HC Deb 17 February 1947 vol 433 cc938-48

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]

11.12 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller (Daventry)

I am fully aware that the subject which I propose to raise tonight has been to some extent debated on two occasions, and a number of Questions have been asked upon it from both sides of the House. But neither in their answers to Questions, nor in the two Debates that have occurred, has the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary given any satisfaction or justification for the anomaly and injustice to which I seek to draw attention this evening.

By the end of August, 1945, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour said in answer to a Question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Teeling) that 24,849 men had entered coalmining m preference to joining H.M. Forces. This question which I am raising affects only those discharged, on medical grounds or other reasons, from the mines, and called up for H.M. Forces, and their number I do not know. I put a Question to the Minister on this subject and he said that the information was not available, but presumably it must be a number considerably less than the 24,849, and even if that was the total of optants who had been called up for H.M. Forces it is only a tiny fraction of our working population, and the fact that the number is so small should make it easier to remedy the position. The fact that a few people are involved is no reason for treating them as forgotten men, and while they continue to suffer injustice, it is right in my view that this matter should be raised and raised repeatedly in this House.

Now what is the injustice of which I complain? Bevin boys were directed to the pits and, if called up for service, their service in the mines counts towards their release from the Forces under Class A. Optants in the same circumstances cannot count their service in the mines. Bevin boys and optants continuing to serve in the mines are treated in the same fashion. They are both released from the mines on a basis of age and length of service. But the optant discharged from the pits on medical grounds, or for other reasons not attributable to his conduct and who then, because his health improves, is called up for service, cannot count his work in the mines for release under Class A. He is heavily penalised, and penalised through no fault of his own. He, and the Bevin boy will be released from the Services at widely differing periods. He may have had the same service as a Bevin boy, but he will be released long after the Bevin boy, who may have had shorter service in the coalmines.

That, I think, is an accurate statement of the present position, and I shall be perfectly willing to give way to the Parliamentary Secretary to correct me if I am wrong. That is the present position, and the discrimination in treatment is due to the deliberate decision of the Minister of Labour, who I am sorry to see is not here tonight. Attempts have been made to justify that position, and I should like, if I may for a few moments, to examine the argument in support of it. On 29th November, 1945, in a written statement in answer to a Question, three arguments were put forward in justification. The first argument put forward by the Minister of Labour was that these optants should be treated in the same way as regular miners. I suggest that there are two answers to that argument, at least. The cases are not comparable. It has to be remembered that optants came from every walk of life. They were young men, accountants, and even lawyers, and they were not regular miners. They terminated their ordinary peace-time calling Just as if they had been called up for service with the Armed Forces. The second reasoning against this argument is that these men are distinguished from the regular miner in that the optant is far longer away from his own regular career. The Minister has said it was fair to draw distinction between ballotees who went into the pits against their wishes, and these optants. The ballotees had even been told that their service in the mines was as essential to the national effort as service in the Forces. There would be something in that argument if the choice of going into the mines had been left as a free choice for these civilians with no mining experience. But the Government said to these ballotees, "You must go into the mines" and they said to the optants, "You should go down the mines in the national interests."

I have here a notice of the kind that was served. I do not propose to read the whole of it. But one sentence says that it is of the first importance to increase the manpower of the mining industry, and to increase the output of coal, and one is urged to give full weight to this need in determining one's form of service to the nation. That notice was clearly designed to induce men to opt for the coal mines, to lead them to suppose that their duty lay in that direction. In view of that notice, I suggest that it is Just as unfair to penalise them in favour of the Bevin boys as it would be to discriminate against those who followed the Government's advice in regard to saving fuel in favour of those whose supplies had been cut off. So much for the second argument put forward.

