Sitting of 12 December 1941

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

NATIONAL SERVICE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD MOYNE): My Lords, the Bill for which we ask a Second Reading to-day is the third in the series of National Service Acts, and it defines, and in certain respects limits, the powers of the Minister of Labour. Already the Ministry of Labour has the very widest control over the lives and energies of all men and women of all ages, and these powers were provided, not under a National Service Act but under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act of 1940, which provided that all persons, irrespective of sex or age, should place themselves, their services and their property at the disposal of His Majesty. Taken by itself, the National Service Bill is of course of considerably narrower scope than the new and improved method by which the Minister of Labour directs our man-and woman-power to its most efficient use. His powers are defined for administration under a very elaborate code. They derive, firstly, from Orders in Council, which are the authority for regulation under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, and they are also founded on Proclamation under the National Service Act. It is only ten days ago that your Lordships discussed the details of the new and improved administration of these powers which are now proposed, and with the Bill your Lordships should read the White Paper on Man-Power, which deals not only with the provisions of this particular measure which we are discussing to-day, but also with the general policy and the administrative action by which it is to be applied.
Before I deal very briefly with the provisions of the Bill I would like to clear up certain points on which anxiety was expressed last week. It has been asked how far the new powers of compulsory call-up will in fact add to the liability of

259
women, seeing that everyone is already subject to direction under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act. It is not intended to compel any woman to serve in the Auxiliary Forces if she would prefer instead to serve in Civil Defence or in certain specified vacancies in industry. It is only if a woman does not wish to avail herself of the other option that she will be called up under the Bill for service in the Auxiliary Services. Married women are specially exempted by the third subsection of Clause 3, which lays down the definition entitling them to this special consideration. It does not, of course, include widows, and in another part of the measure there is provision that people who are separated and have no children are also not included in the exemption. The exemption of married women from the Auxiliary Services also applies to the Civil Defence Services. They are therefore only liable to be directed to work in industry, and there, too, there are very far-reaching restrictions.
By administrative arrangement the wife of a Service man is not required to leave her home to take up employment, but she can be directed into local work provided that does not interfere with household responsibilities. Cases of doubt are referred to the women's panel of the local employment committee, and, if anyone is thought to refuse employment unreasonably, directions are issued, but even then the woman has an opportunity to appeal to a local appeals board. Married women, if they have husbands serving in any of the three Fighting Services, are not to be ordered to take work which would involve leaving their homes or would interfere with their family obligations. I have been supplied with details of the machinery by which women's cases will be considered, but I am not sure whether the House would really wish to hear the further provisions, though I shall give them to the Lord Chancellor in case any further points are raised in connexion with this subject. I would say that the code administered by the Minister of Labour is rather complicated, and I am very glad that the Lord Chancellor has consented to deal with many of the difficult points which may arise on the Committee and Report stages; but at this stage your Lordships would probably only want an outline of the provisions.
260
Last week the noble Lord, Lord Greville, raised the question of women working in hospitals. I have discussed the matter with the Minister of Labour, and I find they will not be called up. They will be exempt from direction under the same provisions as apply to vital war work such as munitions, transport, agriculture, the teaching profession, and other occupations which will be published from time to time by the Ministry of Labour. If women in these services wish to volunteer for the Auxiliary Services, they will only be able to do so provided they get the consent of their employer. Therefore, they will find a considerable obstacle to deserting their vital employment, and I hope the noble Lord who raised this matter will be able to achieve his purpose under the Regulation which restricts women to these vital war duties.
Another matter which caused some anxiety among your Lordships was the position in agriculture. When we debated the matter last week the decision as to the 10,000 non-key men in agriculture had not yet been reached. The Government have given the matter very careful consideration, and they feel that agriculture must be treated in the same way as other vital industries, including munitions. All these industries are subject to a comb-out in the lower age-groups of the men who are not really indispensable. Since this matter was first taken up with the agricultural war executive committees certain new facilities have been developed to offer alternative labour to agriculture. Most important is perhaps that which comprises men in the military services stationed in the various districts. My noble friend Lord Croft has given me this morning a list of the various categories which have been made available for work on the land, from which it appears that in August there was an average of 15,000 men from the Armed Forces working every day on the land and some of those were lent by the Army on a semi-permanent basis.
The machinery for obtaining this work is in the hands of the war agricultural executive committees. When those bodies know some time in advance that a large number of men will be wanted for a particular agricultural job which can be carried through regardless of the weather, the committee apply to the local Army Command to arrange for men to be supplied to the areas where they are

