HC Deb 04 November 1948 vol 457 cc1069-89

Order for Second Reading read.

5.46 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Michael Stewart)

I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill was foreshadowed in the new pension and pay code for members of the Forces below commissioned rank, which was issued in December, 1945, as Cmd. 6715. I would direct the attention of the House to paragraph 40 of that White Paper, which reads: There is a difference between the Services at present in regard to the liability of Service pensioners to be recalled for service at time of emergency. It is proposed that as part of the new scheme a liability to recall for service in emergency should apply to pensioners of all three Services. It will be clear from that paragraph that our object is to align the Army and R.A.F. with the Navy in regard to the liability of their pensioners to recall in time of emergency. It will further be clear from the paragraph I have quoted that the purpose and intention is to link this liability to recall with the new rates of pension which were authorised on 19th December, 1945. That purpose is achieved in Clause 1 of the Bill, which defines the groups of pensioners who are liable to recall.

The House will notice in the first place that persons whose Service pensions were originally granted before the beginning of the war, that is before 3rd September, 1939, are excluded from the scope of the Bill and from any liability to recall in time of emergency. We have then to consider pensioners who have been dis- charged on pension since that date, that is either during or since the war. Those pensioners at present can choose, as between the old and the new rates of pension code, the more favourable of the two awards. But they have been told that legislation is being sought to place upon them this liability to recall. They will be asked finally to make a choice between having their pensions assessed under the old code and the old rates without any liability to recall or of having them assessed on the new rates, with liability to recall. It is desirable that they should make that choice by the end of this financial year.

It is for that reason that this Bill is being introduced early in the Session, and we hope that Parliament will be agreeable to passing it into law by the end of this calendar year at the latest, so that these classes of pensioner can exercise that choice which will be open to them.

We have then to consider a third group of persons, those who have entered into pensionable engagements before 19th December, 1945. They, when they come to be discharged to pension, will make a similar choice between the old rates of pension with no liability or the new rates with liability to recall. With regard to those soldiers and airmen who entered into pensionable engagements after 19th December, 1945, it will be clear that their pensions would be on the new rates, and they would be subject to liability to recall. So throughout, if we consider those groups of persons, we get the position that the liability to recall described in this Bill is linked all the way with having one's pension assessed as I have described at the new rates, that is to say those authorised on 19th December, 1945.

I ought perhaps to refer to the actual wording of Clause 1 on this point. I have spoken throughout of the new rates, meaning those authorised on 19th December, 1945. Those new rates will be embodied in a Royal Warrant, or in the case of the Royal Air Force, an order, which will be issued shortly after this Bill becomes law. That is why what I have described simply as the "new rates" are more legally and precisely described in the Bill as pensions assessed or reassessed in accordance with the provisions of a Royal Warrant or order made after the passing of this Act.

There are, of course, certain obvious and natural exemptions from liability to recall. For example, it is not proposed to recall persons who have reached the age of 60, even though under any provisions of the Act they would be liable. Further, there are the obvious exemptions defined in the Schedule to the Bill, and I ought at this point to give an explanation of the position of disabled pensioners. The House will realise that the terms "pension" and "pensioner" in this Bill do not refer to disability pensions but to Service pensions. There is the case of men who are in receipt both of the Service and the disability pension. Since they are in receipt of a Service pension they would be liable to recall but, of course, we should not recall anyone whose disability was of such a character as to make it unreasonable to do so. There may be some cases of men with minor disabilities who are also in receipt of Service pensions and would be recalled under the Bill. But in every case, where a pensioner is recalled he will be medically examined, and naturally we should not proceed with the recall if it were clear that he was not fit to perform the duties which we have in mind for these men.

Having described the classes of persons who are, or are not, liable to recall under the Bill, I might mention the numbers who may possibly be affected. We estimate that for the Army there is something in the nature of 14,400 persons who will be able to exercise the choice which I have described and may, therefore, become liable to recall. The figure for the Royal Air Force is in the neighbourhood of 2,000. Hon. Members will realise that we cannot say in advance how these men will exercise their option. The numbers, therefore, who do ultimately become liable to recall by exercising the option for a pension in the new rates may be substantially less than the figures I have quoted. On that point, it would be impossible at this stage to prophesy, but those are the approximate numbers of persons who have the option which I have described.