The third argument put forward by the right hon. Gentleman was that he must draw the line somewhere. That is an argument with which the House is very familiar. It is usually the last resort of a Minister trying to justify an anomaly. I think it is an acknowledgment of the injustice. Here the line has been drawn quite arbitrarily, and in my view quite wrongly, as it could have been drawn so as to treat optants in exactly the same fashion as the Bevin boys. These are the arguments put forward by the Minister, and when he has been questioned he has said that these were his reasons. They do not, in my opinion, justify his decision. The Parliamentary Secretary, who is to reply tonight, apparently thought these reasons were inadequate, because in a recent Debate he thought up a new one. In the Debate on the Adjournment on 29th January he said that these optants knew that civilian service would not count. That is an astonishing assumption, in my view. I will quote his actual words. He said: Many a man knew when he opted to go into the mines that that service would not count for purposes of demobilisation. Later on he said: Everybody hen knew what were the consequences of whatever action he took, and it was known that if a man went into civilian employment, and got civilian rewards for his national service, that service would not count for purposes of demobilisation if eventually the man was called to the Forces."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1947; Vol. 432 c. 1085.] It is a tremendous assumption that the recipient of that notice knew, at the time he opted for service in the mines, that such service would not count for release under Class A if subsequently he were called in the Forces. If that argument is justified, why is there no reference to it in that document? There is not a single word about it. That, in my view, is extremely significant. I am not complaining of the terms of the notice. My complaint is as to this Government's decision on 29th November, 1945, because it is that decision which has victimised and penalised this small number of optants—this small number who have served in the pits, been discharged and then called up for service in H.M. Forces. I should have thought that, with the present shortage of manpower, it was in the national interest that every man's abilities should be used to the fullest possible advantage. But here you have young men from every walk of life starting upon their careers, opting for the mines, serving it may be for a long time in the pits, then being called up, and now having the prospect of long service in H.M. Forces before they can resume their careers. I should not have thought that it was in the national interest, for instance, to keep an accountant, a young man who has passed most of his examinations and who opted and served in the pits for quite a time, who was discharged on medical grounds through no fault of his own, whose health later improved, and who was then called up for the Forces, until his release group, which is very high in number comes round, and so prevent him from fitting himself completely for the career of his choice. I should not have thought that was to the national advantage, quite apart from the unfairness to the individual.

We have on many occasions heard talk of equality of opportunity. I am asking this evening that there should be given equality of opportunity to this small class of men who are, as I see it, discriminated against by the Minister's decision, whereas the optant who continues in the coalmine is treated, and rightly treated, just in the same way as the Bevin boy who continues his service. In conclusion, I was interested to read the other day that the Minister of Fuel and Power said words to the effect that the Bevin boys had served no useful purposes in the mines. I will quote his actual words: So the Bevin boys were brought in. Although willing to assist to increase the production of coal, they were unsuited for the pits, they naturally became discontented, and indeed they created more trouble than they were worth."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February; c. 73, Vol. 433.] In a statement made by the Minister of Labour, that right hon. Gentleman paid a tribute to the work done in the mines by the Bevin boys and by the optants and volunteers. So there are two conflicting statements made by Members of the Government, the Minister of Fuel and Power and the Minister of Labour both saying contradictory things. That may not be unusual, but I hope that this evening the Parliamentary Secretary will correct in this regard the Minister of Fuel and Power. Putting this case as moderately as I can, and bearing in mind that it is a case which has had support from Members on his own side as well as on this side of the House, I express the hope that the Minister will not seek to bring forward new reasons, to add to the ones I have already dealt with, to justify the continuation of what is, in my view, a great injustice.

11.28 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards)

The hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) has put forward his case with every show of reason, and in a way which, I am sure, must have pleased the House; but what surprised me was that he did not say that the grounds on which this decision was based were grounds that were provided by the Coalition Government, and that the White Paper on the re-allocation of manpower laid it down very definitely that only paid service in the Armed Forces would count for the purposes of demobilisation.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

May I correct the hon. Gentleman on that? I entirely agree with him, but if that be so, there is no argument for treating Bevin boys in the way they are being treated. The point is that, having treated Bevin boys in that way, having treated in that way the people who were directed there is no justification for not treating optants in the same way.