261
needed. In an emergency, it a farmer needs a few men quickly, he can apply direct to the Commanding Officer of the nearest unit, who is empowered to supply them. If the farmer does not know the location of the nearest unit he applies to the Army Agricultural Officer, who is usually a farmer or land agent from the locality, well-known to farmers and that means that the farmer can get in touch with the proper unit. It is not a new decision to call up the 10,000 men. They were selected nine months ago and I think with that long notice it will not really cause the dislocation in agriculture which would have been involved by taking them when the matter was first raised. Another source of supply which is becoming available in increasing numbers is the Women's Land Army, and there are also Italian prisoners of war, who are being brought as fast as sea transport allows to work on the land under the arrangements which we discussed last week.
I think that deals with the main points that were raised last week, but I had better run very briefly through the Bill and direct attention to its most important clauses. The first clause declares a liability of all persons of both sexes to National Service, with certain limitations, and provides for special machinery in certain cases. Clauses 2 and 3 are perhaps the most important in the Bill. They extend the age limit of 41 which was laid down in the National Service Act. That limit is now raised to 51, and these two clauses bring in women, with the necessary definition of their liability. The clauses also contain certain technical provisions which are expressed more clearly in the Bill than any explanation that I could attempt to give. The fourth clause simplifies the arrangements for calling up in suitable cases men who, for various reasons, have been discharged from the Forces It also provides for transfer between the Forces which can only be done at the present time by the extremely cumbersome method of discharge and re-engagement. Clause 5 deals mainly with inequality of treatment between various kinds of conscientious objectors, and the rest of the Bill covers detailed administrative problems which I do not think need be outlined to your Lordships at this stage.
The Bill is the result of the latest experience of the needs of National Service, and will perfect the organization by which
262
our man-power can be used to the best national advantage. In its treatment of women it represents a great change of attitude, a breaking down of prejudices, and a transformation in social customs. I commend the Bill to the House. It is really needed, and needed urgently, to enable the Minister to perfect the highly complicated organization by which the lives and efforts of 17,000,000 men and women are directed, and by which our national strength is developed to the utmost efficiency. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Moyne.)
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Addison desires me to express to your Lordships' House his regret at his inability, on the grounds of inescapable public duty elsewhere, to be present to-day to take part in the discussion of this Bill. Your Lordships will have been grateful for the clear statement which the noble Lord the Leader of the House has made with regard to the purpose and purport of the Bill. It is, as he has pointed out, an extension, in a sense, of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act of 1940. Your Lordships will recall that towards the end of May of last year, when His Majesty's present Government had just taken office and when the Battle of France was approaching its crisis, in a mood of exaltation Parliament and the country accepted the heavy burdens imposed by that Act upon all citizens, men and women, and in regard alike to their services and their properties. It was at a critical moment a gesture of defiance of the foe, trust in the newly-appointed Government, and faith in ourselves. It was a magnificent gesture. It was more than a gesture, it was a dedication—of all we have and all we are.
At that time Parliament thought that it was giving to the Government, and the Government certainly thought they were receiving, and the country so understood, complete and absolute powers over persons and property. It now appears that certain legal questions have arisen and that owing to a legal nicety—and legal niceties are not to be underrated in their importance—the Minister of Labour is unable under the Act of that year, as was originally understood, to call women into the Services. It is the immediate purpose of this Bill to deal with that situation so far as women are concerned. The

263
Bill overcomes that difficulty and, as the noble Lord the Leader of the House has indicated, it makes certain minor amendments which administrative experience have shown to be necessary. I think that at this particular juncture in the course of the war your Lordships may welcome the opportunity of asserting once again that everything and every person is at the disposal of the Government for the purposes of the war, and you may also be glad of the opportunity, in face of the harsh facts of the war and the sombre situation that our recent set-back has indicated, of making in relation to this Bill, as an extension of the earlier Act, a dedication anew of all we have and all we are.
I believe that in the situation in which we find ourselves there will be on all hands and throughout the country a ready and spontaneous response, which will be not merely an acquiescence in burdens, but will show readiness and anxiety to accept those burdens. The Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, said, has to be read with the White Paper recently issued. It envisages the full mobilization with the least delay of all men under the age of fifty-one and of all women under the age of forty-one, with certain limitations and modifications so far as the responsibilities of women may be concerned. It is clear, it seems to me, that as the situation develops it will not be long before those limitations of age are removed and it is unlikely to be long before some of the other mitigations of the liabilities of women are removed also. The strain increases. The Armed Services are constantly asking for more; they need more. Factories require to be filled more adequately than has hitherto been the case and there are some amongst us —the older—who will be glad of the, knowledge that the older age-groups are now coming within the immediate purview of this mobilization. There are many whose efforts to be of service have been retarded by the suggestion that they are too old. It is hard, even as one grows older, to be told that they also serve who only stand and wait. Now the time is coming when they may hope to be able to take a more active part in the prosecution of the war.
There are a number of special points which were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, but I do not propose to
264
trespass upon your Lordships' indulgence by dealing with them in detail. He mentioned, for instance, the question of agriculture. That is a matter which may doubtless be discussed further at a later stage of this Bill. I must confess that I am apprehensive that the sanguine expectations of the noble Lord, as to those steps which he indicated as sufficing to provide an adequate provision of labour for agriculture, may not be realized, and that would be disappointing, as agriculture in one sense is the basis on which so much else stands. In this Bill, and in the administrative arrangements proposed, one aspect of the Act of 1940 is dealt with pretty comprehensively, so far as it relates to the imposition of duties upon persons. There is nothing in the present Bill which deals with the other matter—of property and the rights of property, to which the earlier Bill referred, and which were to be placed at the service of the State as circumstances might require. My noble friends who sit upon these Benches take it for granted that where His Majesty's Government may be satisfied that in any particular case selfish obstruction or inefficiency in management or control is to be observed they will not hesitate to take any step which may be apt, however drastic, to remove that obstruction or that inefficiency, so that property as well as persons may make the utmost contribution to the national effort. My noble friends will rely upon His Majesty's Government not to hesitate in any instance where the case is proved.
The administrative arrangements under this Bill place very large powers in the hands of the officials of the Ministry of Labour—powers not only to direct to a particular kind of industry, but as regards large classes of our population, both men and women, to decide whether they shall be directed into the Armed Forces or whether they shall be directed into industry. That itself is a heavy responsibility, affecting so closely as it does the lives of those so directed, but it also has an economic aspect for, by the decision, the officials or the Committee representative of the Ministry of Labour will be deciding whether the man or woman so directed is to receive the relatively high rate of pay prevailing in industry or the relatively low rate of pay prevailing amongst the Armed Forces. Holding the appointment that I do it might be per-

