NATIONAL SERVICE BILL

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)

When the Debate was adjourned last night, I was venturing to call the attention of the House, and of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour in particular, to the question of whether the admirable provisions in this Bill with respect to deferment of service on educational and apprenticeship grounds could not be applied during the interim period before 1st January, 1949. I understood from the demeanour of the right hon. Gentleman that he was not wholly unsympathetic to that idea, and as it is of importance, I would invite the attention of hon. Members to the considerable distinction between the provisions of this Bill and existing enactments. The right hon. Gentleman, as reported in column 1684 of yesterday's OFFICIAL REPORT, said: The option"— that is to say the option for deferment— will be for any person. Any person going through any kind of tuition—university, industry, law, and so on, where there is a genuine contract of training of some sort—has a right to ask for the deferment of his call-up. It is made as wide as possible so as not to interfere with training."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st March, 1947; Vol 435, c. 1684.] As I understand the position—and the right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, will correct me if I am wrong—deferment is 1852 only granted at the moment on apprenticeship grounds, if the apprenticeship can be completely terminated within nine months; and deferment is only given on educational grounds where the university, college or similar institution asks for the student. The provisions of this Bill on this point seem very sound and very helpful, and I am sure it would be quite wrong that their coming into effect should be delayed until 1st January, 1949, and a much more unsatisfactory plan applied in the case of young men called up before 1st January, 1949. I see that the right hon. Gentleman has a document available and I hope he or the Minister of Defence may be able to give us a little encouragement on this point.

§ The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs)

I had prepared a note and sent it to the hon. Gentleman. I am sorry it did not reach him before he took his place in the House. If I may read the statement, it covers the point which he has raised: Students and apprentices may have their calling up deferred during 1947 and 1948 in the same way as after the Bill comes into effect in 1949. It goes on to set out the arrangements in that connection, and the only restriction, as far as the student is concerned, is the proviso that there is a place for him in the university.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman not only for the satisfactory reply, but also for the phenomenally prompt acceptance of a suggestion made from this side of the House. I hope I shall not appear to presume too much on his benevolence if I put him a further point. The right hon. Gentleman referred yesterday to the provisions for deferment of service on hardship grounds. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, these hardship grounds are often financial. There is the case of the young man earning good wages who is supporting, shall we say, an aged or an invalid parent. That difficulty was overcome, during the war, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, by a system of war service grants. The young man was not deferred but financial compensation was given in respect of his liabilities to support his dependants. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would be in a position to answer that question at the moment, but it is felt that there is 1853 room under this Bill for some system similar to that of the war service grant, to deal with the limited number of cases which will arise of acute financial hardship, when a young man with liabilities is taken from good wages, to the relatively restricted remuneration offered him in the Service.

Those are minor points of detail, and if I may I should now like to put one major point to the House. The difficulties which I feel, and which I think hon Members on both sides of the House feel about this Bill, is that we have not yet been told precisely what are the military needs which this Bill is designed to implement. Nor have we been told precisely for what the men when called up, will be used. It is impossible for hon. Members on either side to have that clear view of the position which they should have unless we are given a great deal more enlightenment on this subject from the Government Front Bench. In passing, may I say that the right hon. Gentleman's statement that conscription was not going to be called conscription but was going to be called national service, does not amount to a very substantial justification? The people of this country know it is, in fact, conscription under whatever label it is described, and I hope a more substantial argument will be adduced from the Government Front Bench.

There is one point on which I think the right hon. Gentleman failed to satisfy a good many hon. Members, and that is whether in his search for the necessary military manpower all alternative sources of supply have been properly investigated. The Minister of Defence the other day, brushed aside a suggestion made by several of my hon. Friends in regard to the recruitment of a foreign legion. He must accept I think, the view that the responsibility for brushing aside this constructive suggestion, falls squarely on the shoulders of the Government and adds to the responsibility for justifying the necessity for this Measure. As an illustration of the lack of clarity in the minds of the Government as to what they are doing, may I give two instances? First of all, Yesterday the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour was challenged by one of his own hon. Friends below the Gangway in regard to manpower under this Bill. The passage appears in column 1686 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. C. Shawcross) asks: 1854 Can my right hon. Friend give an estimate of how many, men will be in uniform when this scheme is in full operation, say, in five years time?" —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st March, 1947; Vol. 435, c. 1686.] The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour said, very fairly, that he did not know but that he would find out. I do not want to labour the point, but it seems to indicate a certain lack of clarity in planning these matters, when the responsible Minister does not know when he introduces a Bill, what effect in manpower his own Bill is going to have.

There is a further illustration of perhaps greater importance. In the speech by the Minister we were not told how these men who are to be called up, are going to be employed, but some kind of idea can be gathered from the memorandum submitted by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War in support of the Army Estimates. From this it appears that a large proportion of what is still described as the Territorial Army—which, of course, as the House is well aware, is simply the reserves under a new name—will be employed on the anti-aircraft defence of Great Britain. I do not know whether the Government can enlighten us on the implications of this, but perhaps the Minister of Defence will do so, when he replies to the Debate tonight.

In the first place, as the Minister of Defence will be well aware, none of the men called up under this Bill will pass into the reserve or the Territorial Army until July, 1950, at the earliest. Does that mean that until that tolerably distant date, the anti-aircraft defences of this country will not have more than the skeleton provided by the volunteers of the Territorial Army? That is a matter of major importance. Secondly, I did not understand the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour to tell the House yesterday that during their 18 months full-time service, these men would be employed in the anti-aircraft defences. But hon. Members who have any knowledge of anti-aircraft gunnery know that, it is a matter of the utmost complexity and difficulty and I do not know how men who have served their 18 months' full time service in, say, an infantry battalion, can be expected to be very much use after only 60 days' additional training, in operating the infinitely complex mechanism of antiaircraft artillery and its ancillary apparatus. I do not know if any thought 1855 has been given to this or what the Government's plan is.

