§ 3.57 p.m.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, with permission, I should like to repeat a Statement which my honourable friend the Minister of Defence for Administration has just made in another place about the Latey Committee's recommendations on boy entrants to the forces, and also on the procedure for dealing with conscientious objectors. My honourable friend's words were:
"I am now able to announce the outcome of my examination of the Latey Committee's three recommendations on boy entrants to the Forces.
"I am prepared to accept the first recommendation; namely, that all boy entrants should be entitled to be released as of right on application within six months (instead of three months) from the date of their entry. This recommendation will be brought into force by regulation under Section 2 of the Armed Forces Act 1966. The detail of the arrangements for applying this policy will differ in each Service in accordance with established practice.
"I am also prepared to accept the third of these recommendations; namely, that parental consent to enlistment under the age of 18 should be required. At present such consent is required up to the age of 17½. If and when the age of majority is reduced to 18 years, this recommendation will be brought into force by administrative action.
"I regret, however, that at present I cannot accept the second recommendation; namely, that all boy entrants should be entitled to be released as of right within three months after their 18th birthday. I have considered this matter very carefully. The Forces are 939 unique and cannot be compared with civil industry which is able to bear the easy circulation of labour. It takes a long time to make an efficient Serviceman, and, with the limited number of suitable men available, it is most likely that if this recommendation were accepted either in the form proposed by the Latey Committee, or in any substantially similar form, the Forces would be unable to replace their losses, and the ability of the Government to carry out its responsibilities for defence would be seriously impaired. On the other hand, there are the considerations set out in the Latey Committee's Report and advanced by honourable Members of all Parties "—
and, indeed, by noble Lords in this House.
"These considerations are based on the natural desire, which I share, not to bind young men too tightly to long engagements undertaken in their immaturity.
"In view of the conflict of these apparently irreconcilable considerations, Her Majesty's Government have decided to continue studies by all the Departments concerned to see whether a satisfactory solution can be found to meet both the future defence needs of the country and the principle underlying the Latey Committee's recommendation.
"I would like to take this opportunity of informing the House of new procedures for dealing with Servicemen who seek to end their service on conscientious grounds. The existing arrangements have for some time been regarded as unsatisfactory, and I am replacing them as soon as possible.
"Under the new arrangements applications from Servicemen for discharge on grounds of conscientious objection will be allowed and will be dealt with in general under a system similar to that used in compassionate cases. Commanding officers will be required to establish the merits of cases which will then be referred to higher authority in the appropriate Service for decision. There will also be provision for applicants whose cases are rejected by the Service authorities to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, and a successful appeal will be accepted 940 as decisive on the question of conscience.
"Once conscientious objection has been accepted as genuine, either by the Service or the Tribunal, discharge will be conditional upon payment of the standard purchase price. The Services will, however, have discretion to reduce or waive the purchase price where financial hardship can be proved.
"The advantage of these arrangements is that they provide a fair and reasonable means of judging whether cases are genuine but do not include the penal provisions which, in some cases, are involved in the present procedure. It is hoped that these arrangements will go a long way towards solving what is an admittedly difficult problem."
§ 4.2 p.m.
LORD THURLOWMy Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for that Statement. We on these Benches agree that the increase of the extension from three to six months of the right to be released is reasonable. But, in view of the serious decline in recruiting, and the fact that 60 per cent. of naval entrants, and a high percentage of Army and Royal Air Force recruits, join before the age of 18, we think it is the absolute maximum. We also agree with the decisions expressed in the rest of the Statement. But I am slightly confused by paragraph 3, which possibly the noble Lord could clarify. The Government say that they are prepared to accept the third recommendation (in the first sentence), and then they say,
If and when the age of majority is reduced to 18 years, this recommendation will be brought into force …".Does that mean that it is not being brought into force now, and will be only if and when the age of majority is reduced?