265
haps thought inappropriate that I should dwell upon this subject, and I do not propose to do so except to say that my noble friends propose to raise this matter at an early date upon a separate occasion.
Very much in the same context there is another matter to which I would refer. Your Lordships will appreciate that men of the older age-groups are now to be available for industry. Men over forty crack up under the strain of war conditions and the undertaking of novel work more easily than the younger men. That applies with special force when they are directed into the Royal Navy, the Army or the Royal Air Force, with all the unavoidable hardships and unaccustomed situations in which they may find themselves and circumstances which sometimes involve great physical and mental strain. There is one irritant which has long been most detrimental to the morale of those in the Armed Forces, and which could be removed at an expense quite disproportionately small compared to the ill-effects of that irritant. It arises in this way. When a man is examined by the medical officer before he enters the Armed Forces, if he is passed and enters the Armed Forces, and afterwards his health deteriorates so that he may have to be discharged, he is not entitled to any pension unless it is shown that the deterioration was exclusively due to service in the Armed Forces. More often than not, it is difficult to show that, and men have been, and are being, discharged whose health, as they claim, has suffered by reason of their service in the Armed Forces, and under the terms of the Royal Warrant it is asserted that they are not entitled to a pension because the proof has not been absolute. My noble friends feel that in regard to those who are taken into the Armed Forces as a result of medical examination the Government should apply the old maxim of the lawyer's caveat emptor. When a man has once been admitted, as the result of medical examination, into the Armed Forces, responsibility should be accepted if his health should afterwards deteriorate, irrespective of what investigation into his past history might show.
In another place, it was indicated that there would be a separate opportunity for discussion upon the suggestion that there would be compulsion, or at least part-time compulsion, in regard to the Home Guard, and I do not dwell upon that sub-
266
ject because I assume that the same facilities will be afforded in your Lordships' House as were afforded in another place before action is taken.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, may I interrupt for a moment to remind my noble friend that we had a discussion two days ago on that very subject? The discussion arose on a Motion by my noble friend the Earl of Mansfield.
LORD NATHAN: I am greatly obliged, but I understood that a White Paper is to be issued by His Majesty's Government and draft Regulations laid before Parliament. It is also my recollection that an undertaking was given in another place that no action would be taken until there had been opportunity for considering the White Paper and the draft Regulations.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD CROFT): If so desired.
LORD NATHAN: I would assume that the same procedure will be followed here.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, perhaps I may just explain. It is going to be difficult to get another debate on this separate subject in your Lordships' House. As my noble friend Lord Templemore has reminded your Lordships, we did have a debate two days ago, and the other place is debating the matter on the adjournment, I think. We shall not have time between the conclusion of our procedure on this Bill and the adjournment for a separate discussion, so I think we shall have to take the opportunities offered by these debates to deal with the Home Guard question at the same time as we deal with the Bill.
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, perhaps in the light of what my noble friend has said, I may make the suggestion that opportunity may be taken on the Report stage or the Third Reading of discussing this matter. Or perhaps His Majesty's Government, or my noble friends on these Benches, will put down an Amendment which will enable the question to be raised. The difference, I think, between the position in another place and the position here is that in another place they will have before them in definite terms the suggestions of His Majesty's Government in the form of a White Paper, whereas here the matter has had to be discussed