Again, have the Government considered the manifest diplomatic disadvantage of the manning of the anti-aircraft defences of this country with territorial reservists? The decision to call out the reserves in a tense diplomatic situation, is a grave one for any Government and one which of itself, may aggravate a difficult situation? Yet the Government will be faced, in such a difficult situation, with the alternative of doing that, or of leaving the major part of the anti-aircraft defences unmanned. I hope that the Minister of Defence when he replies will give some indication at least, that the Government have considered the difficulties which will follow—or which would appear likely to follow—the use of the Territorial reservists, brought into being by this Bill, for a large part of the anti-aircraft defences of this country.

§ Wing-Commander Millington (Chelmsford)

I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but it seems to me that in the very interesting argument which he is developing, he has taken no account of the fact that by 1950, the date to which he has referred, the probable speed of aircraft against which we might be defending these islands will be over 600 miles an hour at least, and that the most likely role of anti-aircraft defence will not be against aeroplanes as such. In those circumstances, is his argument as valid as it might have been on an earlier occasion?

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I respect, as I am sure do all hon. Members, the very intimate experience which the hon. and gallant Member has had of the effects of antiaircraft artillery. If one thing is certain in this infinitely difficult technical matter, it is that the whole tendency of modern development is to increase both the complexity of the apparatus involved, and also the speed with which an attack can be launched. Therefore, in response to the hon. and gallant Member's intervention, I would say that although I believe my argument to be wholly valid at the moment, I think that by 1950 it will be even stronger inasmuch as the apparatus will be more complicated and the potential threat even speedier. I cannot anticipate, and I am sure the Government do not anticipate, that in the present tendency for increasing the complexity and elabora- 1856 tion of all these incredible types of apparatus which the scientists can invent, there will be any diminution in this process but rather an accentuation.

There is only one other matter with which I wish to trouble the House It is to ask the Minister of Defence a question. How does he dovetail into the scheme under this Bill, the training of future officers? It is obvious that the future officer will be called up in the normal way. But is it intended that he shall spend any of his 18 months full time service doing specifically officer training, or will that training merely begin at the end of the 18 months? Further, has the right hon. Gentleman considered, and can he tell the House, what is his intention with regard to the provision of new younger officers in the territorial Army? Is it intended that men shall be commissioned at the end of their 18 months full-time service, with a view to becoming officers of the Reserve; or will officers of the Reserve, be confined to those who have been officers during their full-time service? There is nothing in the Bill about that, but presumably the Government have some idea on the provision of efficient officers for our Armed Forces. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us that.

The House is being asked, and I have not the slightest doubt, will accede to the request, to hand over to the Government for 18 months, complete control over the lives of a whole generation. Speaking for myself I would say that is not a thing which one does lightly or happily. It is a thing which can only be justified—as I believe it can be justified—by the grim necessities of the situation. But I hope that the Government, if they are given this immense power, will realise that, in return, they owe to the House the very full responsibility of seeing that those 18 months are used to the full, in the most fruitful manner. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, that hon. Members on this side of the House will be vigilant and will watch with the most careful scrutiny, to see that this precious thing which he and the Government are being given is not wasted by departmental apathy or governmental incompetence.

§ Mr. Clement Davies (Montgomery)

So many great Measures have been introduced in the present House of Commons 1857 since it met—Measures which either affect the lives of the people already or will affect them in the future—that I believe we have almost exhausted the adjectives which we can apply to them. But this Measure is unique. It makes such a fundamental change that it deserves all the adjectives applied to it. It is a Measure which impinges upon the personal liberties of the people of this country—there can be no doubt about that. It brings about a constitutional change such as has never yet been effected in time of peace in this country. I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) that the change in title from "conscription" to "national service" is not the kind of camouflage which will deceive anybody. This Measure will introduce conscription into the life of this country in time of peace, and will introduce it on a permanent basis. Let us have no mistake about that.

For that reason it is not a Measure which should have been introduced unless there was real necessity for it. There must be an overwhelming case for its introduction. It would be necessary first to prove that there is a real national emergency; second, that the need to cope with that emergency cannot be met by voluntary methods; and, third, that the emergency can be met by conscription. I am sorry I was not here to hear the first part of the Minister of Labour's speech, but I have read it with very great care, and never, in the introduction of a Measure of such major importance, have I known so little attention paid to the principles underlying the need for the proposed change. Scarcely an argument was put forward; there was just a passing reference to the duties that would lie upon this country. There was a very careful analysis and elucidation of the provisions of the Bill, but no attempt to deal with the fundamental principles underlying them. I can only feel that the Minister's heart was not in this Bill, and I hope that is true also of some of his colleagues.

What is the position of the Government and of the parties who support this Bill, and, I should like to ask, of those outside in the country, who have placed their faith in them? It has been a habit of Members on the Government Front Bench, and of those who sit behind them, when challenged from this side of the House on any of the Measures that have been intro- 1858 duced, to reply, "We have a mandate for this." In the case of the nationalisation of the Bank of England, the nationalisation of transport and in all these great Measures, the reply has been, "We asked for the suffrages of the people, and they voted for us. We are in power, and we mean to carry out what they voted for." What would have been the position if, in the middle of their programme, they had put, "The Labour Party as a party demands conscription in time of peace"? This is the party which claimed that they stood alongside my party for peace. This is the party which condemned military preparations and voted even for a reduction of the Estimates for the Armed Forces. That was their attitude. What is more, as was said yesterday, attention was drawn on so many platforms, and rightly drawn, to the burden of taxation in this country, and to how much, out of every £ of taxation levied, was due in the past to the preparations for future war. Have the right hon. Gentlemen opposite forgotten the speeches which they made? I hope not.

While I am on this question of a mandate, may I remind right hon. Gentlemen opposite and those who support them in this Measure, of the taunts thrown out by them in 1939, when Mr. Chamberlain introduced the Conscription Bill for time of war? They accused him of going back upon his word, and on the pledge he had given to the people, the pledge which had been given before the Election, and the pledge which had been repeated exactly four weeks before the Bill was introduced. Although war was looming up at that time, although Czechoslovakia lay under the heel of Germany, and we knew that the terrible moment had to come when we would call a halt, the right hon. Gentleman opposite and every Member of that party voted against conscription. [Interruption.] I am asked what I did. I voted both for the Resolution and for the Second Reading of that Bill, for the reason that we were then face to face with a grim national necessity.

