CLAUSE 2.—(Extension of age to fifty.) (Hansard, 10 December 1941)

§ Mr. Maxton
I beg to move, in page 2, line 2, to leave out "fifty-one," and to insert "forty-five."
I move this Amendment because I think that the Government, in putting the age of 51 in the Bill, are allowing their enthusiasm to run away with their common sense. The idea of soldiers of 50 years of age is a foolish idea for all practical purposes. It is true that at 50 you may have men in military uniform, but they will be doing the jobs of civilians. It means putting men into uniform to sit on office stools. I was moved to put this Amendment on the Paper because of an experience which I had. I met in the train a friend of mine, an officer under 45 years of age. He was junior in rank and attached to an anti-aircraft battery in Home Service, stationary service. In common with all other officers over 40 years of age in his battery, he had received, I understood, an intimation that, owing to his advanced years—I am not attempting to quote verbatim the exact 1630 words of the letter from the War Office— and the rigorous nature of the work he was called upon to do, it would be desirable that he should resume civilian life.
I asked in this House whether officers over 41 years of age were being called upon to retire, but I received no very satisfactory answer from the Minister. He denied that any such general circular had been issued. The Financial Secretary to the War Office supports that view. However, since that time, I have had letters from officers all over the country, telling me that, because they are over 41 years of age, they are being edged back into civilian life, not on any grounds of inefficiency or misconduct, or even ill-health, but merely on the ground of age, and no alternative employment is offered to them. It is not a question of saying that a man's present job is too strenuous for him and that he is to be moved to some indoor, lighter or more sedentary task; he is pushed outside altogether, and I find that a lot of those fellows are very upset about it. They 1631 are men who at the outbreak of war made substantial sacrifices to take up commissions; they are men who have had previous military experience, and they are now being thrown back into civilian life, and the War Office is not concerned about what they are going to do. That is happening with officers, while at the same time the Minister comes and asks for powers to conscript men for the ranks up to the age of 50, while men of under 45 years of age are being put out of the commissioned ranks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) puts this interesting anomaly to me. These men of 45, 46 or 47 who have been turned out by the War Office as being too old to be first lieutenants, second lieutenants and captains will be hauled in again under this Measure to be privates, and to walk up and down the barrack yard doing the duties of a recruit. The War Office must have statistics about these things. You are going to take men of 50 years of age into the Army, to subject them to new conditions. A very large proportion of them will be holding important positions in ordinary civilian employment. Generally speaking, the competent man of round about 50 is a settled man with a position of some sort; if he has been an industrial worker, he is a leading hand or foreman or something of that kind; if he has been in business, he is a chief clerk in an office; or, if he has been a commercial traveller, he has a big connection. The man of about 50 is the man who occupies an important position of some sort in civilian life. He is also a man who is likely to be the important head of a household—or, rather, let me put it this way: the head of an important household—with a family coming on, and whose parental responsibilities are great. He is also a man who has got to the stage of settled habits. You are going to call him up, medically examine him, shove him into the ranks, and take him into entirely new conditions, to which he will find greater difficulty in adapting himself than the boy of 18, 19 or 20; and I am prepared to assert that you will have a higher rate of sickness, of complete breakdown and necessary discharge, in that grade. Having discharged such men, you will either have a huge bill to pay through the Ministry of Pensions for breakdown under military service, or you 1632 will have a widespread feeling of grievance throughout the country when these men are met with what thousands were met with in the last war and have been met with since. You will tell them that they were passed fit into the Army, and that now they have a bad heart, or a nervous breakdown, or gastric trouble, or varicose veins, or rheumatism in an advanced stage, that all these things are illnesses they might well have got in ordinary civilian life, and they are neither attributable to nor aggravated by their war service, and there is no remuneration for them. As Members can understand, I am not tremendously hot about this. It is not a matter of basic principle. I am suggesting that the age should be five or six years lower, not because I am against war in general, but because I do not think that the Government are doing a sensible thing. They are going to do a thing which will cause a tremendous amount of work, a tremendous amount of disturbance and a tremendous amount of upset in hundreds of thousands of homes, and will produce only a very miserable section of fit men for the Services.

§ Sir E. Grigg
The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has raised two points in this Amendment. May I refer, in the first place, to the retirement of men from the Services as over-age who are actually liable to call-up under this Bill? It applies almost entirely to officers; it might apply, to some extent, to other ranks as well. These men should be dealt with fairly in this matter. I cannot give a complete answer now. This point is a very substantial one. It is being considered, and a full statement will be made about it before the Bill leaves this House. I hope that that will satisfy the hon. Member on that point. I agree with him that it is a very important one, and that we have to be absolutely fair to those who have been serving in the Armed Forces, who have left through no fault of their own, and who are liable to be called up again under this Bill.
The other point was the argument that there was no case for raising the age to 50. I can assure the hon. Member that the Government do not do these things without very great cause We know very well that there will be disturbance caused by this Bill. We would not cause any of it were it not necessary, in our view, at 1633 the present time. There are services to be rendered in the Armed Forces by men of that age of the most valuable kind, in the Pioneer Corps, Home Defence Battalions and so on, similar to those being rendered by the Home Guard, in some cases at a much greater age, except that Home Defence Battalions are whole-time and the Home Guard part-time. There are valuable services in the defence of this country which can be rendered by men of those higher-age groups. The situation which we find is a grave one. We cannot possibly accept this Amendment. The age fixed has been fixed because of grave national necessity.

§ Mr. Maxton
Will the hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that men of the higher ages will be set only to tasks for which they are particularly suited?

§ Sir E. Grigg
All these men will go through medical examinations, and will be most carefully graded. The duties they perform will depend upon their medical grades. This examination is most carefully carried out. I can give the most complete assurance to the hon. Member on that point.

§ Mr. Burke (Burnley)
This Bill will bring in many men who fought in the last war, including silver badge men, who. were wounded. Will some relaxation of the medical examination be considered in respect of these men? Men who were wounded in the last war will not want to go through the whole business of a medical examination unnecessarily.

§ Mr. Assheton
I appreciate the hon. Member's point. In practice, however, I do not think it would be easy to do what he suggests. Men who were wounded in the last war will be subject to a medical examination. It is important that the examination should be extremely thorough and complete.

§ Mr. Burke
But if men are getting a pension, it will, obviously, be unnecessary to make them undergo any medical examination.

§ Mr. Assheton
We will certainly consider the suggestion, but I think it would raise difficulties in administration.

§ Mr. Stephen
Can the Under-Secretary for War give an assurance that there will 1634 be no such misuse of men as happened in the case to which I have drawn his attention?

§ Sir E. Grigg
I do not know what assurance the hon. Member will accept. If he will give the time and place, I will have inquiries made; but I do not think that any general assurance will be of any use.

§ Mr. Stephen
I gave the hon. Gentleman the reference to the statement, which was made by a contractor, in this week's issue of the "New Statesman." If a statement is made in a weekly paper which has a fairly good circulation and a certain responsibility, it should be noted by the Department. I ask only that inquiries should be made.

§ Sir E. Grigg
I said that I would inquire into any instance that is given. Has the hon. Member sent on the particulars?

§ Mr. Stephen
I have not done so, but I certainly will.

§ Mr. Stephen
I beg to move, in page 2, line 2, at the end, to insert: and in sub-section (3) of section one of the National Service Act, 1941, after the words ' (which relates to postponement of liability to serve),' there shall be added the words, ' and in section five of that Act (which relates to conscientious objectors)'. Under the principal Act, the rights of conscientious objectors are as fully secured as one could hope, with a House of Commons constituted like this is, but, in the Act which imposes compulsion for Civil Defence duty, there is no provision made for conscientious objection at all. This Amendment would give the same right to the conscientious objector in regard to Civil Defence service as is given to conscientious objectors under the Act of 1939. When the Act relating to Civil Defence was passed, the position of conscientious objectors was raised, and the Minister refused to accept an Amendment which would have given such protection. Since the Act has been in operation it has been found that there have been many cases where persons who, on grounds of conscience, refuse to undertake this service, have been penalised and there is no remedy against this sort of thing. I think that this principle is one which can be accepted by the Committee and that it must be realised that a man or woman can have a conscientious objection to the 1635 making of munitions as well as to military service. The extension of conscription to women makes it all the more necessary that there should be a safeguard put in with regard to those who have a conscientious objection to a particular form of National Service.
I hope that the Minister will offer some concession in this respect. In the great extension that will take place in the calling-up of people to engage in the manufacture of munitions, it is certain that many will refuse to undertake such work. Unless some provision is made for alternative service, the consequence will be that many thousands of people will be sent to gaol, where they will be a constant burden upon the community for the whole duration of the war. They will simply be in and out of gaol. I have found that the Minister, in dealing with these matters, has shown a fair amount of reasonableness in the past. He has tried to meet difficulties that have arisen in connection with conscientious objection cases, and I am hopeful that with regard to this Amendment he will be able to indicate some concessions which will make it absolutely impossible to send these people in and out of prison because they have a conscientious objection to making munitions, just as they have a conscientious objection to becoming soldiers in the Armed Forces.

§ Mr. Assheton
I had the privilege of discussing this matter with the hon. Member when it was raised on a Bill earlier in the year, and the arguments which were used on that occasion are appropriate today. It is clear that the absolute conscientious objector is already protected from being called up, whether in the Armed Forces or the Civil Defence Forces. The Amendment which the hon. Member has drafted applies to the conscientious objector who has been registered on condition that he engages in certain civilian work, and it is the clear view of the Government, as it was the clear view of the House a few months ago when the previous Bill was passed, that this is not a case where the Government can make any concessions. Civil Defence is not like service in one of the three Armed Forces of the Crown. There is no doubt that the view of the House on that particular point was absolutely firm—that there- 1636 should be no exemption from Civil Defence service for a conscientious objector who is conditionally registered. Therefore, I cannot accept the Amendment which the hon. Member has put forward. I would like to add that the Amendment, as drafted, does not in any case apply to industry.

§ Mr. Sorensen
I beg to move, in page 2, line 2, at the end, to insert: Provided that no person shall be liable to be called up by virtue of this Section who served in the armed forces during the war of nineteen hundred and fourteen to nineteen hundred and eighteen and who, in the opinion of a hardship tribunal, is engaged in any occupation likely to assist the effective prosecution of the war. I move this Amendment because I am quite sure that many people in this country at the present time have sad memories of the past. There is no section of the community which has this sad reflection, tinged with cynicism, more than those covered by this Amendment. Many feel deeply hurt that men who fought in the last war, and endured so many burdens and survived, should now be called upon to do perhaps the same work in this war. It may be that some will volunteer, but others will feel that for reasons which they think are acceptable their position should be recognised. It is true that some will be covered by application to hardship tribunals, but many will be turned down. There will be a minority who will fail in their application and who will be faced with the extraordinary paradox that within the years of their lifetime they will have been called upon to render armed service to the Crown on two different occasions. I ask the Minister to consider this Amendment sympathetically. If he can see his way to accept it, or to give some assurance that those covered by it will have sympathetic consideration, it will give satisfaction to many hundreds, indeed thousands, of ex-Service men in the country.

§ Mr. Assheton
I am sure some Members of the House will sympathise with the view expressed by the hon. Member, but I cannot help pointing out to the Committee that if we accepted this Amendment, we should be negativing the whole advantage of raising the age group from 1637 41 to 51. Nearly all the men between these ages served in the last war, and if we excluded them, the intake would be very small indeed. There is another point of difficulty about accepting the Amendment. Hardship committees, to which the hon. Member referred, are set up only for the purpose of dealing with the actual question of hardship and are not suited to deal with the question of whether work is of national importance or not. I am not, however, saying that that objection is an insuperable one if we could have found some way out of the other objection.

§ Mr. J. J. Davidson (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Has the Department received any representations at all from ex-Servicemen's organisations with regard to this Amendment?

§ Mr. Assheton
So far as I am aware, no representations have been received; I have not received any myself.

§ Mr. Davidson
While agreeing with, and recognising the sentiments of, my hon. Friend, I would like to point out that so far as I know there is no desire on the part of ex-Service men in the country to take any advantage whatever of the conditions operating in this war. There are hon. Members who served in the last war, as I did myself, who would never dream of taking any advantage out of the nation's distress and to the detriment of the young men, who have been taken from their homes and from industry in order to undertake their full responsibility. While I recognise my hon. Friend's sentiments, I think his Amendment is ill-advised and does not represent the views of the ex-Service men. In the last war, their service was on a voluntary basis, and they can be looked upon as men who have always been anxious to undertake their full responsibilities and their share in the nation's work. I feel that any hon. Member who moves an Amendment of this kind ought first of all to consult the ex-Service men's associations and consider the service which those men have given to the country before asking that they should be placed in any privileged position.

§ Mr. R. Morgan (Stourbridge)
I should like to reinforce what has been said by the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson). It is my privilege to be associated 1638 with a number of ex-Service men's associations, and I believe that if this Amendment had been brought before them, it would have caused feelings of shame and resentment. I do not feel that the Amendment expresses what these men wish, and I cannot understand why the hon. Member who moved it should have imagined that it did. I should like to register my protest against the Amendment.

§ Mr. Sorensen
I should like to assure the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. Morgan) that it was largely because of the number of letters I received on this point that I moved the Amendment, suggesting not the withdrawal of these men from all activity in the war, but merely asking that they should be given the privilege to engage in industrial work.

§ Mr. Silkin (Peckham)
I beg to move, in page 2, line 13, to leave out from "Act" to the end of the Clause, and to insert: he may within seven days after a proclamation under Section one of the principal Act, whereby he becomes liable to be called up for service, make an application for a postponement certificate notwithstanding that the application is made more than two days after the completion of his medical examination. Under Sub-section (2, b), if a man has had his medical examination and has not made an appeal for a postponement certificate, and then becomes 41 years of age, he will not be liable. According to the Amendment, if the man now becomes liable he will have a right of appeal to the hardships tribunal as a matter of course. Sub-section (2, b) provides that he may appeal if the Minister, in all the circumstances, thinks that it is appropriate so to do, and if he is satisfied that the delay in making the application is not related to the grounds thereof. I have not been able to understand what that provision means. When a man who is over 41 is called up for military service, he should have an absolute right of appeal to a hardship tribunal and should not be penalised because he has already had his medical examination and did not appeal at that time. He may not have appealed at that time becuse he knew he would not be liable to service as he was about to attain the age of 41. While recognising that the Minister of Labour is a very reasonable person and that he would not wish to 1639 penalise anyone in this way, one must recognise that the provisions of this Bill are to be administered by officials who may take a different view of what is or is not reasonable. I feel that it would be possible for an official to say to a man that he could not appeal to a hardship tribunal because he did not appeal when he had his medical examination. I hope that this small concession will be granted and that a man in these circumstances will be given an absolute right of appeal to a hardship tribunal within seven days after the Proclamation.

§ Mr. Stephen
On a point of Order. It appears to me that this manuscript Amendment comes after the Amendment on the top of page 5.

§ The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams)
As far as I can make out, the Amendment fits in to this part of the Bill.

§ Mr. Assheton
I think that my hon. Friend is under some misapprehension, because the Amendment which he has moved limits the powers of the Minister more severely than is the case under the Clause as it stands. The Amendment asks for seven days' grace, whereas under the Clause, as drafted, the Minister has the right to accept the application up to the time that the enlistment notice is received. Therefore I do not think my hon. Friend would think it wise to press his Amendment.

§ Mr. Silkin
I realise that I am putting my hon. Friend at a disadvantage, but it is a disadvantage from which we are all suffering, owing to the speed with which this Bill is being put forward. Perhaps he will look at the Amendment again to see whether he can meet the point. I do not want him to come to a decision now, but if he will give me an assurance that a man who has reached the age of 41 shall have a right of appeal, I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Assheton
Although this manuscript Amendment has only recently come to my notice, I am confident that the opinion I have expressed is accurate. If, by chance, on further consideration it turns out not to be so, I will certainly undertake to bring the matter forward during the Report stage to give the hon. Member a further opportunity to state his case.

§ Mr. Silkin
On that assurance I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ The Temporary Chairman
I call on the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) to move the Amendment in page 2, line 20, at the end, to add a new subsection.

§ Mr. Stephen
On a point of Order. May I submit that the previous Amendment is a fairly substantial one—

§ The Temporary Chairman
That has not been selected.

§ Mr. Stephen
I am asking you if you will not—

§ The Temporary Chairman
We have passed that stage now.

§ Mr. Stephen
I understood, when I raised the matter previously, that both Amendments would be taken at that stage, and there has not been any more of the Bill passed than at the stage at which we—

§ The Temporary Chairman
We have gone on in the usual way. I am now calling the second Amendment on page 5.

§ Mr. Stephen
Yes, you have called the succeeding Amendment, but I have asked you to reconsider your decision not to call the Amendment at the top of the page.

§ The Temporary Chairman
We cannot discuss whether it is selected or not. We just have to abide by the Ruling.

§ Mr. Stephen
Again and again Members have raised the question of an Amendment not being taken and have put forward considerations asking the Chair to reconsider its Ruling. I am only following the ordinary practice in that respect. If you rule that, in spite of any argument that I might put forward for reconsideration, you are not prepared to do so, I have to accept that, but it is done repeatedly.

§ The Temporary Chairman
That is the position.

§ Mr. Stephen
You have not allowed me to put the arguments that I wish to put.

§ The Temporary Chairman
I must ask the hon. Member to let: us carry on the proceedings. I do not accept his position.

Mr. McKie (Galloway)
On a point of Order. Is it not a fact that the House has granted to all Chairmen the right to 1641 select what Amendments they see fit to accept?

§ The Temporary Chairman
That is the position. The first Amendment has not been selected, and I am calling on the second.

§ Mr. Maxton
I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, at the end, to add: (3) Where a person who became liable to be called up by virtue of this Section is called up for whole-time service in the Armed Forces and is over the age of forty years, he shall only be posted to static and sedentary duties. I first want to raise this point with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. I think it is desirable that we should know how long it is proposed to sit.

§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. James Stuart)
It was the hope and intention of the Government that we might complete Clause 2. There is no intention of proceeding further than that. It was hoped that we should have reached it by now.

§ Mr. Maxton
It can be easily disposed of, because in the White Paper the Government laid down the principle embodied in the Amendment. In reply to the previous Amendment the Parliamentary Secretary stated that men over 40 would be engaged in sedentary and static duties. I am asking that what is stated in the White Paper as being the case and what he himself has stated the Government will be ready to accept should be given statutory effect to.

§ Mr. Assheton
I am glad that the hon. Member feels that the matter can be disposed of speedily. The Government can dispose of it in that way by rejecting the Amendment, which seeks to give statutory sanction to a statement made by the Prime Minister the other day and repeated in the White Paper that men over 40 would be posted only to static and sedentary duties. It is clear that that must be left to administration, because the words used are not capable of sufficiently exact definition to enable us to put them into the Bill. I do not know whether the hon. Member will appreciate that difficulty, but it is one which the Government have not found themselves able to overcome.

§ Mr. Stephen
The Parliamentary Secretary has enunciated an extraordinary doctrine. The White Paper contains the 1642 definite pledge to the men between 40 and 50 that they will be posted only to static and sedentary duties, and then the Parliamentary Secretary has the audacity to say, that we cannot define what static and sedentary duties are. Nobody knows. This pledge means nothing. It is intended to mislead the Committee and the country in the most shameful way. Other Members may be sufficiently acquiescent to the Government to put up with treatment like that, but I at least have made my protest and have done what I could in order to get more serious consideration of this Measure. If these duties are indefinable, the pledge means nothing and is simply bunk.

§ Mr. Silverman
I apologise to hon. and right hon. Members for not being in my place a short time ago to move an Amendment which stood in my name. I was not very far away, but it had been represented to me that there was still time before the Amendment would be called. I wonder whether I might appeal to the Minister to reconsider this matter. We are not asking very much of him. He could grant the concession without losing anything from the national effort. We are asking for justice, in that, where a man who served in the Armed Forces in the last war and who is at this moment engaged, not merely in his own opinion, but in the opinion of an independent tribunal, upon work useful in the effective prosecution of the war, he should not be called upon a second time to give up whatever he is doing in order to serve again in the Armed Forces.
I suggest to the Minister that he could make this concession without in the least impairing the organisation of the national effort, which he seeks to organise by means of this Measure. We are not asking that he should exempt anybody who is not usefully employed, or is not usefully employed upon war work; that is an essential condition. Such person should, at this moment, be employed usefully upon vital war work.

§ The Temporary Chairman
We have had a very full discussion on the point. I do not wish unnecessarily to limit the hon. Gentleman, but I would point out that we have discussed the matter fully.

§ Mr. Silverman
I am much obliged to you, Mr. Williams. I appreciate that I was probably going into the matter in too great detail, in view of the fact that the Amendment had been moved already. I only wanted to beg the Minister to reconsider this matter, either now or before we pass the Bill. After all, this will not be a very popular Measure. People are willing to make any sacrifice necessary, but if at any point the burden can be eased in ways that satisfy people, a good deal will have been done towards smoothing the operation of the Bill. I assure the Minister that many of us have received numerous appeals in this connection. If he would take the opportunity to consider the matter again, I am sure that nothing would be lost, and that a good deal would be gained in national morale.

§ Mr. Assheton
I do not think the Committee will wish me to speak at any length on this subject again. I would point out that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, in the absence of the hon. Member who has just spoken, withdrew it, after hearing the discussion and the views of hon. Members on all sides of the Committee. The views of the Committee coincided entirely with those of the Government.

§ Mr. Stephen
I want to speak about the position of those who are called up and wish to make an appeal to a hardship committee. The present procedure is that, if the hardship committee is unanimous, the appeal is finished, but if there is a division on the committee, the appeal has to be left to the umpire. It would be for the advantage of everybody if it was always possible to appeal to the umpire. Many of the women who will come under the scheme are not organised industrially in trade unions. Women have been much less well organised in that way than men. Many of them will be young women. I hope the Minister will consider whether applicants in every case cannot have the right of appeal to the umpire. He himself will have the figures of cases where there has been a divided committee, where there has been a right of appeal to the umpire and where that right was not exercised—which was in a good many cases. I am sure that this would afford at least some protection to these new conscripts, and I appeal to the Minister that something should be done to give us this additional safeguard.

§ Mr. R. Morgan
Is not that contained here in this Amendment, which refers to a unanimous opinion of the committee? The hon. Member spoke about a difference between the members of the committee; here it says a unanimous decision.

§ Mr. Stephen
I am sorry if I have not made it plain to the hon. Member; I hope I made it plain to the Minister. The present position is that if there is a division of opinion in the hardship committee, the applicant automatically has a right of appeal to the umpire, but if the committee is unanimous, there is the right of appeal only with the consent of the committee. I wish the Minister to give the right of appeal to the applicant- in every case, even when the committee is unanimous and might refuse permission for the applicant to go to the umpire.

§ Mr. Davidson
There are one or two points which might be emphasised for the Government's consideration. First of all, I want to say once again that I deprecate any special pleading for any particular age-group. My age-group, which I am defending—as a matter of fact, the 41–51 group—by their response have already proved to the Government that they desire no special exemptions, privileges or special pleading. Their response to the Home Guard, and their criticisms even of the Government's policy with regard to the Home Guard, have shown that these men, most of whom served in the last war, form one of the most patriotic, reasonable and factual groups in the community. I myself, and every Member of Parliament who is 41 or 51 or over, would feel very uncomfortable and very embarrassed to say what the Amendment means, at least to say what was meant by previous speakers, namely, that I, a man of 41, 42 or 43, should stand aside from the nation in its distress while a young man of 26 who has built up a business, is married and has a family of one or two is called up to undertake his responsibilities. That is not desired by this age-group. There is, however, one thing which is desired by this age-group, and that is that full consideration should be given to their special circumstances with regard to age. We all know that after the age of 40 minor ailments start— rheumatism, arthritis, troubles of the throat, bronchial troubles and all that sort of thing. The 41–51 age-group cannot be 1645 classed physically with the 25–30 group, and it is therefore the duty of the Government to consider the position of these men with regard to pensions.
I do not want the regular formula of the Ministry of Pensions to be applied to this age-group. It is no use taking a man of 50 years of age and, after two or six months' service, finding he is physically incapable and sending him home, and saying that his troubles or his ailments are not the responsibility of the Army, that they were contracted before he was called up. That would be the most unfair thing which the Government could contemplate for a man who has served his country, who has been through what these men went through in the last war. Some of them contracted troubles which are not apparent, which cannot be seen, which are not quite apparent to the eye at a first glance. It would be definitely unfair, and the most unkind thing that could be done to that group, for them to be treated as physically fit, A1 young men so far as the pension formula is concerned. Therefore; I trust that this group will receive very careful consideration in that respect from the Ministry, and that the Ministry of Labour and the Service Departments concerned will keep in very close touch with the Pensions Minister and avoid that friction which will certainly be caused if the Ministry of Pensions operates the usual formula with regard to this group.
There is only one thing I would say to conclude, and that is that so far as this Clause is concerned, you are asking for special service from a group of men, many of whom did not contemplate having to participate actively in this war. Where it is possible the Government should try to fit them into occupations in the Army, and I believe they will, because it would certainly be nonsensical, and I do not believe that even military intelligence is so stupid, though I have criticised it in the past, as to send them abroad into fields of battle where their physical disabilities would count against them, or into any zone of that description. I do know that there are sample openings for men of that age group in training, in the instructive sense, and in the sense of even guiding many younger men in their ordinary social life in the Army. Educationally, socially, and in every way there are many occupations for 1646 men of that description. I trust that the Government will see that these occupations are granted to that type of man who has already served his country.

§ Sir E. Grigg
As the hon. Member made a special appeal to the War Office, I should like to give him an assurance in the fullest terms for which he asked. The present tendency is to scale up fitness required in field service so high that there is hardly any prospect of such a man being looked at for such service. The medical condition of these men and the disabilities from which they are bound to be liable in view of their age will be taken into the fullest consideration. That will most certainly be done. I cannot give him any answer on the question of pensions, but I will undertake to put it to the Minister of Pensions as one which deserves reasonable consideration.

§ Mr. Davidson
Cannot some method of collaboration between the Service Departments and the Ministry of Pensions with regard to this particular group be set up?

§ Sir E. Grigg
We will consider that.

§ Mr. Assheton
In answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) about hardship committees and his wish to give the right of appeal in every case, I suggest that that would be a very unwise procedure for the Committee to adopt. The procedure at the present time is the same as under the Unemployment Insurance Act Court of Referees, which has worked satisfactorily. An impossible burden would be put on the umpire if we were to adopt the procedure which my hon. Friend has suggested.

§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. James Stuart)
I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I regret that we have had to sit rather later to-day than had been hoped, but I hope that it will be possible to complete the Committee and remaining stages of this Bill on the next Sitting Day. This would avoid our having to sit on an additional day, and would, I think, meet the general convenience of the House. 1647 Although it is not possible to give any guarantee, it is hoped that that will be possible.

§ Mr. Pethick-Lawrence (Edinburgh, East)
So far as I speak for those with me, although I can, of course, give no pledge, we hope that it will be possible to get through the remaining stages on the next Sitting Day, and so allow the hope of the Patronage Secretary to be realised.