267
without us knowing with precision the proposals which His Majesty's Government have in mind.
LORD CROFT: My Lords, I am not certain, but I rather gather that the Regulation may not be published in time for the procedure suggested by the noble Lord.
LORD NATHAN: The White Paper?
LORD CROFT: The actual Regulation, I understand, will not necessarily be laid before us.
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, it may be that I have to that extent mistaken the position, but I certainly understood that a White Paper was to be the basis for discussion in another place. I do not pursue the matter. I may be more fortunate in regard to another important matter which is adumbrated in the White Paper. That is as to the position of boys and girls between the ages of sixteen and eighteen. An opportunity, on the initiative either of the Government or of my noble friends, may be afforded for discussing that very important matter as a separate subject altogether from the main purpose of this Bill. Therefore I say nothing on that subject on this occasion.
There is, however, one matter to which the noble Lord did not refer but to which reference is made either in the Bill, or the White Paper, or both. That is as to the direction into industry for part-time work. I am not at all sure that it is going to be very simple to organize part-time work, and I would express for my noble friends on these Benches, the hope that before any scheme for part-time work is attempted to be put into operation the fullest preparatory arrangements will be made, for I visualize an organization of the utmost complexity, if, indeed, such a scheme is capable, in the conditions of modern industry, of being put into effect at all. The matter is one on which I preserve an open mind, but I am doubt ful of the validity of the idea or that it can make any really substantial contribution to the war effort, though, of course, I agree that something might be done with regard to what may be called purely civilian enterprise to some limited extent.
As regards the entry on a large scale—and it will be on a large scale—of women
268
into industry, I hope that adequate arrangements will be made, and mad beforehand, with regard to hostels and billets and other accommodation. Men on the whole, have by long tradition and custom become used to the idea of living away from home and living a communal life. It is very different with women and especially with youngish girls Neither by tradition nor by habit have they been used to living the sort of communal life which is inevitable if large numbers are to be sent away from their homes, perhaps to some more or less re mote place in the country where their only entertainment and amenity must be found in the place where they actually live. That involves a hostel system of the most complete and elaborate character, and I am glad to think that the Ministry of Labour have already shown that they are alert to that requirement.
I am not at all sure that sufficient importance has been attached to transport difficulties, not for those who are living in a hostel in the neighbourhood of the factory to which they are directed but for those who are living in their own homes, and who may have to travel anything from five to forty miles—perhaps from twenty to thirty miles is the more likely distance—to and from their work, morning and evening. There have been some rather disquieting experiences in this respect, and in these days, when women have to leave their homes in the darkness—and I am thinking of women in particular—and to return in the darkness, it is essential, it seems to me, that there should be a sufficiency of transport, and at the right time, to take them to and from their work. That will become even more important for mothers who have to travel, not merely between their homes and their work, but first of all from their homes to the place where they leave their children, and then to their place of work, and have to make the journey in the reverse order in the darkness of the evening. It is essential that adequate transport arrangements should be provided, and there, I think, there is much to be desired. I will not weary your Lordships by referring again to a matter which I raised in your Lordships' House last week, as to war-time nurseries; I will merely emphasize that adequate provision for the care of children is the essential condition of married women with children entering industry at all.

269
The one striking new feature of the arrangements contemplated by the Bill and by the White Paper read together is the emphasis which is laid, and rightly, upon the entry of women into the Armed Forces. I have heard a good deal about the A.T.S. I have had a number of opportunities of observation. I have had many stories brought to me, and where possible I have investigated them; and I am bound to say that reckless rumour has done infinite harm to a Service which deserves great praise and support in your Lordships' House and from all who are concerned in the adequate provision of the services which the A.T.S. can render. I believe that they deserve well of the community, and the reputation which has been attributed to them in so many quarters is, from my observation, quite unwarranted; they deserve, on the contrary, the highest commendation. I do say, however, that it is essential that, as speedily as possible, appropriate conditions should be provided and completed, both by way of environment and by way of safeguard, physical and moral, which will enable; the girls 1o live happy and safe' lives, and—what in this context may perhaps be equally important—satisfy their parents that that will be so. We have a responsibility to the parents which is scarcely less than our responsibility to the girls.
The position with regard to women in the Armed Services is in one respect left a little obscure by such documents dealing with the matter as I have seen. I believe—though I speak without certainty—that when women join the Armed Forces they are liable no less than men to service overseas. If that be so, then I would make this suggestion. So far as unmarried women are concerned I have nothing to say, but, so far as married women are concerned, I think that the Government should be reluctant to send them abroad, and should not do so if it can be avoided, not because those married women may themselves be unwilling to go abroad—they may earnestly desire to do so—but because, if they have husbands in the Armed Forces abroad or in this country, or serving in industry in this country, it seems to me essential that there should be the possibility of the husband and wife being together during their period of vacation or leave. That is essential to the maintenance of family life, which is one of those things the pre-
270
servation of which is one of our objectives in this war. It is essential for the continuance of a sound moral condition in society that the husband and wife should be able, periodically at least, to live together; and that would, of course, be impossible in those cases where married women were sent to serve abroad. I hope that some consideration will be given to that aspect of the matter.
On the question of leave, moreover, there is an understanding that women in industry should be given leave at the same time as their husbands who are in the Forces. There has been no obligation assumed in that regard, and there is no commitment placed upon the employer; the Ministry of Labour have simply expressed the hope that employers will, if possible, arrange for married women in their employment whose Service husbands are on leave to be allowed leave at the same time. For the same reason that I mentioned previously—the preservation of family life and the maintenance of a good moral standard—to say nothing of the maintenance of the birthrate, which is a matter of importance, arrangements should be made under which women will be entitled as a matter of right to have leave at the time when their husbands are on leave. And that should be mutual. The converse should be equally true, that where a woman is in the Services the man should be allowed leave at the same time as his wife in the Services and of course, for the same reasons.
The Bill and its accompanying White Paper cover an enormous field, scarcely less than the life and being of all who dwell within these islands. The response will be willing. I want to say this to the Government. Set the preparatory arrangements in motion now. Set them in motion on the largest scale. Hitherto I think we have been a little niggardly and reluctant to visualize the magnitude of the arrangements that have to be made in one direction or the other. Be ready to receive and use the reinforcements as they arrive. Let there be sound organization as the evidence of forethought, and an administration sympathetic and not too rigid, and let there be also outward and visible signs of an equitable distribution of the burdens to be imposed on services and property alike. Given these from the top, your Lordships' House, in

