I beg to move, in page 1, line 17, after "with," to insert "or vary."

In rising to move the first Amendment, it may perhaps shorten our proceedings and be of assistance to the Committee if they will allow me to say what I propose to do in regard to the large number of Amendments which are on the Order Paper. The first series of Amendments in my name are all drafting points, or deal with subsidiary points which are equivalent to drafting, and I shall ask the Committee to accept them. The long list of Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) I do not propose to resist, if they are moved, and the same is true of the long list of Amendments in the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) on the next page, and that applies to the corresponding Amendments on the fourth page. I shall move to negative Clause 8. Apart from that, there are two or three other Amendments with which we can deal as they come along. Perhaps that statement may help the Committee.

I rise to express my gratitude to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for his statement. All I can say is that, if the Government had shown such expedition in other matters as he has shown in this matter, it would have been a very happy thing.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 2, after "enactment," to insert:

"or any regulation, rule or order made under any enactment."

May I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who is a very knowledgeable person on all these matters, what are the rules, regulations or enactments that would affect what we are dealing with to-day, apart from those that are covered by the Bill itself? Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman may be able to enlighten us on that point.

I do not know that there are any in fact.

If there are none, why seek to put in this Amendment?

The hon. Gentleman said, I think, "excepting those referred to in the Bill itself."

Perhaps I have not made myself clear. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is proposing an Amendment to insert:

"or any regulation, rule or order made under any enactment."

Can he explain what these rules or orders made under any enactment mean?

:I appreciate the inquiry of the hon. Gentleman. I thought that that was really only a drafting point to introduce any regulations or orders which might have been made under the general body of regulations during the war. It is an emergency provision which has been put in since the war started, but which is not specified or defined. There is no substance in this. It is really only a drafting Amendment.

Perhaps the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be good enough to explain the provision of this particular Clause. I am given to understand that some statement has been made that he intends to remove Clause 8 altogether, and that it will be competent for trade unions to approach the Registrar of Friendly Societies to make an amendment in the benefit rule or to carry out by negotiation with the Registrar that which this Bill originally intended to carry out, namely, the procedure with regard to benefits in Clause 8. Is that the intention that this particular Clause has in view? I am rather interested to know whether a trade union will be able to go to the Registrar in the event of not being able to meet their obligations under their rules and ask for an amendment of the benefit rule. I refer particularly to those trade unions which are illegal under the Common Law, where the benefits cannot be enforced and the unions may repudiate the benefits. What will be the position if a trade union which has been held to be illegal at Common Law goes to the Registrar? Will he be authorised to amend the rule, or will they be told that the law does not recognise the enforcement of the contract and that by that means they themselves must repudiate their moral liability—certainly not their legal liability—and they cannot proceed to ask the Registrar to assist them in this particular matter?

The hon. Gentleman has propounded a problem which I think I can answer correctly. I do not think that what he suggests could in fact occur. The whole object of what we are proposing is governed by the fact that the approach to the Chief Registrar for this amended form of procedure—because that is all that it amounts to—is on the basis, as he will see in Clause 1, Sub-section (1), page 1, line 13, "of circumstances attributable to the emergency."

I am assuming that that condition obtains.

That is the governing consideration, and Sub-section (2) diminishes the consideration still further, in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). I do not think therefore that the question of anything which could have arisen under Clause 8 would get through these double gates. That, I think, is the position. Perhaps I have not quite taken up the point of the hon. Member?

Perhaps I have not made myself particularly clear. It gives the trade unions the right to go to the Registrar to amend the rules. It may well be that the rule that they may seek to amend is a benefit rule, and that need for amendment arises out of the emergency. What is the position of the Registrar with respect to a trade union declared illegal at Common Law?

I do not quite understand the hon. Member. I am sorry. This is part of the law with which I am not very well acquainted, and perhaps the hon. Member will help me a little by saying what he means by an illegal trade union.

Under Section 4 of the Act of 1871 there are certain contracts which the courts cannot enforce by reason of the trade union being an illegal association at Common Law. That being the case, if an illegal association goes to the Registrar and suggests that by reason of the emergency they cannot pay the benefits, which they have morally contracted to pay to their members, what is the position of the Registrar in that respect? Can he authorise an alteration in the benefit rule, or must he say, "I have no power, and as a result of my having no power, you must repudiate on your own responsibility"? I think that that is as clear as the thing can be made.

As far as the Clause is concerned, any rule can be amended, subject to whatever the procedure may be of confirming it. The object of the Clause is to make it clear that, if in the case of emergency the ordinary procedure cannot be carried out, then the same sort of amendment can be authorised by permission of the Chief Registrar. The Clause itself gives the safeguard in Sub-section (4), in the event of the action taken not being approved subsequently by the general meeting. As regards, the so-called "illegal" trade unions, it seems to me that if they do not come within the sphere of the Registrar in one way or another, he has no jurisdiction to deal with them. He can deal only with those for whom he has the responsibility laid down by Parliament. I think that that is the answer; and I hope that it is correct.

I am much obliged to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.

I put down this Amendment in order to test Clause5 in regard to its capacity to look after the interests of members of building societies, but on closer examination and after making further inquiries my impression is that the Clause, particularly so far as Sub-section (3) is concerned, covers all the ground that I want, and unless the Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) is moved later on, when I should wish to say something on it, I will not proceed with my Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 12, at the beginning, to insert:

"Except with the consent of the Registrar."

I move this Amendment as the present Clause is somewhat drastic, and it might make the perfectly bona fide procedure, on the part of a building society whose directors, for one reason or another, de- cided to dissolve it, void, and a society might be put into a difficulty with possibly serious results and certainly considerable inconvenience and expense. For example, a society might decide to dissolve, and then an opportunity might come along whereby it could transfer its mortgages to another society to the advantage of all concerned. Having come to the original decision it might by its later decision be put into a difficulty under the Clause as it stands in the Bill although acting in perfect good faith. Under these circumstances it seems to me appropriate that the Registrar should have power to consent in a proper case to that procedure continuing notwithstanding that a transfer of mortgages is contemplated. There are cases where the approval of the Registrar is deniable and convenient, and in my submission this is one of those cases.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 26, at the end, to insert:

"(4) A transfer of mortgages by a building society to another building society on terms that, except with his consent, the obligations of the mortgagor are not varied to his disadvantage, shall not for the purposes of this Section, be deemed to be a transfer of engagements provided that no other funds, property or assets are also transferred as part of the same transaction except additional security held in connection with any such mortgage."

This is a rather more technical matter. There is no definition, so far as I know, of what is meant by the term "transfer of engagements," and in particular it is not clear whether that term necessarily involves the transfer of all the engagements of a society or whether it would be permissible to transfer, as might be desirable, only part of the engagements of the society, as, for example, some portion of its mortgage securities. In this matter the Building Societies Association for whom I speak are in doubt, and it is clearly desirable at this time that they should know where they stand and that they should be empowered to transfer mortgages to another society in case of necessity. The position of the trade unions is dealt with in Clause 6, Sub-section (3), where it will be seen that the Clause does anticipate trade unions desiring to transfer a part of their property. Similarly, a building society should have the same power and be enabled to transfer mortgages. In wartime it is particularly essential that financial institutions should be liquid or, at any rate, have a sufficient degree of liquidity to enable them to deal with any calls that may reasonably be made upon them. There are about 900 building societies of all shapes, sizes and financial capacity in this country. There are some which have only mortgage securities and if there was a run on their funds or depositors decided to pay out there might be a difficulty. There are others which have, in my view, too small a proportion of investments easily realisable. Therefore, in my submission it is in the public interest that a society should be able to transfer to another society a sufficient number of mortgages to obtain ready money and be able to keep all its obligations to its depositors and shareholders at all times. It ought to be able to carry through such a transaction without the publicity which is so rightly insisted on by law in the case of a complete amalgamation. I hope that makes the position clear. If the proposal I have made was accepted, it would enable the transfer of mortgages to be made from one society to another, together with the appropriate collateral security which was the subject of discussion under the Building Societies Act of last year. My Amendment provides an ample safeguard for the mortgagor, although I doubt if it is really required; it is a practical proposal of very great value, and I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will see his way to accept it.

The hon. and gallant Member has said that this is a rather more technical point than his earlier one, and I would like to say that it was put on the Order Paper only very recently, and, frankly, I have not had the time to discuss it and give it the consideration which it deserves. This is not one of the war Clauses, and in view of this it would be importing something into the permanent law regarding building societies in peace as well as war. While I appreciate the arguments put before the Committee, I should prefer it if the hon. and gallant Member could see his way to withdraw the Amendment to-day and put it down again for the Report stage. While not committing myself in any way to its acceptance, this would give me further time to consider it with everybody concerned, and with the hon. and gallant Member himself if he likes, with a view to seeing whether it should be inserted into the body of the law or not, without prejudice to the question of acceptance.

I am much obliged to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. I agree that the Amendment was put on the Order Paper rather late, and in those circumstances and with the conviction that on consideration he will feel it right to accept the Amendment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 34, to leave out from "provided," to "a," in line 38.

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has intimated his intention of accepting this block of Amendments. Very little, therefore, requires to be said about them, but perhaps the Committee will allow me to make a brief explanation of the reasons for this series of Amendments on the Paper. Two points are involved. The first is the transfer of engagements from one union to another, and the other is the proposed repeal of existing legislation, in particular, the Act of 1917. In the case of the 1917 Act it provided for the ordinary procedure for the facilitating of amalgamations. Unions were called upon, and are still called upon, under the legislation to take a ballot of their members in the ordinary way preceding amalgamation. It was the intention of the Bill, as I understand it, to repeal that legislation, but on mature consideration it was thought to be undesirable to remove it altogether.

As regards the transfer of engagements, the position is this: It sometimes happens that two organisations decide to amalgamate, but it is undesirable that they should avail themselves of the usual procedure under the 1917 Act. One organisation may be large, perhaps with 100,000 members, and the other small, with 1,000 or 2,000 members. The large organisation, obviously, does not care to undertake all the cumbrous procedure involved in the 1917 Act or to take a ballot of its members and the like. It may be asked why the smaller organisation could not be dissolved and then be absorbed by the larger organisation, but there are psychological reasons why the small organisation, with long-standing traditions of which it feels proud, should not dissolve in that way. It is, therefore, proposed that they should be permitted to transfer their engagements in the manner indicated, thus making it unnecesary to adopt the procedure of the 1917 Act. It is the desire of the trade union movement, and the view has been expressed by the Trades Union Congress, that everything that can be done should be done, both during war and, indeed, in peace, to enable an organisation to facilitate amalgamation. That is the view of the Trades Union Congress as representing the organisation, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman concurs in that view.

I beg to move, in page 8, line 14, at the end, to insert:

"Provided that if any member of a society dies whilst serving, his next of kin or other representative shall be entitled to any benefit to which they would have been entitled if death had occurred before the cessation of contributions."

I do not know whether the Financial Secretary has examined this Amendment, but I think he will agree that it is absolutely necessary, otherwise the representatives of men who have been killed will have no right to draw death benefits, because a previous provision says that no benefit shall be paid until he subsequently resumes payment of contributions. It is obvious that a dead man cannot possibly take steps to resume payment of contributions, and in view of that I think the Minister will agree that it is necessary to make this Amendment in order to secure the rights of the next of kin of a man who has been killed and who is not in a position to resume payment of contribution.

I, of course, accept the undoubted fact that a dead man cannot pay contributions for any purpose, but I am rather surprised that the hon. Member should have moved this Amendment. On the Second Reading of the Bill he objected to the whole principle of the Bill on the ground that there was nothing in it which could not be done by a friendly society or a trade union acting under its own rules without any assistance whatever from the State. The Bill was wrong, in his view, because it attempted to impose on trade unions and friendly societies certain things which they could do by amending their own rules. The curious thing is that his present Amendment wants to do the very thing to which he was strongly opposed in principle.

I have to accept the inevitable.

I wonder whether the hon. Member will accept the inevitability of my being unable to accept the Amendment.

I accept the inevitability of a dead man not being able to resume contributions.

Did not my hon. Friendon the Second Reading say that the Bill prevented societies paying such benefits and that the Amendment he now proposes would compel them to do so?

I do not think there is anything here which would prevent any society, if they so desired, making the desired concession in the ordinary way. Indeed Sub-section (4) says:

"Nothing in this Section shall be taken to prevent a friendly society providing by its rules for the continuance of the membership of persons serving or employed as aforesaid upon terms more favourable than those provided by this Section."

I am advised that this provision will enable any society to do what the hon. Member seeks to impose on all societies. I should have thought he would have adhered to the views he so boldly enunciated on the Second Reading and have wished to interfere as little as possible with the organisation and management of the societies themselves.

The Financial Secretary will recognise that the Clause with which we are now dealingmakes provision for the suspension of benefits to members until such time as they resume contributions. My point is that a deceased member cannot possibly resume contributions, and that if there is no such Amendment in the Bill a trade union or a friendly society may say that they decline to pay benefit until the late member has resumed contributions. That will postpone the matter indefinitely, especially as no one will be able to discover where the late member may happen to be. My objection to the principle of the Bill was stated on the Second Reading, and I am satisfied, having stated it. As the House came to the conclusion that the Bill should be passed, I want to make a bad Bill as good as it can be made. That is the object of my Amendment. I want to make it quite clear that the next-of-kin of a deceased member has the protection of the law and that their interests are safeguarded in the event of a relative passing over.

I am rather surprised that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman does not see the necessity for this Amendment. If the provision is passed as it now stands, it will offer a loophole which will enable societies to escape responsibility in regard to the payment of benefits in the circumstances I have mentioned. What can be the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's objection to the Amendment? There can be no misunderstanding as to what it means, and if, as he has suggested, unions or friendly societies could pay benefits without this addition being made, surely there can be no objection to making the matter clear, so that if a legal action takes place, the Act can be produced and the liability be placed upon the court to give a proper construction to its provisions. I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will accept the Amendment.

It appears to me that there must be some safeguard against next-of-kin being deprived of their right to benefit. That is the sole point with which I am concerned at the moment, and to that extent I support my hon. Friend's Amendment. It may be that the Financial Secretary had had this Amendment thrust upon him, and for that reason is not in a position to give an adequate reply. I suggest that he might agree to give consideration to this matter between now and the Report stage, and perhaps my hon. Friend would be content with such an assurance. We have no desire to go to a Division on this Amendment, but it seems to raise a point of substance, and there may well be some ambiguity which needs to be cleared up.

If there were any question of the next of kin and others now entitled to benefits being deprived of their entitlement through the accidental use of any wrong words in the Bill, that would not of course be right; and if it is felt that there is any possible dubiety I should be prepared to look into the matter again between now and the Report stage. This Clause is, so to speak, the friendly societies' own Clause. Neither the hon. Member who put down the Amendment nor the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) has approached me on this specific point. If they think it would be wise to do so, I will, as I say, consider the matter again before the Report stage, because my only desire is to meet the wishes of the House on this Bill in general.

It seems to me that if the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor) were passed, it would impose an obligation on societies which they would not otherwise have, and it might be a very serious matter. I understand that the Amendment means that although there had been a cessation of contributions for one year, two years, or perhaps three years, if death occurred while the man was serving or employed the next of kin would be entitled to a benefit which would not otherwise be payable, and therefore, the Amendment might impose an additional obligation upon the societies. I hope that on further reflection, my hon. Friend will not think it right to do that.

I think there is a point concerning the next of kin which ought to be looked into. For instance, if a man was a prisoner of war for twelve months, he would not be able to pay his contributions, and they would be unpaid unless some relative paid them. In most cases, however, it is a question of a man making direct contributions. If the man died while he was a prisoner of war, the next of kin would have no claim, unless this Amendment were inserted in the Bill. Therefore, I feel that some safeguard on the lines of the Amendment is necessary. I do not claim that the Amendment is a perfect one, but something ought to be done to safeguard a person who, for certain reasons connected with the war, is debarred from keeping in touch with his friendly society. I hope that the Amendment will be considered from that aspect.

On the understanding that the Financial Secretary will give serious consideration to an Amendment on these lines—I do not insist on the actual words of this Amendment—and on the understanding that I shall take the opportunity of returning to the matter on the Report stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 8, line 18, to leave out "before," and to insert "after."

I understand that the Financial Secretary accepts this Amendment. It is obvious that the reference ought to be to "after the expiration of the period of the emergency." The Amendment would give the member three or four months in which to resume the payment of his contributions.

I beg to move, in page 8, line 22, to leave out from "affect" to "contract," in line 23, and to insert "any."

I understand that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman accepts this Amendment, which is clearly intended to remove an ambiguity. As the Sub-section now stands, it might refer to the collectors of friendly societies.

As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was good enough to indicate at the beginning of the proceedings on this Bill that he would accept the series of Amendments, I and my hon. Friends have not put forward any arguments on the Amendments, but I think that at this stage some recognition ought to be given to the fact that the friendly societies—and in this matter, I can, with my hon. Friends, speak for the National Conference of Friendly Societies, which represents some 7,000,000 members—are continuing the membership of all those who are serving in the Naval, Military or Air Forces of the Crown. As a matter of fact, a great majority, if not all, of the societies would have done that without this Bill being introduced, and certainly recognition ought to be given to that fact. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has indicated that he does not propose to proceed with Clause 8 of the Bill. If I may mention it in passing, though I have no wish to labour the matter, Clause 8 would have given a relief to the friendly societies. Since it is now to be withdrawn, then, as I have said, recognition ought to be given to the friendly societies for having accepted responsibility for those who are serving in the Armed Forces and for keeping them in membership, notwithstanding the fact that no relief is being afforded to them, such as was proposed in Clause 8.

I wish to tender my thanks to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Financial Secretary for having accepted these Amendments in relation to the friendly societies. As one who has been a friendly society member since a date which I can hardly remember, I can say that the societies would have done their duty by their members who are serving in the Armed Forces in any case and that the statutory obligation which is now being imposed upon them would not have been required. The statutory obligation, however, is being imposed on all societies, and I am much obliged to the Minister for having accepted these Amendments.

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

I beg to move, in page 2, line 19, at the end, to add:

"Provided that this Act shall not apply to a duty or power imposed or conferred by an Act passed, or an Order made, after the passing of this Act, unless the contrary intention appears in that Act or Order."

This Amendment is moved solely for the purpose of clarity. It is intended to make it clear that Parliament is not being asked to enable these orders to vary duties or powers fixed in some future Statute, unless Parliament gives that power in the Statute itself. This was, of course, the intention of the Bill as originally presented, but some doubts have been cast upon it, and in order to make the position abundantly clear, I move this Amendment.

I am pleased to see that we have in charge of this Bill to-night a Minister who still holds the same office as that which he held last night and that there is, therefore, some possibility of continuity of policy in relation to this matter. I wish to put one question regarding the administration of this Clause. The Minister will recollect that on the Second Reading several of my hon. Friends and I raised the question of the length of time for which these postponing orders will be granted. There was a strong desire on this side, shared, I understood, by the hon. Gentleman himself, that this Clause should not be used in such a way as to hinder public works being put into operation should the war end, and should it become necessary, in order to provide employment, that certain works postponed under this enactment be put into operation immediately. I hope, therefore, we may have an assurance that consideration will be given to the time for which an Order will be granted and that it will not be insisted upon that an Order must, automatically, be made for three years.

I would also like to ask the question regarding Sub-section (3, b). I understand there are one or two cases in which a commencement has been made with the exercise of purchase rights by local authorities of electricity undertakings. I understand that in the case of High Wycombe, for instance, the local authority has gone some considerable distance with the negotiations and that during the past fortnight a resolution, which would have been effective in ordinary circumstances, has been passed, so that normally the electricity undertaking would have been purchased. In those cases—in which, I think, all the negotiations were concluded before the outbreak of war—are those purchase rights to be exercised or will difficulties be raised, and if difficulties do arise, will they be met under this Sub-section?

On the first point raised by the hon. Gentleman I can, most willingly, give him the assurance for which he asks. The three years period is a maximum, and, of course, it will be possible to apply this for a less period than three years. As to his second question, I am not familiar with the details of the High Wycombe case and the other cases to which he has referred, but I shall certainly make inquiries and let him know what the position is in regard to that matter.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, at the end to insert:

"Provided that if that time expired or that date fell on or after the twenty-first day of February, nineteen hundred and forty, such an application may be made within three months from the passing of this Act."

As I understand that the Minister is taking the rather unusual course as far as my Amendments are concerned and is viewing this one in a sympathetic light, I think there is no need to take up the time of the Committee with any lengthy explanation. However, a few words as to the reason why this Amendment was put down will not be altogether out of place. It will be seen that under Clause 2

"an application for an order under this Act must be made before the expiration of the time within which, or the date at which, the duty to which the application relates is to be discharged, or."

In certain cases, owing to unsettled conditions prevailing since the war, this has not been done, and the object of the Amendment is to ensure that cases where this time limit expired after the introduction of the Bill should not be treated differently from cases where the time limit expired after the Bill became law. In fact, certain local bodies were uncertain what their position would be, and the long delay in introducing this legislation has not helped them.

The necessity for the proviso is that various authorities were informed that the Government were proposing to introduce a Bill on the lines of the legislation of the last war, and were, I think, entitled to assume that it would have been passed into law before this. So far as I know, there are not many cases to which the proviso would apply, but an example would be the case of Great Yarmouth. There the corporation obtained from the Ministry of Health a Compulsory Purchase Order dated 23rd March, 1937, enabling the corporation to acquire compulsorily certain lands for the purposes of Part III of the Housing Act, 1936. The Order incorporates the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts, and under those Acts the notices to treat have to be served within three years after the date upon which the powers are conferred, so that the time expired on the 22nd of last month.

Owing, I understand, to the unsettled conditions in recent times, the notices to treat were not served, and the corporation hope, therefore, that the Bill may be made retrospective so as to enable the Minister in his discretion to make an Order extending the time for the service of the notices. It is to safeguard municipal corporations which are in this position that this Amendment is moved.

In general, we all, I think, dislike retrospective legislation, but the purpose of this Amendment, as it now stands, is very different from the one originally tabled by my hon. and gallant Friend. It is retrospective only to a very small extent. I think the Prime Minister, speaking elsewhere, said that somebody had missed the bus, and this Amendment is to enable those who have missed the bus to have a new service put on. If only these people had exercised their powers in proper time there would be no need for the Amendment. When it was originally proposed to restore to the people who have not done their job properly in time between 1st September and the passing of this Act, I think it was going too far; but this Amendment takes as a starting date the date of the introduction of the Bill in another place. The introduction of a Bill is, I think, an appropriate form of notice, and to be retrospective up to that date is the best way of doing it. It is, however, always important to place on record the dislike we have of retrospective legislation; but for the special reason which has been explained, I do not think there will be any objection to this Amendment.

I also agree with the hon. Gentleman in his dislike of retrospective legislation, but in this case we must always bear in mind that we are in war time, and that in many respects many of our people, and some of our corporations, seem to forget it. Here, in this case, as has been indicated, the date on which application must be made is within three months from the date of the introduction of the Bill. As I understand is the case with the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I, too, speak on behalf of the Association of Municipal Corporations, representing the whole of the municipal corporations of the country. The matter is an extremely important one, and it is hoped that these authorities will take advantage of the facilities offered by this Amendment and make application in due time.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) that the House does not like retrospective legislation, and that there has to be a case for it. Clearly, I think, there is a case here, because various authorities were informed last October that the Government were considering legislation on the lines of the 1915 Act, and they had reasonable grounds for expecting that the powers contained in this Bill would be available in regard to the powers that lapsed in March, 1940. For this reason I ask the Committee to accept the Amendment.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us whether there are any such powers in Ordinances granted by the Ministry which are excluded from being renewed by the fact that this power can only date from the introduction of the Bill? The hon. Gentleman indicated that the conversations took place in October and that in the period between October and February there might have been cases where these powers had lapsed. Certainly in the case of the purchase rights of electricity undertakings they are not exercisable generally on 31st March, but on any day in the month on which the lease happens to be signed.

I have made inquiries on that point and neither my own Department, nor the Ministry of Health, knows of such a case.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 41, at the end, to insert:

"The provisions of Sub-sections (2) to (5) of Section two hundred and ninety of the Local Government Act, 1933, shall apply to an inquiry held under this Sub-section as they apply to inquiries held under that Section, as if for references therein to a department there were substituted references to the appropriate Minister."

These words were in the Bill as originally introduced in another place but were taken out on Third Reading on a question of privilege. I beg to move that they now be inserted.

This Clause gives a definition of "National Service." Any person in training as a solicitor who undertakes national service shall have that service taken into consideration by the General Council of Solicitors in Scotland and the Law Society in England. National service is defined as service in the naval, military or air forces, or detention as a prisoner, military or civil, in any enemy country, or internment in an enemy or neutral country. It is also defined as any public service connected with or consequent upon the present emergency and being of a character approved by the Registrar. I would like to elicit from the Government a statement whether national service with the Auxiliary Fire Service or Air Raid Precautions will come under the category of service in the naval, military or air forces, or whether the character of the service is to be approved by the Registrar. If a man has undertaken A.R.P. work or service in the Auxiliary Fire Service and as a result has been taken from his studies, it is incumbent upon the Government to state that this service shall be fully considered.

Then there is the position of the conscientious objector. His Majesty's Opposition are completely in favour of securing an end to aggression, but the Prime Minister himself has made it clear that in this democracy every consideration will be given within reason to those who have honest and sincere conscientious objections to war. A student who is a conscientious objector may appear before a tribunal and agree to undertake work, say, of an agricultural character, or work which the tribunal may decide is of a national character. I would like to know, as no specific mention is made of this type of service, whether it will come under the national service definition and receive fair and honest consideration. What will the character of such service have to be, to be approved by the Registrar?

I would say offhand that I should doubt whether every case in which a conscientious objector merely did what the hon. Gentleman has described as national service, which might mean simply returning to his occupation because it was deemed to be one in which he could do that service, could be called public service connected with the emergency. No doubt there might be cases where he would be performing a public service and where, as a term of his exemption, he might be required to do a public service.

There is no specific mention of agriculture or of engineering, which are both services of national importance.

But hardly public service connected with the emergency. I should have thought that these words applied to cases of non-combatant service in one of the units, such as the Red Cross, that would be a condition of exemption as a conscientious objector. For that reason, I should certainly not imagine that it could be said generally that anybody who was exempted on condition of doing work of national importance would automatically be entitled to claim that he could have his period of articles shortened or be exempted from the intermediate examination set by the Law Society. Whether that be so or not, what is certain is that even if he were a conscientious objector required to do national service which was public service, it would still remain within the discretion of the Registrar, which means the Law Society in England and the General Council of Solicitors in Scotland, as to whether he should have the advantages given by this Bill. It is inherent in the whole scheme of the Bill that there should be a discretion of that kind. Indeed, without some such discretion vested in generous terms it would be impossible to cover all the cases that it is desired to cover. I feel sure that so far as the substance of the hon. Member's point is concerned, he can rely upon the Law Society in England and the General Council in Scotland to exercise their discretion with the utmost generosity in the case of people who are engaged on public service.

Is the position that so far as service in the naval, military and air forces and detention abroad are concerned, the articled clerk receives this advantage, but that when it comes to a man who is a conscientious objector or is performing another public service, he does not receive the rights conferred in the earlier Sub-sections but is dependent on the discretion of a new authority, namely, the Registrar or the Law Society?

That is not quite so, because there is discretion all through the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at Clause 1 he will see that it is in the discretion of the Council whether they shall grant exemption. There are, so to speak, two discretions, a discretion as to the character of the work undertaken, which is within the discretion of the Registrar, and the discretion of the Council as to whether that shall result in exemption being granted. Subject to that, the right hon. Gentleman's point is right, that if the man is, in fact, engaged in the service of the Crown that is a national service which enables him to apply for the discretion of the Council without further question. If, on the other hand, he is not in the service of the Crown, but doing a public service connected with the emergency, then it must be of a character which is approved by the Registrar before he can appeal for the discretion of the Council.

That seems to me, on the face of it, to be objectionable, because this House has decided that conscientious objectors shall not be put in a worse position if a tribunal has found that their objections are well based, whereas this Clause gives to another authority the power to re-try their case. That appears to penalise conscientious objectors, who, Parliament has declared, should be in the same position as other persons.

The hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered the point about those who take service in the auxiliary fire service or other A.R.P. organisations. That is said to be work of national importance. My desire tonight is that while these powers are left with the Registrar and with the General Council of Solicitors, that at least they shall be able to look to the speeches of representatives of the Government for some guidance upon points which will crop up. As my right hon. Friend has stated, this Bill gives power to another individual to re-try the case of the conscientious objector or to decide whether the work he is undertaking on the ruling of a committee set up by the Government, in keeping with the Prime Minister's promise to conscientious objectors, is work of national importance. Take, for example, the case of a man whose conscientious objection has been found by the tribunal to be well based and who has agreed to undertake work in agriculture, which has been described as a national service, one for which we have enlisted an army of land girls. If he can prove that his undertaking of this work has debarred him from his studies will that be fully taken into account? Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give us some guidance as to the line which he would trust, as a Government representative, would be taken?

I think there has been some little confusion and that possibly I am not altogether free from blame for not having cleared it up. This is a widening provision, designed to give a generous discretion to the Registrar to decide in a doubtful case whether a man is performing a public service or not. It has nothing to do with his character as a conscientious objector. The instance given by the hon. Member of the auxiliary fireman is a good example. It may very well be the case, indeed, I should think it probably would be, that an auxiliary fireman would have no difficulty in satisfying the Registrar that his was service of a character of which he could approve, so as to send him forward to permit him to have an exemption. But the fact that he had undertaken that service on account of being a conscientious objector has got nothing to do with the matter at all. It only so happens that he undertook that work because he was a conscientious objector. The provision deals with the character of the work and not with the character of the persons, and so there is no question whatever of the conscientious objector, because he has a conscientious objection, being subjected to a scrutiny which by reason of our conscientious objection legislation we have recognised to be undesirable.

Because of the impossibility of putting into a sort of table the things that are public services without missing out a good many which we do not want to overlook, we leave the widest possible discretion to the Registrar, and the character of the individual really does not come within the Registrar's scope and it would be wrong of him to take it into account.

Then we can take it that the Solicitor-General has assured us that this Sub-section in no way denies to a conscientious objector the protection of the law?

Certainly, that is so.

I wish to raise a question upon the first paragraph of this Clause, which says:

"Where any person, who has been or shall be during the period of the present emergency engaged in national service, has entered or shall enter into an indenture of apprenticeship in terms of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act, 1933, the General Council of Solicitors in Scotland may at their discretion permit the whole or any part of the period of such service to be reckoned as actual service under such indenture for the purposes of the said Act."

I ask the Lord Advocate whether he does not consider that these are very wide powers to give to the General Council of Solicitors in Scotland? Men may serve in this war for periods of two, three or six months, or one or two years, or for however long the war may last, and while I make no allegations against this Council, who I trust will be fair-minded men of good character, I say that it is not right that they should have the right of differentiating among applicants as to how much of the period of service shall be counted. Why are we giving the Council the power to say to one man, "Your three years shall count" and to another man, "Only two years of your three years shall count"? It is entirely within their discretion to permit the whole or any part of the period of service to count. I think the Lord Advocate will recognise that my main purpose is to make this Clause as generous as possible to those who give service to the nation in this emergency, and I feel that this provision would leave the General Council of Solicitors with so much power that influences may be brought to bear—as they have been with regard to appointments in Scotland in the past—that wires may be pulled, to have this or that much of the period of service counted. A very dangerous position would be set up. I would like to know what guidance or control the Government and the Lord Advocate have over any such decision that may be come to by this General Council.

The hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) has perhaps not observed that the provisions in Clause 9 in regard to Scotland are the precise counterpart of the provisions in Clause 3 in regard to England. He will find in Clause 3, which the Committee have already passed, that the council, which there means the Council of the Law Society, is given a discretion in relation to the articles of the articled clerk, and that that discretion is substantially identical with that which it is proposed to confer upon the General Council of Solicitors as regards the indentured clerk or Scottish apprentice.

That is not the point of substance.

The short point which I was going to make at the outset was that it would be rather odd for objection to be taken to the scheme of Clause 9 when the Committee has already passed an identical scheme in Clause 3. Be that as it may, the General Council of Solicitors in Scotland is a body set up under Statute, the Solicitors (Scotland) Act, 1933, with a mass of powers and duties conferred upon it by Parliament, in regard to the control, education, training and admission of solicitors in Scotland. It is the governing body, exercising functions comparable with those of the Law Society in England. They are discharging to-day, under statutory direction and under an overriding control, powers and discretions very similar to those proposed to be conferred upon them by this Clause. As the Solicitor-General has just said with regard to Clause 8, this is an empowering Clause to give them a slightly wider discretion in one particular respect than they already possess by enabling them to deal with apprentices who are engaged on national service.

I feel strongly that if the hon. Gentleman really entertains any idea that, in the discharge of its duties under the Clause, the General Council would be actuated by what he described as influence or the pulling of wires, any such suggestion is wholly without the slightest foundation. From my experience of the work of the General Council in the education and training of solicitors in Scotland I have the utmost confidence in the way in which this power will be used. If the power is not given, the only result will be that when the war is over and men return from the Services, from prisons or from internment camps, they may have to wait unduly long before they can get into positions where they can earn a living. I commend the Clause to the Committee as a proper and reasonable one. The suggestions and apprehensions of the hon. Member are without any foundation whatever.

The right hon. Gentleman has not met the point which I submitted. It may be all very well to stand up and make a general defence of the General Council of Solicitors and to say that in no circumstances need we fear their being influenced. I would remind the Lord Advocate that some time ago I raised a question with regard to the appointment of advocates in Scotland. I did so because I had received from the Government's solicitors in Scotland the definite statement that preference was being given to certain individuals. Therefore, to say that we need have no fear and that such suspicions need not be entertained, is completely to blind oneself to the fact that among solicitors in Scotland there has for a long period been very much dissatisfaction at wire pulling and preferential treatment being given in regard to certain appointments. I think, therefore, that I am on safe ground in this matter. May I ask the Lord Advocate whether he can say what the position will be? A man may come before the General Council of Solicitors after having served in His Majesty's Forces. They must put in two years bona fide, but if a man has three years' service and the council decide that only one year shall be counted, has the man any right of appeal, say, to the Lord Advocate himself?

No.

Is he completely and wholly at the mercy, and has he to accept the decisions, of the General Council of Solicitors?

indicated assent.

I think right of appeal should have been provided for men who have given service and who naturally desire the maximum amount of that service to be counted. They should have a right of appeal to the Department of the right hon. Gentleman himself. That would have been a fair concession to make to men who have given up for the sake of their country what were often very important studies in a very important profession. I am very disappointed. I do not desire in any way to hold this Bill back, because certain improvements are contained in it, but I am completely and thoroughly disappointed with the failure of the Lord Advocate and the Government to protect the interests of the men, and at leaving them completely in the hands of an outside body. The Government, having accepted their service, ought to see to it that full and adequate recompense is given to them for any services they may have rendered to the nation.