Mr. Ness Edwards

The hon. and learned Gentleman should have waited. Subsequently, the Minister of Labour made an announcement, in the case of Bevin boys, which had the approval of the House, that only with regard to Bevin boys would there be any departure at all from the conditions laid down in the White Paper, and there was no protest against that from either side of the House. It was accepted that only in the case of Bevin boys would there be an exception. I would like to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman of one or two Debates that have taken place on this subject in the House. He will recall that the first exception that was pressed for was the case of those men who had served in the National Fire Service. Subsequently, there were further protestations made with regard to men who had served in Civil Defence, and then further arguments were put forward in other Debates with regard to counting service in the mines, or periods in the mines, for purposes of demobilisation in the case of those men who had opted from the Armed Forces to work in the mines on Class W.T.A. Reserve.

It does not stop there. There were ex-miners who were recruited from the Forces for the mines. It was proposed in this House that they should be given a period in the mines as part of their service, which service should count for demobilisation purposes. Equally so there were non-miners, who were released from the Forces as volunteers to work in the mines. Their case, too, was pressed in the House, but the House decided to take the view that we could not depart except in that one case from the principle of age and length of service in the Armed Forces. This principle was made very clear when a Question was asked about it. I have been reading HANSARD. The present Foreign Secretary was pressed from a number of places in the House, particularly below the Gangway from the Liberal Party, and the House as a whole accepted it.

I now bring to my aid this further point. This matter was also raised when the "Caretaker" Government existed, and that Government took up exactly the same attitude as the Minister of Labour in the Coalition Government, and, indeed, the same attitude as the present Minister of Labour. The hon. and learned Member for Daventry was a Member of that Government, and that Government refused to concede to the House what he desires me to concede tonight. I must say that this is a position which is difficult, and I must recognise that on the face of it there is hardship on the optant and on the volunteer, but in order to meet this single class one must also meet persons in like circumstances. The case for the men who were working in the National Fire Service before being called up is equally as strong as that of the optants for the mining industry; the man who was called into the reserve of police, and who was getting a very low rate of remuneration compared with the rate of remuneration that the optants were getting, has also a very good case, and if there is a case for the optants, how much more is there a case for a man who served three years in the Army and who never had experience of mining but nevertheless volunteered to go to the mines? All these cases could be counted for the purposes of demobilisation, and that is the difficulty that the Ministry is in. This question does not stop at one case only. When one considers the whole field of men who were engaged in national service, one must look not only at the optants but at the men who were directed, say, to agriculture.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I have put a case to the Parliamentary Secretary, but he is not answering the case I gave but another case. My case was that of the optants discharged from the mines on medical grounds through no fault of their own.

Mr. Ness Edwards

I know, but in dealing with that type of case we have also to have regard to any departure from the principle laid down in the White Paper on demobilisation as it affects other men in like circumstances. If the optant from the mining industry is to be allowed to count his service so, too, there must be consideration for the men who worked on the docks, and for those who were directed to other forms of civilian employment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

indicated dissent.

Mr. Ness Edwards

The hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head, but we must have equality and equity in this business. Let me cite a case. A man, who has nystagmus in 1935 has had to leave the mining industry. He finds a decent job in London, but because he has had mining experience, he is, during the war, directed back to the mining industry. That man fails in his job in the mining industry, but when he is called up to the Forces it is not suggested that that type of man, who is not given an option at all, should count the whole of the time which he spent in the mining industry for the purposes of demobilisation.

Mr. Manningham - Buller

Quite obviously, the case which the Parliamentary Secretary has cited cannot be the case of a young man. The point I am putting is with regard to a young man who receives that notice which tells him to go to the mines.