271
my belief, may rely upon the rank and file to see to it that through all the ardours and endurances of the coming days our martial strength in man and woman-power and in munitions shall suffice to sustain the struggle to its only tolerable end.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, during the last few days I have had the opportunity of consulting noble Lords who are accustomed to sit on these Benches. We are all agreed in supporting this Bill. The powers asked for by the Government will of course be readily granted. I do not suppose that in any quarter it is considered that the Government are asking too much; I think that, in fact, the nation is ahead of the Government. In saying that we support the Bill, however, I do not wish to imply that on the Committee stage some of my noble friends may not make some criticisms and suggestions, especially in regard to the later clauses.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I understood that my noble and gallant friend Viscount Trenchard would contribute to this debate, and I am sure I speak for all your Lordships in saying that I still hope he will, especially as we should like to hear his views on the Motion which he put on the Paper some little time ago about the use of women in combatant forces. However, this Bill is of such magnitude and so important that I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I reinforce some of the arguments put so ably by my noble friend on the Front Bench. This Bill cannot be regarded, as my noble friend has already indicated, in a vacuum. Just to rope in the whole man-power and woman-power of the country with certain safeguards is, in the view of the Party for which I am speaking, not quite enough, and the additional steps which we look to the Government to take are, I think, already fairly well known.
Perhaps I may be allowed to remove some misapprehensions which, as I understand, have grown up, if not in this country, at least in other countries—I have reason to know that that is the case—about the attitude of my friends in another place. If noble Lords had read the speech of the Chairman of the Party on the Second Reading of the Bill and had also read the speeches by our authorized spokesmen in the debate on
272
the Resolution which preceded the Bill, they would see perfectly well that the overwhelming majority of the Labour Party accept this Bill, and accepted it before the events of last Sunday, which of course have made it even more urgent and necessary. With regard to the principle of the compulsion of the whole available man-power and woman-power of the country, either in industry or in the Forces, whether we like it or not we accept that and will do our best to work it and encourage those who may feel its effects in their persons and homes. But we are also united on another matter, and the Division in another place, as I think it is necessary to make clear, was on the question of the method of persuading the Government to adopt our views. I am glad to see that one result has been, as already indicated by my noble friend Lord Nathan, that the Government have undertaken officially, through the Minister of Labour speaking on behalf of the War Cabinet, to deal with all questions affecting the ownership and control of property and transport and the like, solely by the test of the most effective prosecution of the war.
We make two main demands. The first is that there must be better allowances, especially for married Service men with families, and for widows of men killed in battle. My noble friend mentioned the case of the older men now being called up. Those older men are men with family responsibilities, and the present separation allowances for the married soldier are in our opinion inadequate, when there are children of the marriage, and negotiations and conversations are, I understand, going on at the present time. There is to be a special debate in another place. But I want to make it clear that we do look for an increase in the allowances made to married Service men and also to the widows of the men killed in battle. They are few compared with the last war, but the number may increase very greatly.
The other point I want to make is this: that where the conduct of the war may benefit by taking over vital services this shall be done without any regard to ideologies or political prejudices or the past declarations of members of His Majesty's Government, or their supporters in any Party. With regard to the second requirement your Lordships are aware that one of the most glaring cases is that

273
of the coal mines. It is a fact, and your Lordships and the Government know it, that production in the coal mine is hampered by the present system of ownership. It was bound to happen, too. It was foreshadowed in the findings of the Sankey Commission. I am sorry that the noble and learned Viscount is not able to be present to-day, as I am sure he would support me. It was foreshadowed in the findings of that Commission and only political ideologies prevented the carrying out of the Commission's recommendation.
Transport has already been mentioned by my noble friend. I think he was most moderate, even more moderate than I am in speaking in you" Lordships' House, in dealing with the difficulties of transport. Some of the transport scandals in the country are really almost indescribable. Women who have been working long shifts, and come out of the factories in the dark, sometimes have to wait an hour or even two hours for transport. Is the Lord Chancellor aware that the reason why extra omnibuses could not be put on certain of the routes is due to the vested interests of the existing owners of transport licences who object to competitors? That is going on at the present time and causing delay in spite of the efforts of the Transport Commissioners, the Minister of Transport and everyone else. The case of the munitions works has of course been mentioned in your Lordships' House before. Until you can get a real system of pooling of machinery and skilled labour and managerial capacity in wide districts in the munition industries, you will not get full output and full effort, and your Lordships, must know that. And what stands in the way there? Only the vested interests of private owners. Boards of, directors are afraid of giving away trade secrets, or are thinking of after the war, and that is really hampering our war efforts to a certain extent. We demand in the, interests of the country, and not because of any political theories which we may hold, that, where the case is proven, the Government should step in and take over control and ownership.
Having said that, and having made it clear that we accept this Hill, I want to congratulate the Government on bringing it in and the Minister of Labour in going much further in this Bill than the Nazi Government of Germany have dared to do. That is a tremendous compliment to
274
democracy. Your Lordships will be aware that the Nazis, with no means of getting to know public opinion in a country where anyone who opens his mouth to criticize is in danger of arrest and of being sent to a concentration camp, have not dared to compel the women of Germany to go into industry. They are bringing all sorts of pressure to bear on them, but they have not dared to bring in a Bill of this magnitude. The fact that we have a Parliament here which can voice public opinion, and that the British people have maintained their right of free speech, has enabled the Government to proceed with confidence with this Bill. I congratulate them upon it, and the only thing I feel is that it might have been brought in eighteen months ago, or even earlier.
The other matter I wish briefly to touch on is this. When the Bill was introduced in another place there was a Resolution by the Government preceding it, and in introducing this Resolution the Prime Minister made a very broad survey of the reasons for the Bill. I do not propose to make any broad survey, but I would like to voice this anxiety. My noble friend said that the people of this country would welcome the Bill and do their best. I believe they will, but on its smooth working a tremendous lot will depend, and on the way it is accepted a great deal of the success of our war effort will also depend. Are we able to assure the people of this country yet that this enormous new reservoir of labour which is being tapped is going to be used to the best advantage? I am not going over the ground so ably covered by my noble friend Lord Addison in past debates in your Lordship's House, regarding the misuse of labour. There is still a great waste of skilled labour, as my noble friend Lord Addison has pointed out again and again; but are we quite certain that our broad strategy will ensure the employment of this great new access of strength in the right way?
What worries me, and I know worries a great many of my friends, is the absence, as far as we can make out, of any machinery for co-ordinating the military efforts of our Forces and those of our great Allies. Since last Sunday we have had the United States of America as an active Ally. The war will be won by the united efforts, sooner or later, of Russia, the British Empire, and the United States of America, with the not negligible help