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. I welcome the provisions in it. I should also like, on behalf of my colleagues, to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, upon the persistence he has shown in this matter. May I ask the Leader of the House one question on the matter of Servicemen and conscientious objection? Is it not an odd 941 principle, if I have understood it correctly, that although a man satisfies a tribunal completely that he has a genuine conscientious objection he should nevertheless have to pay the full purchase price to get out of the Army? This seems to me a very odd principle indeed, and one which might be reconsidered.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I know that my noble friend Lord Brockway has a prior claim in these matters, but may I deal first with the two points that have been raised? In any case, I think that Lord Brockway will be referring to the second question. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, will not be too dogmatic about the possibility of some further arrangement. The object of further consideration is to see whether there is some way of harmonising this very difficult problem which causes the Service the anxiety, which I hope we all feel, of immature young men committing themselves for many years.
The noble Lord also asked about the interpretation of paragraph 3, which referred to the Latey Committee's third recommendation:
That parental consent to enlistment under the age of 18 should be required,instead of age 17½. This recommendation is not going to be put into force at once. The Government have not yet come to a view on all the Latey proposals. There are complications here, of course, because adult pay is tied to the 17½ age, and I think there could be mixed arguments either way. None the less the Government have accepted this proposal, but I do not think anyone will reckon this a very important issue. It is normal, for instance, as I understand it, in industry to ask for parental consent up to age 18.The noble Lord, Lord Byers—and I thank him for his remarks—touched on this question as to whether conscientious objectors should be called upon to pay. I should like him to address himself to this argument. Young men or older men, or whoever they are, have voluntarily entered the Service they are not conscripts. That is to say, the situation is very different from that which prevailed during the war. In the course of their service they changed their minds, and we are prepared to recognise this. But, none the less, they have incurred, 942 and possibly at an early stage they may have incurred, pretty expensive training. I think it is right that we should allow due recognition of a conscientious objection, but I would remind the noble Lord that there are other people who may have reasons which are as compelling to them, acute compassionate reasons, and it seemed to me quite wrong that somebody who leaves the Service for some acute compassionate reason should be called upon to pay, and the conscientious objector should not.
If the noble Lord wishes to challenge that he is going very much wider, and he had better deal with that on a wide question. But I ought to make clear to him—and I have had some experience of administering this—that the Services will always waive the purchase price if circumstances are difficult. My experience is that they do this on the generous side they do not try to screw the last penny out—far from it. They will take into account all the circumstances: family circumstances, ability to pay. So, although I see that there is a difficulty, and the noble Lord raises an interesting point, when he sets it in the wider background I hole he will agree that at least in this respect it is right that, once they are allowed to go we should treat them in the same way other Servicemen who have been allowed to leave the Service for other reasons.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, I hope the House will give me permission, in view of the fact that I took the initiative in raising both these issues in this House, not to content myself with just a supplementary question.
§ A NOBLE LORD: Why?
§ LORD BROCKWAYThen I will try to put my point as a supplementary question. In the case of conscientious objectors, is the noble Lord aware that we appreciate the strength of his argument that the cost of training, while they were content to be in the Services, is a justifiable charge? I accept that at once. But is he not in agreement that there is also a service which they have given to the Armed Forces and which that can be balanced against? Thirdly, does he not appreciate that there is something a little repugnant to a person whose conscience is affected by service in the military Forces if he has to buy himself 943 out? This is a bargain with his conscience. I will content myself with that first supplementary.
§ LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURYMy Lords, could the noble Lord clarify the position a little on the scope of conscience under these new arrangements? I can perhaps make it clear by saying that he will remember that just before the First World War a number of officers would have sent in their papers if they had been asked to fight against Ulster, though I do not think it would have been possible for other ranks to get out under that heading. What is the position under these proposals? For instance, would this apply—it does not at the moment, of course—if any Government decided to use force against Rhodesia?
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, let me take Lord Brockway's point first. I agree, and I share a slight feeling of discomfort about this question of payment; but I should make clear that the rate of purchase price is tailored to the length of service the individual has given, and obviously somebody right at the beginning of his service will have to pay a higher figure than someone near the end.
I would rather not be drawn into the difficult subject of people sending in their papers, or indeed the particular circumstances of the Curragh Mutiny, which is what the noble Lord has in mind. But in those days I think I am correct in saying that officers were enabled to send in their resignations and they were automatically accepted. For a long time now officers have not been entitled to assume that their resignations will be accepted.
The question of Rhodesia is one I would rather not go into. I appreciate that this question could cause an acute difficulty for a particular individual. I have encountered such difficulties myself as a Service Minister, and I can only say to the noble Lord that these matters, like other matters, are treated by the Services with intelligence and sympathy.
§ BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEYMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether since Question Time he has had an opportunity of finding out about the contract for girls?
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I have checked that. Of course my Statement related only to boys, and I understand that this problem does not arise in relation to girls. I hesitate to use the word "contract", because the question of contract is a rather difficult one, but most girls do not join until they are at least 17 years of age. Even if they sign on for six years most of them have an option at four years, and a girl who marries (and indeed in other unusual circumstances) is released without difficulty. I do not think this is a problem, but if the noble Baroness would like to pursue it perhaps she will put down a Question.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, in relation to the first part of the Statement which has been made, regarding these boys of 15 or 16 years of age, and whose period of service is 15 years until they are 30, while I welcome the acceptance of the first and third recommendations in the Latey Report I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he is aware of the grave disappointment felt by many of us in the rejection of the second recommendation? Was it not the recommendation that within three months of these boys reaching the age of 18 years they should have the right to decide whether to continue their service? And is not this period of 15 years' service in effect conscription applied to an underage and unprivileged section of our community? Many of these boys come from orphanages.
Will not the Ministry, in the serious consideration it is giving to this problem, regard this human right of liberty before the considerations of the demands of the Department, in connection with which the Latey Committee has said:
We doubt very much if manning requirements and planning would be seriously affected by our recommendations"?
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I am again in difficulties, in the first place because the Latey Committee, although offered the opportunity, took no evidence from the Ministry on manning requirements, and with due respect I must say that it is very difficult for them to express an opinion on a matter on which they did not receive direct evidence, although it was offered to them. I do not think my noble friend will want to bandy words 945 on this particular question. As he knows, I am well aware of the anxiety that he has expressed. I must point out that the number of boys who sign on for this lengthy period are certainly not the majority, but I do not think we are even concerned with total numbers. It may only be a very few individuals to whom the principle applies. For this reason the Government, having found almost overwhelming reasons why a concession should not be given, having felt the force of the arguments expressed by my noble friend, are again considering it, and they will consider it in the widest sense.
I cannot agree with my noble friend that this is really conscription. I think "conscription" has a precise meaning, but without going into emotional terms I understand the force of what the noble Lord has said. He must also realise that there have been a number of particular cases, and in the great majority of those cases one way or another some solution is found. But I promise my noble friend that the matter will be carefully considered.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, can my noble friend say when that consideration is likely to be concluded, so that we may raise the matter again?
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I am afraid I cannot say that. I do not doubt that my noble friend will raise the matter again if he thinks it is too long delayed.
§ LORD MERRIVALEMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House what criteria will be used for these boys to be released on conscientious grounds? It may be that some boys join the Services because they are attracted by an adventurous life. Then as time goes by they may feel that they might be called upon to serve in some threatre of war which they did not like, such as Vietnam, and may feel a conscientious objection to remaining in the Services.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, whether it is Vietnam or Rhodesia, the fact is that I will not be drawn into the question of what is a conscientious objector. A conscientious objector is somebody who conscientiously objects to war, and I think my noble friend Lord Brockway might talk to the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, and explain it to him. 946 There is a great deal in this question, and I do not think the House would wish me—however much we desire to help the noble Lord—to go into all the questions as to what is a sincere and genuine conscientious objector. By and large, the record of this country in recent years has been much better than in the past and indeed, if I may say so, is better than a number of other countries.
LORD FARINGDONMy Lords, if my noble friend is not prepared to accept my noble friend Lord Brockway's description of this service as "conscription", I wonder whether he will accept that it is in fact indentured labour, and as such is possibly fairly objectionable.
§ LORD FRASER OF NORTH CAPEMy Lords, may I say that I joined the Royal Navy at 15½ years of age and, with all the ups and downs of a midshipman's life, I have been happy ever since.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, if I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, I think we can attach all sorts of names to this. I take his point about "indentured labour". The happy thing is that the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of North Cape, is not alone in finding great satisfaction in a Service life, even if not all members of the Services are as successful as he has been.