for reinstatement.
    Mr. Spens: I think the Minister has undertaken to insert in the Bill a provision that automatically there should be a notification from the military authorities to the employer. That would be done before the completion of the training.
    Mr. Shinwell: I was about to say that that is provided for later on. The man has to make application. Therefore, the employer has due notice. If, for some reason—perhaps because of a shortage of orders, or because of some temporary dislocation in the industry, or because he does not feel disposed to employ the man again—the employer decides that he cannot reinstate him, then if the man is dissatisfied he must take out a summons and bring the employer before a court of summary jurisdiction. It is not until the employer has been convicted by the magistrates, or by a magistrate, that he is called upon to compensate the man to the extent of four weeks' wages. As regards the penalty, we may very well assume that in few cases will the fine be one of £50. There may be a fine of 30s. or 40s. But not until the employer is convicted is he called upon to pay compensation, and it may well be that, in spite of a fine being imposed on the employer, the magistrates may decide not to call upon him to compensate to the extent of four weeks. We are not now discussing the principle of the Measure, but I would add that we ought not to make conscription too easy for the employers or too cheap for them. In view of the circumstances, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment.
    5.11 p.m.
    Mr. Denman: I want to add a brief point, which has not yet been made, in support of the thesis that four weeks' compensation may not in all cases be adequate. Twelve weeks may not necessarily be the correct period to insert, but I should have thought that obviously, in some cases, four weeks would be too few. The four weeks' remuneration is to be at the rate of the remuneration last payable to the man by the employer; that is to say, the rate of remuneration paid when the man was called up. In a previous Amendment, we have decided that, on returning to his employment, he should be paid at the rate in force when he returns. Hon. Members will know that at that period in a man's life the rate of wages may go up very steeply. He might, therefore, be in a position in which he was paid four weeks' wages at a much lower rate than the rate to which he would be entitled. In such circumstances, the court might reasonably have an option to give a man more than four weeks' remuneration.
    5.12 p.m.
    Mr. McEntee: Now that the Minister's attention has been called to the point raised by the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman), I hope he will make the necessary Amendment, which I think would be consequential on one that has already been made. The last words in the Sub-section are:
    "four week's remuneration at the rate at which his remuneration was last payable to him by the employer."
    The Minister has accepted an Amendment by which the remuneration paid—
    The Chairman: Attention has already been called to that point, and the hon. Member may not argue the matter, since that is not the Amendment before the Committee.
    Mr. McEntee: I will only say that I am glad attention has been called to the matter. This provision raises two matters punishment of the employers and compensation to the men. Under the Clause as it is, it might very easily be that the court would get the benefit and that the man would get none; at least, the court might get very much more than the compensation that would be paid to the man. Under the Clause, a fine of £50 may be inflicted in certain conditions, and probably in very bad cases that fine would be inflicted. Having inflicted that punishment on the employer, the same court might award to the man compensation not exceeding four weeks' remuneration at the rate at which he was paid at the time when he joined the Army. I hope the Minister will take the view that it is more important to compensate the man than to punish the employer. That is the purpose of the Amendment which we ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept. Before the Bill comes up on Report stage, I should like to see it made obligatory on the employer to pay compensation, rather than that the matter should be left to the good will or otherwise of a court that may or may not be favourable to the man, according to the district in which it is. The man should get compensation, and the question of compensation is considerably more important than the mere punishment of the employer.
    5.15 p.m.
    Sir Adam Maitland: There has been, on the part of the Government, a ready disposition to be influenced by the opinion

    1035
    of the Committee on preceding Amendments, and I reinforce the appeals which have been made to them, to accept this Amendment. Broadly speaking, two parties are affected in connection with this matter. First there is the man who has been called up and who, on the completion of his service, returns to seek employment. Everybody desires that he should be treated in the most generous manner possible. The other party is the employer whose business it is to try to put such a man in the same position as he would have occupied, had he not been called up. The general body of employers will not object to the acceptance of the principle of the Amendment and, having regard to the case which has been made out for it, I hope the Government will accept it.
    5.17 p.m.
    Mr. Silverman: Who will have the right under this Clause to make a complaint? The Clause does not seem to be specific on that point. Will the man affected lay a complaint in a court of summary jurisdiction, or will the official prosecuting machinery be employed, or must both take a hand? If the onus were left entirely on the man himself, then all the provisions about penalties and compensation might become dead letters because the man had not the means to go to court. I hope the Minister will be able to assure us that either the man himself may lay a complaint, or that any authority clothed with the functions of the prosecution of offences, may on its own initiative, lay a complaint and commence proceedings. There is another point, on which I had some discussion with the Minister the other day, and on which I would like further information. What is the position, under this Clause, of the employer of a man who is subject to this Bill and who is on a contract of service which is weekly, or for a lesser period?
    The Chairman: I cannot see how that arises on the present Amendment.
    Mr. Silverman: I submit that it is relevant in this way. We are now considering an addition to the damages which may be awarded by the court under the procedure laid down in this Clause. I ask what will be the position of a man employed on a weekly contract of service, if he returns to his employment and
    1036
    is then, under his contract, given a week's notice?
    The Chairman: The hon. Member is now making it perfectly clear that the point which he is seeking to raise has nothing to do with this Amendment.
    Mr. Silverman: I have no intention of straying beyond the rules of Order and I addressed my question to the Minister in that form, because I thought it was relevant to what we are discussing.
    The Chairman: The hon. Member has just expressly stated that his question relates to the case of a man who is taken back and afterwards dismissed. The Amendment does not provide for a case of that kind at all. It deals with a case where the man has not been reinstated.
    Mr. Silverman: It is precisely on that point that I would like the Minister to advise the Committee.
    The Chairman: Yes, but the point about a man who has been reinstated is one upon which I could not allow the Minister to give any information on this. Amendment, nor can I allow the hon. Member to ask the question.
    Mr. Silverman: I only ask the Minister in that case, what classes of men, if any, will be protected by this Clause?
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: My hon. Friend asked who would initiate proceedings against the employer. Has he considered the possibility of the military-authorities initiating proceedings?
    The Chairman: That, again, is a matter which cannot be discussed on this Amendment. I allowed a little latitude earlier as regards references to these matters, but they cannot be discussed at length.
    5.21 p.m.
    Mr. Holdsworth: I feel strongly on this Amendment and hope that it will be accepted. If I may give a personal case, I would say that in the last War my brother, who joined up as a boy of 17, was refused his former employment when he came back. I do not believe that the employer who refused to give him back his job was typical, but there are employers who would take advantage of such a circumstance. Under this Clause, an employer who has reasonable grounds for not giving a man back his job is adequately protected. From the young; man's point of view, it means a

    1037
    tremendous lot to get back into his employment, because at the age of 21 he is just starting on a real man's job. If an employer takes advantage of the circumstances, it seems to me that four weeks' remuneration is inadequate compensation in view of the fact that the employer is protected under the Clause. We should see that those who give service to their country get adequate recompense, if they are treated badly by their employers.
    5.23 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): Before I deal with the general intention of the Amendment I wish to dispose of two preliminary points. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Thorneycroft) raised the question of long contracts. Nothing in this Clause or in the Bill diminishes in any way the ordinary common law rights of a workman or any other individual. If a man has a long contract and that contract is broken before the proper time, he will have, as he always has, a right to claim damages for breach of contract.
    Mr. Turton: If he has been awarded damages under the statutory remedy, he would, however, be estopped from claiming damages for wrongful dismissal.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: He can make his own choice of the right under which he shall proceed for the damages to which he is entitled. The second point was raised by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) and others who urged that there was justification for increasing the period to 12 weeks because thereby eight further stamps would be paid and the man would be placed in a better position for the ultimate receipt of unemployment benefit. Though, in fact, there would be only 26 stamps to the credit of the man who had served his militia training it is the intention of the Government, by Order in Council, to credit all men who go on that service with their full 30 stamps, so that if a man has no stamps before he undergoes his militia training he will, at the end of it have received 30. If he has a few stamps these will be brought up to 30, and every man at the end of his service will be in a position, should be not obtain work, to go straight on to statutory benefit.
    Mr. Logan: How will it be possible to credit the four extra stamps, when there are not the working weeks?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member will find that Clause 10, which provides for certain consequential matters, has been drawn widely enough to meet a case of this kind and I am sure that it will meet the general wish of the Committee that a man who has served his militia training, should be entitled, at the end of it, to full statutory benefit.
    On the general point of whether the period for which a man is entitled to wages should be extended from four weeks to 12 weeks I would remind hon. Members that when the Bill was announced a desire was expressed that all parties, should collaborate in an attempt to make it the best Measure possible in the circumstances. The Government have been much impressed by the arguments used from all quarters of the Committee on this question, and I am in a position to say that, as a result of the arguments which have been put forward this afternoon, we are prepared to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    5.27 p.m.
    Mr. E. Brown: I beg to move, in page 13, line 3, to leave out from "not," to "or," in line 5, and to insert:
    "before the expiration of one month after the termination of such training as aforesaid apply to the employer for reinstatement, or that, having been offered reinstatement by him, he failed, without reasonable excuse, to present himself for employment at the time and place notified to him by the employer."
    This Amendment deals with the defence open to an employer who is charged with failing to reinstate a workman. At present the Bill provides that it is a defence for the employer to prove that the person did not apply for reinstatement within a reasonable time after the termination of his training. On consideration, we feel that the expression "reasonable time" might have varying constructions placed upon it by different courts of summary jurisdiction. The Amendment provides, in the interest of all concerned, both employers and workers, that after the expiration of his period of training the worker has one month, which we think a reasonable time, in which to apply for reinstatement. That will give him plenty of time in which to make up his mind whether he wants to apply for reinstatement in his former employment, or prefers some other kind of work. I think the Committee will agree that it is a

    1039
    reasonable proposition. The Amendment also provides that where after his period of training has expired, a man is offered reinstatement by his former employer, it shall be a defence for the employer in any proceedings against him that the former employé did not come back to work at the time and place notified to him by the employer. Provision is also made that any failure on the part of the employé to present himself is excused if the worker can show reasonable cause.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Stephen: I would like to suggest that there is an alternative here. There is a month in which a man can apply to his employer for work or the employer can say to him, "You must start work on such and such a day." Those are the alternatives, and it occurred to me that if an employer wanted a man to start the day after he came back from his training, it might not be convenient for the man. If the Minister will put in the word "and" instead of "or," I think it will he more satisfactory.
    Mr. Kingsley Griffith: Supposing that during the month a man is ill, if he applies in writing, will that clear him under this provision?
    Mr. Brown: Certainly.
    Mr. Griffith: Even although he is not able actually to take up his employment in the month?
    Mr. Brown: It is with those cases in mind that we have put in the last part of the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    5.32 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 13, line 5, to leave out from the words last inserted to the end of line 16.
    The effect of the Amendment would be to deprive the employer of other defences than those which have just been inserted by the Minister in his last Amendment. A great deal of the argument on this matter has been based on the experience of the Territorials and what happened to them after embodiment. I suggest that that may quite likely be a completely false analogy, because most of the Territorials enlisted with their employers' consent, it was known by the employers that the men were in the Territorials and
    1040
    when they went away the employers probably had some warning beforehand that that was likely to happen. Further, it was voluntary service. In fact, there were employers who encouraged their men to go into the Territorials, and it was, therefore, understood that they were expecting these disturbances of employment. These men here, however, are not in the same position. They will be taken up by the Government at such time as the Government think fit, and as I understand the rules with regard to the military hardship tribunals, an employer has no right to go to the tribunal and say that it is inconvenient for him if a certain man is taken. The only person who has the right to go is the man himself, and although he might produce his employer as a witness, it would have to be a question of the hardship to the man, not to the employer.
    Therefore, we are now a long way from the position that the Territorials occupied, and the response that was made by employers on the recent embodiment and at the end of the last War cannot, I think, be taken as any very good guide as to what will happen with a certain type of employer in the future. My hon. Friends who are associated with me in this Amendment share my view that it will be very undesirable to give the employer too many opportunities to wriggle out of the position in which I think the Committee and the country desire to place him. I can well imagine the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), called to defend an employer, doing as he would have to do by the rules of his profession, but much against his heart, his very best for the employer with the various words of the Clause that I propose to leave out. There are the words "reasonably practicable." I have heard long arguments on those words, and there never seems to be any agreement about them. In fact, one side thinks them reasonable, and the other side says, "Can you imagine anything more unreasonable than my learned colleague has said?" When it comes to the word "practicable," there is another word that is a delightful word for casuistry under these circumstances.
    Then we come to paragraph (b), and I presume the Minister will take steps to amend the words "not less favourable to him" in accordance with his previous Amendment. There you get the word "impracticable," and we go on after that to the words:

    1041
    "reinstate him in the most favourable occupation and under the most favourable conditions reasonably practicable."
    I tremble to think for how long before quarter sessions, on appeal, learned counsel would deal with each of those words successively, and the variety and ingenuity of the arguments that could be adduced to prove that an employer who had in fact dismissed a man whom he wanted to get rid of had not infringed the Section. I believe that this Committee, irrespective of where we may happen to sit, and the country as a whole desire that these men who are called up shall be protected and shall be assured that when they come back their job shall be available for them. As has been pointed out on a previous Amendment, the penalties that are to be inflicted are within the discretion of the court, and that is an important thing to remember. People will talk as if each time on conviction the magistrates, without retiring, will announce, "You will be fined £50 and pay the employé 12 weeks' wages," and that when the prosecuting solicitor asks, "What about costs?" they will say, "What do you suggest?" and he will say, "Five guineas," and they will say, "Can't you think of six?" I really do not think that is how these cases will be considered by the courts. I have no doubt that, as in every other class of case, the offences will differ in enormity and the penalties inflicted will be graded according to what the bench think is the degree of culpability of the person convicted.
    It seems to me that in those circumstances it will be very unwise of the Committee to have vague general words left in the Clause, words providing loopholes for the employer who is in a position to employ learned counsel to plead his case before the bench or before quarter sessions when he goes there on appeal. I hope that it will be regarded as a very serious stigma on an employer if he has to suffer a conviction under this Clause, and, therefore, I conceive that no matter what the penalties are, every excuse will be employed in an endeavour to escape conviction. It was clearly pointed out on Second Reading that my hon. and right hon. Friends on these benches regarded the words that I propose to leave out with the gravest apprehension. We feel that in the generous mood in which the Minister has been to-day, this is a
    1042
    very small concession for which we are asking. It would improve his Bill and shorten it, and by removing words of vague meaning, which are sure to lead to legal controversy, it will be with the collaboration, as the Parliamentary Secretary said just now, of the Committee one of these improvements which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would desire to achieve in his Bill.
    5.41 p.m.
    Mr. Shinwell: On a point of Order. I wish to submit to you, Sir Dennis, that as hon. Members are anxious to give adequate time to the discussion of the Amendments on the Paper, and as many of these Amendments bear on the question of reinstatement, and in view of the fact that the Guillotine falls at 7.30, we might take further Amendments now and embrace them in a general discussion on this point. That would enable Members to put their points on the several matters that arise, and we could then divide on them formally. May I mention the Amendments that I think could be dealt with in this way?
    The Chairman: Does the hon. Member mean those which might be discussed together with the Amendment that is now before the Committee?
    Mr. Shinwell: Precisely. They are the present Amendment, the one which follows it, in page 13, line 12 and the one on the top of page 1134 of the Order Paper, in page 13, line 16, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague), which is a matter of machinery. I think it would be desirable if we could take these together, because if we do not discuss machinery at this stage, we may not have the opportunity of discussing it at all.
    Mr. E. Brown: I do not see how the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague), to line 16, could be discussed with the Amendment now before the Committee.
    The Chairman: I understand that the Amendment on the top of page 1134 would be as an addition to the Clause, coming after the words which it is now proposed to leave out. The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) has, I think, missed one Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr.

    1043
    Rhys Davies), in line 16, to add a proviso at the end, which I have already told the hon. Member I thought we might probably discuss on this Amendment. Then, if hon. Members wished, I could put it to the Committee to divide upon, but I am afraid I could not include in that discussion the Amendment at the top of page 1134.
    Mr. Shinwell: As we are discussing the general question of reinstatement, I thought we should also be permitted to discuss the question of the appropriate machinery.
    The Chairman: I think we had better not do that, and if we did, the Debate would probably be prolonged rather than shortened.
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: The point raised in my Amendment deals with reinstatement; and those of us who are connected with trade unions will be forgiven if we feel rather strongly about this problem. I would like the Committee to listen to a letter I have just received from my constituency, so that they can see what can happen even now. This is the letter:
    "This man complains that he was recalled to service as a Reservist in September, 1938, and was away from home six days. At the time he was called up he was employed by a Government contractor on the Royal Ordnance Factory at Euxton, Lancashire; so when he was called up for service in His Majesty's Forces he was already employed on a Government job. On his return home he was informed that there was no work for him and he was unable to secure a reason or explanation from the foreman or from the office on the site, nor could he get to see one of the principals. He also wrote to the Commodore, Royal Naval Barracks, Portsmouth, but received no reply. In consequence he wrote to the Admiralty but again received no reply. He is still unemployed and has a wife and three children."
    That can happen now, and I intend to write to the Admiralty about it, for I imagine that there ought to be a redress in such a case.
    I cannot understand why this Clause on reinstatement is so cumbersome. The Government are deciding at one fell stroke to call up 200,000 young men. Why cannot they use the same power to compel employers at the end of six months to reinstate every one of them? My Amendment, however, deals with a specific point. If an employer is defeated in his defence in court he will pay a fine up to
    1044
    £50 and pay up to 12 weeks' wages. My Amendment goes further and makes it clear that if the employer succeeds in his defence he must, even in that case, pay the 12 weeks' wages to the man he failed to reinstate. That may appear to a large order; but let me bring the Committee back to what happened during the last War. There were some employers who made up the wages of their employés to the full during the whole period of the War and reinstated them in their former places or in the better jobs they would have reached at a higher scale of pay if they had remained in employment all the time. All employers of labour, even if they succeed in their defence, ought to compensate their employés if they fail to take them back. That is the meaning of my Amendment. When an engineer or a compositor is taken out of his job to become a militiaman, the employer will be compelled to put another man in his place. In the distributive trades, in a shop or office, however, where there are 10 to 20 persons employed, it does not follow that a new man is engaged to fill the vacancy. The people remaining in the shop or office will often do between them the work of the person who is absent for six months. We, therefore, have a strong case for calling upon that employer, at any rate, to pay wages for 12 weeks if he does not reinstate the employé.
    The right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to accede to a request from this side on the previous Amendment. Although we talk about paying wages for 12 weeks in these cases, it depends upon the bench of magistrates in the end whether a man gets 12, or two or even one week's wages, or none at all. We know that when fines can be imposed up to £20 the amount is in some cases 10s. or even 5s. I speak with a little knowledge of factory laws. In a factory town where the bench of magistrates is made up of manufacturers, it follows too often that the fine is only 5s. for a serious breach of the Factory Acts. These militiamen are, after all, called up to serve their country. Is it not a fact that they are serving their employers almost as much by becoming militiamen as they are serving their country? The hon. Gentleman opposite shakes his head.
    Mr. Holdsworth: I do shake my head.
    Mr. Davies: I thought it was taken for granted that the employer has a greater financial stake in the country than the average boy who is compelled to become a militiaman. We are keen for another reason that these men's employment should be safeguarded when they return. If they are members of trade unions the unions will probably attend to their reinstatement. It is, therefore, a good thing if they are members of trade unions and they ought to be encouraged to join. I have heard it stated by hon. and learned Gentlemen on this side of the Committee on more than one occasion that it is astonishing how many persons who could secure legal redress in courts of law never take the initiative to get it. That is to say, they do not employ hon. and learned Gentlemen often enough and when they ought to. Let us take the case of a young man who is employed by one of the large capitalist combines such as a chain store or a big emporium or Imperial Chemical Industries—
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Or the Co-operative Society.
    Mr. Davies: I have a document here which shows that the National Co-operative authority has already decided to recommend to all co-operative societies to make up the wages of their employés who join the Territorial Force.
    Mr. Mabane: I am sure the hon. Gentleman would like to state in fairness that the initiative for that came from the chain store organisation and that it was accepted by the Co-operative movement.
    Mr. Davies: In spite of that, if any large multiple firm did not want to take one of their employés back, what chance would he have against such an organisation of obtaining legal redress?
    Mr. Mabane: The Multiple Shop Federation are the initiators of the very document to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, and have already given the fullest undertaking on that score. The hon. Gentleman knows it very well.
    Mr. Davies: The recommendation of the national authority of the co-operative movement is to make up the wages. I am not talking about reinstatement in the co-operatives. It matters little what resolutions some employers pass about reinstatement; trade union officials know too
    1046
    well the difficulties to be contended with when men come back.
    Mr. Mabane: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) would not agree with what the hon. Gentleman has been saying.
    Mr. Davies: I do not care who agrees or disagrees with that. My own trade union employs about 200 persons, and nine or 10 of them will be called up under this scheme. My union, I understand, will make up their wages to the full while they are serving. I would not like of course to say what my union thinks of conscription; that is a different matter. Having said these things in rather strong terms I hope I have not annoyed anybody. I feel almost certain that I have now convinced the Minister that he ought to make a concession on this Amendment, as he did on the last.
    5.56 p.m.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member has not annoyed me in the least but I can assure him that he has failed to convince me of the reasonableness of his Amendment. He puts forward the plea that even if an employer establishes his defence under Clause 6 (1) (a), (1) (b), none the less he shall be obliged to pay 12 weeks' wages to which the man will now become entitled. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) did not go so far as that in his Amendment. He wanted to abolish the defence altogether. I think the hon. Member for South Shields realised that it would be impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment when he asked us to make some verbal alteration in line 11, I think, of page 13. He showed thereby that he appreciates that the words to which he takes exception will remain in the finished Bill and that it would be impossible for the Government to accept an Amendment of this kind. He has perhaps forgotten that, far from the employer being the only person who is able to have legal aid in court, legal aid would not be refused to the workman in these circumstances. There is no suggestion that the case of one party to the application would be prejudiced and that the other party would gain.
    Mr. Ede: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has any right to assume that a

    1047
    man will automatically get legal aid if he applies for it. I have sat on the bench and have heard considerable arguments before the bench granted legal aid.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I can assure the hon. Member that in cases of this kind legal aid would be forthcoming.
    Mr. Pritt: Will the hon. Gentleman say what power there is to grant legal aid except to a person who is accused? There is no power outside this Bill. Is there any power inside the Bill to give legal aid in cases of this kind?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In cases of this kind, when a man asked for legal aid under this Clause, the court would in practice provide it.
    Mr. Pritt: That cannot be. There is no machinery to provide it unless the magistrates pay for it out of their own pockets.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hope the hon. and learned Member will take my word for it.
    Mr. Dingle Foot: I would point out that legal aid can be granted only to someone who is accused of an offence. In this case it is the employer who is accused of an offence. The workman is not a party to the proceedings at all. How, then, can he be granted any legal aid?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I must confess that I have been in error on this matter. I had, of course, no desire to mislead the Committee, and I can now only assure them that the point put forward by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) is correct, and that as the employer is the person who is accused it will be the employer who is entitled to legal aid. Apart from that error on my part there is a quite important point with which it is my duty to deal which is more strictly relevant to the Amendment which has been moved. If this Amendment were carried the employer could not feel that, owing to a change in circumstances, it was not reasonably practicable for him to reinstate the man in the job which he had held before. Anybody can realise that it is quite conceivable that during the period of the man's militia service the business itself might have collapsed and it would be quite unreasonable that an employer should not be able to claim as a defence
    1048
    that his business no longer existed and that he should find himself obliged to pay a heavy fine and give the man 12 weeks' wages for a non-existent job. Even if the man had not been called upon for militia service he would still have been liable to changes and uncertainties of business life, and if the business was liable to disappear he would have lost his job anyhow.
    All we are concerned about is to see that no man suffers from being called upon to give militia service. We cannot in other respects put him in a different position from anybody else. If when he came back he found that the business in which he was engaged no longer existed it would be clearly unreasonable that an employer should be compelled to pay him 12 weeks wages or to suffer a fine. This argument, which applies with great force to the Amendment which was moved by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), applies with even greater force to the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) which was not actually called and which unfortunately led me into that legal error. In regard to the case, mentioned by the hon. Member for Westhoughton, of the man working at the Chorley Munition Works, the Civil Lord of the Admiralty has asked me to say that, without in the least accepting the facts as stated, if the hon. Member will furnish him with full particulars he will most certainly be given an answer.
    6.3 p.m.
    Mr. Stephen: I regard the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary as most unsatisfactory. Some of us have said that this Clause was simply eyewash, and the answer makes it all the more apparent. He has fallen back upon the possibility of the business collapsing after the man has joined the militia and it has lost his valuable services. The only case which he visualised is that of the collapse of the business, none of the other possibilities which are covered by the two words "reasonably practicable." If the Government had been in earnest they would not have put in "reasonably" at all, and would have contented themselves with the one word "practicable," but what is in the mind of the Parliamentary Secretary is that it would be unfair to