275
of our gallant Allies the smaller Powers such as the Free French, the Dutch, the great Chinese Republic, and other allied Governments who are doing so much for our cause. There is no sign yet that what Mr. Roosevelt calls the broad world strategy which is needed, is being provided with the machinery for carrying it out.
I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Trenchard was not able to speak, but I am glad he is here because on the last occasion when we touched on these matters he threw a great deal of scorn on the politicians who carried us through the last war. He said we should have won it a great deal sooner but for the politicians. I have been refreshing my memory by reading the Memoirs of one of the most prominent of these politicians, Mr. Lloyd George, who, I understand, incurs the contempt of my noble friend Lord Trenchard. In his Memoirs Mr. Lloyd George describes the great struggle to get unity of command in that war, and the great losses we suffered because we would not do it soon enough, and he points out that it was not until April 3, 1918, that Foch was for the first time entrusted by the British, French and American Governments with the strategic direction of military operations. I am going to ask your Lordships to allow me to quote one short paragraph of Mr. Lloyd George's description of these vitally important negotiations:
" Unity of command was thus, after a great many vicissitudes, completely established, and for the first time the whole of the Forces of the Allies on the Western Front were consolidated and united, not merely for defence, but for the great return blow that brought the war to a triumphant end. The disaster of the 21st of March had saved the Allies. Nothing else would have made it possible for us to overcome the natural susceptibilities and suspicions which had to be removed in order to enable us to achieve that unity which was essential to victory."
In other words, we won the war because the amateur strategists were able to impose their will on the professional strategists and so get unity of command.
What is the machinery for coordinating the military, naval, and aerial efforts of Russia, China, the United States, and ourselves? We have had disasters already, comparable to the setback of the Fifth Army in March, 1918, in the naval losses described by the Prime
276
Minister and by the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, in your Lordships' House, and the American naval losses. Are we going to learn the lesson quickly enough? If we do not, we shall have more setbacks, and the objects of this Bill will not be achieved as quickly as we all hope. I venture to refer to this subject because of its extreme urgency. There is evidence that the two original Axis powers, Germany and Italy, and now Japan, are coordinating their military efforts. There is a great deal of evidence of this fact. Unless we can co-ordinate the far greater forces we have to bring against them—rather more difficult, perhaps—the return blow which will bring victory will be long in coming. If we can give an assurance to the people of this country that that higher direction, on which I have only briefly touched, is the very best possible, you will get all the response you want to the call from the men and women of this country, as my noble friend Lord Nathan has pointed out; but we must be assured on that point, otherwise the service will not be so willing or so whole-hearted as the crisis in which this country finds itself demands.
LORD GREVILLE: My Lords, I wish to say just a word of thanks to the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, for the remarks he made regarding the clerical and domestic staffs of the hospitals. I have had occasion, since I mentioned the subject, of attending the King Edward Council meeting and of hearing the Minister of Health, and he did give us great encouragement that we should be able, not only to retain, but even to get some more, domestic help. Our trouble has been, up to date, that there was nothing to prevent these domestic servants giving us a month's notice terminating their engagements and going away elsewhere. I understand that under the new powers, if we can trace these ladies, they can probably be ordered to return to their former occupations. This will be a great help to the hospitals, and I thank the noble Lord.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, perhaps I might give the noble Lord even greater reassurance. I told him to-day that these girls would not be accepted for the Auxiliary Services if their employers were not willing that they should go. I knew that further measures were in contempla-