At some future date there will be women who are Service pensioners in the Army and the Royal Air Force. When that situation arises they also would be liable to recall. It is not yet quite clear whether further legislation would be necessary in order to bring that about. It depends upon the comparative dates at which the Order in Council relating to the Women's Services comes into force and the date on which this Bill becomes law. In any case, it is not a matter that arises in anything like the near future. I merely wish to make it clear that that is the intention, and what legal proceedings may be necessary has yet to be seen. But it is the intention, when there are women Service pensioners of the Army and the Royal Air Force, that they should likewise be subject to this liability to recall.

I have spoken about the question of who is liable to recall, and I now wish to say something as to what is the nature of the liability. That can be found in Clause 2 of the Bill. It may be briefly and simply summarised by saying that, with regard to recall they will be in the same position as Reservists of the Army and the Royal Air Force. At the moment that means, with regard to an Army Reservist, that he may be called out.when there is a Proclamation in time of grave emergency. As hon. Members will be aware, such a Proclamation is at the moment in existence. In the case of the Royal Air Force, Reservists may not only be called out by means of such a Proclamation, but called out to defend the United Kingdom in case of actual or apprehended attack. It is possible that future legislation may alter the nature of the liability of Reservists, and if so the liability attaching to pensioners under this Bill would be similarly altered. But, in general, the nature of their liability is the liability that attaches to a Reservist of the Army or the Royal Air Force.

There is one exception. They would not be liable to be called out in order to assist the civil power, because when Reservists are so called out they are not deemed to be on permanent service. The House will notice from the text of the Bill that pensioners are to be in the same position as Reservists deemed to be called out for permanent service under the Reserve Forces Act.

Colonel Dower (Penrith and Cockermouth)

Could the right hon. Gentleman define that a little more clearly? It is very uncertain when they are assisting the civil power and when they are acting as Army, Navy or Air Force personnel.

Mr. Stewart

I do not think that in practice such a difficulty arises, because if Reservists are called out to assist the civil power it will be made clear at the time whether they were deemed legally to be called out for permanent service or not. That legal distinction, which would have to be made at the time, would determine whether or not the liability attached to pensioners. The hon. and gallant Member will agree that in any case we are discussing a slightly academic point rather aside from the main purposes and nature of the Bill. Subsection (2) of Clause 2 makes the necessary provision that pensioners recalled under this Bill will become persons subject to military law.

I have spoken as to who are to be made liable and what they are to be made liable for. Clause 3 deals with the question of how the liability is to be enforced, what is the machinery for recall. Touching on that matter, I should say at once that we all realise that the persons with whom we are here dealing are men who have been, and would still wish to be, willing soldiers and airmen. They are men with long records of service and, therefore, the process, the legal provision, requiring them to comply with the Act, can be regarded as no more than an inevitable formality. Also, the call-up procedure is made simple in their case by the fact that, since they are pensioners, the two Service Departments concerned are in regular and periodic contact with them, so that administrative difficulties about their recall would be reduced to a minimum.

It is, of course, a fact that the Service Departments are not required by this Bill to call up everybody who becomes liable. This is what we propose to do. The arms and branches concerned would first of all make a list of vacancies suitable to be filled in time of emergency by these pensioners. Record offices dealing with these lists would then compile lists of individual persons suitable to fill the vacancies so that we should have, should the emergency arise, a clear picture of who was to be recalled out of those made liable and what they were to be required to do.

I think that hon. Members would wish to hear something about the conditions under which these men will serve. Reference is made to that in Clause 4, where it is made clear that they would receive both pay and pension during their period of service after recall. The Bill lays down that they must receive their pay without any deduction, and the Royal Warrant or order will lay down that they must receive their pension in such circumstances without deduction, so that they will be receiving both pay and pension. Of course, in view of their experience they would not be required to undertake any training. The question of the rank they would hold is a matter upon which there was some comment in this House some time ago when this Bill was first foreshadowed by the introduction of the White Paper.