    1049
    put any penalty upon an employer in connection with the man's leaving to give militia service. The employer must not be called upon to make any sacrifice. All right. Suppose that view is accepted. Equally, I claim, the militiaman should not be called upon for any sacrifice in addition to that which he is making by giving six months' service. He may come back and find there is no job for him, but if he had not been away on militia service he would have had all the possibilities of getting other employment during that period.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: But not his 30 stamps.
    Mr. Stephen: He would have had the possibility of getting 26 stamps, and as to the 30, I am a little doubtful whether the Order in Council under Clause 15 can give him the four additional stamps, because it will have to be based upon the Unemployment Insurance Acts, and I do not know whether a court would give the ruling that the Minister would expect—rule that it would be consequential that there should be 30 stamps. But, as I was saying, the man could get the 26 stamps, and would also have the opportunity of getting employment in his district, where he would be in touch with trade and industry, and might have opportunities for promotion or of going here and there. But he may come back to find that the firm have gone out of business or have decided to reduce their staff, and they can say it is not reasonably practicable for them to give him back his job, and so he is being called upon to make a sacrifice. If the Government do not intend that any sacrifice should fall upon the employer they should take equal care that no sacrifice falls upon the militiaman, and should be willing themselves to provide the 12 weeks' pay if the employer has disappeared and is not to be found and there is no private party upon whom they can put the burden.
    The present position is absolutely unsatisfactory. The Government are taking six months of the life of the militiaman and giving him no adequate safeguards as to employment oh his return from service. They say that he is to be given 30 stamps—that is less than a couple of pounds in stamps—and they throw him on to the Unemployment Insurance Fund.
    1050
    They make him a burden upon the Unemployment Insurance Fund, that is upon the contributions of his fellow workers, because that money which is coming out of the fund might have gone to provide other benefits for the workers. Therefore, it is the workers who are being called upon to make whatever sacrifice is necessary as respects this individual. The Government are careful to do nothing which would impose any burden upon the employers.
    If the Government refuse to accept this Amendment it is certain that the militiamen will have no decent prospects when they come back from service, except in the case of a very limited section of employers such as are to be found in the Co-operative movement or in local government or Government service. In the case of ordinary industry carried on by private contractors it is quite apparent that the militiamen will suffer ever so much hardship. We have had the experience of reservists being called up on various occasions, and when they have returned to civil life many of them have been refused employment and have never been able to get back into employment. I think the Committee ought to insist upon the Government reconsidering the whole matter. The Government ought to recognise that they have opened far too wide a gate by introducing this word "reasonably." They have given employers the opportunity of saying that they do not need to employ the man if it is reasonably impracticable for them to do so. The words are far too wide and indefinite, and there is no saying what the courts will decide in the matter.
    6.11 p.m.
    Sir Patrick Hannon: I intervene only in consequence of the statements made by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen). Does he think that the employers of this country are all dishonest people or that they will treat their employés dishonestly? Listening to him, one would imagine that there was no sense of patriotism and responsibility among employers. As a matter of fact, a great number of employers have already indicated their desire to make up the pay of the men during their period of service, and great numbers of employers have declared that they are willing to receive a man back into employment on the very terms which are embodied here. I was

    1051
    sorry to hear the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) make a speech which was so unkind and ungenerous to employers. He himself has had considerable experience in local government, and he certainly ought not to make a sweeping charge of that kind.
    Mr. Ede: When did I say anything like that in my speech? I made no such general sweeping charge. I was particularly careful to point out that this Amendment applied to a very limited number of people, those to whom every Member of this House would desire it to apply, and I regret to find that there is one hon. Member who does not wish it so to apply?
    Sir P. Hannon: The whole of the hon. Member's speech was in the direction of expressing widespread doubt that employers would play fair towards their employés. At least, that is the impression which I got, and I think it is the case with most Members on this side of the Committee. I should like to say also, that the ideas of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) regarding the organisation of business in this country during the process of war seem somewhat remote from the actual facts. What is to happen to an employer if his business is destroyed from some circumstances arising out of war? There will probably be many instances in which employers will find it impossible to replace in employment the men who are called up for service, and with the best will in the world towards the men there must be some opportunity given to employers to resist the very heavy fines which can be imposed under this procedure.
    Mr. Stephen: The hon. Member says there will probably be many cases in which it will be impossible for the employer to provide employment for the man after his period of service. Will he say what provision is to be made for the militiaman if he is not able to get employment?
    Sir P. Hannon: That is a matter entirely in the hands of His Majesty's Government, who are responsible. It is not fair to saddle an employer in this way and, because opportunities of reinstating his people are out of his power, to saddle him with the penalties proposed. I hope that the Minister will resist the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for South
    1052
    Shields (Mr. Ede) and will pass the consequential Amendment.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: Would the hon. Member be good enough to read a news cutting which I have here relating to a man who, as reported in Epsom Police Court the other day, was dismissed from his job because of the coming of conscription?
    Sir P. Hannon: I would read any newspaper cutting presented to me by the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that his selection of news will be on the lines of rigid correctitude. I am dealing with the case of employers of this country; they are prepared to bear their burdens under the Military Training Bill, but they ought not to be accused of subterfuge towards people who return from the Services. Employers are prepared to discharge their duties, under the scheme of preparedness in which the country is now involved, as honestly and honourably as any other member of the community.
    6.17 p.m.
    Mr. David Adams: In my judgment the Amendment that we are discussing is one of the most important upon the Order Paper. It is unfortunate that the Parliamentary Secretary was absent when the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) was explained because he would have had the advantage of hearing some of the subsequent speeches which must have converted any Member of the Committee who was prepared to be impartial. A militiaman may return after six months' training to find there is no employment for him, or he may return to find himself offered by his employer some inferior engagement, of a lower character financially or otherwise, than the one he had before he left for his training. His position financially and in respect of knowledge of the business may be depreciated so substantially as to change the whole current of his industrial life. Surely in that kind of case, it is reasonable that militiamen should have some compensation, either from the Government or from the employers, for such loss of status. The Government have said in the country that militiamen who join up to be conscripts and who go for six months' training shall not be prejudiced thereby, as they are doing the nation's work.

    1053
    If our Amendment is not accepted, an employer may not be able for some reason or other, perhaps because his business has changed in certain aspects or because of amalgamation in which he may be financially advantaged, restricted trade or reduced personnel, to make provision for his old employés. What justice is it for the Parliamentary Secretary to refuse compensation for those individuals? There is no difficulty to the employer. Hon. Members opposite have said that it would be a great hardship if employers had to make provision for 12 weeks' pay, on the basis of the pay that the conscript was receiving when first called up, but in many cases that sum would be quite small. Moreover, for a slender insurance premium employers might and ought to be compelled by the Government to insure against such contingencies as might arise. I am advised that for one or two shillings an insurance policy can be taken out by employers who believe themselves to be affected by the circumstances set forth in the Amendment, and they would be preserved against the financial loss of paying out to an employé. It is an act of elementary justice that these men should receive some financial consideration for the loss they will sustain in going away for their six months' training.
    6.21 p.m.
    Mr. Lewis: I want to make a suggestion. I think that we are all in sympathy with the purpose which the hon.
    Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has in mind. No one would seek to defend the employer who was anxious to escape his duty of reinstating one of these militiamen at the end of the period of service. On the other hand, very little reflection will show us that merely to leave out all these words would not produce a just result. Changes in circumstances regarding businesses might make it impracticable, in the commonsense understanding of the term, for the man to go back, such as in those cases where the man would not have continued in the employment if he had not gone into the Service. I was not greatly impressed with the reply made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour. I suggest that the Minister should tell us that he would reconsider the wording of the Bill to see whether it might be made a little less ambiguous and the purpose that we all have in mind more certainly carried out. In that case, the hon. Member for South Shields would no doubt withdraw his Amendment. When I listened to his speech I certainly thought that his purpose was one which we all had in mind.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'applicable', in line 12, stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 132.

    Division No. 122.]

    AYES.

    [6.24 p.m.

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

    Cartland, J. R. H.

    Dunglass, Lord

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

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Eastwood, J. F.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

    Albery, Sir Irving

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

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

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

    Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)

    Elliston, Capt. G. S.

    Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Emmott, C. E. G. C.

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)

    Entwistle, Sir C. F.

    Assheton, R.

    Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

    Errington, E

    Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

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

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

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

    Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

    Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

    Balniel, Lord

    Cooks, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

    Fildes, Sir H.

    Baxter, A. Beverley

    Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)

    Findlay, Sir E.

    Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Foot, D. M.

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

    Cox, H. B. Trevor

    Fox, Sir G. W. G.

    Beechman, N. A.

    Crooks, Sir J. Smedley

    Fremantle, Sir F. E.

    Bernays, R. H.

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

    Furness, S. N.

    Blair, Sir R.

    Cross, R. H.

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Crossley, A. C.

    Gluckstein, L. H.

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Culverwell, C. T.

    Goldie, N. B.

    Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Halderness)

    Davies, C. (Montgomery)

    Gower, Sir R. V.

    Brass, Sir W.

    De Chair, S. S.

    Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Da la Bère, R.

    Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.

    Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Brooks, H. (Lewisham, W.)

    Denvills, Alfred

    Grimston, R. V.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

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

    Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.

    Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

    Bull, B. B.

    Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V. G.

    Hambro, A. V.

    Burton, Col. H. W.

    Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Dugdale, Captain T. L.

    Hannah, I. C.

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    Harbord, A.

    Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.

    Sanderson, Sir F. B.

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

    Sandys, E. D.

    Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Schuster, Sir G. E.

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

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

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

    Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

    Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Hepworth, J.

    Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

    Moreing, A. C.

    Smithers, Sir W.

    Holdsworth, H.

    Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

    Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

    Hopkinson, A.

    Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Howitt, Dr. A. B.

    Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

    Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

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

    Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

    Hunter, T.

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

    Spens, W. P.

    Hutchinson, G. C.

    Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

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

    James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

    Munro, P.

    Storey, S.

    Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Keeling, E. H.

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montross)

    O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

    Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Kimball, L.

    Palmer, G. E. H.

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

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

    Patrick, C. M.

    Thomas, J. P. L.

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Peat, C. U.

    Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Lancaster, Captain C. G.

    Petherick, M.

    Touche, G. C.

    Latham, Sir P.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Train, Sir J.

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

    Pilkington, R.

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Turton, R. H.

    Levy, T.

    Radford, E. A.

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

    Lewis, O.

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    Liddall, W. S.

    Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

    Lipson, D. L.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Warrender, Sir V.

    Little, Sir E. Graham-

    Rankin, Sir R.

    Wayland, Sir W. A.

    Little, J.

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Wells, Sir Sydney

    Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

    Rayner, Major R. H.

    Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

    Lloyd, G. W.

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

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

    Loftus, P. C.

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

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

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Remer, J. R.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

    MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

    Macdonald, Capt. T. (Isle of Wight)

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

    McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

    Russell, Sir Alexander

    York, C.

    McKie, J. H.

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Young, A. S. L. (Patrick)

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

    Salmon, Sir I.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

    Salt, E. W.

    Captain Waterhouse and Lieut.- Colonel Harvie Watt.

    Markham, S. F.

    Samuel, M. R. A.

    Marsden, Commander A.

    Sandeman, Sir N. S.

    NOES.

    Acland, R. T, D. (Barnstaple)

    Dobbie, W.

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

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

    Ede, J. C.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

    Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

    Kirby, B. V.

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

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

    Banfield, J. W.

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

    Lathan, G.

    Barnes, A. J.

    Gallacher, W.

    Lawson, J. J.

    Barr, J.

    Gardner, B. W.

    Leach, W.

    Bartlett, C. V. O.

    Garro Jones, G. M.

    Lee, F.

    Batey, J.

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Leonard, W.

    Beaumont, H. (Batley)

    Gibson R. (Greenock)

    Leslie, J. R.

    Bellenger, F. J

    Green, w. H. (Deptford)

    Logan, D. G.

    Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Lunn, W.

    Bevan, A.

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Broad, F. A.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Brown, C. (Mansfield)

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Buchanan, G.

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    McGovern, J.

    Burke, W. A.

    Groves, T. E.

    MacLaren, A.

    Cape, T.

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Maclean, N.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Chater, D.

    Hardie, Agnes

    Marshall, F.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Harris, Sir P. A.

    Mathers, G.

    Cocks, F. S.

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

    Maxton, J.

    Collindridge, F.

    Hayday, A.

    Messer, F.

    Cove, W. G.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Milner, Major J.

    Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Montague, F.

    Daggar, G.

    Hicks, E. G.

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

    Dalton, H.

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Hopkin, D.

    Noel-Baker, P. J.

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Paling, W.

    1056

    1057

    Parkinson, J. A.

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

    Walkden, A. G.

    Pearson, A.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Watson, W. McL.

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

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Pritt, D. N.

    Stephen, C.

    Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

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

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Riley, B.

    Stokes, R. R.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Ritson, J.

    Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    Sanders, W. S.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Thorne, W.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Sexton, T. M.

    Thurtle, E.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Shinwell, E.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Silverman, S. S.

    Tomlinson, G.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Viant, S. P.

    Mr. Anderson and Mr. Adamson.

    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. Naylor: I beg to move, in page 13, line 12, to leave out "applicable to him when he was," and to insert:
    "which would have been applicable to him had he not been."
    This Amendment is consequential on one that has already been passed by the Committee.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: I beg to move, in page 13, line 16, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided also that where a defence an any of the grounds set forth in the foregoing paragraphs (a) and (b) is successfully maintained, the court shall nevertheless order the employer to pay to the person concerned, a sum not less than an amount equal to 12 weeks' remuneration at the rate at which his remuneration was last payable to him by the employer."
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 135; Noes, 241.

    Division No. 123.]

    AYES.

    [6.34 p.m.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

    Noel-Baker, P. J.

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

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    Owen, Major G.

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

    Groves, T. E.

    Paling, W.

    Ammon, C. G.

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Banfield, J. W.

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Pearson, A.

    Barnes, A. J.

    Hardie, Agnes

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

    Barr, J.

    Harris, Sir P. A.

    Pritt, D. N.

    Bartlett, C. V. O.

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

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Batey, J.

    Hayday, A.

    Riley, B.

    Beaumont, H. (Batley)

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Ritson, J.

    Bellenger F. J.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

    Hicks, E. G.

    Sanders, W. S.

    Bevan, A.

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Broad, F. A.

    Hopkin, D.

    Sexton, T. M.

    Brown, C. (Mansfield)

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Shinwell, E.

    Buchanan, G.

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Silverman, S. S.

    Burke, W. A.

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Cape, T.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

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

    Charleton, H. C.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Chater, D.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

    Stephen, C.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Lathan, G.

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

    Collindridge, F.

    Lawson, J. J.

    Stokes, R. R.

    Cove, W. G.

    Leach, W.

    Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

    Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

    Lee, F.

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Daggar, G.

    Leonard, W.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Dalton, H.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Thorne, W.

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Logan, D. G.

    Thurtle, E.

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Lunn, W.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Tomlinson, G.

    Dobbie, W.

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Viant, S. P.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Ede, J. C.

    McGovern, J.

    Watson, W. McL.

    Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

    MacLaren, A.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Maclean, N.

    Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

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

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Frankel, D.

    Mander, G. le M.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Gallacher, W.

    Marshall, F.

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Gardner, B. W.

    Mathers, G.

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    Garro Jones, G. M.

    Maxton, J.

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Messer, F.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Gibson, R. (Greenock)

    Milner, Major J.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    Montague, F.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Mr. Anderson and Mr. Adamson.

    NOES.

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

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

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

    Gluckstein, L. H.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

    Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

    Palmer, G. E. H.

    Albery, Sir Irving

    Goldie, N. B.

    Patrick, C. M.

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

    Gower, Sir R. V.

    Peat, C. U.

    Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.

    Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.

    Petherick, M.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Assheton, R.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Pilkington, R.

    Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

    Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Balniel, Lord

    Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Baxter, A. Beverley

    Hambro, A. V.

    Radford, E. A.

    Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

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

    Hannah, I. C.

    Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

    Beechman, N. A.

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Bernays, R. H.

    Harbord, A.

    Rankin, Sir R.

    Blair, Sir R.

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Boulton, W. W.

    Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

    Rayner, Major R. H.

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

    Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

    Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

    Brass, Sir W.

    Hepworth, J.

    Remer, J. R.

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

    Holdsworth, H.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

    Hopkinson, A.

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

    Howitt, Dr. A. B.

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Russell, Sir Alexander

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

    Hunter, T.

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Bull, B. B.

    Hutchinson, G. C.

    Salmon, Sir I.

    Burghley, Lord

    James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

    Salt, E. W.

    Burton, Col. H. W.

    Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Samuel, M. R. A.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Keeling, E. H.

    Sandeman, Sir N. S.

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

    Sanderson, Sir F. B.

    Cartland, J. R. H.

    Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

    Sandys, E. D.

    Carves, Major W. H.

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

    Schuster, Sir G. E.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Kimball, L.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

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

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

    Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

    Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Ponrtsmouth, S.)

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Lancaster, Captain C. G.

    Smithers, Sir W.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)

    Latham, Sir P.

    Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

    Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

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

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

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

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

    Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

    Spens. W. P.

    Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

    Levy, T.

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

    Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)

    Lewis, O.

    Storey, S.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Liddall, W. S.

    Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

    Cox, H. B. Trevor

    Lipson, D. L.

    Strickland, Captain W F.

    Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

    Little, Sir E. Graham-

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

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

    Little, J.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

    Cross, R. H.

    Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Crossley, A. C.

    Lloyd, G. W

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Loftus, P. C.

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

    Culverwell, C. T.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Thomas, J. P. L.

    Davies, C. (Montgomery)

    MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

    Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

    De Chair, S. S.

    M'Connell, Sir J.

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    De la Bère, R.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Touche, G. C.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

    Train, Sir J.

    Denville, Alfred

    McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    McKie, J. H.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Donner, P. W.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Turton, R. H.

    Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V. G.

    Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

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

    Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

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

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    Dugdale, Captain T. L.

    Markham, S. F.

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    Marsden, Commander A.

    Warrender, Sir V

    Dunglass, Lord

    Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.

    Wayland, Sir W. A

    Eastwood, J. F.

    Maxwell, Hon. S A.

    Wells, Sir Sydney

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

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

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

    Elliston, Capt. G. S.

    Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

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

    Emmott, C. E. G. C.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Entwistle, Sir C. F.

    Moreing, A. C.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Errington, E.

    Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

    Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

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

    Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)

    Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

    Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

    Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

    York, C.

    Fildes, Sir H.

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

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Findlay, Sir E.

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

    Foot, D. M.

    Munro, P.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Fox, Sir G. W. G.

    Neven-Spence, Major B H. H.

    Captain Waterhouse and Lieut.- Colonel Harvie Watt.

    Fremantle, Sir F. E.

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

    Furness, S. N.

    O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

    6.42 p.m.
    Colonel Llewellin: I beg to move, in page 13, line 16, at the end, to insert:
    "(2) The training to which this Section applies is training for a continuous period of six months or more, being training which the person called up has become liable to undergo by virtue of his having entered or enlisted in one of His Majesty's reserve and auxiliary forces on or after the twenty-seventh day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, and any reference in this Section to a person enlisted or called up shall be construed as including a reference to a person who, by virtue of this Act, is deemed to have been enlisted or to have been called up, as the case may be."
    This Amendment, as the Committee will recollect, was discussed on Friday in conjunction with an Amendment which I then moved. Although it cannot really be said to be consequential, it is part of the five Amendments to which I drew particular attention on Friday, and I think it will probably be the wish of the Committee to pass it without further discussion.
    Amendment agreed to.
    6.43 p.m.
    Mr. E. Brown: I beg to move, in page 13, line 16, after the words last inserted, to insert:
    "(3) For the purpose of securing the fair adjustment of contracts of service or apprenticeship in force between employers and employés when the employés are called up for training to which this Section applies, the Minister may make regulations relieving the parties to such contracts of all or any of their obligations thereunder in respect of the period of that training, and may also make regulations modifying such contracts by extending the period of service or apprenticeship thereunder by a period not exceeding the period of the said training and adapting the terms of the contracts in relation to any such extension."
    This is an important Amendment. It really deals with two points—one major point and one supplementary point. It relates to a matter on which doubt has been thrown recently in the courts by the decision in the case of Marrison versus Bell. The issue is whether or not, for example, wages must continue to be paid during the six months' training. I am advised that in our original drafting we do not resolve the doubt, and so we have put down this Amendment to make sure that, in cases where persons called up for training under the Bill are serving under a continuing contract, either of service or of apprenticeship, there shall be some power, such as is obviously necessary, whereby
    1062
    the parties to such a contract on either side can be relieved of their obligations or the period of service amended.
    In the case of Marrison versus Bell, to which I have referred, a man was absent from his work owing to illness for 3½ months, at the end of which time, on his return to work he was given a month's notice. In that case the court held that he was entitled to his wages during the period of his illness. There is also the case of an agricultural worker employed under contract. The contract is usually for six or 12 months, commencing from some specific date. Then there is the contract for an apprentice, which invariably extends over some years. If this contract is to be interrupted for six months, some ruling ought to be made as to the rights of the parties when the six months comes to an end.
    Mr. Naylor: We have already passed an Amendment which laid it down that when the militiaman returns to work the conditions of his employment shall be the same as though he had not been called up. Therefore, all the contracts will remain undisturbed, and regulations ought not to be necessary.
    Mr. Brown: I think the Committee understands clearly what was done in that Amendment. It may be to the apprentice's advantage to settle the matter in one way and the employer's advantage to settle it in another way, or they may both agree. Therefore, we have provided for this way of handling the subject, by regulations, in accordance with the principle laid down. This is a very difficult and complicated problem, and we need a flexible instrument. Let me put it from the apprentice's point of view. Suppose the apprentice has a year to run when he is called up. When he returns, six months later, the question is, should his apprenticeship continue for six months or for 12 months or for some intermediate period? He might prefer to serve another year, or he might prefer that his apprenticeship should end in six months, so that he might qualify for a higher wage. Suppose the contract of service of a worker had still a fortnight to run when he was called up. He might desire reinstatement at the end of his training, or he might prefer to go into other employment and not be bound by his contract. We consider that a reasonable view should be taken of these various options.