277
tion, and I now learn that an Order will be made, which I gather will be called the Control of Industry Order, laying down that no woman between twenty and thirty working in these vital industries will be allowed to change her employment except with the approval of the Minister of Labour.
LORD GREVILLE: That very greatly improves the situation, and I am most grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, may I intervene for a moment? I think we would all like to congratulate the Government on tackling a very difficult and thorny problem with the utmost courage. There may be many points in the Bill on which we all have our views but when all is said we have for many months now been asking the Government to tackle the question of the full mobilization of our man-power, and certainly they have made an attempt to do that in this Bill. All I wish to do now is to refer for a few moments to the announcement which has been made on the question of the agricultural call-up. I believe it is going to be a very great blow to the agricultural industry, and a very great handicap to that industry in the work it has undertaken to increase the food production. But many of us have said that already. We have already expressed our views on the subject, and the matter has now been decided as we know it has been decided after very full discussion in the War Cabinet.
In expressing our views on this subject, especially in war-time., we have to do so with a consciousness that we are not in a position to know all the facts. I would, therefore, like to appeal to all my friends in the agricultural industry, now that this matter has been settled, to see to it that not only do we support the Government in everything they do to further the war effort, but that we do nothing in any way to allow what has admittedly-been a blow to be made the excuse for not doing our utmost to assist in that war effort. In the meantime, if the Government can increase assistance from Italian prisoners and carry further into the non-harvest period the very considerable assistance that was given by soldiers during the harvest, they would be performing a most useful task in helping farmers to produce yet more food. But I do not want to go into that. I simply
278
want to make this appeal to the agricultural industry, now that this matter has been settled—settled as I think, wrongly, but that does not matter—that we should get down to it and do our utmost in face of the present position.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, the House is now ready to give a Second Reading unanimously to this most important measure, and the comparative brevity of our debate and the unity which has characterized the speeches are, I think, only a reflection of the determination of everybody in the country. In acting in that way the House is, I feel, again truly expressing the feeling of the people. I would like to voice the Government's obligation to Lord Nathan for the very helpful and reasonable speech that he made. Some of his suggestions fall within the realm of administration, and I can assure him that what he has said will be very carefully studied. I have no doubt that the result will be all the better for these matters having been put forward in so helpful and moderate a tone.
I think the noble Lord, if I may be excused for saying so, was a little mistaken in his attempt to describe why it is desirable to have this Bill now, notwithstanding the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act that was passed in May of last year. He was right, I think, when he said that the Act passed in May of last year was not a mere gesture, it was a dedication. That, I think, is most appropriate language, but I doubt whether he is right if he thinks that it is because that Act was supposed not to give power over women or had other technical limitations that the present Bill is introduced. As for women, I have not the slightest doubt in the world that the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1940, applied to women as well as men, for it was nothing more than an amendment of the Emergency Powers Act which is the act under which the Defence Regulations have been made, many of which, of course, apply to women just as much as to men. It really was not that, nor do I think it was any technical consideration that mainly necessitated or justified the measure now before the House.
I would venture to put it rather differently to the noble Lord, and to others, in this way. I would say that the present measure is needed first because, in our practical British way, what matters

279
is not some abstract declaration on the subject but the actual machinery for putting that declaration into practice. We have never in this country relied upon mere abstract affirmations to improve our law. We do not go in for declarations about the rights of man and all the rest of it. We endeavour to frame legislation which is best calculated to provide a practical machinery for securing what we all mean in the abstract, and that is undoubtedly one of the reasons that justifies this great measure. Perhaps I may add a second reason, which is not less important. For my part, even if I thought that all that is contemplated under this Bill could be done under the quite general powers and provisions of the Emergency Act of May of last year, I would still far prefer to see this Bill at this time made an Act of Parliament with the united support of both Houses and with the overwhelming and, I think, unanimous support of everybody in the country. This is the way in which you make the ordinary citizens of the country feel they are taking part in framing this great measure, and a wholy different effect is produced from what would be produced if you made a series of directions under the Emergency Act of May of last year, even if you had power to make them, from the effect which is produced on ourselves, on our fellow-countrymen, on the Empire and on the world by passing now, in express terms, this immense enactment by complete unanimity. That, I think, is the real reason why we ought to have a Bill of this sort carried swiftly now.
Naturally, in the short discussion, a good deal has been said about the application of compulsion to women, and the Committee stage of the Bill may raise more detailed questions about it. Perhaps it would be not inconvenient if I were to state very briefly in outline what I think the position as provided for in the Bill is, and indicate a couple of small Amendments which we will find it necessary to make in this connexion on the Committee stage. I think, broadly speaking, you may say that women, between the ages of eighteen and fifty-one, are treated as men are for the general provisions of Clause 1, subject, of course, to certain very important modifications contained in Clause 2, more particularly as to married women. Married women in this connexion do not include widows—women who have been
280
married but who have lost their husbands. They do not include a woman who has divorced her husband or who has been divorced by her husband. We shall wish to make an Amendment which further limits the exemption by saying that if a married woman is living apart from her husband under decree or order of the Court she would for this purpose be treated as if she was not a married woman.
Compulsion for unmarried women, the calling-up of unmarried women by compulsion, is for service in the three services mentioned in the clause, the W.R.N.S., A.T.S., and the W.A.A.F., except for those who come within the Schedule and are doing whole-time service. There is the provision that a woman shall not be required to use lethal weapons, and in that connexion I quite see the importance of the point made just now by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, as to the service of women abroad, which no doubt will be considered—probably has already been considered—carefully by the authorities. The option which my noble friend Lord Moyne mentioned when introducing the Bill is, as I think he stated very clearly, to this effect, that each woman liable to be called up will be given administratively an option to go, instead of into the Services named, into Civil Defence or into certain specified vacancies in industry. That is the broad scheme.
Another Amendment which will have to be made in the Bill when we reach the Committee stage stops a hole which I think everybody would agree ought not to be left unstopped, because, as your Lordships will observe, the protection which is given to a married woman is extended also, in the words at the top of page 3 of the print of the Bill, to an unmarried woman who has living with her a child of hers under the age of fourteen, whether an adopted child or not. That is quite right, but of course it is not the intention that a woman who at the passing of the Bill is not able to point to that reason for exemption should furnish herself with the means of escape by adopting one or more youngsters in view of the language of the Bill. Therefore we shall have to put in some words which will provide, in effect, that a woman is not to be exempted under subsection (3) of Clause 3 from being called up for service by reason only that she has an adopted child of hers under the age of fourteen living with her,