§ Dr. Haden Guest (Islington, North)

I said that not every Member of this party voted against it.

§ Mr. Davies

I apologise and withdraw, but I am certain that the bulk of the party opposite, and certainly the whole of the Front Bench, voted against it. I have not troubled to go through all the 1859 lists of those who belonged to the party at that time to compare the voting. With regard to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches, they, in their heart of hearts, have always been in favour of conscription as a good thing in itself. I agree that they have said from time to time, and have given pledges and adhered to them, that they would not introduce conscription without an appeal to the country. My political memory is a very long one. I remember the taunts thrown out by Members of that party against Lord Haldane and his Territorial Army, and the efforts he was making to restore the Territorial Army.

§ Earl Winterton (Horsham)

This is a very interesting piece of personal reminiscence. The only person in the Tory Party in the House of Commons in 1912 who supported conscription was myself; the rest of the party was against it.

§ Mr. Davies

The noble Lord has never lacked courage, and I am perfectly certain that he was then expressing an opinion which the other members of his party had not the courage to do. There were even songs in the music halls deriding the Territorial Army.

§ Mr. Pickthorn (Cambridge University)

When did the Tories go to the music halls?

§ Mr. Davies

I respect the views which have been held by right hon. and hon. Members of the Tory Party. They believed in the need for conscription; it was part and parcel of their idea of the way in which we could keep the Empire. It was an attitude with which I fundamentally disagreed, but they were perfectly entitled to take up that position, and they did. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) taunted me and my party yesterday on the ground of our consistency. The only consistency that the right hon. Gentleman has shown throughout the years has been in his inconsistency. He was First Lord of the Admiralty on 4th August, 1914, when this country threw down the challenge to the Germans and the Kaiser. We entered that war on a voluntary system, not only for the Navy and Air Force, but for the Army. There was no threat of resignation from him at that time. He remained in that Government until conscription was introduced in 1916. What 1860 happened when the war was over? After 11th November, 1918, not one conscript was called up. It must be remembered that then we were in a much more difficult position militarily than is facing the country today. Nevertheless, not only were no conscripts called up after 11th November, 1918, but by 1920 it had been decided to abolish conscription altogether. Who was the then Secretary of State for War making the proud announcement to this House, on how the Government had been able in that short while to reconstruct the Army and re-man all the garrisons throughout the whole world on a voluntary basis, described it in language of which he and he only is master? It was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford. He began his speech, on 23rd February, 1920, with these proud words: On the 31st of next month conscription will be abolished, and within a month from that date the last conscript is entitled to be released from the Army. It is only right that I should quote the memorable words used on that occasion. After speaking of 'what had been accomplished since the end of the war, he went on to say: It almost merits a word, or at any rate, a nod of recognition for the officers who have worked so indefatigably and so devotedly through all this year and have now achieved their results which I venture to think any one of us here a year ago would certainty have declared to be impossible. He was speaking of the reorganisation on a voluntary basis. In the absence of any such tribute, I will invite the Committee to consider what sort of language would have been used supposing we had not succeeded, and supposing I had to stand here today, as I might easily have done, and point out, that, owing to the fact that we had not been able to recruit a voluntary Army, I must ask for a prolongation of compulsory military service"— and this is the argument now being brought forword— keeping at any rate the younger conscripts who took no part in the war for another year to come. The measure of the irritation which would have been excited by such a demand is, I think, the measure of the recognition which should be accorded to the military men who have succeeded in staving off such a demand. Then came the proud words: We have abolished conscription. There was further tribute to what they had been able to accomplish, and a description of the difficulties which were 1861 then confronting us in foreign parts of the world—the Middle East, Palestine, Syria, and Russia, where there were certain military forces. Then followed a wonderful description of what this old country had achieved. The House will find it well worth hearing again: The second consideration was still more arbitrary. The Army was limited by the numbers of men who could be persuaded to enlist in it under the voluntary system. It happened that those two separate and unrelated considerations arrived by their different roads at a very similar conclusion. Over a long period of years the peace and order of the British Empire was, in fact, maintained by about seventy-five battalions abroad and seventy-five at home, with the due proportion of other Arms. Is it not a wonder, and is it not an admirable fact, that the Imperial authority should have been maintained over these vast expanses comprising more than one-fifth, I believe, of the entire population of the world by less than a quarter of a million of white soldiers? May I remind an hon. Member who seems to want to interrupt me, that the atomic bomb had not then been invented, nor the 600 mile an hour aeroplane? To find a parallel you have to go back to the greatest period of the Roman Empire, to the age of the Antonines; to find a parallel for so great and so wide a peace being sustained upon so slender an armed force, you have to go hack to the Antonines and even then the parallel is greatly in favour of British example. That is in principal what we are striving to reproduce in future years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1920; Vol. 125, C. 1342.] I have now lived to hear the right hon. Gentleman denounce it. What has really been the guiding principle throughout which made for the greatness of this country and the unity of its Empire, for its ready response from every corner of the globe with help for this old country when it is in difficulties, whether from a military or an economic angle? It is the spirit of freedom which is deeply seated in every one of us. The right hon. Gentleman has taunted the Liberal Party for sticking to its principles. That is the best tribute he could have paid. I am proud, ineffably proud, of the fact that I was fortunate enough to be born in this Empire. I am proud of what it has accomplished, I am proud of its traditions; so far as I know, and I do not think there is anyone who could contradict me, my people have been here since the days when Caesar himself invaded these islands, so it is no wonder I am proud. I know that I am expressing the feelings of everyone when I say that in defence of that tradition and custom, and that spirit of liberty which has been the envy of the rest of the world, we would sacrifice all, if the neces- 1862 sity arose. In time of war, when this country was threatened, I together with some right hon. Gentlemen opposite was urging that great Measure, passed through this House in about 10 minutes, which laid it down that in that time of grim necessity not only should we call in all the men and even the women, but that all our resources should be flung into the common pool for the defence of everything we held dear. [An HON. MEMBER: "Was it?"] They did not carry it out to the full—

§ Mr. Beverley Baxter (Wood Green)

I am sure the whole House was impressed by the right hon. Gentleman's claim of long descent, in that his family was here when Caesar came. Since all of us who are of British blood came down from Adam, were not all our families here when Caesar came?

§ Mr. Davies

That is the kind of argument that is worthy of the hon. Gentleman, and of the kind of stuff he writes and talks. I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford has returned. There is something extraordinary about people who change either their opinions or their faith. They not only try to outdo those of the new faith which they have embraced, but they get a sort of ecstatic exaltation out of denouncing those whom they have abandoned. That was always the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman when he left those among whom he is now sitting again. Who denounced them, their principles or their motives? He, with that mastery of language to which we have been accustomed, denounced them for something like 20 years. Then he was proud to fight under the flag of Liberalism; he was one of those who were nailing the flag of Liberalism to the mast. Now, when he cannot get us to haul it down, he spends his time trying to shoot it down. He could do better than that, and one is sorry to find that such great powers and attributes are not used to better purpose.

I have said that this Bill interferes with personal liberty and brings about the greatest constitutional change of our times. What is more, if there is danger, this is the moment when we should use all our best endeavours to cement the country and bring us all together. Can there be any doubt that the introduction of this Measure not only divides the party opposite, but divides the country? May I mention another matter that has been much present in the minds of hon. and 1863 right hon. Gentlemen? The Government were careful to say that this would not lead to industrial conscription, but let us consider that. They are going to take these young men, just when they are reaching their adult stage of manhood, and compel them to go into the Armed Forces. Why? The only answer that can be made, is that there is a national emergency, that the whole safety of the State is at stake and, therefore, we must change all the rules of the past. The transition from one emergency to the other is not great, the safety of the State may be threatened from the inside, from the economic position, just as easily as from the outside. They realise that now, when they make a careful distinction between the miners and the rest of the young men. They say to the young men, "You will either go and hew coal, or you will go into the Army in future." Suppose some other difficulty arises. What is there in logic or in any form of argument, to prevent someone standing at that Box and saying, "The country is in danger and we have now got to use our young men to meet the situation?" We are doing it even today. We have just had this tremendous blizzard, and extraordinary occurrences have taken place in the Fen district. The Army has been rushed in to help. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not? "] Certainly, why not—and certainly that will be said, some day, at that Box for some other reason. At last, it seems to have sunk into the minds of hon. Members. What is there then to prevent industrial conscription from coming along?

§ Mr. Oliver Stanley (Bristol, West)

Would it be all right to order the Army to help in the floods if it was a volunteer Army, but not right if it was a conscript Army?

§ Mr. Davies

I was not pressing that point, but may I repeat it in an elementary way? [Laughter.] I am glad that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen recognise that they are in the elementary class. The Government are conscripting young men today, in time of peace, into the Armed Forces on the ground that there is a national necessity which requires it. I say that that national necessity may not come from the outside, but may be something inherent, and they can use the same argument as the reason for introducing 1864 industrial conscription. That was what I was arguing, and I was illustrating my point by that relatively small incident—small, though it affects the welfare of some thousands of people. In this necessity we can turn to the Army and use it; whether they are conscripts or volunteers, it just points the moral of the danger of introducing conscription in time of peace, namely, that it can then be introduced also for industrial purposes whenever the need is felt. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has been most helpful with his interruptions; it has just occurred to him that nationalisation will also lead in that way, to an easy transition to industrial conscription.

What is the real emergency facing this country? Is it a danger of any military threat from the outside, or is it not, in truth and in fact, because of a weakness in our economic position, a weakness which is undoubtedly affecting the position even of the Foreign Secretary in any negotiations which he undertakes? If perchance he had 40 million tons of coal for export, his position face to face with his colleagues in the Conference at Moscow, would be far and away stronger than it is today. But does anybody imagine that his position face to face with those who are sitting with him at Moscow will be strengthened by the knowledge that the young men of this country are to be conscripted?

Only two reasons have been put forward for this Bill; one is to obtain, they say, fully trained reserves capable of going into battle without waiting for six months' training, and the second is to fulfil our defence commitments. I do not understand how this 18 months' training can really fit these men so that at all times, with all the rapid changes that are taking place, they could suddenly jump into the breach and be of immediate assistance? Surely, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence, with his long experience as First Lord of the Admiralty, realises that the training of one man for a particular purpose takes a very much longer time than the training of another man for another purpose. Time and again one finds that the men being used in the Army or Navy are those who can be used immediately because of the training they have had outside. The Forces have, rightly, drawn heavily, for instance, upon those who have been trained at the Post Office. For drivers they have drawn upon 1865 those who were trained on the streets of London. Those are only small illustrations.

I come to the second heading, that it is to fulfil our defence commitments. I was interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence say, the other day, that we could not foresee those commitments until 1949. If one cannot see what the commitments will be, how can one possibly say what will be the numbers of men required? Until that is decided, it is futile to argue about the raising of men. Our defence commitments are home security, Commonwealth and overseas communications, and the United Nations. What are the increases required today for home security over and above, not only what we had in 1938-1939, but what we could get under a voluntary system? We have not yet had a reply to that question. May we have one tonight?

With regard to Commonwealth and overseas communications, what are they compared with what our position was at the end of the 1914-18 war? In 14 months' time, we shall be withdrawing from India. We are already withdrawing from Egypt. We shall be withdrawing from Burma. [Interruption.] I assume so, because we have said to the Burmese that they can have self-government, and they are proceeding on that; therefore, I presume that defence will be, as in the case of India, a matter for the Burmese. Our commitments, therefore, in respect of these countries, rightly, are getting less and less. Why should there be more men?

§ Mr. Thomas Reid (Swindon)

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman seriously ask us to believe that when we withdraw from India and Burma, there will not be any arrangement made for the defence of those countries?

§ Mr. Davies

According to the statement made by the Prime Minister, it is part of the communication made to those countries, and for all the hon. Gentleman and I know, those countries may, although we hope they will take the other decision, contract out of the Commonwealth. The greatest hope of all of us, for the sake of their peace and contentment, is that they will remain within the Commonwealth.

§ Vice-Admiral Taylor (Paddington, South)

Can the right hon. and learned 1866 Gentleman say how the withdrawal of the Army from India and Burma will affect the strength of the Navy? Will it have to be increased or diminished?

§ Mr. Davies

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is most helpful. As far as I am aware, it was the boast of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence that voluntary recruitment for the Navy is sufficient.

§ Vice-Admiral Taylor

No, certainly not.

§ Mr. Davies

That was said both of the Air Force and the Navy, or is it now to be that, under this Bill, we are to conscript for the Navy and the Air Force as well as for the Army? That is rather news to me. I had thought, I think rightly, that recruitment for the Navy and the Air Force would still be on a voluntary basis, from among those who have been conscribed for military service. With regard to the third heading, we all ought to play our part with regard to United Nations obligations. It is there that really lies the peace of the world. But what is the position? We already have in this country conscription that will carry us to the end of 1948. Have the Government no hopes of getting the United Nations upon a proper working basis? [Interruption.] From the replies and retorts that are made, one really wonders why one has made such tremendous sacrifices in both great wars if they are to lead only, again and again, to the creation of force to fight force. There is no hope in the world whatever for complete peace if each nation must train its best young men to kill other young men. Do not hon. Members hope that some day there will be general peace on earth?

§ Mr. Kenneth Lindsay (Combined English Universities)

Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the Foreign Secretary has slaved and toiled to try to get security and to give some teeth to the Security Council? Is there any other hon. or right hon. Gentleman who could have done much more?

§ Mr. Davies

That is the point I am making, that the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary is struggling to establish the United Nations organisation, and the next moment the Government say, "We have no faith in carrying it out, and, therefore, we must have a conscript 1867 Army." I have been suggesting that it would be far and away better it our economic position were made stronger rather than that we should have this Bill. Of course, we believe in collective security—

§ Dr. Haden Guest

rose—

§ Mr. Davies

I have been very good in giving way, but I cannot give way any more. What is really required? I should have thought that what was really needed was to make the conditions of military service more attractive.

§ Colonel Wigg (Dudley)

Unemployment.

§ Mr. Davies

Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman mean that it should be sufficiently attractive only to attract those who are unemployed? Is that the suggestion? What I ask, and what I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree, is that the conditions in the Armed Forces should be so attractive that they compete with industry—

§ Colonel Wigg

A military artistocracy

§ Mr. Davies

—that they should be so attractive that they compete with all industries, and not merely provide a sort of refuge to which men go when they have no other employment. The conditions should be made such that they will attract the men required, and then those men will want the best possible training. Above all, scientific people are required today more than men on the barrack square. Those are the conditions which, I should have thought, would have met the situation today far and away better than this tremendous change that is being proposed in this Bill. Since 1914, we have witnessed loss after loss, we hoped temporarily, of rights which we not only cherished but which have made this old country great. On that 4th August, Sir Edward Grey used words which have become memorable about the lights of Europe going out. I have seen the lights of liberty being dimmed one by one, but now the greatest one of all, the free will of British subjects, is being challenged, and challenged in such a way that it will become part and parcel of the supposed democratic government of this country. It is a change which I will, to the end of my time, fight, believing as I do in the free will of every man.

§ Mr. Crossman (Coventry, East)

I should like to express the gratitude which, I am sure, we all feel for the sincerity of the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). I think he said with equal emotion, although with a good deal less of conciseness, what was said yesterday from this side of the House in opposition to the Bill. I shall not gibe against the right hon. and learned Gentleman's consistency. I rather envy him his position as a member of a gallant minority fighting against overwhelming odds. Times have changed.

§ Mrs. Nichol (Bradford, North)

It is a good position to be in sometimes.

§ Mr. Crossman

Fifteen years ago there was a small minority in the Labour movement fighting against overwhelming odds; 15 years ago I was one of the small group who stood for rearmament, in order to save the League of Nations. [Interruption.] Perhaps I may be allowed to make my own speech. Fifteen years ago there was in the Labour Party a very small minority which stood for the things that are now accepted by the Government of the day, and I believe that we should extend to the minority who disagree with us on this Bill the same respect as the majority afforded to us at that time. This subject has been a continual problem within the Labour movement [Interruption.] If I was not precise enough, let me say that I advocated rearmament 15 years ago. At least, I have this in common with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that both of us have been consistent.

I would like to take up one essential point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I thought there were three cardinal questions which the right hon. and learned Gentleman put to the Government to deserve an answer I think he formulated them as follows: First, is there a national emergency sufficient to justify conscription; secondly, can that national emergency be met by voluntary means, if it exists; and, thirdly, if not, can it better, or adequately, be met by conscription? I entirely agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that those three questions have not been answered by any Government statement either in the Press or in the House up to date. I think the Government have put their supporters in an extremely difficult 1869 situation by their presentation of this Bill. They have not given us the basic principles on which they justify it. They have not stated clearly the strategy for which they desire it.

§ Mr. Cove (Aberavon)

Let us have it from the hon. Member.

§ Mr. Crossman

In addition, the Government have embarrassed their supporters by what I and many other hon. Members consider to be an appalling extravagance in the Estimates for the Army. We were glad and, indeed we were somewhat proud to find that the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) was not too proud to borrow from Labour back benchers the arguments which they used on the Army Estimates some few weeks ago, protesting against the secrecy of the Government. I believe the whole atmosphere of this Debate would have been different if the Government had said to us, "We agree about the extravagance in the Army; we agree that demobilisation is absolutely essential in the next two years; we accede to your demands for a speed up." But we have not had one concession to common sense on that subject from the Government and it has made it extremely difficult for those of us here who are worried, and feel our responsibility in casting our votes, to decide what to do on this particular issue.