    1063
    We want to make the position about contracts quite clear, in order to meet these varying circumstances which are bound to arise. We suggest that it is wise to do it under general provisions giving the Minister power to make regulations varying according to the circumstances.
    6.50 p.m.
    Mr. Gordon Macdonald: I do not know whether this is the appropriate place to raise the point to which I want to refer. It relates to holidays with pay. The amount of holidays with pay that workers get is determined by the proportion of the year that they have been in their employment. This Bill will mean that for men called up for training six months will be taken out of the year. I wonder whether their position can be provided for in the Bill, so that a young man called up for training will not have his period of holidays reduced as a result.
    Mr. E. Brown: That will be done under Clause 10. It is intended that no man shall be worse off in any way because he has served his training.
    6.51 p.m.
    Mr. Turton: I am rather unhappy about the position in regard to long-term hiring in the North of England. Agricultural workers there are employed on 12 months' hiring. It would be very unfortunate if their employment was terminated and they were left without any redress. I hope the regulations will be framed to cover all these hirings. Otherwise, we shall be in great difficulty.
    6.52 p.m.
    Mr. Naylor: I have not been able to follow the Minister's argument in support of the Amendment. Obviously, the Amendment was put on the Paper before the Minister knew that there was going to be an alteration made in the Clause on the lines of the Amendment that was accepted earlier.
    Mr. E. Brown: It is true that this comes after the earlier Amendment, but we have considered it in relation to the concession made, and are satisfied that this does not infringe that concession.
    Mr. Naylor: I am obliged for the explanation, but I am not clear as to whether there can be any reservation over and above what we have decided already on that Amendment. We said in that
    1064
    Amendment that when the militiaman returns to work he shall resume under conditions such as would have obtained had he not been called up. Therefore, his conditions of service will not be affected by the fact that he has put in this six months' training. In the case envisaged by the Minister himself a man has a fortnight to serve before he is called up. Under the Amendment we have passed, he will not have to serve his two weeks. There is no question of regulation or alteration of contracts. We have said that apprentices shall be treated as though there had been no interference in consequence of their being called up. Then where do the regulations come in? What are you going to regulate? Does the Minister thoroughly understand what he has already done? Unless he can give me instances of how contracts will have to be regulated by this means, there can be no interference with contracts. Are there any exceptions to that?
    Mr. E. Brown: I thought I had answered that question. The contract itself we have made quite safe; but there will be questions arising, such as those of which I gave instances; and it is for them that we want power of Regulation.
    Mr. Naylor: In the event of a contract being modified by Regulation, will it require the mutual approval of employer and apprentice?
    Mr. Brown: That does not necessarily follow.
    Mr. Oliver: What does the Minister contemplate with respect to an apprentice who finishes his apprenticeship immediately before becoming a militiaman, who has been employed as an apprentice and not as a journeyman? When he comes back to civil employment as a journeyman, will there be an obligation on the part of the employer to employ him as a journeyman?
    Mr. Brown: I hesitate to give a definite answer to a specific question of that kind without considering it, but I think it might be covered by the Amendment I accepted this afternoon.
    Miss Wilkinson: When a man comes back to his employment after his training, unless he is an apprentice, with apprenticeship articles, the employer may sack him after a week or two. Is there any tribunal to which he can appeal?
    Mr. Brown: There are the arrangements we discussed on a previous Amendment.
    Mr. David Adams: In the case of a bound apprentice in the engineering industry who has six months of his apprenticeship to run when he is called up, is it possible that he may receive his indentures as having completed his apprenticeship, or must he complete the apprenticeship first?
    Mr. Brown: That is just the point I have been explaining.
    Mr. Lees-Smith: This Amendment gives the Minister powers so wide that they could be used to nullify the intentions he expressed in accepting the other Amendments. Before we accept this, I would like the Minister to give us an assurance that the overriding purpose shall be to ensure that when the man returns to his employment he shall be placed in a position no worse than when he went for his training.
    Mr. Brown: Certainly, that is so. The very first words of the Amendment say that. I will certainly give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance.
    6.58 p.m.
    Mr. Leonard: I would like to hear an answer to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson). In the case of a person, returning to his work after his training, who works for one week, are not the terms of the Bill then complied with, and cannot dismissal take place without any penalty for the employer?
    Mr. Brown: There is another Amendment dealing with that. Perhaps hon. Members will await it.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: Before such Regulations as are proposed here are issued, will the Minister give an assurance that he will consult with trade union representatives?
    Mr. Brown: As the Committee knows, in these industrial matters it is our constant and regular practice to consult with the employers and employed when we issue regulations affecting an industry. In regard to the other point, we had repeated discussions on that before the hon. Member was in the House. It is quite clear that you cannot put terms on an employer outside the contract. What we are doing is to say that a man shall be
    1066
    in no worse position than he would have been in if he had not been called up for service.
    7.1 p.m.
    Mr. Silverman: We have agreed to an Amendment which provides that when a man returns to his job he shall return upon terms no less favourable to him than the terms on which he was engaged before he went away. If those terms were a weekly contract, he would have been entitled, before he went away, to a week's notice and no more, and it would seem to follow therefore than when he comes back he is entitled to a week's notice and no more. It would further seem to follow from that—and this is what I understood the Minister to say, and I would like him to confirm it—that if in those circumstances a man employed on a weekly contract is reinstated by the employer on the same terms as before, including a week's notice, and then works a week and at the end of that week is given a week's notice, or a week's wages in lieu of notice, the employer has then completely discharged his obligations under the contract itself. There is no question of any evasion in those circumstances. Clause 6 has not been broken at all, and no question of penalty or compensation arises.
    If that is so, is it not patent that there is no protection at all for anybody under this Clause, because the great majority of boys between 20 and 21 are employed precisely on those weekly contracts of service. So that if an employer does not want to take a young man back because it would disturb his way of working, or because he never liked him anyhow, all that he has to do, in order to avoid all this elaborate machinery, and appearing before the courts and being given compensation, is to take him back and, at the expense of one or two weeks' wages, he avoids all liability of any kind. If that is so, I say that this Clause is the cruellest fraud on an unsuspecting public that has ever passed this House.
    7.4 p.m.
    Mr. Spens: I do not know whether this is the right moment to discuss this question or on the Amendment to the next Sub-section that the Minister has put down. But I should be sorry to sit in this House as a lawyer if I believed that the courts of this country would not be able to find that an employer who made a

    1067
    habit of taking men back for a week after their service and then discharging them was not evading every single obligation under this Clause.
    Miss Wilkinson: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman any experience under Workmen's Compensation law, where the whole body of employers deliberately do this sort of thing, and they have been held to be right under the law? Every trade union official knows that this is the kind of thing that we are continually having to deal with, and men like the hon. and learned Gentleman take enormous fees to go into the courts in these cases.
    Mr. Spens: I have never taken enormous fees for workmen's compensation cases.
    7.6 p.m.
    Mr. David Adams: May I have an answer to my question? What I want to know is whether, when an apprentice has spent the last six months of his apprenticeship in the Army his apprenticeship is to be considered under these regulations as completed or not. The answer the Minister gave was that that is just the sort of question that will arise under these regulations; which is no answer at all. The undertaking of the Government is that apprentices will not be prejudiced. But that apprentice comes home and is to be compelled to serve his aprenticeship for six months more; he cannot receive what he would have received, a journeyman's wage. In that case he is prejudiced, and the Government are not keeping their contract. What I want to know is, Are an apprenticeship's indentures considered to be completed when he comes back home at the end of six months?
    7.8 p.m.
    Mr. E. Brown: I have already told the hon. Member that the whole basis of this is that the man should not be worse off when he comes back. That, I think, is a complete answer to the hon. Member. In answer to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman), the week's contract which he mentioned may be the normal practice of the industry concerned, and in that case the man is not damnified at all, because when he comes back he remains in the same position as before. On the other hand, there might be good
    1068
    reason to suppose that certain employers were making use of these conditions deliberately to evade their obligations. We cover that by regulations, and indeed, if the hon. Member will look at the later Amendment on line 26, he will see we propose to take power to make regulations to deal with just those circumstances.
    7.9 p.m.
    Mr. Silverman: Would the right hon. Gentleman deal with another point? It may very well be true—and I should not be concerned to dispute it with him—that where a weekly contract is the normal thing in an industry, a man coming back from his military service and getting a week's notice would not in a legal sense be damnified. He would have got the same notice after returning to work as he would have been entitled to before, and it is possible in a purely legalistic way to argue that he has not suffered. But the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that in fact the man has suffered, because, had he never gone away, his place would not have been filled and the employer would have been under no inducement to give him the week's notice, which admittedly he had the legal right to give him. So that, although that man's legal position may, in an argumentative sense, be said to be unaffected, his actual economic position has been affected, in that he has lost the job which formerly he had, and which there is every reason to believe that, but for his period of training, he would have continued to hold.
    7.11 p.m.
    Mr. E. Brown: The hon. Gentleman overlooked this: That man might be a class of employé who was under a weekly contract of service but was in an industry where employment was intermittent. Then he would be better off if he had been away for six months because, as already explained to the Committee, he would have his compensation paid for that period.
    7.12 p.m.
    Sir Percy Harris: What the right hon. Gentleman says is certainly very disturbing, and strikes at the very root of the promises made by the Government. The impression generally conveyed to the young men who are going to be liable for service is that the vast majority of them will be able to go back to their jobs and stay in those jobs for three months. Un-

    1069
    fortunately, the vast majority of my constituents are not apprentices; they are weekly wage earners. I have heard it said that all that an employer has to do in the case of an ordinary workman at a weekly wage, is to take him back for the week, and he can then dismiss him. I was inclined to deny that, but the statement of the right hon. Gentleman makes it clear that that will be his fate. The whole Clause is largely a fraud, except for men who are apprentices, or who are engaged on a long-term employment. I think the right hon. Gentleman should amend the Clause in such a way as to give a real, and not artificial, protection.
    7.13 p.m.
    Mr. Mainwaring: In the mining industry there is little or no apprenticeship. It is possible that in the period during which young men will be called up for training a large number of them will have been due for promotion in the service of the company which employs them. This year is a more material year in the life of a young man in the mining industry than any other year. To return a young man to the particular employment he was in before he left is not justice to him at all. Justice will be done only if he is reinstated, not in the job he had before, but in the job he might have been promoted to had he not been called away for his conscript service.
    7.14 p.m.
    Mr. E. Brown: It was precisely on that point that an hon. Member opposite moved an Amendment, which the Government accepted earlier in the day. In answer to the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) I think he misunderstood the position. He is putting the case of a man who comes back from service, is reinstated in his job, and a week later is sacked. In the clearest possible sense of the word that would be a deliberate evasion of the Act. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Well, I am giving my opinion. It is to deal with such things that the Government have put down an Amendment later giving them power to make regulations under this Clause to deal with evasion. But the hon. Baronet surely would not say that if a man on a weekly contract comes back from service, and afterwards that job ends, the man in those circumstances is damnified because he has been away for his training.
    1070
    I submit that the Government's line is the right line. We say to a man who is going for his-service, "When you come back you shall not be worse off than you were, and shall not lose the chance of betterment you would have had." You are not entitled to say in the normal run of industry that a man, who comes to the end of the job, should therefore have the right to ask for continuous employment. I think the hon. Baronet was a little unfair to the great bulk of employers in this country. From past experience on previous occasions, the overwhelming majority of employers, whether the contracts with their men are daily, weekly, monthly, or long-term contracts, will only be too keen to do justice to the men who have gone for training.
    Sir P. Harris: I did not wish to make any insinuation against the vast majority of employers. I have no doubt that they are desirous of doing justice, but I want to make sure that the right hon. Gentleman will consider this case of the weekly wage-earner, which is a liability for only one week.
    7.16 p.m.
    Mr. Stokes: I understand the point of view of the Minister perfectly well in putting over the sob-stuff on behalf of employers, because I am an employer myself. What I want to do is to put the young man's case to the Minister. The Government are in a very difficult mess in this matter, and I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the only fair way to deal with these young men is to say, "Provided you have been employed for a period, say, of six months before your conscription, it shall be obligatory on your employer to take you back, unless he is either bankrupt or out of business, for at least a period of six months after you have returned from your military service."
    7.17 p.m.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: May I submit this point to the Minister and ask for a reply? As I understand this matter, a man may have a job with an employer with every prospect of continuing in that employment for some years, and also of receiving increases in his wages as his service goes on. He is called up for service, and his employer engages a substitute. When the man comes back from training, for a great

    1071
    variety of reasons, the employer may prefer to continue to employ the substitute rather than to reinstate the conscript, and he can then under this Bill discharge all his liabilities to the conscript by giving him a week's notice. The man looses the prospect that he enjoyed of having continuous employment and of receiving increases of wages. If that is the legal position of the man under this Bill, how can the Government, by regulations, do anything to improve it or to penalise the employer for having done what he is legally entitled to do? If that is the true interpretation of the facts, can the Minister tell us how he proposes to deal with that particular situation by means of regulations?
    Mr. E. Brown: I should say that that is an obvious case of evasion. The hon. and gallant Member has put a case where a man has been replaced in a job which would have been his on termination of his training. The Committee will see exactly the division between the two classes of employer which I made in my last speech. To ask me to explain how it is to be done in all these cases is, I think, not quite reasonable, but I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that the Amendment which we have put down later' on in line 26 is intended to deal with just this class of case.
    Mr. Montague: Does that mean the dealing with the case of evasion which may involve the question of the one week job of the militiaman?
    Mr. Brown: There are three possibilities here. When action is taken under this Bill, it may be taken by one of three partners—by the man himself, his trade union on his behalf, and, if it is an obvious breach of regulations of the Minister, the Minister himself may take proceedings.
    7.20 p.m.
    Mr. Leslie: The Minister is well aware that wages in the distributive trades are fixed according to age. Will a man who is called up at 20 and reaches the age of 21 by the time he returns from military service, be entitled to the wage that he ought to receive at 21, or will he receive the wage which he was obtaining at 20? Statements have been made that employers are not likely to dismiss men
    1072
    at the end of a week. Our experience in the distributive trade in the last War was that thousands of men were kept on for only a short period; many of their places were filled by women and they were not able to return to the distributive trade.
    Mr. E. Brown: The answer to the hon. Member is certainly "Yes." It is not the sort of case where, in legal phraseology, there would be a variation in contract.
    7.21 p.m.
    Mr. David Grenfell: Am I to understand that the Minister claims for his Amendment that the position of the employé is not prejudiced by the gap in the performance of contract? There are conditions and terms of employment which bind workmen and employer. The workman is called away by the Government and spends six months in military training and the service of the State. He returns to his employment, and the previous conditions of service are to continue as if there had been no gap or absence on his part. Then, I understand, it is that the Minister claims that in his later Amendment he will provide for the avoidance of the evasion which my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) fears is possible unless something more than the present Amendment is done. Does a workman, with the right to a week's notice before his employment is terminated, get some guarantee in the subsequent Amendment that the employer will not claim that he has fulfilled his obligations by simply giving him a week's wages instead of a week's work? Are these two Amendments together sufficient to protect the ordinary normal working contract of the workman, and is the second Amendment meant to prevent the employer from assuming that his obligations have been discharged by payment of a week's wages?
    7.23 p.m.
    Mr. Leonard: It is clear from the statement of the Minister that the Amendment to which he has referred is to deal with evasion, but the point involved here is held out not to be evasion at all. May I draw his attention to the statements of his own supporters, especially that of the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), who said that the employer who habitually indulged in this practice

    1073
    would be evading the law, but we are not dealing with the person who does this thing habitually.
    Mr. Spens: A single case may be difficult. If you found an employer doing it habitually, you would not have the slightest difficulty in saying that he was evading his obligations every time, in which case it would be perfectly simple.
    Mr. Leonard: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that a single case will be difficult. It should not be difficult; it should be clear. When a conscript has served his period under economic conditions less favourable generally than the work he left, it is all the more necessary that he should be assured of a period of employment when he comes back. That is very important, and, apart from what is to be done to cover evasions, more attention should be given to this particular point.
    7.26 p.m.
    Mr. Gallacher: With all respect to my hon. Friend I do not believe in the legend of the good employer. The so-called good employer is the one who is prosperous today, but if he is in difficulties to-morrow, he becomes a bad employer. This is the actual fact from experience. Therefore, we have to make certain that we leave no loopholes. I would call the attention of the Minister to this situation. An employer has in his employ a man of 20 who is called up this year. He has also a lad aged 19, and one or two younger employés in his service. The lad of 19 is moved into the job which has been vacated by the young man of 20 who has been called up for military training, and the other lads in employment are moved up accordingly. When the young man, who is now 21, returns after doing his six months' military training, he finds the young man who is in his job is nearing 20. According to the provisions of this Bill the employer cannot sack the young man about to be called up next, and, therefore, what is he going to do with regard to the young man who has come out after having done his six months' service? Is he going to find him a job? What will he do in the ordinary run of affairs? He may take him on at
    some other and possibly less remunerative form of occupation, and then, after a day or two, give him a week's notice and clear him out. That is what will happen in many cases. I ask the Minister whether he has given any consideration at all to the case where a job of a conscript has been filled by a lad of 19 who is already an employé, and what is to happen when the conscript comes back?
    Mr. Grenfell: Cannot we have a reply from the Minister? Amendment agreed to.
    7.29 p.m.
    Mr. Montague: I beg to move, in page 13, line 16, after the words last inserted, to insert:
    "(2) Any person whose employer has failed to reinstate him in accordance with the provisions of this Section, may submit his complaint to a Military Training (Hardship) Committee, and if the Committee are satisfied that the complaint is well-founded they shall advise the Minister accordingly, whose duty it shall be to institute proceedings against the employer."
    There is no time left to argue the point of the Amendment, which I formally move. I ask the Minister to accept this perfectly reasonable proposal.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sorry that we cannot close this part of the proceedings by accepting what the hon. Member has asked us to do. These hardship committees are to be set up to discharge quite definite functions, and there would be no sense in making provision for them to deal with this particular matter. There is elaborate, and we believe, effective machinery to meet the case which the hon. Member has in mind. The Minister, or the trade union, or the man himself, or indeed any other person, may institute police court proceedings if an employer fails to carry out his obligations.
    It being Half-past Seven of the Clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 10 th 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, 141; Noes, 267.

    Division No. 124.]

    AYES.

    [7.31 p.m.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

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

    Barnes, A. J.

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

    Ammon, C. G.

    Barr, J.

    Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

    Banfield, J. W.

    Bartlett, C. V. O.

    Batey, J.

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Owen, Major G.

    Beaumont, H. (Batley)

    Hardie, Agnes

    Paling, W.

    Bellenger, F. J.

    Harris, Sir P. A.

    Parker, J.

    Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

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

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Bevan, A.

    Hayday, A.

    Pearson, A.

    Broad, F. A.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

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

    Bromfield, W.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Price, M. P.

    Brown, C. (Mansfield)

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Pritt, D. N.

    Buchanan, G.

    Hicks, E. G.

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Burke, W. A.

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Riley, B.

    Cape, T.

    Hopkin, D.

    Ritson, J.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    Chater, O.

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Sanders, W. S.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Sexton, T. M.

    Collindridge, F.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Shinwell, E.

    Cove, W. G.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Silverman, S. S.

    Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Daggar, G.

    Lathan, G.

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

    Dalton, H.

    Lawson, J. J.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Leach, W.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Lee, F.

    Stephen, C.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Leonard, W.

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

    Dobbie, W.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Stokes, R. R.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    Logan, D. G.

    Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

    Ede, J. C.

    Lunn, W.

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Thorne, W.

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

    McGhee, H. G.

    Thurtle, E.

    Foot, D. M.

    McGovern, J.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Frankel, D.

    MacLaren, A.

    Tomlinson, G.

    Gallacher, W.

    Maclean, N.

    Viant, S. P.

    Gardner, B. W.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Garro Jones, G. M.

    Marshall, F.

    Watson, W. McL.

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Mathers, G.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Gibson R. (Greenock)

    Maxton, J.

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    Messer, F.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Milner, Major J.

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Montague, F.

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

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

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

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

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    Muff, G.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Groves, T. E.

    Naylor, T, E.

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

    Noel-Baker, P. J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Adamson.

    NOES.

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

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

    Elliston, Capt. G. S.

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

    Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)

    Emery, J. F.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Emmott, C. E. G. C.

    Albery, Sir Irvin

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Entwistle, Sir C. F.

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

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)

    Errington, E.

    Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.

    Channon, H.

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

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

    Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

    Aske, Sir R. W.

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

    Everard, Sir William Lindsay

    Assheton, R.

    Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

    Fildes, Sir H.

    Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

    Colville, Rt. Hon. John

    Findlay, Sir E.

    Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

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

    Fleming, E. L.

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

    Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

    Fox, Sir G. W. G.

    Balniel, Lord

    Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)

    Fremantle, Sir F. E.

    Barrie, Sir C. C.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Furness, S. N.

    Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

    Cox, H. B. Trevor

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

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

    Craven-Ellis, W.

    Gluckstein, L. H.

    Beechman, N. A.

    Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

    Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

    Bernays, R. H.

    Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

    Goldie, N. B.

    Blair, Sir R.

    Cross, R. H.

    Gower, Sir R. V.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Crossley, A. C.

    Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

    Boulton, W. W.

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

    Culverwell, C. T.

    Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

    Boyes, H. Leslie

    Davies, C. (Montgomery)

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)

    De Chair, S. S.

    Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

    Brass, Sir W.

    De la Bère, R.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

    Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

    Denville, Alfred

    Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

    Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Hambro, A. V.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Donner, P. W.

    Hammersley, S. S.

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

    Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V. G.

    Hannah, I. C.

    Bull, B. B.

    Duokworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    Burghley, Lord

    Duggan, H. J.

    Harbord, A.

    Burton, Col. H. W.

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Butcher, H. W.

    Dunglass, Lord

    Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

    Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.

    Eastwood, J. F.

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Cartland, J. R. H.

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan

    1076

    1077

    Hepworth, J.

    Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

    Shepperson, Sir E. W.

    Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.

    Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.

    Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

    Holdsworth, H.

    Moreing, A. C.

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Hopkinson, A.

    Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

    Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)

    Smithers, Sir W

    Howitt, Dr. A. B.

    Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

    Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

    Hume, Sir G. H.

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

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Hunter, T.

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

    Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

    Hutchinson, G. C.

    Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

    Spens, W. P.

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

    Nall, Sir J.

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

    James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

    Storey, S.

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

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

    Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

    Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Keeling, E. H.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

    Patrick, C. M.

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

    Peake, O.

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Kimball, L.

    Peat, C. U.

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

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

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

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

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Petherick, M.

    Thomas, J. P. L.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

    Latham, Sir P.

    Pilkington, R.

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

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

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Touche, G. C.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Train, Sir J.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

    Radford, E. A.

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Levy, T.

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Lewis, O.

    Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

    Turton, R. H.

    Liddall, W. S.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Walker-Smith, Sir J.

    Lipson, D. L.

    Ramsden, Sir E.

    Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

    Little, Sir E. Graham-

    Rankin, Sir R.

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

    Little, J.

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

    Rayner, Major R. H.

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

    Lloyd, G. W.

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Warrender, Sir V.

    Loftus, P. C.

    Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

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

    M'Connell, Sir J.

    Remer, J. R.

    Wayland, Sir W. A

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Wells, Sir Sydney

    Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

    Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

    Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

    McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    McKie, J. H.

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

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

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Rowlands, G.

    Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)

    Maitland, Sir Adam

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

    Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

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

    Russell, Sir Alexander

    Wise, A. R.

    Markham, S. F.

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Marsden, Commander A.

    Salmon, Sir I.

    Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

    Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.

    Salt, E. W.

    Wragg, H.

    Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

    Samuel M. R. A.

    Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Sandeman, Sir N. S.

    York, C.

    Medlicott, F.

    Schuster, Sir G. E.

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

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

    Selley, H. R.

    Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

    Shakespeare, G. H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Captain Dugdale and Mr. Munro.

    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 Half-past Seven of the Clock at this day's sitting.
    Amendments made:
    In page 13, line 17, leave out "out for service under this Act," and insert "up for training."
    In line 21, leave out "service," and insert "training."
    In line 26, leave out Sub-section (3) and insert:
    "(3) If the Minister is satisfied that it is necessary to restrain employers from termi-
    nating the employment of their employés by reason of any duties or liabilities which they are or may become liable to perform or discharge by virtue of the provisions of this Act, or to make provision for the prevention of evasion of the provisions of this Section, he may make regulations for those purposes, and such regulations may make provision for the punishment of breaches of the regulations and may in particular apply with, respect to persons found guilty of such-breaches any of the provisions of this Section relating to persons found guilty of offences under this Section, with or without modifications."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 269, Noes, 132.

    Division No. 125.]

    AYES.

    [7.41 p.m.

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

    Albery, Sir Irvine

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

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

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

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

    Amory, Bt. Hon. L. C. M. S.

    Assheton, R.

    Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

    Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

    Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

    Owen, Major G.

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

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Peake, O.

    Balniel, Lord

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Mddl'sbro, W.)

    Peat, C. U.

    Barrie, Sir C. C.

    Grigg, Sir E. W. M

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Petherick, M.

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

    Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Beechman, N. A.

    Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

    Pilkington, K.

    Bernays, R. H.

    Hambro, A. V.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Blair, Sir R.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Hannah, I. C.

    Radford, E. A.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

    Harbord, A.

    Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

    Soyce, H. Leslie

    Harris, Sir P. A.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Braithwaite, J. Gurnay (Holderness)

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

    Ramsden, Sir E.

    Brats, Sir W.

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Rankin, Sir R.

    Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

    Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Rayner, Major R. H.

    Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan

    Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

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

    Hepworth, J.

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

    Bull, B. B.

    Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.

    Remer, J. R.

    Burghley, Lord

    Holdsworth, H.

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Burton, Col. H. W.

    Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland. N.)

    Butcher, H. W.

    Howitt, Dr. A. B.

    Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

    Cartland, J. R. H.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Hunter, T.

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

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

    Hutchinson, G. C.

    Rowlands, G.

    Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)

    James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    Cazalat, Thelma (Islington, b.)

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

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Russell, Sir Alexander

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)

    Keeling, E. H.

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Channon, H.

    Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

    Salmon, Sir I.

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

    Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

    Salt, E. W.

    Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

    Samuel, M. R. A.

    Colville, Rt. Hon. John

    Kimball, L.

    Sandeman, Sir N. S.

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

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

    Schuster, Sir G. E.

    Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

    Selley, H. R.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Latham, Sir P.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Cox, H. B. Trevor

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

    Shepperson, Sir E. W.

    Craven-Ellis, W.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

    Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

    Levy, T.

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Cross, R. H.

    Lewis, O.

    Smithers, Sir W.

    Crossley, A. C.

    Liddall, W. S.

    Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Lipson, D. L.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Culverwell, C. T.

    Little, Sir E. Graham-

    Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

    Davies, C. (Montgomery;

    Little, J.

    Spens, W. P.

    De Chair, S. S

    Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

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

    De la Bère, R.

    Lloyd, G. W.

    Storey, S.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

    Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

    Denville, Alfred

    Loftus, P. C.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Donner, P. W.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V. G.

    MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

    Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Duggan, H. J.

    McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    McKie, J. H.

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

    Dunglass, Lord

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Thomas, J. P. L.

    Eastwood, J. F.

    Maitland, Sir Adam

    Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

    Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Mander, G. le M.

    Touche, G. C.

    Ellis, Sir G.

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

    Train, Sir J

    Elliston, Capt. G. S.

    Markham, S. F.

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Emery, J. F.

    Marsden, Commander A.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Emmott, C. E. G. C.

    Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.

    Turton, R. H.

    Entwistle, Sir C. F.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Walker-Smith, Sir J.

    Errington, E.

    Medlicott, F.

    Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

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

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

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

    Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

    Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    Everard, Sir William Lindsay

    Mills, Major J. O. (New Forest)

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

    Fildes, Sir H.

    Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

    Warrender, Sir V.

    Findlay, Sir E.

    Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Fleming, E. L.

    Moreing, A. C.

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

    Foot, D. M.

    Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

    Wayland, Sir W. A.

    Fox, Sir G. W. G.

    Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

    Wells, Sir Sydney

    Fremantle, Sir F. E.

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

    Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

    Furness, S. N.

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

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

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

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Nall, Sir J.

    Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)

    Gluckstein, L. H.

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

    Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Goldie, N. B.

    O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

    Wise, A. R.

    Gower, Sir R. V.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    1080

    1081

    Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

    York, C.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Wragg, H.

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Captain Dugdale and Mr. Munro.

    Wright, Wing-commander J. A. C.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Noel-Baker, P. J

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

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Adamson, W. M.

    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.

    Banfield, J. W.

    Hardie, Agnes

    Pearson, A.

    Barnes, A. J.

    Hayday, A.

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

    Barr, J.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Price, M. P.

    Batey, J.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Pritt, D. N.

    Beaumont, H. (Batley)

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Bellenger, F. J.

    Hicks, E. G.

    Riley, B.

    Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Ritson, J.

    Bevan, A.

    Hopkin, D.

    Sanders, W. S.

    Broad, F. A.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Sexton, T. M.

    Bromfield, W.

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Shinwell, E.

    Brown, C. (Mansfield)

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

    Silverman, S. S.

    Buchanan, G.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Burke, W. A.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

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

    Cape, T.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Chater, D.

    Lathan, G.

    Stephen, C.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lawson, J. J.

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

    Cocks, F. S.

    Leach, W.

    Stokes, R. R.

    Collindridge, F.

    Lee, F.

    Strauss, G R. (Lambeth, N.)

    Cove, W. G.

    Leonard, W.

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

    Leslie, J. R.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Daggar, G.

    Logan, D. G.

    Thorne, W.

    Dalton, H.

    Lunn, W.

    Thurtle, E.

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Tinker, J. J.

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Tomlinson, G.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Viant, S. P.

    Dobbie, W.

    McGovern, J.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    MacLaren, A.

    Watson, W. McL.

    Ede, J. C.

    Maclean, N.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Marshall, F.

    Wilkinson, Ellen

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

    Maxton, J.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Frankel, D.

    Messer, F.

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Gallacher, W.

    Milner, Major J.

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    Gardner, B. W.

    Montague, F.

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Garro Jones, G. M.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, SJ

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Gibson, R. (Greenock)

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

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    Muff, G.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Nathan, Colonel H. L.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Mr. Groves and Mr. Mathers

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

    CLAUSE 7.—(Simplification of procedure for obtaining possession of land taken under Defence Acts.)
    7.50 p.m.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, in page 14, line 8, to leave out from "nineteen," to the end of the Clause, and to insert:
    "(2) Where possession of any land is taken under the foregoing provisions of this Section then, notwithstanding that the case is one in which the land is not to be acquired by way of absolute purchase, the amount of compensation to be paid, shall in default of agreement, be determined by an official arbitrator appointed under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, who shall conform to the rules prescribed by that Act subject to such modifications as may be necessary to render them applicable to such cases."
    This Clause, as explained in the marginal note, is to simplify the procedure for obtaining possession of land taken under the Defence Acts. Under these Acts
    1082
    land can be taken compulsorily either for out-and-out purchase or for lease. The Amendment will accomplish a further simplification in procedure. When the Acquisition of Land Act, 1919, was passed the old 1842 procedure for the assessment of compensation was abolished in the case of absolute purchase, and compensation has since then been assessed by an official arbitrator. I do not know why, when Parliament made that alteration, it restricted the change in procedure to cases of out-and-out purchase and did not extend it to cases in which land is taken for a limited period under what is, in effect, a compulsory lease. There is, I think, no doubt that the 1842 procedure makes no provision for the assessment of costs of the party who may be claiming compensation, and the general view of those who have had experience in its different aspects of the assessment for compensation by the official arbitrator will agree

    1083
    that it is a more practical, a more efficient and a fairer method of assessing compensation. Therefore, in simplifying the procedure for the purposes of this Bill we have thought it desirable to introduce that procedure in cases where the land is required for temporary periods, just as in the 1919 Act it was substituted for cases where there is out-and-out purchase.
    Sir Joseph Nall: Will the Attorney-General explain the last line? Who is to determine such modifications of the rules as may be thought to be desirable? Who is to decide whether they are necessary? Will it be the arbitrator or will this be done by rules laid down under the Bill prescribed by some authority who, presumably, may alter them?
    The Attorney-General: The point is that the Act applies to out-and-out purchase and, therefore, some necessary modifications as to the form of the rules is necessary to apply them to cases of compulsory lease.
    Sir J. Nall: Who is to prescribe the modifications?
    The Attorney-General: I think this is sufficient. They are such modifications as may be necessary for the purpose of making this change.
    Sir J. Nall: I put the point because the inference is that if the rules in fact do not fit the case, it seems that the arbitrator is to use his commonsense and do as he likes.
    The Attorney-General: If you have rules which are sufficient for the purpose of assessing compensation for out-and-out purchase, it is obviously necessary to have modifications in the case of a compulsory lease. But I will look into the point and bear it in mind.
    Mr. Macquisten: Is the arbitrator the man who will decide the modifications?
    The Attorney-General: Yes.
    7.58 p.m.
    Mr. MacLaren: Some of my hon. Friends and I have Amendments down which, I understand, are not to be called. It is interesting to note that the Government have broken away from the old Acts which have governed the acquisition of land to the more recent Act of 1919. Questions have been asked about rules
    1084
    and regulations, and I presume that the same rules and regulations will apply to land taken for a term of years as to out-and-out purchase. But the Amendments which we have on the Order Paper are a distinct challenge to doing anything at all. The cardinal principle running through my mind is that as we are conscripting men to defend the land we should equally conscript the land.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton-Brown): The hon. Member is now getting rather beyond the scope of the Clause which, after all, is the simplification of the procedure.
    7.59 p.m.
    Mr. MacLaren: It is something more than that if I may say so. It is an attempt to make sure that we are getting the land much more quickly than we did under the old procedure, and I say that with all its expedition the Clause is much too slow for me. There is a quicker way of doing it. It is true that under the 1919 Act the Government can enter into property and take possession and deal with the question of valuation afterwards. I am not going to raise any complaint on that ground, but I want to make it plain that there is a much quicker way of doing it. I would commend to the Government the procedure of Herr Hitler. When he branched out on big military development in Germany, he had to pass a land requisitioning Act. He wanted to make roads to help his military development, to build new barracks, and to transform the cities, so that people could be removed expeditiously from the centres of the cities to safe places outside. This meant that he would have to buy up large tracts of land running right from the centres of the cities out into the country. He was faced with the same problem as the Government now have to meet. He could not get land here, there or anywhere else, without being met with some demand for the assessment of values and the crediting of values to A, B and C as interested parties in the site. Hitler simply drew a blue pencil through the lot and took possession of the entire land of Germany.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member appears to be speaking on the Clause itself. The Committee are now discussing an Amendment to the Clause, and the hon. Member must confine his remarks to the Amendment.
    Mr. MacLaren: Surely, it is in order for me to advise the Government on a quicker way of doing this than the way in which they are trying to do it. I am telling the Government how it has been done elsewhere. The Government are of opinion that after they have got these powers, the impedimenta of legal procedure and valuation will be out of the way. The trouble will be put in a corner somewhere, where the valuer will fight with the landlord and come to an agreement regarding some assessment. The Government will say, "That is all right; we have got the land; what more do you want?" The bill will have to be met afterwards; payments will have to be made. I want only to say this. Compensation will always be paid when it is a question of real property, but no arbitrator is called in to decide the value of a man's body when he is conscripted to defend that property. The difference is obvious. I do not suppose that, however much I talk in the Committee, I shall ever convince hon. Members that they ought forthwith to conscript land outright if they are going to call for a great sacrifice in the defence of that land. The Government adopt procedures of compensation. Under these arrangements they are not doing it openly and there will be no hue and cry from the public; but none the less, the owners of the land will get a toll out of this Amendment as it stands. I oppose the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    8.4 p.m.
    Sir Francis Fremantle: I want to raise a point on this Clause on behalf of the British Waterworks Association, representing both private and municipal undertakers throughout the country, who feel it necessary, while not wishing in any way to oppose or hinder the Government's scheme under this Bill, to point out very strongly the danger there is to water supplies in the acquisition of land that may be part of a catchment area for drinking water supplies for the purpose of placing camps on it. Those hon. Members who have been through campaigns know the immense amount of disease that has been spread by the pollution of water supplies. In this country, it would be a serious danger if a camp were put on one of the
    1086
    water catchment areas without proper precautions being taken. The people who understand what is dangerous and what is not dangerous in this respect are the water undertakers, because it is their work to see that the water is not polluted in any way and to deliver pure water to the consumers. I am requested by the association to ask very definitely what provision is to be made that, before this land is taken for camping use, there shall be proper consultation with the water undertakings who have to draw water from that particular part, and whether proper notice will be given to them? This is not a matter of their own amour propre, but of the safety of the troops themselves and water consumers generally. I hope the Minister will give some kind of assurance that there will be proper consultation with the water undertakers before the land is taken for use as camp sites.
    8.7 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: It would be quite impossible to single out one group of undertakers and undertakings which perform a public service and give them some special assurance, but of course, in all cases where land is being used in connection with public health or the public service, those considerations naturally will be borne in mind, and nothing will be done to interfere with the public purposes which are being served by the land in question. I do not think there is any danger such as my hon. Friend apprehends. In the case of camps, the Defence Departments will be just as anxious as the water undertakings that not only the public but the troops concerned should get a proper water supply. While I cannot give my hon. Friend any specific assurance as to consultation with any particular body, I can assure him that considerations of the kind he has mentioned will be borne in mind, and that there will be an opportunity for representations to be made in the event of a statutory water undertaking or any other body feeling that in the case of land which is being used for public purposes, those public purposes may be injured if the land is turned to use for camping purposes.
    8.9 p.m.
    Mr. Stokes: I wish to put briefly four reasons why the Clause should not stand part of the Bill. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) has stated, what we are, in effect, doing

    1087
    to the young men of this country is to conscript them at a shilling a day and then ask them to buy the land before they can defend it. Secondly, they are to be asked, in effect, to come forward and sacrifice their lives in order that the landlords of the country may continue to draw not less than £500,000,000 a year in rent. It seems to me to be outrageous that the landlords should be paid anything more under this Clause or any other Clause passed by the Committee. Thirdly, I would endeavour to prevent the War Office from following the iniquities of the Air Ministry by paying fabulous sums for land which has hitherto been regarded as completely valueless, and for the guidance of the Secretary of State for War, I would point out that the Air Ministry already has paid over £1,000,000 for 5,600 acres of land hitherto considered valueless. Fourthly, the Committee may not have realised that in war-time the landlords in fact are the only people who stand to gain—
    The Chairman: The first three arguments of the hon. Member have not been in order, and I do not think his fourth is. I would point out to him that the Clause deals with a simplification of procedure for obtaining possession of land taken under the Defence Acts.
    Mr. Stokes: I wish to make the procedure simpler still by removing Subsection (2) and amending Sub-section (1). If I should be completely out of order in continuing my remarks on the lines on which I have been speaking, I will merely reiterate that I think it is outrageous that young men should be conscripted at a shilling a day and then should have to pay the landlords in order to be able to defend their land.
    8.13 p.m.
    Mrs. Hardie: I also wish to protest against this Clause, even as amended. I think the same method should be applied in the case of land as is applied to the young militia men. Land which is required should be taken, and hardship committees should be set up to which those suffering hardship could go, and could be given a little allowance if they were not very well off. I think it is outrageous to pass a Clause in this form. Everyone who has land, irrespective of his means, should be prepared to hand
    1088
    that land to the Government to use in the necessary way. I wish to join in the protest against this Clause being passed.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Power to raise Royal Naval Special Reserve.)
    8.14 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shakespeare): I beg to move, in page 14, line 40, after "shall," to insert:
    "notwithstanding anything in the proviso to Section three of the said Act."
    I will deal with this Amendment and the three following Amendments together. It will be convenient, probably, if I briefly state first the purpose of Clause 8. The Committee will remember that Clause 2 (3) of the Bill exempts persons from liability to be registered in the military training register, or to be called up for military training, if, on or after 27th April, they have been entered in the naval reserve force to be raised under the provisions of this Measure. In that Sub-section, it was stated that their service must be for four years and that they must be liable to a period of six months continuous training. Clause 8 empowers the Admiralty to raise such a force to be called the Royal Naval Special Reserve and Sub-section (2) applies the Royal Naval Reserve Volunteer Act of 1859—the main Act governing all these reserves—to this new reserve. Paragraph (a) modifies that old Act to the extent of providing that these Royal Naval Special Reservists shall do four years service, instead of five years service, as under the old Act, and that they shall do six months continuous training in one year instead of the maximum training allowed under the old Act as subsequently amended, which was 92 days. So much for the intention expressed in Clause 2 to form a Royal Naval Special Reserve, the conditions of which shall be four years service of which six months shall be continuous.
    Sub-section (2, b) of Clause 8, as drafted, puts the liability for the six months continuous training into the first year of service but on reconsideration this was thought to be inconvenient. It was considered better to lay it down that the six months continuous training might be done at any time within the four years

    1089
    service. The first three Amendments make that plain and I will read to the Committee paragraph (b) as it will appear if these three Amendments are made in it:
    "A royal naval special reservist shall, notwithstanding anything in the proviso to Section three of the said Act, be liable to undergo a course of continuous training for a period of six months."
    The fourth Amendment refers to paragraph (c). The paragraph as it appears in the Bill provides that a Royal Naval Special Reservist may be entered for marine service and when called up for actual service or training, shall be subject to the discipline of the Royal Marine force. The Amendment is for the purpose of making sure that when a person joins the Royal Naval Special Reserve for marine service, his pay when called up for service shall be the appropriate pay of his rank in the Royal Marines and not the pay of a naval rating.
    The Chairman: I approve of what the hon. Gentleman said with regard to the first three of these Amendments, but I think the fourth Amendment is different and that we ought to deal with it separately.
    Mr. Shakespeare: If that is your wish, Sir Dennis, and the wish of the Committee I confine myself to the first three Amendments. But as this is, I think, the first time that a spokesman for the Admiralty has referred to the formation of this Royal Naval Special Reserve, perhaps the Committee would appreciate a short statement from me as to the purpose in the mind of the Admiralty. We believe that there is a class in the community which will look primarily to the Admiralty to provide a form of naval training in lieu of the military training to which, otherwise, men of 20 would be liable. Those categories might be broadly termed categories within the seafaring sections of the community, such as men in the merchant service on reaching the age of 20, and also those engaged in the fishing industry. Further there are various organisations which in fact or in sentiment are associated with the Navy and would expect a form of naval training rather than military training. These, speaking generally, are men of 20 in the Royal Naval Reserve or in the other reserves such as the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve for example, the Royal Naval Supplementary Reserve, the Wireless
    1090
    Reserve, the Sick Berth Reserve as well as youths of 20 in the Naval Brigade or Ex-Sea Cadets. Finally, there are the Admiralty staffs and the dockyard employés who would naturally prefer naval training. All these categories look to us and are entitled to look to us for naval training. We expect, as a matter of course, that persons in the merchant service, and those in the fishing fleet of the age of 20, will seek to join the Royal Naval Special Reserve which we are constituting under this Measure. The training will be both general and special. In particular it will enable them to handle the defensive equipment which will be available for the merchant service in time of emergency.
    The Chairman: I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to proceed some way with this statement, but I think it would be better if the remainder of it were made on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Ede: This is Government obstruction.
    Mr. Shakespeare: I am obliged to you, Sir Dennis, for pointing that out. I take it that my explanation of the first three Amendments is satisfactory to the Committee and that I need not discuss them any further.
    8.25 p.m.
    Mr. Shinwell: In view of your Ruling, Sir Dennis, I do not know how far you will permit me to proceed.
    The Chairman: I think we had better confine the discussion to the first three Amendments, which obviously go together.
    Mr. Shinwell: In view of the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty linked up—I will not say mixed up—several Amendments, I am not certain whether what I am about to say will be relevant to the first three Amendments.
    The Chairman: Perhaps the hon. Member will get his opportunity a little later.
    Mr. Shinwell: I was anticipating something of the kind and thought I had better safeguard myself by that observation. I desire to put several questions to the Parliamentary Secretary, because I am anxious to safeguard, as no doubt other hon. Members are, the position of merchant seamen who will reach the age of

    1091
    20. As I understand the Parliamentary Secretary, it is proposed to establish a Special Naval Reserve, and that merchant seamen, fishermen and others who care to enlist may do so, and when they are enlisted they will be required to serve six months. He was careful to explain that that six months need not be undertaken immediately these men have reached 20 years of age, but may be undertaken at a subsequent stage.
    Mr. Shakespeare: Within the four years.
    Mr. Shinwell: Yes, the four years instead of the five years contained in the original Act. The first thought that occurs to me in this connection is that these men are to be in a somewhat different position from the men in the Army, the difference being that men who enrolled in the Territorials before 27th April will not be called upon to undergo six months' training whether now or later, whereas the men who are enrolled in this Special Naval Reserve must undergo six months' training, and equally Naval Reservists or men who are already enrolled, and have been for some time, in the various supplementary forces of the Naval Reserve, services to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred, will, in spite of that fact, be compelled to serve the six months as a training period. That is a distinction for which there appears to be little justification. What applies to the Army should apply to the Navy, unless I have misunderstood what the Parliamentary Secretary has stated.
    I want to point out that merchant seamen—and I speak of them in particular for the moment—are in a somewhat different position from men engaged in shore occupations. At the present time there is a serious shortage of merchant seamen, particularly of those who are employed on deck service. There is no shortage of men in the engine rooms and stokeholds, but there is certainly a shortage of able seamen. In addition to that, there are large numbers of merchant seamen, who between the ages of 20 and 21 are employed either as apprentices and will still be in the apprentice stage, or who may be preparing to undertake examinations in preparation for positions as second mate or first mate as the case may be. If these men are taken from the merchant service—and I understand the
    1092
    number is estimated at round about 2,000 between the ages of 20 and 21—when there is already a shortage of that type of man, it will naturally aggravate the shortage and make it difficult, not only for the men themselves, but for the Mercantile Marine. I wonder whether, when the Parliamentary Secretary states that this service may be undertaken at any period within the four years, that provision has been introduced so that the men may continue their apprenticeship period or, alternatively, may undertake their examinations in preparation for the officer stages. If that be the position, the men will, to some extent, be safeguarded, but the point has not been made perfectly clear, and I want to have an assurance from the hon. Gentleman that that will be the position.
    Perhaps I ought to say that, speaking for these men, with whom I was formerly connected and with whom I have still an unofficial connection, there is no disinclination on their part to undertake training of this kind. Indeed, they have themselves, through their respective organisations, made a demand that they should be trained in gunnery practice in preparation for any emergency, and, therefore, I am not basing any complaint on that score. What I have just said induces me to add that many of these men, trained in gunnery practice on existing merchant vessels, will be thereby equipped for any purpose that the Admrialty may have in view, and I do not know how far the Admiralty propose to continue that type of training, even within the four year period, as an alternative to a consecutive six months' training period. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could reply on that point. As regards the question of pay, I understand, Sir Dennis, that you prefer that that matter should be discussed on a subsequent Amendment, and I will leave it there.
    8.33 p.m.
    Mr. Shakespeare: With regard to the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve and similar Reserves, a person in that Reserve before the 27th April is exempted from the operations of this Bill, just as every member of the Territorial Force or the Air Force is exempted. A member of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve on that date will be treated in exactly the same way. When I was referring to the fact that we were providing this new form of

    1093
    Reserve, I was thinking of a person who subsequently may join the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve and was not a member of that Reserve before 27th April, and who, when he reaches the age of 20, therefore comes under the ambit of this Measure. On the second point, the hon. Gentleman quite rightly stated that one reason why we changed the form of drafting so that the six months' training might be done at any time within the four years was to meet the special difficulties of apprentices in the Merchant Service. We have had interviews with the Board of Trade and those who speak for the Merchant Service, and I believe that this form of drafting is appreciated for that reason. The third question was as to the form of training. I was starting to develop that when I was waylaid. I was pointing out that trainees from the Merchant Service will receive training that will enable them to perform their task in war-time with greater efficiency. They will be trained in gunnery and signalling and in all work appertaining to convoying continuously for six months and thereafter they will serve for 3½ years.
    Commander Sir Archibald Southby: My hon. Friend has made it clear in reply to the hon. Gentleman opposite that the individual who had been in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve would be exempt from conscripted service in the same way as people in the Territorial Force. He did not say whether that applied to the Royal Naval Reserves.
    The Chairman: That question does not come under this Amendment. It will come better on the Question, that the Clause stand part.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 14, line 41, leave out "during the first year of his service";
    In page 15, line 1, leave out from "months," to "and," in line 4.—[Mr. Shakespeare.]
    8.37 p.m.
    Mr. Shakespeare: I beg to move, in page 15, line 9, at the end, to add:
    "and accordingly Section six of the said Act shall, in relation to Royal Naval Special Reservists so entered, have effect as if in that Section for the words 'petty officers or seamen of the Royal Navy' there were substituted the words 'non-commissioned officers or men of the Royal Marine Forces'."
    1094
    This Amendment is to make sure that when a person joins for marine service in this new Naval Reserve his pay when called up shall be that appropriate to his rank in the Royal Marines and not in the Royal Navy.
    Mr. Shinwell: I want to raise a point which arises from the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary in the previous discussion when he was ruled out of order. I should like some more information as to the meaning of what he said. I understand it means that the men who will be enrolled in this special service will be entitled to the appropriate pay of the equivalent service. Are we to understand that these conscript men will have the same pay as the men employed in the regular services of the Admiralty? I want to be clear about it because it is a point upon which there may be Debates at some subsequent stage, and it is desirable to ascertain what are the Government's intentions. I, therefore, ask whether the pay of these men is to be the pay of the appropriate service to which they will be enlisted?
    Mr. Shakespeare: During their six months' training their pay is the same as in the case of men called up for Militia training. I think I said that in my first speech, but I referred to the pay that they will receive when called up for service.
    Mr. Shinwell: I am afraid the matter has reached a complicated stage. I understand that the hon. Gentleman now says that during the six months' training period they will receive what the conscripts in another service will receive, but that after six months' service they are to receive the pay appropriate to the service in which they enrol. I understand that after six months' service they will be associated with the Reserves and be equal to the Territorials in the Army. If that be so how does the hon. Gentleman reconcile the statement he has just made with the previous statement that he made? In the case of the Army the men are to receive during the six months' period a certain sum, but after they have completed their training they will be automatically transferred to the Army Reserve or the Territorials. They will then receive, not the pay of the Regular Forces, but the pay and allowances of

    1095
    the Territorials or the retaining fee that applies to the Reserve. Is that what the hon. Gentleman meant?
    Mr. Shakespeare: Yes.
    Mr. Shinwell: If that is what the hon. Gentleman meant he might have made it a little clearer. That is not as I understood it from his first statement, but if he assures me that that is what he meant, I am satisfied.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    8.43 p.m.
    Sir A. Southby: My hon. Friend referred to the position of men in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, and I would like to know whether the same thing will apply to men in the Royal Naval Reserve. Will the men who joined the Royal Naval Reserve before 27th April also be exempt from this Bill? My hon. Friend went through the category of those who would be eligible to do their conscript time in the Naval Service. Could some provision be made whereby the sons of officers and men who have served or are serving in the Royal Navy could be eligible? If the Government are allowing this privilege to the seafaring population, to fishermen and men in the merchant service, they should certainly allow the offspring of men who served in the sea service the right, so far as it can be applied, to do their course of training in the Navy. That should also apply to people like Sea Scouts, who have done their best to follow the calling of the sea, so that when the time comes for them to be called up they should be given a preference to be allowed to train in the Fleet.
    8.45 p.m.
    Commander Marsden: The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned various Reserves, all of which have some form of training. I wish to mention another Reserve, the Royal Naval Volunteer Special Reserve. As I understand it, that amounts only to a list of names of young men—and, of course, old men, but I am referring to those of the age concerned—who have some knowledge of the sea. A list of their names is kept and in the event of war they would expect their ser-
    1096
    vices to be utilised as officers. The question I am asking is whether, if there is any young man under the age of 20 on 27th April last who is in that Royal Naval Volunteer Special Reserve he will avoid being conscripted, because I can only say that I do not think he ought to avoid it.
    8.46 p.m.
    Mr. Shakespeare: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) asked how a young person who was a member of the Royal Naval Reserve before 27th April is dealt with. His case comes under paragraph (d) of Sub-section (1) of Clause 2. A member of the Royal Naval Reserve who was a member before that date is exempt in the same way as a member of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve. I am sorry that I did not mention that point.
    Mr. Shinwell: Most of them are above the age.
    Mr. Shakespeare: Yes most of them are above the age.
    Sir A. Southby: But not all.
    Mr. Shakespeare: As to the question addressed to me by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chertsey (Commander Marsden) we consider that a trained person who is a member of the Royal Naval Volunteer Supplementary Reserve—that is what we call the yachting reserve—is entitled to look to us for special naval training, but, of course, that Reserve is not an official statutory Reserve and it may be that somebody belonging to it will be caught in the web of this Measure. At the same time, we should like to give them the naval training for which they have shown a preference by the mere fact that they have joined that Reserve. Let me conclude by explaining briefly this Clause and the purpose of it. I dealt with one broad category, the seafaring community. Several Members have asked me what happens to the men of the merchant service who pass through the Royal Naval Special Reserve. Does it mean that in time of war the merchant service is deprived of their services? The answer is, Certainly not. All who are members of the Royal Naval Special Reserve will remain with the merchant service in time of war except, of course, those who have voluntarily joined the Royal Naval Reserve within the limitations of the establishment.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does that mean that men may be compelled to remain in a particular merchant vessel?
    Mr. Shakespeare: No, it means that we shall not deprive the merchant service of the men required to bring our food and other merchant cargoes. Many people think that as we have given the men six months' naval training we shall automatically take them into the naval service in time of war, but that would be a foolish thing to do, because the Navy and the merchant service are together concerned with the problem of securing the regular flow of the country's trade. For example, merchant engineers in their twenties who have become members of the Royal Naval Special Reserve and who are serving with the merchant service will not be taken by the Royal Navy just to meet a possible shortage which might occur at that time. I think that statement will give some reassurance to the merchant service.
    I have dealt with the categories for which we at the Admiralty feel that we are liable. There will arise another category, composed of those men, aged 20, coming under the provisions of this Measure, who have expressed a preference for a form of naval service instead of military service. Here the numbers which we take must depend upon our requirements and upon the facilities for training. They are in a different category from those for whom we feel we have an obligation, that is those of the seafaring community.
    On the outbreak of war we start training categories of men who were called in the late war "Hostilities only." If under the provisions of this Measure we can give six months continuous training to a number of men we shall, if war breaks out, have a trained reserve who will be immediately available for our purposes while we are training the "Hostilities only" men for later years. The personnel of whom I am thinking—those who have expressed a preference for the Navy when becoming liable to register—will comprise certain numbers for the Fleet Air Arm, certain numbers for the Royal Marines, seamen, stokers and artificers for various branches of the naval service, communication ratings and miscellaneous tradesmen. All these are men whom otherwise we might have to take under the category of "Hostilities only"
    1098
    at the outbreak of war, but now we have a chance of giving them a useful six months' training if they have expressed their preference to join the Royal Naval Special Reserve. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) made one point as to what will happen to the son of a naval officer or naval rating. Clearly we should like to take such a man who is the son of somebody in the Navy, but I do not think I can give any pledge about the matter. He is the very type of person whom we should like to take in, and no doubt he will express a preference for the Navy.
    Sir A. Southby: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that they would come under the head of "seafaring community"? I think he might do a little bit more, give some pledge. It is very much desired by the officers and men of the Royal Navy.
    Mr. Shakespeare: I do not think I can go further than I have gone. If he comes under the heading of those in the seafaring community presumably he will have joined either the Navy or the merchant service.

    CLAUSE 9.—(Information to be furnished by education authorities.)
    8.54 p.m.
    Mr. Edmund Harvey: I beg to move, in page 15, line 16, after "to," to insert:
    "the names, ages, addresses, occupations, and academic standing of."
    The words in the Clause give very vague, indefinite powers to the Minister, which have caused some little anxiety in quarters which have reason to be concerned about this matter. It is very undesirable that powers should be given in this Bill which create any suspicion about their use such as would affect the relations existing between school and university authorities and their students. It is perfectly right and proper that the necessary information as to names and ages should be given, and there would be no objection in that case; but if the words in the Clause are to be used to obtain confidential information about the students, that would be a most regrettable thing. You do not want to have a card index secretly kept, either by school or university authorities, with a lot of confidential information which might be

    1099
    used at some date in the future by a Minister holding these powers. I am not suggesting that the present Minister wants to make use of them. The object of the Clause is to get the necessary information for the purpose of the Measure. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept these or some similar words clearly defining the kind of information which is to be obtained from local educational school or university authorities. If the Minister could see his way to accepting the Amendment, he would remove a very real anxiety which now exists.
    8.57 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: I hope that the hon. Member will see his way not to press this Amendment after I have replied. The power in the Clause is limited at present by the words at the end of the Clause:
    "as the Minister may from time to time require for the purposes of this Act."
    I can give to the hon. Member the most categorical assurance that there is not the slightest desire or intention of compiling a confidential card index such as he suggested. The main purpose of this provision is the obtaining of addresses, and for that purpose it would be better to leave it, in the words of the Bill, "as the Minister may from time to time require." Some of the items set out in the Amendment would not be required. The age comes, I think, from the Registrar-General.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Does not the name come from there?
    The Attorney-General: The name would come from there too. Therefore, although I admit that I cannot at the moment give the hon. Gentleman the particulars which might be required outside those he mentioned, I would point out that some of those he has included would clearly not be appropriate.
    Mr. E. J. Williams: What is the purpose of the Clause?
    The Attorney-General: The main purpose of the Clause is to get addresses and occupations. We should get the age and the name from the Registrar-General. This is in order to assist the getting of what is clearly absolutely necessary information. I suggest to the Committee that it can reasonably and safely be left in the form in which it is drafted, namely restricted to information which may be required for the purposes of the Measure.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I have heard the explanation of the Attorney-General with a good deal of misgiving. It appears that this provision is to be used as one means of finding out the age and address of certain people of whom the authorities are not quite sure. I was proposing to oppose the very wide phrasing of the Amendment, but while I hope that the Committee will not agree with the Amendment, I hope it will also reject the Clause when we come to that point. I do not want to do what I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman did, speak really to the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," but I view with the greatest misgiving that the information sought in the Amendment, which was supposed to be a limiting Amendment, should be obtained in this way.
    There are two classes to whom the wording of the Clause can apply. Students actually attending some place of higher education are, of course, the students there at the moment. They may, for the purposes of the Board of Education, be at an ordinary institution. They have to give their age and addresses. If it was thought that the Government were going to use the admission registers at technological colleges and similar places for what are detective purposes, to find out where people are whom they happen to want, there would be very great resentment both by the students and by the institutions. Probably at this stage it would be unwise to say more. When we reach the Question of the Clause standing part of the Bill I shall oppose the whole idea revealed by the Attorney-General.
    9.3 p.m.
    Mr. Harvey: Although the right hon. and learned Gentleman has gone a good way towards meeting my anxiety, I should be grateful if he would say that he will consider the possibility of making this point clearer when the Bill gets to another place. He has not explained what matter, other than the addresses and occupations of the men concerned, the Minister might wish to know, and the uncertainty is unsatisfactory. All that is needed is the particular information; surely it ought to be possible in some form to make that point clear in the Bill. I hope he will make it clearer. I shall not press the Amendment, in view of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, but

    1101
    I hope he is willing to consider in another place or at another stage the possibility of making the wording clearer.
    Amendment negatived.
    9.4 p.m.
    Mr. Cove: I beg to move, in page 15, line 16, to leave out "or who have received."
    I can understand why the Attorney-General could not give any proper answer to the Mover of the last Amendment. With all due respect to him, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not a competent person in these matters. I would remind the Committee that we had experts from the Admiralty here when we were discussing the Naval Reserve, but we have no one representing the Board of Education here while we are discussing matters which affect the educational authorities. I protest vigorously against what I consider to be an insult to this Committee and to those educational authorities upon whom this duty is being imposed. I should have thought that someone from the Board of Education would be here to give a competent answer. The answer of the Attorney-General leaves me puzzled as to what in formation is required under this Clause. I can only conclude from his speech that it is information of a very private nature, relating to the character of these people—
    The Attorney-General: That is the exact opposite of what I said.
    The Chairman: We must not debate an Amendment which has already been disposed of.
    Mr. Cove: I think that what I am saying is germane to the present Amendment. The Clause itself imposes on the local authorities a duty that is entirely extraneous to their functions. From what has been said already, it would seem as though there may be some very odious duties imposed upon the local authorities. This information is desired as regards those who are now in the schools, and as regards those who have left. How is it proposed to get it as regards those who have left school? Is a demand going to be sent from the Minister to the local authorities, and passed on to the school, for information of the precise nature of which we are not yet aware? If that is so, it will impose an intolerable burden
    1102
    on the individual schools. Already education authorities and schools are complaining about the amount of clerical work involved by the returns which they have to send to the Board of Education, and now it appears that each school—because it cannot be done by the education authorities—will have to undertake a search of its registers for some years back, and a large amount of the information thus obtained will be useless. Where will these boys be? The information required under the Clause applies to children who were in the schools six years ago. What service can the local schools render by giving information about many of these lads, when under the Government's transference scheme, and owing to the shift of industry, large numbers of them will have left the locality where they were at school?
    If it is general information that is required, it will throw on the schools a good deal of work which ought not to be thrown upon them, and which in the end will be useless. If, on the other hand, there is not to be a general requirement, I take it that it will apply to special cases. How is the Department to know about special cases? I suppose that if in a certain street John Jones has been called up and Tom Evans is left, and if, say, the mother of John Jones gets to know that the other lad is not going to be called up, there is the possibility of an anonymous letter being sent to the Department asking why this lad is not being called up. If the machinery is to be of this kind, I say quite definitely that it is putting on the local authorities a job which ought not to be put on them; it is turning them into a sort of educational Gestapo—an agency of inquisition into individual cases.
    To me the whole principle of the Clause is odious. The information that is necessary for calling these lads up can be obtained from the registrar. One would have thought that the earlier Clause which provides for a penalty of £5 for not registering would have been a sufficient safeguard for getting all the youngsters that the Government require. I oppose the whole Clause, and I think it is iniquitous that, in addition to finding out the information that is wanted about present students, the responsibility should be put upon local education authorities and governors of schools to find out information about the lads that have left. Which of the Ministers now on the Front

    1103
    Bench is competent to answer this question? It is all very well for them to have a brief, but the Government have at their disposal a Minister who is at least supposed to be competent, and who does represent the Board of Education. I want again to utter a protest against the disrespect which has been shown to the Committee in the discussion of this matter, against—I do not think the word is too strong—the flippancy with which the Government have regarded it, and against the insult they have levelled at education authorities by not having a representative of the Board of Education present during the discussion on this Clause.
    9.13 p.m.
    Mr. Maxton: I would like to associate myself with the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) in his opposition to this Clause, and to support the Amendment which he has moved. I hope that, if he gets no satisfaction, he will divide on the Amendment. I can conceive that perhaps later in the discussion, when the appropriate Minister has arrived to explain the matter to us, there may just possibly be some argument for the Clause as a whole, but I cannot see any argument for the inclusion of this phrase. I do not know why the Attorney-General should be in charge of the Clause, unless it be that the Government know that on previous occasions, when there was some particularly awkward job to be done, all the responsible Ministers were somewhere in the background and the Attorney-General was in the forefront to take all the kicks that were going. He will remember the situation to which I am referring. I did my best to get him out of that situation, and will do my best to get him out of this one.
    Imagine what is included in these four words that it is proposed to delete. It means that the education authorities may be asked to produce the record of every child in every school from five years of age to 20 or 21, and presumably to know whether the child's record in the infants' school was such as would make him an efficient soldier in the militia. It is just utter rubbish. If the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who has now come on to the Front Bench, will attend to me instead of trying, with the Attorney-General, to dig out of their united intellects some argument to prove that we are wrong,
    1104
    and devote themselves entirely to the question of this Amendment, that will, be enough for them for the moment. They will have time to send to the Board of Education and get the answer when we come to discuss the question that the Clause stand part of the Bill. The Clause seems to have arrived out of the blue, and to have been shoved into this Bill. If there had been Clauses in other parts of the Bill—
    The Chairman: There are not any such Clauses.
    Mr. Maxton: No; but if you listen, Sir Dennis, you will find that I am not wandering from the Amendment. If there had been other Clauses in the Bill which asked employers to give lists of their employés, there would have been some justification for this, as a check list; but is it the assumption that young people attending educational institutions are less likely to carry out their duties of citizenship than young men in employment, or is it proposed that young men attending educational institutions at this age shall be excused the ordinary obligations of other citizens, because there will be some special register? We do not know. But whatever reason there may be for doing this in the case of present pupils, there can be absolutely no justification for making this retrospective, or for providing that the University of Oxford, the University of Cambridge, the University of Glasgow, the London Education Committee or the Glasgow Education authority may be called upon by the Ministry of Labour to pass on to him the record of the educational achievements and attainments and so on of all the persons who have gone through their institutions in the past.
    Can the Government tell us how many people will be affected by this? Can they tell us whether this applies to the elementary schools? The wording certainly applies it to the elementary schools. Children under five can be involved in this, according to the terms. It is quite obvious that the Attorney-General does not know anything about this, and I shall be very surprised if the Chancellor of the Duchy can produce an argument for it, but I am ready to sit down and hear what he has to say.
    9.19 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: There are young persons who have previously been attending schools,

    1105
    and who are clearly aimed at by the words we have here. Everybody attending any educational institution in the country is included, except persons educated by nursery governesses and private tutors at home. What is at the back of the Government's mind is this, that they will send to the various schools in the country and say, "Give us a list of the boys who attended your school and are shown by the attendance register to have been born at such a period that their ages would now be between 20 and 21." Even if that is not intended, that is a serious possibility; and that is not a proper use of information which is being obtained by the schools for other purposes. No headmaster would think of disclosing this information which is in his admission register to anyone in any circumstances whatever, unless he was compelled to do so by Act of Parliament. The relations between the parents and the school authorities are such that a great deal of information passes which would not pass if it was thought that tales were going to be told out of school by the education authorities or the administrators.
    The register of births contains the information; but, of course, the birth has been registered 14 years before the child leaves an elementary school at present, and 15 years before the child would leave under the conditions as they will be in a few months' time. That brings the information a little nearer to date. The person is easier to trace than he would be if the Government had to rely on the Registrar-General's information. I object very much to this use of the schools with regard to ex-pupils. It will create a great deal of dissension and difficulty. The Government ought to devise some means other than this very clumsy means of finding out who are the people who are brought under the Bill. I cannot think that the results that this will achieve are worth the friction it will cause.
    9.23 p.m.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison): Perhaps I may be permitted to apologise for the lack of high educational qualification on the part of my right hon. and learned Friend and myself, but this is a matter of simplicity which, I think, can be appreciated by the Committee even if one is not a member of the Board of Education. The hon. Member for South Shields
    1106
    (Mr. Ede) has correctly appreciated the effect of the Clause and the effect of the Amendment upon it if the Amendment is carried. We have in this country no record of young male persons such as exists in other countries, so, when introducing this measure of compulsory training, we have to rely almost entirely on the sense of patriotism and the law-abiding character of these young men to do what the House asks them to do, namely, to register for training.
    I feel that the register will be made very complete by simply relying on young men to do what Parliament wants them to do; but when you lay an obligation of a general character on any group of people you must take steps to see, so far as you can that anyone who attempts to default from what Parliament has laid down is not allowed to escape simply because he does not possess quite the same desire to comply with the law, the same sense of patriotism, as the majority. To fail to do so would be to create in the country a sense of gross injustice among those who do comply with the law, who will be the very large majority. The information that we do possess is of course derived from the returns of the Registrar-General, but for the present purposes that information is 19 or 20 years old, and in the interval there have been all the accidents of mortality—changes, deaths, emigration, and so on—so affecting the information that can be derived from the Registrar-General, compiled from that source alone, as to render it comparatively useless for a purpose which, it must be agreed, is a right one—to prevent evasion of a responsibility that Parliament lays upon these young people.
    In that circumstance there is another means whereby information for the register can be checked from a more recent source, and that is from the educational establishments. True, that information will itself be some years out of date, because if a boy left school at 14 it is five years out of date for the purpose for which it is required. But it is quite clear, also, that the amount of change in personnel which can take place in four years is much less than the amount of change that can take place in 19 years; and, though such a register will not be complete, because in four years many changes will have occurred, still it will be more complete than that compiled from the returns of the Registrar-General,

    1107
    and it is only to enable a partial check of the register to be obtainable, when required, that this Clause is inserted. If the Committee were to accept the Amendment it would render this purpose largely nugatory, because it would mean that information could only be obtained from the educational authorities in respect of men who are receiving their education at the time when the Act passes. But what is wanted is, of course, to receive information of that kind, when required, about men who now come under the Act, and that antedates the relevant period of education to four, or it may be five, years before. Information about the people who are actually undergoing education at the present moment—elementary education, for example—would not be of any relevance until the time limit of the Act, namely, three years, had expired.
    I hope, therefore, that the Committee will agree with me in the various steps of the argument I have attempted to put forward, namely, that it is desirable that this obligation should be shouldered equally by all upon whom it is laid, that reasonable steps should be taken to prevent evasion, and that that can best be achieved, seeing that we have no register of another sort available, by calling, when necessary, upon those in educational establishments to supplement or correct the information. The discussion has gone on to some extent in relation to the Clause itself. I am addressing myself simply to this Amendment, and if the Amendment is accepted its effect will be to destroy the Clause for its present purposes. I hope, with that explanation, the Committee will not insist upon it.
    9.29 p.m.
    Mr. Tomlinson: After the explanation of the Minister I think the justification for the Clause is less than it was before he spoke. One had read into it something a little more charitable than that which he has divulged. I thought, when he got up, that maybe something had escaped our attention which made the Clause worth while. I think the explanation he has given that the intention of the Clause is to bring the local educational authorities into the service of this Bill is perhaps the most despicable thing in the Bill.
    Mr. McCorquodale: Why?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I am endeavouring to give the answer. It seems to me during the last few months we have all attempted to reconcile ourselves to the coming of conscription. We have gone back on all the arguments that we have been using for years in order to justify it to ourselves. We have felt that in conscription there was something that was not quite in keeping with our British tradition, and as a consequence we were attempting to introduce it in such a way as to make it less despicable than we thought likely. But I should have thought that when bringing in compulsion the last institutions that would have been brought in to assist in doing so would have been the educational institutions. To call upon the local educational authorities to become a kind of military Nosey Parkers for the War Office is about the limit of what you have asked the local educational authorities to do in the last few years. We have been multiplying the duties of those authorities, without meeting the payments to which they were entitled when we increased their duties, and now it is suggested that we should go back to children of five years of age, and even two years of age, the age at which children go into the nursery schools.
    The Chairman: I think this is getting a long way from the Amendment.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Children who have received instruction at two years of age will be in the category that the Minister is seeking to bring in, and so a little boy in the nursery school at Farnworth who does not like playing with toy soldiers would not be expected when he is 20 years old to make a good soldier. I expect that is the information that the Ministry requires. If that were the justification for the Clause it would, in my opinion, be far more logical than the explanation that was given by the Chancellor of the Duchy. He said that we have not got a register of males in this country, and therefore we are setting up this slipshod method of checking up the boys of 20 years old. If you are going in for conscription, for heaven's sake do the job properly. Set up your register, if you want to, but do not be checking up in this way. What are you doing? By this method you are putting the duty on local educational authorities of finding the young men who may not have responded. That is the job of the policeman, not of the local educational

    1109
    authority. Why do you not get people to do the job whom you are paying for it? You are not paying the local education authorities, or the teachers, to do this kind of work, and I strongly object to their being asked to do it, and particularly to be asked to do it in this way.
    You could have argued that there were men of 20, whom you might have lost sight of, who were now going through college; you might have had difficulty in finding out their addresses, and could have got them at college. There might have been a justification for this Clause in order to enable you to find the addresses of those young men. But when they have left the school or the college, it is not the duty of the principal of the college, or the headmaster of the school, to trace them. And when you have traced them, have they to be tabulated? Is the Eton boy to go into the Army at 20 as an Eton boy, and the Borstal boy as a Borstal boy? Is that the purpose for which you want this information, or is it that you think you will be able to get from the Borstal institution the information that is not readily available elsewhere? It seems to me that in introducing the education authorities into this business at all you are making a great mistake.
    9.35 p.m.
    Mr. Assheton: The hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson) represents a county in which I know that there is no desire to evade any form of service that the country wishes to impose. I am certain that when he thinks over the argument he has put forward, he will realise that he has done himself less than justice. Would the local education authority consider it improper to make use of machinery which was not invented for the purpose, for example, to get information from the Registrar-General as to the ages of children whom it compels to come to school? This is really a very small point. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) generally manages to bring some argument of weight to every subject upon which he speaks, but on this occasion I do not think that he had a single solid argument. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) suggested that there might be some breach of confidence, but surely no one can suggest it is a breach of confidence to ask the age of a boy. I hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment.
    Mr. Ede: You do not ask a boy his age under this proposal. These words relate to a boy who has left school and whose parents disclosed information in the belief that is would be treated as confidential by the person to whom they gave it.
    Mr. Assheton: There is nothing confidential in regard to the age of any man.
    9.37 p.m.
    Mr. Stephen: I want to ask for a little more information. I would like to know whether the Board of Education were consulted with regard to this Clause, and I should like some information as to the figures that were before the Board of Education, when, I presume, they were consulted. How many educational institutions and schools do the Government think can be tapped in this connection? I also presume that they would have some estimate of the number of educational institutions who have kept lists of their former pupils and tried to bring the process up to date. If the Minister could give the Committee some information in that respect, it would be helpful. To try to secure a list of those who have received education at institutions as a check on the registration by individuals will prove a very costly business, out of all proportion to any value it may have. One of the difficulties is the lack of specific figures with regard to the educational institutions. I do not know whether it is due to the fact that we have no representatives of the Board of Education on the Government Front Bench and nobody who can speak with any responsibility as to how many of these lists there may be. The Committee are surely justified in insisting upon getting more specific information than we have yet received in this connection.
    The Minister said that there would be an advantage in taking the lists of those who have received education at educational institutions where such lists could be obtained, but, on the other hand, there are so many people in this country who have not passed through an educational institution at all. There is a section of the community who do not even go into a public school, and there will be no record of such people. The Minister is telling us about the importance of obtaining information of those who have passed through the elementary schools, but has he any suggestion to make as to how they

    1111
    are going to check up those who have never passed through public educational institutions? Many children have governesses and tutors, and they do not pass through any educational institution, and it is very probable that these are the people upon whom it is most necessary to keep a check.
    Mr. Remer: Why?
    Mr. Stephen: I will tell the hon. Member quite easily. These people have the most for which to fight. They are among the wealthiest members of the community. There is to be no check as to whether they are registered or not, but there will be the harassing of those who have been to elementary schools and other educational institutions. I hope that I have made plain to the hon. Gentleman the difference in this respect. These children are in a specially favoured position like the heirs to the Woolworth millions, and people like that. They do not pass through educational institutions, and yet they have so much more to defend in the event of war. The Committee are in a great difficulty in going on with this discussion because of the absence of anyone who can speak with responsibility from that bench with regard to this particular information. There is no one from the Department who can say that they have this matter before them, and that there are so many elementary, secondary, public and private schools. There are so many kindergarten schools, that I do not know that there can be any record at all. It appears that this is to cost a fearful lot of money without achieving any adequate information. The Government would be wise to accept the Amendment, or to drop the Clause altogether.
    9.44 p.m.
    Mr. Messer: I want to add my voice to the protests which have been made at the absence of the representative of the Board of Education. I do not think there is any question as to the qualification to deal with this particular question, but there are those who are members of educational authorities who have a right to hear from the representative of the Board of Education just how this Clause is to be worked. Take a county educational authority which is responsible for part of a county so far as elementary education is concerned. If this Amendment is not
    1112
    accepted, and these words are not deleted, that authority has to give to the Minister particulars of all those who have passed through the elementary schools. Many of the children will have gone into the secondary schools or the technical schools, and these schools will be asked for particulars in regard to the children who have been educated, and there will be overlapping and duplication and a great deal of confusion unless some special machinery is set up to deal with the matter. My view of the whole situation is that this suggestion has been hurriedly arrived at. I can understand those who are responsible for the Bill wanting to get their register, but I cannot understand the Board of Education lending themselves to this means by which that register can be got. I think we ought to adjourn the Debate until we can have a representative of the Board of Education present.
    There are the county authorities, the Part III authorities, and all the different bodies that deal with education. As the Clause stands, all of them will have not merely to send in a register of those who are attending their educational establishments and, for a period which is not stated, a register of those who have attended the establishment. I have heard it said that all the information required is the name and address. That is not stated in the Clause. What is stated in the Clause is very significant. It does not just say the name and address and the age but it says "such information." Unless these words are interpreted widely, why are we not told what they actually convey? The Bill with these words in it will not give us any opportunity of dealing with any specific questions that may be directed to an education authority. If I am to be a party to passing this Bill into law in one capacity as a Member of Parliament, I may as a county councillor in another capacity not be desirous of giving the very information that may be asked by the Minister. That is not a position in which we ought to be placed. If the Minister now in charge of the Bill will not or cannot give us more information and give us an assurance that the interests of the people will be safeguarded, I hope the House will divide.
    9.47 p.m.
    Captain Arthur Evans: It is somewhat difficult to appreciate the anxiety

    1113
    on this question of hon. Members above the Gangway. It is difficult to know whether they are seeking information from my right hon. Friend or whether they are anxious to know the exact meaning of the Clause. The meaning is clear. It is designed by the Government to facilitate the authorities in obtaining as complete a list as possible of those young men who are subject to six months' training under the Bill. Parliament has already approved of the principle, and I cannot believe that it is the desire of hon. Members above the Gangway that a certain section of people through lack of efficient machinery should escape the obligation which the House desires to place upon them. Listening to some of the speeches, one would assume that it is a crime to ask the educational authorities to furnish this information. What information is it that they are asked to furnish?
    Mr. Messer: The Clause does not say.
    Captain Evans: From the Clause as it is drafted it is obvious that the Minister is anxious to seek from the local authorities the names of those young men who are liable to be called up on a certain day. It is obvious from the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy that that is the desire of the Government.
    Mr. Messer: He is not the responsible Minister.
    Captain Evans: It is obvious that it does not require a Minister of Education to explain the purpose of the Clause. Why is it suggested that it is a crime to ask the education authorities to supply this information? One hon. Member above the Gangway asked why the police were not asked to supply this information. It is the duty of every citizen to do what is necessary to facilitate the authorities in giving effect to the law, and I cannot understand why it is right for one civil servant, be he a War Office official or an official of the police force to furnish information, and why it is wrong for the school authorities to do so. Having approved of the principle, I am sure that it is the desire of hon. Members above the Gangway and the desire of the whole Committee that as few exceptions as possible should be made from the principle we have approved, and that the machinery should be so designed that no leakage occurs.
    9.51 p.m.
    Major Milner: I do not think the hon. and gallant Member for Cardiff, South (Captain A. Evans) has really appreciated the full meaning of the Clause. It appears to me that the words with respect to which an Amendment has been moved would enable the local education authorities to look even into the antecedents of the father, the elder brother, or any male relative of a person liable to be called up. The hon. and gallant Member, say, has a very presentable son, possibly about the age of 20, and under this Clause the local authorities would not only be able to inquire into the hon. and gallant Member's antecedents but also into his conduct when he was at school. They would also be able to inquire into medical matters. Those of us who have children at school know that there are frequent medical examinations. It will be possible for the authorities to obtain the most personal confidential information from medical reports kept at school, not only in regard to the individual liable to be called up but also into that individual's elder brother, father or uncle.
    It is perfectly absurd to have in the Clause the words "or who have received." It would be possible in the event of its being desired to prosecute any individual, or in the case of a conscientious objector, to make inquiries from the school or the university at which that person had been educated, as to his previous proclivities—had he been a member of a Left-wing organisation at the university or the school, had he been in an officers' training corps, or a Boy Scout. A hundred and one other questions might be asked. One hon. Member behind me suggests that it might be asked whether he had been a member of the Oxford Group. Neither the local education authority nor any Government Department has the right to inquire into the antecedents of those now at school or university or those who have been there in the last 10, 20, 30 or 40 years. There is no limit to the inquiry which could be made by the authorities in these schools. The Clause is far too wide. It would involve obvious overlapping and mean a great deal of work for education authorities, many of whom are not financially too well off. Moreover, they are short of staff, and this provision would be an imposition upon them even in relation to those at present

    1115
    at school or at the university. It is far too great a task to impose on local authorities, and I hope the Committee will pass the Amendment.
    Captain Evans: The hon. and gallant Member says that the Clause enables a local authority to seek any information on any subject which they thing desirable. I can only assume that he has not read the Clause, because the last words are that local education authorities shall provide any information
    "as the Minister may from time to time require for the purposes of this Act to obtain."
    And the purpose of this Bill is to call up young men of 20 and 21.
    Major Milner: If I may reply to the hon. and gallant Member, the Bill does much more than that. It enables proceedings to be brought against them, tribunals to be set up, penalties to be inflicted and prosecutions for false statements to be brought. It is the hon. and gallant Member who has not read the Bill.
    9.56 p.m.
    Mr. McCorquodale: There is one point I want to put before the Committee. The Minister of Labour has in his possession, through the list of insured persons, all those who would be eligible to be registered under this Bill and, therefore, the Section of the community which hon. Members above the Gangway think that they represent so largely in this House will, without any further review, come under the control of the Minister of Labour. It is those people who do not come under that scale, those who are outside the provisions of the Insurance Acts because they are above the money standards, who will not come under the Bill, and I want to ask hon. Members above the Gangway whether they are prepared, knowing that all insured persons can be got immediately by the Minister of Labour, to let off those who because of their higher financial standards are not in that list? It is a serious point. As to persons who are in the list of insured, the Minister of Labour has all the details about them, their names, their ages—
    An Hon. Member: Why do you want this Clause?
    Mr. McCorquodale: We want this Clause to catch those who are above the stan-
    1116
    dard, but hon. Members want to let off the rich man and catch the poor.
    9.58 p.m.
    Mr. E. J. Williams: If the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. McCorquodale) had heard the statement made by the Attorney-General or the Chancellor of the Duchy he could not have put the interpretation on this Clause that he has. The Minister clearly indicated in his reply that, owing to the migration which has taken place, a large number of persons who had attended elementary schools could not now be traced and that there was no check as to their actual age. This is purely a working class imposition, as it is to be applied to children who have gone through elementary schools. Another feature of the Measure which is quite original is that the Minister under the Bill is the Minister of Labour. He can get all this information by asking the authorities to send him the registers for so many years back and work out the information for himself. He has a staff which can go through the register and ascertain all the information he requires. Instead of that, he is imposing on local authorities work which will interfere with their proper function of educating the children of this country. They have no clerical assistance.
    Taking a register of the children is a job which is normally done by the teacher of the class or form, and, as to secondary schools, only a fortnight ago a secondary school with which I have some connection was obliged to appoint a clerk to the headmistress for the first time owing to the onerous clerical duties which were falling on her and the staff of the school. These school authorities, where they have no clerical assistance, will be expected to provide the information required not of certain individual cases, but probably of a large number of cases over a large number of years. I assume that I am correct, although I have no right to make that assumption because the Committee has not had the advantage of hearing from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education precisely what is expected of local authorities. In addition, there is a difficulty mentioned by an hon. Member. Take my own county of Glamorgan. The county authority within its own administrative area is responsible for elementary and secondary education, but there are certain urban areas, like the Rhondda Valley, where you have an authority re-

    1117
    sponsible for elementary education but not for secondary education. You have separate registers probably of the same individual kept by different authorities, with consequent duplication of administration.
    This is a duty which should not be placed on local education authorities. The Clause is in the Bill purely for the purpose of finding the individual whom the Minister thinks would not be sufficiently honest, after having given his name, to say accurately what his age was! There are a number of people in this country who have not gone to an educational institution and there is nothing in the Clause which will enable the Minister of Labour to obtain any information about people who have had private tuition outside any educational institution. The Clause is aimed at working people and not at people who are sufficiently rich to be able to educate their children privately. People who have escaped the register which is normally kept by the Minister of Labour for occupational purposes can now be caught by this means, but there is no means by which children belonging to the upper middle classes or the very wealthy classes can be traced. There is nothing in the Clause that would enable them to be traced, and certainly nothing could be done retrospectively to find out exactly what educational institutions these children might have been in over a period of years if the interpretation of the Clause is the one placed upon it by the Minister. I am certain that my hon. Friends will not only vote for the Amendment but vote against the Clause standing part of the Bill.
    10.6 p.m.
    Captain Heilgers: I cannot agree with the narrow suspicions that have been expressed by hon. Members opposite. As far as I can see, there is no ground whatever for the point of view stated by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) and other hon. Members that there is a distinction in this Clause between the working classes and other classes. Hon. Members have only to read the Clause to see that it includes universities and schools of all kinds. It seems to me that in one direction it would be of very great benefit if all possible information were given; I refer to the medical side. For a long time, I was the chairman of the medical inspection committee of my county
    1118
    council. We kept most complete records of the whole history of the children on the medical side. If these records were made available, they would be of very great benefit to the militiamen when they join the Army.
    10.7 p.m.
    Mr. Gallacher: The finest argument for this Amendment was that supplied by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he said that if the Amendment were carried, it would make the Clause inoperative. For that reason, every hon. Member ought to support the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman said the Clause would apply only to very few, because the large mass of the youth of this country is loyal. I maintain that the great mass of the youth is loyal for freedom and democracy, and if it were a question of an army of freedom, and not a conscript army, we should get a response that would stagger any Fascist army in any part of Europe. I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that, while the youth are loyal to freedom and democracy, they have no loyalty to the Government or the Prime Minister. Therefore, this Clause will apply not to a very small minority, but to a very large proportion of the young men of this country, young men who would be quite ready to defend freedom and democracy, but who can never in any circumstances trust the Prime Minister or the National Government. It is because the Chancellor of the Duchy and those associated with him believe that this applies to a very large number—and not to a small number—that they want to bring the schools under the control of the military.
    It is a scandal that we should even contemplate allowing the military to get an entry into the schools of this country. If that happens, in a short time we shall have the children doing the goosestep. One hon. Member opposite said that the Ministry of Labour have a working-class register, and that this provision will apply only to the sons of the wealthy; and when the hon. Member said that, my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson) said it was a matter for the policeman. Yes, get the policeman in for that. It is those people who need to have the policemen after them. Will the Minister tell us what will be the position if an education authority has a con-

    1119
    scientious objection to giving information to the military? I hope that every education authority in the country will understand its responsibility to the children of this nation and refuse to give information to the military. If, instead of bringing the schools under the military, the Government were prepared to take into account the real interest of the nation, and abolish itself and make way for a government that would make a real peace pact in Europe, we could get a response from the young men of this country that would make this Bill unnecessary.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is getting a long way from the Amendment.
    10.12 p.m.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: I do not feel that we have had any clear explanation from the Minister as to the nature of the information that would be required under this Clause. It seems to me that the information in possession of the education authorities concerning those who have passed through their hands falls under two heads. First, there is what I would call statistical information; matters of the date of birth, Christian names and so on, which in a great majority of cases would not be confidential information. It may be very objectionable indeed that education authorities should be asked to supply even that information, but it is not of a confidential nature. Secondly, there is a great deal of other information in the hands of all education authorities concerning their pupils or students and ex-pupils or ex-students. There are matters concerning their antecedents, matters affecting their conducts and character, and youthful peccadillos which they have perpetrated; there is also very confidential medical information which is in the hands of the school medical authorities; and finally, there is, of course—especially in the case of universities—information concerning their political and religious opinions. All those categories of information seem to me to be highly confidential.
    This information is either given to the education authorities in confidence, or comes into their possesson in circumstances which render it confidential. As I read the Clause, the Minister has power to call upon those authorities for all confidential information of that nature. No doubt the present Minister of Labour
    1120
    would be the first to assert that he will call only for information of a statistical nature to assist him in his duties. I am sure he will disclaim any intention of using these powers to obtain confidential information of the kind to which I have referred. But may I remind him that even Ministers of Labour come and go—not quite as frequently, I agree, as other Ministers. The right hon. Gentleman does not make such lightning and kaleidoscopic changes as, for instance, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. But Ministers come and go and Governments come and go, and I can see circumstances arising in which a Government of a certain political complexion might avail itself of these powers, for purposes quite different from those for which, I have no doubt, the Minister of Labour intends to use them. Unless we can have an assurance on that point, and some further information on the exact nature of the particulars which it is proposed to obtain under this Clause, and the purposes for which it is to be used, I feel bound to resist the passing of the Clause in its present form.
    10.17 p.m.
    Mr. Beechman Mr. Beechman rose—
    Hon. Members: Divide!
    Mr. Beechman: Hon. Members opposite appear reluctant to hear anybody on this side of the Committee, even one who intends to speak in support of their own view. I am greatly shocked by the way in which this Clause is drawn. It is true that the power of the Minister to require information is limited to some extent by the words, "for the purposes of this Act." But when one considers what this Measure does, one realises that he may draw his net very widely. The Bill contains provisions as to conscience and medical fitness. Therefore, the Minister would have it in his power to demand information in regard to the conscience of an individual who had been educated at a particular school. He would be entitled to ask what the political and religious views of a student had been and what attitude a student had adopted in his work on questions of conscience. Similarly, he would be empowered to ask questions concerning the medical history of a student. I cannot see why those matters to which the Minister says he will confine himself, such as age, address, and occupation, should not be specified in the Clause. If those are the only matters on

    1121
    which the Minister intends to seek information, why on earth cannot they be put into the Bill? The fact that the Minister refuses to specify these matters in the Bill, must raise some suspicions, however unjustifiable, that there is an intention to ask for information of the wider character to which I have referred. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will see his way at some appropriate stage to put limiting words into this very wide Clause.
    10.20 p.m.
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I think there is a misapprehension as to the extent of the powers for obtaining information contained in this Clause, and it is right that the Committee should be disabused of any exaggerated view which may be held of the effect of the Clause. The information which the Minister is empowered to obtain is limited by two very important qualifications, namely, that it must be information which he may require for the purposes of this Act, and I cannot for myself—
    The Deputy-Chairman: I understand that we are still on an Amendment. The discussion seems to have gone rather over the Clause as a whole, but we had better have an understanding that we are discussing only the Amendment if it is desired to discuss the Clause later.
    Mr. Shinwell: We shall not debate the Clause itself.
    The Deputy-Chairman: Then that will be quite satisfactory.
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I understood that the Committee had adopted the course of discussing the Clause with your consent.
    Mr. Maxton: On a point of Order. I did not quite get the nature of the intervention of the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), but we have discussed this Amendment for about on hour on the assumption that we were discussing the Amendment only, and the majority of speakers have endeavoured to limit themselves to the Amendment on the assumption that there would be an adequate debate on the Clause itself. I think it is very wrong, at this late date in the discussion, when, as I understand, we were just going to a Division, to say that we are now discussing the Clause as a whole.
    The Deputy-Chairman: All that I can point out is that if we go on discussing
    1122
    the Clause after the Amendment is disposed of, we shall not go very much further before the Guillotine falls.
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: The only thing I wish to say with regard to the Amendment is that it is desired only to get the information that is necessary for the purposes of the Act. As some apprehensions have been expressed that all sorts of entirely irrelevant requests for information may be made, and in order to make clear the intention of the Government, I will undertake to have a look between now and the Report stage to see whether some words can be used which will make the matter clearer. My present opinion is that the words as they stand bear the interpretation which I have put on them and that a local authority could resist giving any information that was not for the purposes of the Act. It is our desire to make this Clause as agreeable as possible to the wishes of hon. Members.
    Mr. E. J. Williams: Will it be permissible on the part of a local authority to refuse to give any information which it considers it would be disloyal to any person who may have attended a particular school to give?
    Mr. Morrison: I would not go so far as to say that this is a matter of opinion for the local authority, who might hold an opinion which would not be right, but the truth is that the Minister is only empowered to demand information that is necessary for the purposes of the Act, and where he demanded such information as was not necessary, he would have no power to enforce the demand.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: May I put this to the Minister? He has just assured the Committee that the only information which will be required under this Measure will be information for the purposes of the Act. Is it not the case that that will apply to the Clauses of the Bill which refer to the appearance of conscientious objectors before a tribunal? That is one of the purposes of the Act, and one can easily imagine that in certain cases a tribunal might find it hard to decide as to the bona fides of the application of a conscientious objector. In that case would it be open to the Minister to go, for instance, to the university authorities and ask for confidential information as to whether an undergraduate had ever given

    1123
    expression to any views concerning conscientious objection during his time at the university?
    Mr. Morrison: I should say, generally, no; at any rate, that is not the intention. The question about conscience is one to be decided at the time a man appears before the tribunal. What sort of opinions a man held some years previously at the university will be largely irrelevant. Similarly, with regard to questions of health. As I have said, I desire to meet the wishes of the Committee and to make this Clause express what is the intention of the Government, and I have undertaken that we will look into it to see whether we can improve it. We will examine it in the light of the discussion.
    Mr. Stephen: Can the Minister tell us how many educational institutions he estimates will come under the purview of
    this Clause and the number which have kept a register?
    Mr. Morrison: I am afraid it would not be possible to say how many educational institutions have kept registers. The Clause says only such information as they have or can reasonably obtain, and if they have no register they are under no liability.
    Mr. McCorquodale: Would it not cover all the points raised if instead of the words "require for the purposes of this Act," there were the words "require for the purpose of compiling a register"?
    Mr. Morrison: I will consider that.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 249; Noes, 146.

    Division No. 126.]

    AYES.

    [10.28 p.m.

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

    Critchley, A.

    Hammersley, S. S.

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

    Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

    Hannah, I. C.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

    Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    Albery, Sir Irving

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

    Harbord, A.

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

    Cross, R. H.

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.

    Crossley, A. C.

    Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Apsley, Lord

    Cruddas, Col. B.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Culverwell, C. T.

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

    Assheton, R.

    De Chair, S. S.

    Hepworth, J.

    Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

    De la Bère, R.

    Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.

    Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Holdsworth, H.

    Balniel, Lord

    Danville, Alfred

    Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

    Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

    Dodd, J. S

    Hewitt, Dr. A. B.

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

    Donner, P. W.

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

    Beechman, N. A.

    Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V. G.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Bernays, R. H.

    Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

    Hunter, T.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Dugdale, Captain T. L.

    Hutchinson, G. C.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Dunglass, Lord

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

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

    Eastwood, J. F.

    Keeling, E. H.

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Eckersley, P. T.

    Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

    Brass, Sir W.

    Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

    Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

    Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

    Ellis, Sir G.

    Kimball, L.

    Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

    Elliston, Capt. G. S.

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

    Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

    Emery, J. F.

    Lamb, Sir J. O.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Emmott, C. E. G. C.

    Latham, Sir P.

    Bull, B. B.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

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

    Burghley, Lord

    Errington, E.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

    Erskine-Hill, A. G.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

    Burton, Col. H. W.

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

    Levy, T.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Everard, Sir William Lindsay

    Lewis, O.

    Cartland, J. R. H.

    Fildes, Sir H.

    Liddall, W. S.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Findlay, Sir E.

    Lipson, D. L.

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

    Fleming, E. L.

    Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

    Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)

    Premantle, Sir F. E.

    Locker-Lampion, Comdr. O. S.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Loftus, P. C.

    Channon, H.

    Goldie, N. B.

    Lyons, A. M.

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

    Gower, Sir R. V.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

    Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.

    MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Colville, Rt. Hon. John

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

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

    Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

    Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

    Grimston, R. V.

    McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

    Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    McKie, J. H.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

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

    Magnay, T.

    Cox, H. B. Trevor

    Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

    Maitland, Sir Adam

    Craven-Ellis, W.

    Hambro, A. V.

    Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

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

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Markham, S. F.

    Rayner, Major R. H.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Marsden, Commander A.

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

    Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Medlicott, F.

    Renter, J. R.

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

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

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Touche, G. C.

    Moore, Lieut.-Colonel Sir T. C. R.

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.

    Rowlands, G.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Moreing, A. C.

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    Turton, R. H.

    Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

    Walker-Smith, Sir J.

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

    Russell, Sir Alexander

    Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

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

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

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

    Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

    Salmon, Sir I.

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    Munro, P.

    Salt, E. W.

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

    Sandeman, Sir N. S.

    Warrender, Sir V.

    O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

    Sanderson, Sir F. B.

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

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Sandys, E. D.

    Wells, Sir Sydney

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Schuster, Sir G. E.

    Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

    Peake, O.

    Selley, H. R.

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Peat, C. U.

    Shakespeare, G. H.

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

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Shepperson, Sir E. W.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Petherick, M.

    Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

    Wise, A. R.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Pilkington, R.

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Wragg, H.

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

    Radford, E. A.

    Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

    York, C.

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

    Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Storey, S.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Rankin, Sir R.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Captain Waterhouse and Mr Furness.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Gibson, R. (Greenock)

    Mathers, G.

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

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

    Maxton, J.

    Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    Messer, F.

    Adamson, W. M.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Milner, Major J.

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

    Grenfell, D. R.

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

    Ammon, C. G.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

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

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Muff, G.

    Banfield, J. W.

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    Nathan, Colonel H. L.

    Barnes, A. J.

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

    Naylor, T. E.

    Barr, J.

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Noel-Baker, P. J.

    Batey, J.

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Beaumont, H. (Batley)

    Hardie, Agnes

    Owen, Major G.

    Bellenger, F. J.

    Harris, Sir P. A.

    Paling, W.

    Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

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

    Parker, J.

    Bevan, A.

    Hayday, A.

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Broad, F. A.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Pearson, A.

    Bromfield, W.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

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

    Brown, C. (Mansfield)

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Price, M. P.

    Buchanan, G.

    Hicks, E. G.

    Pritt, D. N.

    Burke, W. A.

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Cape, T.

    Hopkin, D.

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Riley, B.

    Chater, D.

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Ritson, J.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

    Rothschild, J. A. de

    Cocks, F. S.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Sealy, Sir H. M.

    Collindridge, F.

    Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Sexton, T. M.

    Cove, W. G.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Shinwell, E.

    Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

    Kirby, B. V.

    Silverman, S. S.

    Daggar, G.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Dalton, H.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Lathan, G.

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

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Lawson, J. J.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Leach, W.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Dobbie, W.

    Lee, F.

    Stephen, C.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    Leslie, J. R.

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

    Ede, J. C.

    Logan, D. G.

    Stokes, R. R.

    Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

    Lunn, W.

    Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

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

    McGhee, H. G.

    Thurtle, E.

    Foot, D. M.

    McGovern, J

    Tinker, J. J.

    Frankel, D.

    MacLaren, A.

    Tomlinson, G.

    Gallacher, W.

    Maclean, N.

    Viant, S. P.

    Gardner, B. W.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Garro Jones, G. M.

    Mander, G. le M.

    Watson, W. McL.

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Marshall, F.

    Welsh, J. C.

    1126

    1127

    White, H. Graham

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Amendment made: In page 15, line 20, leave out "to obtain."—[The Attorney-General.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    10.38 p.m.
    Mr. Maxton: I raise my voice briefly in opposition to the Clause. I hope the Minister will say something to justify the Clause; everything he has said has made it less justified. As I think over the possibilities of the Clause I see that it is not only unjustifiable but absolutely unworkable. If it is to track, as the Minister says, the young men who are now 20–21 years of age through the elementary schools—although the Minister says that it applies only to a minority and to those who have failed to register voluntarily—it means that the Government have to go to every education authority in England, Scotland and Wales and ask for the production of the registers for six years back. The registers have to be produced out of the archives which, in the ordinary elementary school is the stokehold, which is the only archive they have. Every elementary school has to produce its registers. In Scotland, where co-education is the general rule, registers of boys and girls are to be produced, to catch perhaps one per cent. of the total number of young fellows of 20–21 years of age. The elementary schools have to get out their registers for six or seven years past and out of them to pick all the young males as distinct from the females and then to make a search to find those who have removed, those who have died and those who have vanished from the district. I think it is the silliest and most preposterous proposition that has been put before the House in connection with this silly and preposterous Bill, and I will vote against it.
    10.40 p.m.
    Mr. Garro Jones: Anything which savours of back-door inquiries is profoundly distasteful to the people of this country. I do not mind whether it is a Gestapo or an Ogpu; I do not mind what the intentions of the Minister may be; what we are concerned with is what is said in the Clause. We are giving great
    1128
    privileges, and rightly so, to conscientious objectors, but the Minister has now the opportunity of allowing the consciences of his own side to operate, and I am certain that, if every hon. Member who has listened to the Debate were given a free vote on this Clause, it would not be allowed to stand part of the Bill. It is all very well to say that only the names of these ex-pupils will be asked for, but that is not what the Clause says. Under the Clause, the Minister will be entitled to ask for what has been the nightmare of most of us ever since we left school, namely, school reports. When the ex-pupil is appearing before the conscientious objectors' tribunal, the question of how far he has a conscience at all will become relevant. His school reports may be put in front of them saying that he was a little liar, that he was lazy, or something of that sort, and it will be said that a man with a school record of that kind cannot have a conscience.
    Further, I do not think the Minister realises that under the Bill it would be perfectly proper and permissible for a man to have conscientious objections against compulsory military service on the ground that he would prefer to serve voluntarily and disbelieves in compulsory military service. Under Clause 3, he is entitled to have a conscientious objection merely to being compulsorily registered, and a man of 20 or 21 could very well go before a tribunal and say he has a conscientious objection to compulsory military service but is quite prepared to serve voluntarily; and if he made out that case he would be entitled to be placed on the register of conscientious objectors. If an attempt were made to make out such a case, the Minister would be entitled to call for any information relevant to refute the case before the tribunal.
    I see that there is a later Amendment to apply the ordinary rules of evidence to the procedure before these tribunals, that is to say, in certain cases some of these applicants or objectors might be examined as to credit, to see what sort of character they possessed, and in such a case every kind of information relative to their school record would be obtainable by the Minister on demand. I am going

    1129
    to appeal to the Minister to allow the Clause to go to a free vote of the Committee. He will lose very little if he loses the Clause. It is a convenient method of finding the names, and I believe that that may really be the honest intention of the Minister, but he may have successors—indeed, he is bound to have successors, perhaps sooner than he thinks, in these days of rapid changes—who will have different opinions, and in such a case there is potential harm in the Clause. I
    appeal to him on this one occasion, the only occasion during these Guillotine Debates, to allow the Clause to go to a free vote of the Committee, and allow the conscientious scruples of Members of every party to assert themselves by rejecting it.
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 253; Noes, 148.

    Division No. 127.]

    AYES.

    [10.45 p.m.

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

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    Liddall, W. S.

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

    Dunglass, Lord

    Lipson, D. L.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

    Eastwood, J. F.

    Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

    Albery, Sir Irvine

    Eckersley, P. T.

    Loftus, P. C.

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

    Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

    Lyons, A. M.

    Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Ellis, Sir G.

    MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

    Apsley, Lord

    Elliston, Capt. G. S.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Emery, J. F.

    MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Assheton, R.

    Emmott, C. E. G. C.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

    Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    McKie, J. H.

    Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

    Entwistle, Sir C. F.

    Magnay, T.

    Balniel, Lord

    Errington, E.

    Maitland, Sir Adam

    Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

    Erskine-Hill, A. G.

    Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

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

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

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

    Beechman, N. A.

    Everard, Sir William Lindsay

    Markham, S. F.

    Bernays, R. H.

    Fildes, Sir H.

    Marsden, Commander A.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Findlay, Sir E.

    Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Fleming, E. L.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Fremantle, Sir F. E.

    Medlicott, F.

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

    Furness, S. N.

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

    Brass, Sir W.

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Goldie, N. B.

    Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

    Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

    Gower, Sir R. V.

    Moore, Lieut.-Colonel Sir T. C. R.

    Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

    Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.

    Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.

    Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

    Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

    Moreing, A. C.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

    Bull, B. B.

    Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

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

    Burghley, Lord

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

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

    Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

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

    Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

    Burton, Col. H. W.

    Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

    Munro, P.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Hambro, A. V.

    Nall, Sir J.

    Cartland, J. P. H.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Hannah, I. C.

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

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

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

    Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)

    Harbord, A.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Channon, H.

    Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

    Palmer, G. E. H.

    Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Peake, O.

    Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

    Peat, C. U.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Colville, Rt. Hon. John

    Hepworth, J.

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

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

    Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.

    Petherick, M.

    Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

    Holdsworth, H.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)

    Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

    Pilkington, R.

    Cox, H. B. Trevor

    Howitt, Dr. A. B.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Craven-Ellis, W.

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

    Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

    Critchley, A.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

    Hunter, T.

    Radford, E. A.

    Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

    Hutchinson, G. C.

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

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

    James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

    Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

    Cross, R. H.

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

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Crossley, A. C.

    Keeling, E. H.

    Rankin, Sir R.

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Cruddas, Col. B.

    Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

    Rayner, Major R. H.

    Culverwell, C. T.

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    De Chair, S. S.

    Kimball, L.

    Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

    De la Bère, R.

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

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Remer, J. R.

    Denville, Alfred

    Latham, Sir P.

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Dodd, J. S.

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

    Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

    Donner, P. W.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V. G.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

    Levy, T.

    Rowlands, G.

    Dugdale, Captain T. L.

    Lewis, O.

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

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

    Warrender, Sir V.

    Russell, Sir Alexander

    Storey, S.

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

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

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Wells, Sir Sydney

    Salmon, Sir I.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

    Salt, E. W.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Sandeman, Sir N. S.

    Sutcliffe, H.

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

    Sanderson, Sir F. B.

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

    Sandys, E. D.

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Schuster, Sir G. E.

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

    Wise, A. R.

    Selley, H. R.

    Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Shakespeare, G. H.

    Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

    Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Wragg, H.

    Shepperson, Sir E. W.

    Touche, G. C.

    Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

    Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    York, C.

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Walker-Smith, Sir J.

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

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

    Mr. Grimston and Captain McEwen.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

    NOES.

    Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Noel-Baker, P. J.

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

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Owen, Major G.

    Adamson, W. M.

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    Paling, W.

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

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

    Parker, J.

    Amnion, C. G.

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Pearson, A.

    Banfield, J. W.

    Hardie, Agnes

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

    Barnes, A. J.

    Harris, Sir P. A.

    Price, M. P.

    Barr, J.

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

    Pritt, D. N.

    Batey, J.

    Hayday, A.

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Beaumont, H. (Batley)

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Bellenger, F. J.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Riley, B.

    Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Ritson, J.

    Broad, F. A.

    Hicks, E. G.

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    Bromfield, W.

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Rothschild, J. A. de

    Brown, C. (Mansfield)

    Hopkin, D.

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Buchanan, G.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Sexton, T. M.

    Burke, W. A.

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Shinwell, E.

    Cape, T.

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

    Silverman, S. S.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Chater, D.

    Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

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

    Cocks, F. S.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Collindridge, F.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Cove, W. G.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

    Stephen, C.

    Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

    Lathan, G.

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

    Daggar, G.

    Lawson, J. J.

    Stokes, R. R.

    Dalton, H.

    Leach, W.

    Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Lee, F.

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Leslie, J. R.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Logan, D. G.

    Thurtle, E.

    Dobbie, W.

    Lunn, W.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Tomlinson, G.

    Ede, J. C.

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Viant, S. P.

    Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    McGovern, J.

    Watson, W. McL.

    Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

    MacLaren, A.

    Welsh, J. C.

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

    Maclean, N.

    White, H. Graham

    Foot, D. M.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

    Frankel, D.

    Mander, G. le M.

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Gallacher, W.

    Marshall, F.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Gardner, B. W.

    Maxton, J.

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Garro Jones, G. M.

    Messer, F.

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Milner, Major J.

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

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

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Gibson, R. (Greenock)

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

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

    Muff, G.

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    Nathan, Colonel H. L.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. Mathers and Mr. Groves.

    CLAUSE 10.—(Power to provide for consequential matters.)
    10.55 p.m.
    Mr. Foot: I beg to move, in page 15, line 25, after "Council," to insert:
    1132
    "at any time within twelve months after the passing of this Act."
    This Amendment stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely). On

    1133
    the last Clause a number of hon. Members took exception to the excessive powers being conferred upon a Government Department. If such objections apply to that Clause, they apply with even greater force to this one. I have seldom seen a Clause containing powers quite as wide as these put in any Bill brought before the House of Commons. I would ask hon. Members to look at the terms of the Clause. There are two powers given in this Clause. Power is given by Order in Council to make provision for such consequential matters as may appear expedient to provide for by reason of the passing of the Act, and the Government are also given power by Order to modify any enactment relating to such matters. Every hon. Member will realise that these are very wide powers indeed. The Government may provide for anything they please arising out of this Act and also may dispense with the provisions of any Act of Parliament. The second limb of this is what we are accustomed to call the Henry VIII Clause. In my view, and in the view of all my hon. Friends, it is entirely wrong at any time that a Government Department, or indeed the Government themselves, should have unlimited powers to set aside the provisions of Acts of Parliament.
    I see in his place the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay), and only 10 days ago he made a very eloquent speech on a private Member's Bill in which it was proposed that power should me given, by odrer or by regulation, to set aside the provisions of private and local Acts. This is something that goes very much further than that. This matter was very fully conidered, as the Government know, by the Committee on Ministers' Powers. They produced a unanimous report. One of the signatories to that report was the new Minister of Supply, and it is a pity he is not on the Front Bench in order to advise the Government on this matter this evening. They considered it at great length, and heard a great deal of evidence on the subject of the Henry VIII Clause. I will remind the Committee of what they said. They said:
    "There can be no doubt of the extreme convenience, from the point of view of those charged with the duty of bringing into effective operation a far-reaching measure of reform, of a dispensing power such as that contained in the so-called 'Henry VIII Clause.' But again the argument of convenience may be pushed too fax. Even though it
    1134
    may be admitted that Parliament itself has conferred these powers upon Ministers, and must be presumed to have done so with the knowledge of what it was doing, it cannot but be regarded as inconsistent with the principles of Parliamentary Government that the subordinate law-making authority should be given by the superior law-making authority power to amend a statute which has been passed by the superior authority."
    That is perfectly clear. The Committee went on to make this recommendation. They said the Henry VIII Clause should be used only for the purpouse of bringing the Act into operation, and that the operation of the Clause should be confined to the first 12 months of the Act.
    I should like to see a Clause of this kind go altogether, but I appreciate that now we are acting in such a hurry it is too much to ask. I would like the whole Clause to have gone, but it is not unreasonable to ask the Government to carry out in this matter the unanimous recommendation of the Donoughmore Committee. Whenever they are asked about these matters at Question Time they tell us that they are bearing in mind the recommendations of the Committee, but it is very rarely they give effect to them. They ought to tell us whether they accept this recommendation and whether they will apply it.
    They will not lose anything by accepting an Amendment of the kind that I have moved. They could make all the consequential alterations they want to make within 12 months. It seems to me and my hon. Friends on these benches that there is danger about the Bill and about the other Bill that we shall consider to-morrow. This is emergency legislation. It is being rushed through the House. There are many important points which we have no opportunity to consider. We are being asked in these Bills to pass Clauses of which the House would be very suspicious at any other time. Because it is emergency legislation we ought not to be asked to set up precedents which the House would always regret.
    It will be said that these Orders must be submitted to Parliament, and that the assent of the two Houses must be obtained. That is a very different thing from legislation. Admittedly, it is a safeguard worth having, but every hon. Member knows the difficulty under which the House labours when Orders are presented like that. We are in this great difficulty,

    1135
    that although we can accept or reject, we cannot amend. Again and again when we have Orders presented in this way hon. Members, not only on this side but on the other side of the House, have found themselves in the difficulty that although they might criticise this or that detail, they could not give effect to their criticism in the Division Lobby, unless they were prepared to vote against the Order as a whole. This is a point that will come on later on the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), and I only mention it to show that it is not sufficient in matters of this kind to say simply that the Order will be laid before the House and assent obtained.
    Mr. McKie: The Government have been more than generous already in the concessions they have made. The hon. Member is suggesting that the Orders in Council will be presented in a very hurried way.
    Mr. Foot: I do not suggest that they will be presented in a hurried way. I was saying that whatever the way in which they are presented, the House will be powerless to amend then. Even if we had weeks of discussion we should still be powerless to amend them, under this procedure. Therefore, that is a very different matter from legislation. Again and again on this Bill when certain matters have been raised and hon. Members have pointed out that this or that matter is not provided for in the Bill, we have been referred to Clause 10 and told that all these things will be dealt with by Orders made under Clause 10. That shows what wide use the Government intend to make of these particular powers. Therefore, they are not simply to deal with one or two minor details. It is wrong that the Government should have powers of this kind for, at any rate, an unlimited time. They ought to be used, if at all, only for a very short time and for the purposes of emergency. We want to confine them to that kind of purpose, and that is why I move the Amendment.
    11.5 p.m.
    Mr. E. Brown: The hon. Member always put his case with great lucidity and persuasiveness, but I think I shall be able to satisfy the Committee that the procedure which the Government have
    1136
    chosen is the right procedure if the aim of the Clause is to be achieved. What is the aim of the Clause? It is to deal with consequential matters. What are the consequential matters? The first is that we desire to take action on behalf of the militiaman. The whole foundation of the Clause is to secure certain things for him. The first thing is his civil rights, and the second his contractual liabilities. When men are called up for training things will have to be settled about their civil rights and their civil liabilities. The Committee may ask what kind of thing we mean. We mean the militiaman's pension rights, his insurance rights, his civil contractual liabilities. There are also other matters. We want to be able to secure by Orders in Council, after the draft has been approved by both Houses of Parliament, certain other things. The hon. Member is quite right in drawing attention to the very wide powers which are given. They are necessarily very wide powers, because our aims are wide.
    We have to consider what we can do and how best we can do it in regard to rents, to payments under hire-purchase agreements, mortgage agreements and periodic payments in respect of insurance, especially insurances with collecting societies. That is a formidable list. The Clause is directed to easing the position of the militiaman while on service, to make his mind easy while he is undergoing his training. The Government take the view that it is impossible to foresee all the things which are liable to crop up in the course of the next few months. The Government cannot foresee them, and no Department can foresee them. One by one they will be brought to the notice of the Government, and the Government consider that the best way of dealing with them is by Orders in Council setting out what is the solution for these problems in order to ease the minds of men when they are called up, and to ask both Houses of Parliament to give the Order their authority. I think the Committee will see that it is preferable in this particular case to the procedure of having to come to the House with an Act of Parliament, because many of the decisions we shall have to make about these important subjects will be decisions which will be necessary in the interests of the militiaman and in the interests of all those who are bound by any contractual liability, and it will be

    1137
    desirable to get a decision as quickly as Parliament can do so on his behalf. It is for that reason that the Government have chosen this way.
    As regards superannuation or pension rights, the Clause can deal with such rights as are conferred by Statute, or by schemes made in pursuance of statutory authorities such as the superannuation rights of local government authority employés, and also pension and superannuation rights that are extra-statutory, such as pension and superannuation rights that persons enjoy in undertakings such as railway companies and banks. I would also add that, as the Committee has been informed already, the decisions to be taken about Unemployment Insurance will naturally fall under Clause 10. I think that when the Committee considers the importance of these subjects to the militiamen, it will agree that, despite the formidable arguments that were put forward by the Donoughmore Committee in general about this procedure, this is the most practical and expeditious way of dealing with these most important questions which will be exercising the minds of the militiamen in regard to their civil pension rights and their contractual obligations.
    Mr. Foot: Could not the Minister address himself to the Amendment on the Paper. The Amendment is to the effect that these powers should be exercised only within the 12 months of the passing of the Act. We have been told that expedition is necessary. If there is expedition, all these points will have been cleared up within 12 months.
    Mr. Brown: I thought I had answered that point. I pointed out that a number of other things which could not be foreseen might crop up from time to time. I think it is wise that the powers should continue, if the need for them should continue, for the duration of the Act.
    Mr. Magnay: All these things were done during the last War. As a matter of fact, it was my job to do them for the whole of the North Durham area. While the Minister was speaking, I was wondering whether all these things, such as pensions and contractual obligations, could not be dealt with by regulations or by some other means without using so big an instrument as an Order in Council.
    Mr. Stephen: May I ask whether the decisions arising out of this Clause would involve a charge on the Treasury?
    Mr. Brown: Certainly. It was for that reason that the Committee found itself in a paradoxical position with regard to the Financial Resolution. I think it was the widest Financial Resolution I have ever known.
    Mr. Stephen: On a point of Order. I want to submit that, on the statement of the Minister, this Clause will involve a charge on the Treasury. Why is it not printed in italics?
    Mr. Brown: If the hon. Member will look at Clause 13, he will see the answer.
    11.14 p.m.
    Sir P. Harris: I want to say a few words in support of the Amendment. We realise that the only justification for this Bill is the urgency of the situation, and we are not going as far as we would like to go and asking for the elimination of the Clause. What we ask is that it should be limited to the immediate situation, and that when the necessity for it disappears, we should go through the ordinary legislative formula, and protect the rights of the citizen, which is our responsibility in the House. It is very significant—I would not like to say sinister—that the Minister who replied on the Amendment was the Minister of Labour. He explained that the Clause would protect the private citizen from the unreasonableness of employers or the danger of a loss of employment. The right hon. Gentleman put forward a very seductive argument in favour of the Clause when he said that it was for the purpose of protecting the civic rights of the citizen. But there is another Minister alongside the right hon. Gentleman—the Secretary of State for War. No doubt he desires that this power should not be arbitrarily used by his Department, but Ministers come and Ministers go. He is the third Secretary of State for War we have seen in this Parliament and we might have a Minister with harsher views and stonier heart than the right hon. Gentleman. Experience shows that there is a terrific temptation to Government Departments to use powers of this kind harshly in order to swell the numbers in the Army, or to drag in men whom Parliament does not intend to bring

    1139
    within the purview of this Measure. It is vital that the House of Commons should keep these powers in its own hands, and if they must be used, to deal with the serious situation of to-day, they should be strictly limited.
    Mr. Magnay: May I press for an answer to my question?
    11.16 p.m.
    Mr. Lees-Smith: Some of the points mentioned by the Minister will arise on an Amendment to be moved later by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), but as regards the present Amendment I would say that this Clause is one which gives the Government very far-reaching powers to make Orders in Council. It is practically within the power of the Government to amend the Bill as they wish. For that reason the Clause ought to be greatly safeguarded. The Minister has not answered the point of the Amendment, which is that the power to make these Orders should be limited to 12 months. The instances which he gave were not of matters which would pass beyond 12 months. He himself said, as regards the widest instance given by him, that it would be necessary for the next few months. As the Minister has not answered the Amendment, my hon. Friends and I will support the Mover, if he goes into the Division Lobby.
    11.18 p.m.
    Mr. E. Brown: In reply to the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay) I would say that in the War, the Government did this by Order in Council under the Defence of the Realm Act without the House being consulted. I am sorry that I did not convince the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but I think the Committee will be convinced that since this Measure has to run for three years, and no one can foresee the number of things which may arise in that period, and since Parliament has the right to have these Orders laid on the Table, and to vote upon
    them, it is better that this provision should run for the period of the Measure.
    11.19 p.m.
    Mr. Pritt: This Amendment raises an important question of principle. We are accustomed to Departmental legislation. Some people dislike it, but regard it as. inevitable; others rather like it, and I think, on the whole, I belong to the latter category. But this proposal, if not exactly unprecedented, is dangerous and requires careful consideration. If the Minister, later on, thinks of something which he would like to put into the Bill he can put it in an Order in Council. If the House is sitting when the Order is made that is all right. But if the House is not sitting, the Order may become law and remain law for a very long time. Then the House will be told: "What is the use of trying to put right, retrospectively, something which is a fait accompli"? It really is committing an important part of the duty of the Legislature to a Government Department, and I do not think the Committee should sanction that. The Minister said that lits of things might crop up. As long as we have a Government like this, we may have a crisis every week, but we are getting so used to it that when something urgent does crop up the Government produces its legislation rapidly, and it is dealt with. To allow Clauses like this to go through is to abrogate the legislative functions of this House and to entrust them to the right hon. Gentleman. It was suggested that we might have someone worse than the right hon. Gentleman, but he is quite bad enough for me, and I do not want to entrust him with the legislative powers of this House. This Amendment is a very modest one. All that it says is, "Do not let the Minister go on legislating for ever, but give him 12 months of dictatorship, and then tell them to shut up."
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 141; Noes, 243.

    Division No. 128.]

    AYES.

    [11.22 p.m.

    Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

    Barr, J.

    Burke, W. A.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Batey, J.

    Cape, T.

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

    Beaumont, H. (Batley)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Adamson, Jannie L. (Dartford)

    Beechman, N. A.

    Clue, W S.

    Adamson, W. M.

    Bann, Rt. Hon. W. W.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Ammon, C. G.

    Bevan, A.

    Collindridge, F.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Bromfield, W.

    Cove, W. G.

    Banfield, J. W.

    Brown, C. (Mansfield)

    Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

    Barnes, A. J.

    Buchanan, G.

    Daggar, G.

    Dalton, H.

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Price, M P.

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

    Pritt, D. N.

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Dobbie, W.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Riley, B.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    Kirby, B. V.

    Ritson, J.

    Ede, J. C.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

    Rothschild, J. A. de

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Lathan, G.

    Sexton, T. M.

    Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

    Lawson, J. J.

    Shinwell, E.

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

    Leach, W.

    Silverman, S. S.

    Foot, D. M.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Frankel, D.

    Logan, D. G.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Gallacher, W.

    Lunn, W.

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

    Gardner, B. W.

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Garro Jones, G. M

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Stephen, C.

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    McGovern, J.

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

    Gibson, R. (Greenock)

    MacLaren, A.

    Stokes, R. R.

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

    Maclean, N.

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Mander, G. le M.

    Thurtle, E.

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Marshall, F.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

    Mathers, G.

    Tomlinson, G.

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Maxton, J.

    Viant, S. P.

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    Messer, F.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Groves, T. E.

    Milner, Major J.

    Watson, W. McL.

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

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

    Welsh, J. C.

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

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

    White, H. Graham

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

    Muff, G.

    Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

    Hayday, A.

    Nathan, Colonel H. L.

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Noel-Baker, P. J.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Owen, Major G.

    Windsor, W. (Hull. C.)

    Hicks, E. G.

    Paling, W.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Parker, J.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Holdsworth, H.

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Hopkin, D.

    Pearson, A.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

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

    Sir Percy Harris and Sir Hugh Seely.

    NOES.

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

    Craven-Ellis, W.

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

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

    Critchley, A

    Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

    Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

    Grimston, R. V.

    Albery, Sir Irving

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

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

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

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

    Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.

    Cruddas, Col. B.

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

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Culverwell, C. T.

    Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

    Apsley, Lord

    De Chair, S. S.

    Hambro, A. V.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    De la Bère, R.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Assheton, R.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Hannah, I. C.

    Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

    Denville, Alfred

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    Balniel, Lord

    Dodd, J. S.

    Harbord, A.

    Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

    Donner, P. W.

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

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

    Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

    Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

    Bernays, R. H.

    Dugdale, Captain T. L.

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Duggan, H. J.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P

    Bossom, A. C.

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

    Boulton, W. W.

    Eastwood, J. F.

    Hepworth, J.

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

    Eckersley, P. T.

    Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

    Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

    Brass, Sir W

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

    Howitt, Dr. A. B.

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Ellis, Sir G.

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

    Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

    Elliston, Capt. G. S.

    Hunter, T.

    Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

    Emery, J. F.

    Hutchinson, G. C.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Emmott, C. E. G. C.

    James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

    Bull, B. B.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

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

    Burghley, Lord

    Entwistle, Sir C. F.

    Keeling, E. H.

    Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

    Errington, E.

    Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

    Butcher, H. W.

    Erskine-Hill, A. G.

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

    Cartland, J. R. H.

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

    Kimball, L.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Everard, Sir William Lindsay

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

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

    Fildes, Sir H.

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)

    Findlay, Sir E.

    Latham, Sir P.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Fleming, E. L.

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

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Fremantle, Sir F. E.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Channon, H.

    Furness, S. N.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

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

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Levy, T.

    Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

    Gluckstein, L. H.

    Liddall, W. S.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Goldie, N. B.

    Lipson, D. L.

    Colville, RI. Hon. John

    Gower, Sir R. V.

    Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

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

    Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

    Loftus, P. C.

    Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

    Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.

    Lyons, A. M.

    Cox, H. B. Trevor

    Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    1142

    1143

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Macdonald, Capt. P. (Ids of Wight)

    Rankin, Sir R.

    Sueter, Roar-Admiral Sir M F.

    McKie, J. H.

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Macnamara, Lieut.-Colonel J. R. J.

    Rayner, Major R. H.

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Maitland, Sir Adam

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

    Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

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

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

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

    Thomas, J. P. L.

    Markham, S. F.

    Remer, J. R.

    Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

    Marsden, Commander A.

    Richards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

    Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

    Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Touche, G. C.

    Medlicott, F.

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

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

    Rowlands, G.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    Turton, R. H.

    Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

    Walker-Smith, Sir J.

    Moore, Lieut.-Colonel Sir T. C. R.

    Russell, Sir Alexander

    Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

    Moore-Brabazon, Ll.-Col. J. T. C.

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

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

    Moreing, A. C.

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

    Salmon, Sir I.

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

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

    Salt, E. W.

    Warrender, Sir V.

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

    Sanderson, Sir F. B.

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

    Sandys, E. D.

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

    Munro, P.

    Scott, Lord William

    Wells, Sir Sydney

    Nall, Sir J.

    Selley, H. R.

    Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

    Shakespeare, G. H.

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

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

    Shepperson, Sir E. W.

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

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Palmer, G. E. H.

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Wise, A. R.

    Peake, O.

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

    Petherick, M.

    Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

    Wragg, H.

    Pilkington, R.

    Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

    Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

    Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

    Spens. W. P.

    York, C.

    Procter, Major H. A.

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

    Young, A. S. L. (Particle)

    Radford, E. A.

    Storey, S.

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Captain McEwen.

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

    Clause II ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 12.—(Regulations and Orders.)
    11.33 p.m.
    Mr. Lawson: I beg to move, in page 16, line 15, after "make," to insert "draft."
    This Clause deals with Orders and Regulations, and my Amendment proposes that they shall be draft Orders and Regulations. As hon. Members will know, if the Clause remains in its present form the only course open to any one who objects to any Orders or Regulations is to move a Prayer against them, and then the House is told that the only thing it can do is to accept them or reject them, that there is no opportunity of amending them. We have had abundant experience of that with Unemployment Insurance Regulations and we have always been told, "You have got to accept the Regulations or reject them." The purpose of this Amendment is to secure that they shall be submitted as draft Regulations, so that the House may have an opportunity of amending them.
    There is one question I should like to put to the Attorney-General. There were
    1144
    two Bills dealing with military training, and the first one was withdrawn. In the memorandum accompanying the first Bill it stated clearly in regard to this Clause 12:
    "Power is taken to make Regulations subject to amendment by either House of Parliament."
    In the second Bill that has been altered, and the reference now is to moving Regulations. I submit that if we accept the Clause in its present form we shall find ourselves in the same difficulties in the future as we have experienced in the past. Hon. Members opposite, as well as those on this side of the Committee, may want an opportunity of dealing thoroughly with these Regulations, which may cover very wide subjects, affecting these men vitally, as the right hon. Gentleman himself said. If the Committee would like the opportunity of amending these regulations, which deal with vital subjects, it should accept this Amendment to make them draft, rather than complete, Regulations which have either to be accepted or rejected by the House of Commons.
    11.36 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: The Amendment covers two points. One is the question whether the Regulations should be made

    1145
    in draft, in which case they could not come into effectual operation until 40 days after they were made. The other is the question of amendment. The hon. Gentleman referred to what he calls the first Bill. I understand how the misunderstanding arose. The hon. Gentleman has referred to paragraph 13 of the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum which is in front of the present Bill. There was a phantom draft, in which it was intended that these Regulations should be subjected to amendment. The word "amendment" in the Memorandum is a misprint for the word "annulment." [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I think hon. Members will see that it is so if they look at the form of the wording:
    "Power is taken to make regulations subject to amendment by either House of Parliament within 40 days of Session."
    That is descriptive. There was never any other Bill; there was never any intention of amendment. This word is a misprint, and "annulment" is the proper word.
    Mr. Lawson: The draftsman was thinking of what it ought to be.
    The Attorney-General: I cannot go into that point, in competition with the hon. Gentleman. Everybody agrees that this Bill arose during an emergency and that it makes a great and vital departure. It raises problems of procedure—these Regulations will deal only with procedure—of a difficult character, needing to be dealt with by Regulations, which have to be specifically made with regard to the registers in Clause I. It is one of the principles of the Bill that the registers should be brought into operation at the earliest practicable moment after the Bill becomes an Act. It would therefore be quite wrong to adopt the procedure contemplated by the Rules (Procedure) Act, under which 40 days must elapse before regulations can be enforced at all. I suggest that the Bill is rightly drafted in providing that the Regulations shall come into force forthwith and that either House of Parliament should be given the power to annul the Regulations. The hon. Gentleman described the procedure quite accurately.
    It is not usual for the House to claim the power of amendment with regard to Regulations of this character, which deal with procedure. Whatever hon. and right hon. Members may feel about the Bill, this would be an inappropriate power
    1146
    to introduce, as it is not normally exercised. Because of the urgency of the matter, and because the Regulations will be strictly confined to procedure, I would advise the Committee to reject the Amendment.
    11.40 p.m.
    Mr. Foot: The Attorney-General says that these Regulations are not suitable for amendment, and rather suggests that we are dealing with matters of detail—[Interruption.] Perhaps I misunderstood him. I suggest, however, that the question rather turns on the importance of the matters that are dealt with by Regulation. Earlier in the day there was an Amendment by the Chancellor of the Duchy to add to Clause 6 a new Sub-section:
    "If the Minister is satisfied that it is necessary to restrain employers from terminating the employment of their employés by reason of any duties or liabilities which they are or may become liable to perform or discharge by virtue of the provisions of this Act, or to make provision for the prevention of evasion of the provisions of this Section, he may make regulations for those purposes, and such regulations may make provision for the punishment of breaches of the regulations and may in particular apply with respect to persons found guilty of such breaches any of the provisions of this Section relating to persons found guilty of offences under this Section, with or without modifications."
    That is an extremely wide power. Indeed, the whole question, of evasion, the whole question of the employer who takes a man back for a week and then dismisses him, will be dealt with by regulation. The Committee showed earlier that Members of all parties attach the greatest importance to this matter, but we shall be unable to deal with the Regulations except by a Prayer at some late hour at night; although we shall be determining the criminal law, we shall be creating new offences, and we shall be determining what the punishment shall be for these offences. The earlier part of the Amendment may be criticised, and there may be Regulations which ought to be brought into force at once, but what I am concerned about is the main intention of the Mover of the Amendment, and that is that, when we are dealing by Regulations and Orders with these extremely important matters, when we are laying on large classes of persons entirely new obligations and inflicting entirely new penalties, the House should keep in its hands the power to shape and amend these various measures.
    11.44 p.m.
    Miss Wilkinson: The statement of the Minister on the previous Amendment left us in a difficult position. Some of us who had the original Regulations in our hands assumed that there would be amendments to the draft, but if the draft Orders laid before Parliament are not allowed to be amended, it seems to me that certain of the matters mentioned by the Minister as examples of the kind of matters on which he would make Regulations are so important, and cover such vital interests, that they ought to have been provided for in the Bill itself. As hon. Members know, I am very interested in the question of hire-purchase, and large numbers of people throughout the country are interested in it. I have received many letters from firms who are greatly concerned as to what is going to be the Government's view with regard to the contractual obligations of these youths, many of whom get motor bicycles and so on by hire-purchase.
    I suggest that this is not a matter where a great deal of very fine alteration is needed. What it really means is a settlement of the principle. The settlement of the principle ought to be debated by this House. If we are to have the position that matters of this importance are to be laid before the House in the form of draft Regulations which we can only accept or reject as they stand, we are going to be in that position in which this Government have so often placed the House. They put before us something which goes a certain way along the road we wish, but they fail to meet important objections. Then we are told that we must have that or reject it. Thus, we are placed in the position of having to take far less than we think we ought to have.
    If the Minister of Labour is going to try to deal with these matters which so vitally affect the constituents of not only hon. Members on this side but of hon. Members on the other side as well, he is going to create far more difficulties through these draft Regulations than if he put specific principles in the Bill. I ask the Attorney-General, could he give some indication of what is in the Government's mind regarding this important question of hire-purchase? We are not legislating in a war but in peace-time, and therefore we should get some carefully thought out precedents on these
    1148
    matters, rather than leave them to be decided in a rush at the last moment.
    11.47 p.m.
    Mr. Wedgwood Benn: The Minister must have drafted these Regulations in some form. I fancy one of the Ministers was reading from a copy. Could they not be laid before Parliament before this Measure is passed?
    11.48 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: I do not know that they are drafted. I think the hon. Lady was referring to Clause 10, not this Clause.
    Mr. Benn: Does the Attorney-General mean to say that on a revolutionary matter of this kind, which we must dispose of in a few weeks, there is no such draft? If he says that I must accept the statement, but it is astounding that, on a matter of national safety, that should be the position.
    The Attorney-General: There is no such draft. They may have been thought out, but there is no draft.
    11.49 p.m.
    Mr. Stephen: Clause 10 may empower the Minister to make Regulations to deal with some other situation which has arisen. The Minister is made the judge as to what may or may not be within the scope of the Order. Can we get an assurance from the Attorney-General that no such things will be done under the Regulations; that nothing will be done to extend the age or to increase the numbers within the conscription area?
    The Attorney-General: It is quite clear that the Regulations cannot go outside the Bill. As to the Orders, we cannot go into that question now.
    Mr. Stephen: Under Clause 10 an Order can be made to make provision for consequential matters.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member must not discuss Clause 10.
    Mr. Stephen: I have no intention whatever of discussing Clause 10. I am only saying that under Clause 10 Regulations may be made, while under Clause 12 (2):
    "Any Regulations made. … by the Minister shall. ֵ be laid before Parliament."
    Possibly the Attorney-General does not yet realise the width of his own Bill, that under Clause 10 the Minister may do any-

    1149
    thing and that Regulations under Clause 12 may result. I want an assurance that there will be no such thing.
    11.53 p.m.
    Mr. Silverman: I understood the Attorney-General to say just now that any regulations made would have to be under the powers of the Bill. I take him to mean that if the Regulations went outside those powers they would be ultra vires and unenforceable. If that be so, may I put it to him that there was a discussion a little time ago whether a certain course of conduct would amount to an evasion of an obligation under the Act or would merely amount to a fulfilment under the Act The Minister thought it would be an evasion, and proposed to deal with it by Regulations designed to cover the contemplated evasion. Suppose it turned out that the Minister was wrong and that those who thought that the procedure was not an evasion, but the fulfilment of the obligation, were right; would it follow that any Regulations made by the Minister in order to deal with the matter were ultra vires and therefore of no avail?
    If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would like the illustration, the point was whether an employer who took a man back upon a weekly contract of employment, kept him a week and then gave him a week's notice in lieu of wages, was fulfilling the obligation, and whether all the elaborate machinery of Clause 6 would be of no effect. The Minister thought it would be an evasion. If the Regulations turn out
    to be ultra vires, we should be back where we started; there would be no protection at all for the men who went back to their jobs.
    Mr. Stephen: Does the hon. Member not remember that the Minister of Labour said that he would make his Regulations under Order in Council under Clause 10? The Attorney-General has now told us that the Minister will not make any Regulations under Order in Council in Clause 10.
    Mr. Silverman: The only point I was making was that there is a considerable danger that any Regulations made to deal with the point in which so many of us are interested would turn out to be ultra vires.
    The Attorney-General: I do not think it is as the hon. Gentleman suggests. Perhaps he will again look into the wording of the Clause. I did my best to follow the various hypotheses he put. I was doing my best to follow him. I do not think that there is any such danger as he apprehends, that an Order would be made ultra vires.
    Mr. Silverman: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not here when we had that discussion, it is not my fault, but if he had been here he would realise that the danger is a real danger.
    Question put, "That the word 'draft' be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 136; Noes, 247.

    Division No. 129.]

    AYES.

    [11.58 p.m.

    Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Harris, Sir P. A.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Davies, S. O. (Marthyr)

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

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

    Dobbie, W.

    Hayday, A.

    Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Ammon, C. G.

    Eda, J. C.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Banfield, J. W.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Badwellty)

    Hicks, E. G.

    Barnes, A. J.

    Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Barr, J.

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

    Holdsworth, H.

    Batey, J.

    Foot, D. M.

    Hopkin, D.

    Beechman, N. A.

    Frankel, D.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

    Gallacher, W.

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Bevan, A.

    Gardner, B. W.

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

    Bromfield, W.

    Garro Jones, G. M.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Buchanan, G.

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Burke, W. A.

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Cape, T.

    Gibson, R. (Greenock)

    Kirby, B. V.

    Cartland, J. R. H.

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Lathan, G.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Lawson, J. J.

    Collindridge, F.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

    Leach, W.

    Cove, W. G.

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Logan, D. G.

    Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    Lunn, W.

    Daggar, G.

    Groves, T. E.

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Dalton, H.

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    McGhee, H. G.

    McGovern, J.

    Pritt, D. N.

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    MacLaren, A.

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Maclean, N.

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Riley, B.

    Thurtle, E.

    Marshall, F.

    Ritson, J.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Maxton, J.

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    Tomlinson, G.

    Messer, F.

    Rothschild, J. A. de

    Viant, S. P.

    Milner, Major J.

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Watson, W. McL.

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

    Sexton, T. M.

    Welsh, J. C.

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

    Shinwell, E.

    White, H. Graham

    Noel-Baker, P. J.

    Silverman, S. S.

    Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Owen, Major G.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Paling, W.

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

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Parker, J.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Pearson, A.

    Stephen, C.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

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

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

    Price, M. P.

    Stokes, R. R.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Mr. Mathers and Mr. Adamson.

    NOES.

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

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

    Liddall, W. S.

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

    Ellis, Sir G.

    Lipson, D. L.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

    Elliston, Capt. G. S.

    Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

    Albery, Sir Irving

    Emery, J. F.

    Loftus, P. C.

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

    Emmott, C. E. G. C.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Anstruther-Gray, W, J.

    Entwistle, Sir C. F.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

    Apsley, Lord

    Errington, E.

    McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Erskine-Hill, A. G.

    McKie, J. H.

    Assheton, R.

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

    Macnamara, Lieut.-Colonel J. R. J.

    Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

    Everard, Sir William Lindsay

    Magnay, T.

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

    Fildes, Sir H.

    Maitland, Sir Adam

    Balniel, Lord

    Findlay, Sir E.

    Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

    Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

    Fleming, E. L.

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

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

    Fox, Sir G. W. G.

    Markham, S. F.

    Bernays, R. H.

    Fremantle, Sir F. E.

    Marsden, Commander A.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Furness, S. N.

    Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Gluckstein, L. H.

    Medlicott, F.

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

    Goldie, N. B.

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

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Gower, Sir R. V.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Brass, Sir W.

    Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

    Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.

    Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.

    Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

    Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

    Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.

    Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Moreing, A. C.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

    Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

    Bull, B. B.

    Grimston, R. V.

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

    Burghley, Lord

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

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

    Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

    Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

    Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

    Butcher, H. W.

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

    Nall, Sir J.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

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

    Hambro, A. V.

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

    Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)

    Hammersley, S. S.

    O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Hannah, I. C.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Channon, H.

    Harbord, A.

    Palmer, G. E. H.

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

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Peake, O.

    Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

    Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Colville, Rt. Hon. John

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

    Petherick, M.

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

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

    Pilkington, R.

    Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

    Hepworth, J.

    Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

    Cox, H. B. Trevor

    Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Craven-Ellis, W.

    Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

    Radford, E. A.

    Critchley, A.

    Howitt, Dr. A. B.

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

    Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

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

    Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

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

    Hulbert, Squadron-Leader N. J.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Hunter, T.

    Rankin, Sir R.

    Cruddas, Col. B.

    Hutchinson, G. C.

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Culverwell, C. T.

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

    Rayner, Major R. H.

    De Chair, S. S.

    James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    De la Bère, R.

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

    Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Keeling, E. H.

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

    Denville, Alfred

    Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

    Remer, J. R.

    Dodd, J. S.

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Donner, P. W.

    Kimball, L.

    Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

    Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

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

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Dugdale, Captain T. L.

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Duggan, H. J.

    Latham, Sir P.

    Rowlands, G.

    Duncan, J. A. L.

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

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    Eastwood, J. F.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

    Eckersley, P. T.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

    Russell, Sir Alexander

    Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

    Levy, T.

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    1152

    1153

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

    Warrender, Sir V.

    Salmon, Sir I.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Salt, E. W.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

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

    Sanderson, Sir F. B.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Wells, Sir Sydney

    Sandys, E. D.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

    Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

    Scott, Lord William

    Sutcliffe, H.

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

    Selley, H. R.

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Shakespeare, G. H.

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

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

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

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

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

    Shepperson, Sir E. W.

    Thomas, J. P. L.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

    Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

    Wise, A. R.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Touche, G. C.

    Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Wragg, H.

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C

    Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

    Turton, R. H.

    York, C.

    Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

    Walker-Smith, Sir J.

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

    Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

    Spens, W. P.

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Mr. Munro.

    Storey, S.

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    It being after Midnight, The CHAIRMAN proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions on Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given, and the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at Midnight at this day's sitting.
    Amendment made: In page 16, line 16, leave out from "Act," to the end of the Sub-section.—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 14.—(Interpretation, etc.)
    Amendments made:
    In page 17, line 13, leave out from "navy," to the end of line 14, and insert:
    "the regular forces and the regular air force and includes any similar regular naval, military, or air forces raised in any part of His Majesty's dominions; and the expressions 'regular forces' and 'regular air force' have the meanings assigned to them by the Army Act and the Air Force Act, respectively;
    'His Majesty's reserve and auxiliary forces' means His Majesty's reserve and auxiliary forces raised in the United Kingdom."
    In line 22, at the end, add:
    "(2) For the purposes of this Act—

    (a) a person residing in Great Britain who is, under the provisions of any Act in force in any part of His Majesty's dominions outside Great Britain a national or citizen of that part within the meaning of that Act, or who is a person born or domiciled in any such part of His Majesty's dominions or in a British protectorate, a mandated territory, or any other country or territory, being a country or territory under His Majesty's protection or suzerainty, shall be deemed to be ordinarily resident in that part, protec-
    1154
    torate, country, or territory, as the case may be, if he has been resident in Great Britain for less than two years or is residing there only for the purpose of attending a course of education or the circumstances of his residence in Great Britain are otherwise such as to show that he is residing there for a temporary purpose only; and

    (b) a person residing in Great Britain, not being such a person as is mentioned in the foregoing paragraph of this Sub-section, shall be deemed to be ordinarily resident in Great Britain unless he proves that he is residing there only for the purpose of attending a course of education or that the circumstances of his residence in Great Britain are otherwise such as to show that he is residing there for a temporary purpose only;

    (c) a person residing outside Great Britain (not being a person to whom paragraph (a) of this Subjection would have applied if he had been residing in Great Britain) shall be deemed to be ordinarily resident in Great Britain unless he proves that he has been resident outside Great Britain for a continuous period of not less than two years or that he is not residing outside Great Britain for a temporary purpose only."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 15.—(Power to extend to Northern Ireland and Isle of Man.)
    Amendment made: In page 17, line 24, leave out "to Northern Ireland and."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 16.—(Duration of Act.)
    Amendment made: In page 18, line 3, leave out "made," and insert "expressed to come into operation."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Whereupon The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  SOLICITORS BILL [Lords].
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [11 th May], That this House doth concur with the Lords in the Resolution:
  "That it is desirable that the Solicitors Bill [Lords] be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament."
  Question again proposed.
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

  MARRIAGE BILL.
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; read the Third time, and passed.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Eighteen Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.

EDUCATION.
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS (SPECIAL PLACES).
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS (SPECIAL PLACES).
  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
  REFUGEES.
  REFUGEES.
  GERMAN BROADCASTS (ARABIC AND AFRIKAANS).
  GERMAN BROADCASTS (ARABIC AND AFRIKAANS).
  IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.
  IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES' POWERS.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES' POWERS.
CIVIL DEFENCE.
  AIR-RAID SHELTERS (INCOME TAX ASSESSMENTS).
  AIR-RAID SHELTERS (INCOME TAX ASSESSMENTS).
  TEST BLACK-OUTS.
  TEST BLACK-OUTS.
  FACTORY PREMISES, SCOTLAND.
  FACTORY PREMISES, SCOTLAND.
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  AIRCRAFT CONTRACTS (HARDMAN LEVER COMMITTEE).
  AIRCRAFT CONTRACTS (HARDMAN LEVER COMMITTEE).
  MCLINTOCK AGREEMENT.
  MCLINTOCK AGREEMENT.
  AIR SERVICES APPROPRIATION ACCOUNT, 1937.
  AIR SERVICES APPROPRIATION ACCOUNT, 1937.
  PENSIONS.
  PENSIONS.
  CIVIL SERVICE (FIGHTING FORCES).
  CIVIL SERVICE (FIGHTING FORCES).
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (VENTILATION).
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (VENTILATION).
  FOOD DEFENCE PLANS.
  FOOD DEFENCE PLANS.
  MARRIAGES (SCOTLAND).
  MARRIAGES (SCOTLAND).
  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  FISHING INDUSTRY (TRAWLERS).
  FISHING INDUSTRY (TRAWLERS).
  LAW REVISION COMMITTEE.
  LAW REVISION COMMITTEE.
  FOOTBALL POOLS.
  FOOTBALL POOLS.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  CLUBS (LICENSING).
  CLUBS (LICENSING).
BRITISH ARMY.
  SERVICE ABROAD.
  SERVICE ABROAD.
  TERRITORIAL ARMY OFFICERS (REGULAR COMMISSIONS).
  TERRITORIAL ARMY OFFICERS (REGULAR COMMISSIONS).
  FOREIGN LEGION.
  FOREIGN LEGION.
  MILITIAMEN (RELIGIOUS SERVICES).
  MILITIAMEN (RELIGIOUS SERVICES).
  STREET IMPROVEMENT, NORWICH.
  STREET IMPROVEMENT, NORWICH.
  STREET PLAYGROUNDS ACT (LEICESTER).
  STREET PLAYGROUNDS ACT (LEICESTER).
  WATERLOO BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION.
  WATERLOO BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION.
  POST OFFICE (DUKINFIELD).
  POST OFFICE (DUKINFIELD).
AGRICULTURE.
  LAND DRAINAGE (RIVER OGMORE).
  LAND DRAINAGE (RIVER OGMORE).
  MUTTON AND LAMB (PRICES).
  MUTTON AND LAMB (PRICES).