281
if adoption took place after a date. I suppose that date would be the commencement of the Act, which is a good reason for passing this Act of Parliament very promptly. So much for the very important case of women, except that I would venture to add on my own behalf, and I am sure on behalf of the Government, gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, for what he so appropriately said about reflections which have been passed about by rumour on one of these Women's Services which I think those who have really investigated the matter are satisfied were gross and unfounded reflections upon a very honourable, hard-working and patriotic body of people.
My Lords, I do not think the other features of the Bill are features which you would wish me to deal with now, especially after what has been said. I would venture to make one observation only on the reference made—if I may say so, in most moderate terms—by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and I think by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, to the fact that this Bill deals with persons and human lives and does not deal with property. For my part, and I think it is the opinion of all of us, the single task of victory is so vastly in front of anything else that I care nothing at all for any abstract theory or abstract principle on the subject of property in the very least. I think that ought to be true of all who hold strong views on this subject on either side, for it would be very unreasonable to exploit views on the one side when on the other side the proper view with regard to the matter is seen to be simply to judge the practical issue on each occasion. For my part I would not, I think, differ from Lord Nathan, who said (if I heard him aright) that he claimed that the Government should not hesitate to remove any obstruction which prevents the full effect of the national effort. I must say, if one takes a view of the last eighteen months, that I should have thought there were plenty of illustrations to show that was being done. Taxation has never been raised to such tremendous heights, and has never been so cheerfully and uncomplainingly borne, and this has a great deal to do with the contribution of property to the national effort
Without in the least withdrawing from my general declaration on the subject of the abandonment of matters of theory for
282
the practical purpose before us, I would just make this one observation in addition. If your single object is to secure as quickly as possible, and as completely as possible, the one thing that matters, which is victory, one must not assume that every change in the basis of ownership, however drastic, however complicated, and however complete, in the middle of the struggle, is going to make it easier to carry on this fight of life and death, when everybody ought to be concentrating themselves, and are concentrating themselves I am sure, on that single purpose. There is sometimes a certain common sense in this proposition that it is not always wise to swap owners when you are trying to cross the torrent. There are ways of control which are being exercised, and rightly exercised, with a perfectly remorseless hand, and if there were such instances as were mentioned just now by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, of which I know nothing, I do not for a single moment believe that the Minister of War Transport, or the Government, would ever be prepared to tolerate an obstruction to the national purpose which is the only thing that matters to a human soul in this country at the present time.
LORD STRABOLGI: Would my noble and learned friend allow me to interrupt for a moment? When he speaks of the undesirability of swapping ownership, does that apply also in his view to the handing over of Government factories to private ownership which is now going on?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: What I said was that it must not be assumed that every application of the simple principle is necessarily going between now and next week to secure a greater and more effective total effort than is being obtained by more exact and precise handling of what is an enormously complicated job.
I think that that is all I need say now. I would sum up the matter in this way. What is the broad effect which is aimed at by this measure? First, as I have already said, it is an expression of the determination not only of Parliament but of everybody in the country that there shall be a re-dedication and a re-application of everything that is available to help to win the war. As a result, I suppose, we may expect these two consequences. We shall see a vast increase in the entry of women into industry and into

283
the Services, and, in the second place, we shall see a substitution of older men for younger ones in the less combative work of our national organization, whether military or civilian.
This is indeed a most significant measure. It is, I believe, going to show the whole world what we mean when, in the language of the Prime Minister yesterday, we say: "We are fighting for our life." I saw in the newspaper this morning a report of a speech by the First Lord of the Admiralty in which, immediately after referring to these tragic losses in the Pacific, he went on to declare that, nevertheless, we were stronger this week than
284
we were a week ago because of the action of the United States in accepting the burden of war. It is, I think, a very happy circumstance that at a moment so critical, when we have to face and endure losses so unexampled, we, at the same time, are rapidly passing through Parliament this measure which is the ultimate answer of all. As the old Greeks said: "It is not walls and it is not ships that make the city; it is men and women." I ask the House to vote that the Bill be now read a second time.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned.