I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

It may be for the convenience of the House if I explain that this Amendment and the subsequent Amendments have been put down by the Government, in another place, in response to undertakings that were given in this House to hon. Members who raised a number of questions in the previous Debates on this Bill. I hope that in each case we have fully carried out the undertakings specifically given, and the promise that we would look into the matter. These Amendments carry out those undertakings, and unless there is any desire for some explanation, I propose to say no more.

I should just like to thank the right hon. Gentleman and the Government for the way in which they have met the point I raised in this regard on the Report stage. I did raise the point about the man who wished to dispute the notice given in writing. I presume that will be covered by the prescribed regulations.

indicated assent.

I feel sure—and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will state that it is the fact—that the notice served upon the individual will inform him of his rights of making representations if he thinks the notice is wrong.

indicated assent.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I think the point of this Amendment meets entirely the arguments we put forward. I think it is right to say that there is a difference in punishment imposed under the various codes, and in some cases penal servitude can be imposed for desertion. I hope that at some time an opportunity will be taken to bring those codes more into line. At the same time, I am glad that the Attorney-General has met the point, as he said he would in the course of our previous discussion.

I beg to move, "That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

There seems to be something a little wrong with this Amendment. In page 9, at line 44, one sees the words "umpires and deputy umpires." If we leave out "umpires" and insert "the umpire," the sentence would read, starting in line 43:

"Section eight (which relates to Reinstatement Committees the umpire …)"—

which seems to me to be bad grammar. I imagine it is that "umpires" which is being taken out. If it is the other "umpires" it would read:

"Section eight (which relates to Reinstatement Committees umpires and deputy the umpire)."

I am not quite sure that the drafting is right.

So far as I understand it, it is mainly a question of phraseology. I think the purpose is to refer to "the umpire" in that case, and then to "deputy umpires." So it should be "the umpire," who is a single individual, whereas there might be more than one deputy umpire.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

It seems to me that this Amendment does not go quite as far as was expected, in view of the arguments put forward when this matter was discussed on the Committee stage. I should be glad if my right hon. Friend would give an assurance. It is stated that:

"the Minister may, it he is in doubt whether an enlistment notice served on any person other than by registered post has been received by him, cause a further enlistment notice to be served on him by registered post and may by that notice direct that the former notice shall be deemed never to have had effect."

It seems to me that that does not go far enough, because if the Minister is in doubt whether a notice has been served, then obviously the benefit of the doubt ought to be given to the person to whom the notice should have been served. We should be given an assurance that a man will not be in jeopardy in such circumstances, and that another notice will be served. I think the word "shall" should be inserted instead of "may."

I do not share the doubts of the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner), in view of an Amendment which is to be considered later. I feel a little doubt about the

I will try to explain the position. A notice will be sent to a man telling him to report. If he does not report on the day given, the Service authorities will report to the Ministry of Labour that he has not appeared. We shall then take it that he has not received his notice, and send a further notice by registered post. That notice will cancel the previous notice which brought him into the Forces, so that the man in question cannot possibly be arrested as a deserter.

That is a very satisfactory answer, and I am very pleased to have the assurance.

This may appear to be a formal matter, but I do not think the House should pass it entirely formally. This is a very useful piece of procedure. I remember, during the war, being very irritated by the procedure which obtained in the years before the war, whereby the Treasury would not write off the deficit on one Vote against the surplus of another. That had a bad effect on our preparations for the war effort. When there was a surplus of money available for wireless experiments, it could not be converted to tanks and, consequently, the whole of our tank production suffered. I am delighted to find that now, in peace time, we have returned to the original and correct practice. I do not think the House should pass these Resolutions without some comment. It is true that the Public Accounts Committee—

The noble Lord is not in Order. The only question is whether debits can be set against credits. Details cannot be discussed, as they have already been passed.

We have formally to pass the procedure by which the credits and debits are aligned by the Treasury, and the net result is brought before this House for sanction. Under the Navy heading, there is a deficit approximately of £720 million; under the Army heading there is a deficit of approximately £146 million; and under the Air Force heading there is a deficit of approximately £521 million. These are fantastic sums, and although they have been passed by the Public Accounts Committee, they reflect on the situation in 1945–46, during nine months of which we were at peace. If it is a fact that the great spending Departments, in a particular year, during nine months of which we were at peace so inaccurately budgeted.

the question of expenditure has already been discussed and settled; the only question now is whether expenditure can be covered by a Vote of Credit.

Then may I express the hope that this time next year we shall not see such very large discrepancies between the receipts from one Department and the expenditure of another Department, which are brought before this House for equalisation and sanction? I object to the fact that these great discrepancies between income and expenditure should have occurred in a year during nine months of which we have been at peace, and I ask for more accurate budgeting in future. I think I am in order in saying that.

I think not. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Vote, he will see that he can only argue about the surpluses.

We are under force majeure. The Public Accounts Committee has sanctioned them, and they come before the House now for formal approval. I submit that anything brought before the House is not entirely formal, and to some extent can be debated. However, I do not wish to prolong the discussion.