The Government have made it even more difficult by the 18 months period. That period changes the whole character of the National Service Bill, for it means a decision by the Government in peace time to use conscript soldiers for garrison duties overseas. I can and I do accept—and I will give the reasons for this later—the necessity for a period of one year in order to provide a trained reserve in this country for national defence; I cannot accept the principle, which is not accepted by any European democratic country at all, that conscript soldiers should be used for garrison work overseas. I want to make it perfectly clear in the House, in supporting this Bill, that it is only because I and many of my hon. Friends intend to put down an Amendment in the Committee stage to reduce the period from 18 months to a year. On that basis I feel it is possible conscientiously to support this Bill, particularly in view of the fact that it applies 1870 only after 1949, by which time it is essential to have the demobilisation for which we have been pressing.

§ Mr. C. Davies

Would the hon. Gentleman add this: that if he does not succeed in getting his Amendment, he will vote against the Third Reading?

§ Mr. Crossman

I have every hope that we shall get this Amendment, judging from the feeling below and above the Gangway. I realise that in saying that, I have not in the least convinced hon. Members below the Gangway of the case for conscription. I do not propose to try to do that because I believe it would be impossible by rational means. But I do intend to try to persuade them of one thing: that conscience is not a monopoly of the anti-conscriptionists, and I hope they will hear patiently the case of one person who is trying to tell them why. I am willing to argue with them as far as I can point by point, and to show my conscientious support for this Bill. But a conscience should not become self-righteousness, and some of the interruptions remind me of that.

I want to deal first with the objections on principle to conscription. I have a great belief in the basic common sense of the British people, and I take it seriously that the British people, for hundreds of years, have had the strongest objection and resentment against introducing conscription for the British Army. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford referred to the irritation which would have been caused in 1920, by maintaining conscription. I fully agree with that. There would have been profound irritation in 1920 at the maintenance of conscription; there would have been a genuine revolt of the common man against it, and I will show a little later why there has been a change since 1920.

I think we ought to note one fact: every country in Europe which can be directly invaded by land has had conscription, and the two major countries which up till now could not be invaded by land, Britain and America, have not had conscription. I do not claim that there is anything final about this argument, but I think it should be noted—[An HON. MEMBER: "And Switzerland."] Switzerland—a country which has a deep pacific tradition, still has conscription today. It is worth noticing that during the last war there was a larger number of men, proportionate to the size of the population, called up into 1871 the Swiss Army than into any other army in the world, and I would remind those who would tell me that conscription for military service is no good for a small country, that on three occasions the Germans had intended to invade Switzerland—

§ Mr. Cove

Is the hon. Member saying that conscription in Switzerland saved them from invasion? Did it?

§ Mr. Crossman

I am trying to explain to the hon. Member—

§ Mr. Cove

rose—

§ Hon. Members

Order.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner)

The hon. Member is not entitled to interrupt unless the hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman) is prepared to give way.

§ Mr. Cove

rose—

§ Hon. Members

Order.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Member must restrain himself. Does the hon. Member for East Coventry give way?

§ Mr. Crossman

I do, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

§ Mr. Cove

I would like to know from the hon. Member if conscription saved Switzerland.

§ Mr. Crossman

The hon. Member has wasted a minute unnecessarily. The answer I was trying to give him was that in the course of the last war there were three occasions on which the invasion of Switzerland had actually been planned.

§ Mr. Cove

Planned.

§ Mr. Crossman

It was very convenient for the Germans to get Switzerland, but on certain conditions. One was that the tunnels through Switzerland should be preserved. The second was that the town of Zurich and the whole industrial belt of Switzerland should be intact. The Swiss made a military plan which involved the blowing up of all the tunnels through Switzerland, the devastation of the whole of the town of Zurich and all the industrial belt, with a retreat to a mountain hide-out in the centre where the whole army would gather together to resist the Germans. According to military experts—I am not one—a study of the German 1872 documents now proves conclusively that the final thing which deterred the Germans from the actual step of invading Switzerland was what the Swiss Army would do. There was the deterrent element of the Swiss intention to defend their country. That decided it. I have noticed in Palestine with Jew and Arab, it makes a certain difference if you are prepared to defend even quite a small country, against a large Power if need be.

§ Several Hon. Members

rose—

§ Mr. Crossman

I hope to deal with the points one by one. One of the reasons why Switzerland was not invaded was the admirable and highly efficient militia which the Swiss had organised. I do not assume that anybody below the Gangway will accept that. I am only explaining my reasons, I am not asking hon. Members to accept my reasons.

§ Mr. Follick (Loughborough)

rose—

§ Mr. Crossman

I want to suggest, therefore, that the reason why, for at least two generations, the Labour movement has been right in opposing conscription for this country is because we have been a great naval Power whose security did not depend on a land Army. We could afford the luxury of liberty; we could afford not to have a land Army for two reasons. The first reason was because we had the Navy; the second was because the French took it on the chin each time; we relied on other people to take it on the chin while we mobilised at leisure and we relied on our Navy to secure our islands. I assure my hon. Friends that political principles are based to some extent on history and geography. We are a commonsense people, we have understood that we did not require an Army. That was right at the time.

But now I will call the attention of my hon. Friends below the Gangway to a significant thing. In 1939 another Government decided to introduce conscription. I remember that I was on a paper at the time which was not at all in favour of it, and we spent a whole morning discussing what line our paper—a near-Socialist paper—should take an the subject. I tried to persuade my colleagues that we should be in favour of conscription. They said, "The whole Labour movement will be up in arms. There will be a mass demonstration against it. The people are against it." The really striking 1873 thing was that, in 1939, the people of this country had an acuter sense of reality than many hon. Members. The Labour leaders opposed conscription in 1939, and I think they were quite wrong to do so. I think many people on our Front Bench would agree with me that they should have seen the realities in 1939 as clearly as the mass of our people. The mass of our people had seen the change of situation since 1920. In 1939 they accepted the necessity, and there was scarcely a ripple in the country when conscription was actually introduced. There were a number of pacifists—[Interruption.] Am I told there are no pacifists? Well, there were a number of non-pacifists, like the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus) who opposed it for non-pacifist reasons. Whatever their motives, they were a small minority compared with the man in the street, who accepted the grim necessity and showed himself a great deal wiser than his political leaders. He often does.

§ Mr. Zilliacus (Gateshead)

rose—

§ Mr. Crossman

I want to deal with the hon. Member for Gateshead. He does not pretend that conscription is bad in principle; he simply says that between the wars it was our duty as a Labour movement, if we wanted to fight the policy of the Government, to deny it the Armies with which to carry out its policy. He even urged a general strike at the Southport conference of the Labour Party but at that point the present Foreign Secretary intervened, and said he ran the general strikes and not the hon. Member for Gateshead. It was at Southport that I realised for the first time the monolithic character of the present Foreign Secretary. All I can say to the hon. Member for Gateshead is that I believe he was wrong between the wars in the advice which he gave the Labour movement, and I believe he is wrong now, and I shall say why.

Like him I happened to travel in Europe a great deal between the wars. I remember being in Vienna in 1934 when the defenceless Austrian Socialists were mown down. I did not find a single Austrian Socialist who said, "I pray that the Labour movement in Britain will go on opposing rearmament." On the contrary, I found every Austrian Socialist praying for re-armament, saying "Cannot you realise that we must have a strong Britain? We want you to change your foreign policy, but if you wait until 1874 you have changed your foreign policy before starting on the prototype of an aeroplane, where will you be?" I went to France in 1936. I tell the House seriously that, in my view, if we had had a land Army which the French could have felt would have been by their side, the German invasion of the Rhineland might have ended in the death of Hitlerism. Already, the French had a deep inferiority complex, feeling that they would take it on the chin once again, that there was nothing coming from Britain.

I come now to 1938. I happened to be in Czechoslovakia during the period of the May elections, when the Czech Army mobilized—one of the most heroic things I have ever seen, a small nation mobilising. But it was embarrassing to me, as a British Socialist, when Czech Socialists came to me and said, "I notice you are still voting against re-armament." It made no sense to the people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If anything could persuade me that I was wrong, it would be Tory applause, but it does not. I say it made no sense to the people in Europe for a Socialist in Britain to say, "I will deny the Government armaments until I have changed its foreign policy," and it makes even less sense to deny a Labour Government armaments until it changes its foreign policy. That is the basis of my opposition to what my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead says.

§ Mr. Zilliacus

May I interrupt my hon. Friend?

§ Mr. Crossman

No. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead says that we must stop the Government having a wrong foreign policy by putting pressure on it. Why does he not deny the Government nationalisation of transport, or something of that sort, to bring pressure to bear on them? I want to change foreign policy, and I hope that in a year or two, we shall have changed it, but we shall have to have defence meanwhile as a means of carrying out that foreign policy. If any hon. Member believes that a Labour Foreign Secretary does not require an Army, Navy or Air Force—[Interruption.] I say they will need an Army, Navy and Air Force. It is irresponsible to give as a ground for voting against national defence, that one dislikes the foreign policy of the Government. That is totally irrelevant. We should keep defence and foreign policy separate, and realise that 1875 the strength of Great Britain, even under a Tory Government, may be of value to the liberty of Europe.

§ Mr. Zilliacus

I wish to ask my hon. Friend three questions. The first is, did rearmament between the wars save the peace, or the League of Nations? Secondly, would we create a situation which would make the Government change their foreign policy if half our Members went into the Lobby tonight in favour of the Amendment? Thirdly—well, I will leave the third.

§ Mr. Crossman

My hon. Friend wants me to diverge from my main theme. He asks me if rearmament between the wars helped to save the League. Rearmament between the wars certainly saved us, and, if it had not done so there would be no United Nations now. What it accomplished made all the difference between defeat and non-defeat. The answer therefore to the first question is "Yes." Rearmament helped us to build at long last collective security against Hitler. Now, I will answer the hon. Member's second question, which is, would the abstention, or the opposition, of a large number of Labour Members force a change of foreign policy? I say it would not. The Government are well aware that the issues of defence and foreign policy are separate issues, and they will pay more heed to responsible people, who separate the two, and do not try to confuse the issue.

I want to deal with the other major question which my hon. Friend asked. It is, are we to fight the Russians? That is the second objection to conscription—that it is to be used to fight the Russians, and that the British conscript army might be used to defend the outposts of America, while America has no conscript army at all. I think I was the first in this House to say that there was a grievous danger in any foreign policy which might lead to our defending the advanced outposts of America. I share with my hon. Friend all his apprehensions in regard to that. I want changes in foreign policy to avoid that.

§ Mr. Stokes (Ipswich)

rose—

§ Mr. Crossman

No, I cannot give way again. I suggest that those of us who stand for an independent British policy, independent of America, had better realise that an independent British policy cer- 1876 tainly demands minimum Armed Forces. One cannot have a pacifist policy if one says, "Let us not ask for American protection, let us not do all these things for America so as to have her on our side." If I ask for an independent policy—indipendent of America—I must conscientiously accept the need for armed forces—and possibly more than an Anglo-American alliance would demand.

Now, as to the question of a Russian war. It is being asked, "Who are these troops being trained to fight?" My view is the same as when we discussed the Army Estimates. There is no possible chance of a war with Russia, I think, for seven years, possibly for 15. This army will not be prepared or trained to fight any Power at all. Indeed, if the Foreign Secretary, or the Minister of Defence were so irresponsible as to train this army to fight any particular Power, I believe there would be something in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead. But, this army will not in fact be trained for that, not because of the goodness of the British Foreign Secretary, but because neither the Americans nor Russians are going to have a war—

§ Mr. Stubbs (Cambridgeshire)

What are they being trained for?

§ Mr. Crossman

I am glad to get all this anticipation of what I am going to say. My hon. Friend asked what they are being trained for.

§ Mr. McGhee (Penistone)

To keep the miners in order.

§ Mr. Crossman

Until we have U.N.O. security, national armaments must exist. We cannot abolish all arms. My hon. Friends merely now say they want a more efficient volunteer army. I could equally ask them, who is it to fight against? That seems as applicable to a non-conscript army, as to a conscript army.

If we are keen, and I am keen, on European co-operation with this country, we need our arms for a European security system under U.N.O. That should be the function of our Armed Forces. Some time ago, some hon. Member on this side moved an Amendment on foreign policy indicating our desire for a European foreign policy envisaging a United Socialist States of Europe. I ask my hon. Friends to consider, supposing we 1877 who moved that Amendment went into the Lobby opposing conscription, what any French Socialist would say. We stand for co-operation with Europe. This country is part of Europe now, and the Channel does not exist any more—strategically. If we are part of Europe, and want to play our part in leading Europe, we must pass what Europe regards as the acid test of British Socialism—acceptance of national service. How would a Frenchman react to what I have heard one hon. Member say, "All conscript armies are defeated"? He knows that the reason why the French Army was overwhelmed was because we did not come in time.—[An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Navy?"]—I am trying to point out that we have ceased to be a naval Power, and are now a land Power, and must share with European countries responsibility for the collective security of Europe. There is not one European Socialist who will not say if we vote against this Bill, "The British Socialists have learned nothing. They are stewing in their old insularity." Let us share responsibility with other European Socialists so long as it is necessary for us to do so.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mrs. Paton) asked why we should not have a voluntary Army. That is a perfectly fair question. Here is my answer. I believe that in five years' time the R.A.F. and Navy could be fully recruited by long-service volunteers. But what about the Army? The problem is that we are not a militarist nation.

§ Mrs. Paton

We are going to be.

§ Mr. Crossman

There is no technical reason against a professional Army. A small professional Army was allowed to Germany. That was the disastrous mistake made by Mr. Lloyd George, who forbade them more than 100,000 men. Then those 100,000 men became every one, at least on the level of training of a sergeant, or an officer. Out of that was formed the cadre of a great army. Do our anti-conscriptionist friends feel that that is a fine example to follow? It is perfectly true that a professional army may well be more efficient than a conscript army, if one can get it. One could get it easily in Germany, because the Germans like soldiering. The British do not. We are an anti-militarist nation, and do not like being soldiers. I do not believe we 1878 can recruit a whole-time professional army adequate to our needs in this country without raising the prestige of the Army to a position which I do not want to see. I do not want to see the profession of the soldier regarded as the highest profession of the country. I do not think it is. I do not think it is a profession at all, and for that reason I think this job should be shared equally by the people, thanking God that we dislike it so much that we have been compelled to do it.

As I suspected at the beginning of my speech, it is impossible to convince my hon. Friends by reason. But can they at least admit there is a conscientious case for supporting this Bill? I do not, however, think it proper to support this Bill without the limitation I made at the beginning of my speech. I would limit the use of national service strictly to national defence by reducing the period to one year. Our boys should not be used overseas. Conscription should only be used to produce a trained reserve national defence.

§ Mr. Herbert Butler (Hackney, South)

After what appears to me a very considerable time, I now ask for the courtesy of the House in rising to address it for the first time. I have never yet been struck by the brevity of the speeches, but nevertheless I hope to learn by experience, and I myself intend to set a good example. I regret that my first speech in this House should be one of opposition to a Government of whose record I am very proud. I say this after nearly 30 years' experience in the Socialist movement. During the whole of my activities I never expected that I would ever enter this House as a Member. I was very happy indeed to expound the principles and policy of the Socialist movement, and that gave me the satisfaction I desired. I do not intend to get engaged in controversy, but I would say that in this Labour movement of ours at the moment we have so many military experts that I wonder, sometimes, at whose feet they learned their Socialism. Nevertheless, it takes all sorts to make a world, and we are very happy that we have that diverse opinion in our ranks.

I never believed that it would fall to the lot of the Labour Government to introduce compulsory military service, and even if I had, I should still have 1879 retained my faith that a Socialist Government was a natural development out of the awful conditions under which our people were living. But I would have fought the idea, and I would have hoped that I should have been able to defeat it inside our own conferences and within our own ranks. The position, however, was that at all times our party was opposed to the idea of compulsory military service. Therefore, it was not necessary to fight it inside our own party machinery. I went to the electorate upon the basis of "Let us face the future." I have searched it since that time, and I cannot find any reference in it to the subject matter of this Bill. If there had been a direct or an indirect reference to it, it may be that I should have had a fairly clear conscience in my attitude to it, but there was nothing in it.

So far as I am concerned, I am not prepared to support the Government in the imposition of this thing on our people, when we have no authority so to do. All of us on this side of the House were expounding to the electorate in 1945 the necessity for the whole of our people accepting a greater measure of responsibility towards the community. Ours was not only a party policy; ours was not only a party programme; ours was an appeal to the people to accept the view that a Socialist Government would inaugurate a new way of life. We were desirous of instilling in the minds of the people that there was a necessity for an alteration of the relationship of man to man, that we wanted greater freedom of the individual, that we wanted the people to express themselves. Economic conditions under which they were living, were such that there could be no expression of individuality.

In my view, the Socialist movement secured its greatest support and its most sound allegiance from people who believed that we had something to offer more than a mere political programme. Therefore, I am not one of those who believe that we are here solely because the people desired us to fill their bellies. I believe the support of our movement is based upon something deeper and stronger than that. What are we doing? We are throwing it all to the wind in this proposal, which is now before the House. I hasten to assure the House that there are many of us on this side of the House. who, 1880 because we believed in these things, have suffered great difficulties and have lost our employment, with consequent suffering and misery, over a number of years. But we went on because we believed in it. We went on, not to come into this House and to pass Measures which will decide the conditions of people in the Armed Forces of the Crown. To those of my hon. Friends who are so keen to be participants in the glory of this military machine, I would say that I wonder what they are doing here, telling other people to do it.

If there are any strictures implied, in the remarks I am making, upon the sponsors of the Bill, let me hasten to say that I am in no way questioning the integrity of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour or his colleagues, for whom I have the greatest respect. I believe that they in their particular spheres believe that they are pursuing the Socialist ideal, an ideal which I also hold. I am not questioning their sincerity, but I believe that they are being serious