Mr. Ness Edwards

Certainly, but I think I was citing a stronger case where a man who is older is directed back to the industry. I am sure there is a desire to be fait about this business and we do not want it to be felt in the armed Forces or anywhere else that wrong is being done by the demobilisation scheme. Hon. Members will recollect that demobilisation was discussed on more than one occasion and it was suggested once that a married man with children should come out first and that men who had served overseas should have a greater priority over men at home. It was decided, however, that we could not depart from the principle of age and length of service, and that once we did so we would get into deep water. After all, the man who was a "Desert Rat" would not like to see others who had never left the country coming out of the Forces first, nor would he like to see a man get preference who had done a portion of his service in the mines for which he got good civilian pay while the soldier was in the desert. He would say that there was no parity at all in the scheme.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

That is not the case I put at all. The case I put was with regard to the different treatment given to Bevin boys, and I wish that the Parliamentary Secretary, who is dealing generally with this matter, would devote the remainder of the time he has left to justifying the discrepancy between the Bevin boy and the optant.

Mr. Ness Edwards

I thought I had made it quite clear, and I am sorry it I did not. I must repeat myself a little in order to put the matter plainly before the hon and learned Gentleman. The age and service scheme was accepted by both sides of this House, which was a House with a different complexion to that of the present House. It was accepted by the Caretaker Government; and the rule of age and length of service in so far as it affected Bevin boys was also accepted by this House.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

Does the hon. Gentleman say that before 29th November, 1945, when this announcement was made by the Minister of Labour, it was the position that an optant discharged on medical grounds should not be able to count that service?

Mr. Ness Edwards

No, but what I do say is that the Minister of Labour announced this concession for Bevin boys and, with the approval of the House, limited it most rigidly to Bevin boys. We come to the case of the man who now has been called up. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that these men have been called up on medical grounds? It is true that at the end of last year a lot of men were called up from the mines, some for very good reasons and some for other reasons, and it is extremely difficult in many of the cases to decide whether or not disability was assumed in the mining industry or after the men had been called to the Forces. What is to be said now with regard to those optants, who have been called up from the mines into the Forces because many of them were not pulling their weight in the mining industry? In saying that I want to add that I am not saying Bevin boys and optants generally have not made a contribution and I am not putting them all into that category. Large numbers of them have made a great contribution, but we should remember that many of those called up at the end of last year were called up because they were dodging the column. In the case of those dodging the column, should we allow their service to count for the purposes of demobilisation? If hon. Members want a riot in the Army that is the way to get it.

I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that this is a difficult problem once we depart from the general principle in regard to Bevin boys which was adopted with the approval of the House. And if we go any further than that we are on very slippery ground. Another point is that 4 million men and women have already been demobilised from the Forces. If we recast all the demobilisation groups now, in order to provide for this we shall not be speeding up demobilisation, we shall be holding it up. I am sorry I cannot accede to the request of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I have tried to give my reasons, and I hope he appreciates that it is not quite so simple a problem as he may at first have thought

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson (Farnham)

In the minute or so that remains I should like to say that I rather feel the Parliamentary Secretary took a line at the conclusion of his speech, which he may regret. He had no difficulty in showing the House that this was a very complicated problem, and he did his best to show that these optants had been treated fairly. Then he turned on us, and it seemed to me gave his case completely up by saying that most of them had dodged the column.

Mr. Ness Edwards

No, some of them

Mr. Nicholson

I will give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to correct his statement.

Mr. Ness Edwards

May I correct that immediately? I did not mean to suggest that every man who was called up who was an optant had dodged the column What I tried to convey to the House was that there were amongst these men, numbers who had dodged the column.

Mr. Nicholson

I cannot help feeling that the hon. Gentleman has weakened his case by that argument. After his case was made, he ought not to have tried to buttress it. Did the optants, when they opted, realise the position they were putting themselves in?

Mr. Ness Edwards

Shortly, on that point, the White Paper on demobilisation was issued fairly early, and the matter had been debated in the House, and I should say it was general knowledge.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Order made upon 13th November.

Adjourned at Eighteen Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.