I have described how we shall consider in advance what are suitable vacancies for these men. We should not normally call up a pensioner unless there was a vacancy for him in the rank which he held immediately prior to discharge—I said normally. There might arise a certain number of cases where we felt we could make good use of a man's services and where there was no vacancy for him in the rank he held immediately prior to discharge——

Mr. Bellenger (Bassetlaw)

Substantive rank?

Mr. Stewart

Yes, but in no case should we recall him and require him to serve in more than one rank lower than the rank he held immediately prior to discharge.

Colonel Dower

Am I to understand that the hon. Gentleman is considering having the power to recall these men in one rank lower than the rank they held, and that the men are not to be given any option? Do I understand that they are not to be asked whether they wish to be recalled in the lower rank but that they will in fact be demoted for a period?

Mr. Stewart

That could happen, yes. The hon. and gallant Member will appreciate that it follows from the very nature of an Act of Parliament that the men cannot very well have an option on the matter. There is a legal liability to recall. We propose so to exercise our power of recall that in the great majority of cases the men would hold the same rank. Only where that was impossible but where it was genuinely useful and desirable to use the man's services, might we occasionally adopt the expedient of recalling him in a rank one lower than that which he had held immediately prior to discharge.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan (Perth and Kinross, Perth)

The right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) asked whether the rank to which they are to revert on recall, will be the substantive rank and not a temporary rank. Will it be the highest substantive rank which a man held?

Mr. Stewart

Yes, it will be the substantive rank. On the question of duties, the House will realise that that follows from a consideration of the type of man with whom we are dealing. We have in mind various types of extra regimental employment, administrative work in the training organisation, and possibly at a later stage work in connection with the organisation of prisoner of war camps. Many examples will immediately spring to the minds of hon. Members familiar with these problems.

I think I may say that the remaining Clauses of the Bill deal only with necessary administrative details. I may sum up by saying that the effect of the Bill is to remove an anomaly between the Navy and the other two Services. I presume that anomaly exists because at a time before warfare was of its present nature it was always assumed in this country that the readiness of the Royal Navy had a peculiar and exceptional importance which did not attach to the readiness of any other arm. But, of course, the nature of modern warfare is such as to make that assumption no longer tenable. Therefore, we are removing an anomaly between the Services. We are completing the purpose which was foreshadowed in the White Paper. We are providing the Army and the Royal Air Force with the services in emergency of a considerable and, as time goes by, an increasing number of experienced and valuable men. For those reasons I commend the Bill to the House.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller (Daventry)

The Under-Secretary has expounded the effect of this Bill very clearly, and it is not necessary for me to say anything which is likely to engender any heat or rouse much controversy. This is a Bill of very limited application. It applies only to those granted pensions since 3rd September, 1939, and, of that number, only those whose pensions are assessed or reassessed after the passing of this Bill. The hon. Gentleman told us that the total number likely to be affected by this Measure at present is in the region of 16,000. Of course, the time will come when every Regular man in the Army or Air Force will automatically on retirement be affected by this Measure, so that the total number will be likely to increase. Even that number will only be affected by this Measure—and here I quote the words of the Reserve Forces Act of 1882—— in case of imminent national danger or of great emergency.… I am sure that in future, as I believe it to have been the case in the past, in the event of an imminent national danger or of great emergency, the Service pensioners of the Army and the Air Force without the liability to recall imposed by this Bill, would be among the first to come forward to offer their services to the country. Because I believe that and because I believe they would come forward as readily in the future as they have done in the past of their own desire, I do not regard this Bill, which creates the liability to recall, as an important Measure.

There are a number of points to be raised during the Committee stage, but I should like to touch now on one or two major questions. Perhaps it may not be possible—I hope that it will—to get a reply now. I put them forward for consideration and I hope for a satisfactory answer. The first question arises in this way. Under the Bill the Service pensioner is deemed to be enlisted from the time of recall. If I understand the Bill correctly, that will mean from the time specified in the notice sent to him. The position under Army law will then be that if he fails to comply with the notice, if he fails to report at the time stated in the notice, he will be an absentee without leave, and on his reporting late, he is bound under military law to be placed in arrest and tried as an absentee without leave. That is the effect of saying that he will be deemed to be enlisted from the time of recall.

The hon. Gentleman spoke most clearly about the marrying up of a list of vacancies with the persons who are recalled. What the hon. Gentleman did not give us any information upon, was the linking up of the machinery of this Bill with any machinery for determining whether the Service pensioner was or was not fulfilling a more useful role, in the national sense, in his civilian capacity. If there is another imminent danger or grave emergency, there are bound to be reserved occupations, but, under this Measure as it now stands, a Service pensioner in a reserved occupation, or any other occupation of great importance in the national interest, will, if the War Office or Air Ministry serves a notice upon him, have to obey that notice, and that, it seems to me, may not be in the national interest.

I think it is desirable that there should be some machinery, not just for compiling in the record offices a list of vacancies and another list of persons to fill them, but for determining, before these notices of recall are sent out, whether or not it is better in the national interest to leave the pensioner where he is. The hon. Gentleman said nothing upon that point. Perhaps it can be dealt with by administrative action. It may be that, to deal with it satisfactorily, having regard to other Acts on the Statute Book, some Amendment to this Bill is required, and no doubt, we shall have an opportunity of considering that at a later stage. Bearing in mind that the recall of men, and perhaps women, affected by this Measure is not to be done by Proclamation but by individual notices, one observes a disparity between the treatment to which these individuals will be subjected and the treatment under the ordinary call-up.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the case of Service pensioners who were also drawing a small disability pension, and I was glad to hear what he said on that issue. There is the further possibility that the Service pensioner, in the passage of years, may become physically unfit, and, although on the Army records he may appear to be a very suitable person to fill a particular vacancy, it may be a pure waste of time, on account of his physical unfitness, to send that individual, whose last known address was, say, in the north of Scotland, a notice recalling him and telling him to report at Penzance. What machinery exists or will exist for ensuring some sort of medical examination before the individual Service pensioner is called upon to obey one of these notices? There ought to be some sort of machinery to achieve that end.

Then there ought to be some sort of machinery whereby the pensioner can put forward statements, perhaps from his employer, as to the importance, in the national interest, of the position he occupies in his civilian capacity. I hope the hon. Gentleman will deal with that aspect of the matter. I am talking, as he will appreciate, largely upon the machinery, and it does seem to me that, since he did not allay my fears upon this matter in his speech, these two questions ought to be covered.

There is a further question of machinery. I find it difficult to agree with the hon. Gentleman's statement—I am not sure if I heard it correctly—that the precise legal position and legal right to recall these people is a matter of mere formality, because they will be willing men. While I agree that they will be willing men, I could not agree that the legal position is a mere formality, bearing in mind the liability to be treated as an absentee without leave if the pensioner does not report at the due date. Let me examine the case of a Service pensioner who is overseas. Under Clause 3 (4), a notice is deemed to be served on him directly it is posted by the War Office or Air Ministry.

It may well be that the Service pensioner is in Kenya or Canada, or any other part that is left of the British Commonwealth, and does not receive the notice until after the date specified in it for his recall. If he returns by the quickest possible means, he is still under military law, as I understand it, bound to be treated as an absentee without leave. Ought not some provision to be made in this Measure to avoid that unfortunate consequence, which would be automatic in its operation upon a willing ex-Service pensioner who receives his notice of recall after the date specified for recall in that notice? I should like some consideration to be given to that question before we reach the Committee Stage.

The hon. Gentleman also spoke about always being in periodic contact with the pensioners. That, of course, is true where the pension is still being drawn. I think I am right in saying that every six months, the pensioner has to notify any change of address, but what is the position with regard to the man who has commuted his pension? Under Clause 5 (3), provision is made for liability for recall even if the pension has been commuted and even where it is not being paid. The last known address may well be an address at which the man ceased to reside perhaps 10 or 15 years before, but, even then, that individual will be liable to be placed under arrest if he does not comply with a notice which he has never received. I have dealt so far with nothing except machinery, which is important if we are not to have a great deal of time wasted, in the event of a grave emergency or a national danger, in placing under arrest people who come forward to help their country, and in employing others to determine and ascertain their true position.

Of course, we welcome the statement that the pension will not be affected by the receipt of emoluments when recalled. The Bill itself only provides that the emoluments will not be reduced by reason of receipt of Service pension. I understand from what the hon. Gentleman said that a Royal Warrant or order will provide the converse; that is to say, that the pension will not be reduced because of the receipt of emoluments. Royal Warrants are perhaps more easily altered than Acts of Parliament, and I would ask the hon. Gentleman to consider whether, in view of Clause 4, where it is specifically provided that the emoluments cannot be cut down because of the Service pension, there could not also be inserted a provision that the Service pension cannot be reduced because of the receipt of emoluments.

The hon. Gentleman also said something on the very important question of rank. It will be unfortunate if people are recalled to a substantive rank lower than that which they held before their discharge. I note that the Minister is not committing himself—wisely, perhaps—not to recall them to fill a rank one degree lower, but he has said that it will not normally be done. I wondered, when I heard those statements, whether some further provision, some safeguard in that respect, might not be inserted in this Measure. Therefore, I would ask the hon. Gentleman to give consideration to that also.

This Bill is a small contribution to our defence preparations, and is a little scanty in its nature for the reasons I have already indicated. It corrects an anomaly which has been in existence for very nearly 100 years, and, to some degree, it brings into line Service pensioners of the Army and Air Force with those of the Navy. We shall certainly not oppose its passage, but, at the same time, we shall endeavour to improve it in all possible respects, and, in particular, to avoid, if we can, the most unfortunate circumstances which will ensue if a willing Service pensioner is subjected to arrest, when he wants to serve his country, merely because of non-receipt of a notice sent by a Ministry.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. A. R. W. Low (Blackpool, North)

After what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) has said, I have only two short points to make. The first is about the effect of this Bill on the ease with which men who leave the Army and Air Force will be able to get employment for the rest of their working days. Even allowing for the long-service man who has had, perhaps, 25 or 30 years in the Army or Air Force—and who may be between 45 and 50, or even 55 years of age—the men covered by this Bill, at the time they first receive a pension, may have 15 or 20 years in which they will need employment. I imagine that the War Office and the Air Ministry have taken into account the fact that potential employers, when considering such men, must pause for a moment when they realise that they are liable to be swept back into the Services which they have just left, not only in a general emergency, in which everybody called up is swept, but in a special emergency, as, for example, that which necessitated the recall, before the war, of part of the Reserve to go out to Palestine.

In thinking about this Bill during the last few days, I wondered whether it would not be fair in such cases to prolong the age recall to 60. I would like the Minister, when he replies, to tell us whether the Service Departments concerned have given full consideration to this point. I suggest that a division in the maximum age for recall might be made between the special emergency, such as that to which I have referred, and a general emergency which leads, eventually, or is likely to lead, to the general call-up of men not covered by this Bill as well as those who are so covered. I think it will be generally accepted by the Government Departments and by other Members of this House that the fact that men are liable to be swept from civilian employment in a special emergency must, to a certain degree, affect their employability. It may be that this matter has already been fully taken into account, but, if it has not, I suggest that the Government should consider the possibility, at some later stage, of making a division between what I have called the "special" and the "general" emergencies.

The second point I wish to raise is akin to the matter of rank mentioned by the Minister when moving the Second Reading. He referred us to an occasion when, a year and a half ago, I think it was, the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) made a sweeping attack upon the then Secretary of State. The hon. Member for Dudley is not in a position to make a sweeping attack on the, present Secretary of State because, if I may say so, whereas before he was the gamekeeper looking after the interests of the men in the Army, he now appears to have turned poacher, at least for the time being, and is not now in the same happy position as he was in then.

In the course of his speech, he asked two questions, and it seems very surprising, having regard to his present position, that neither of those questions was answered by the Minister in his opening speech. He asked those questions, not only in his speech, but in a letter which he wrote, first, to the Royal Hospital, and then to the War Office, after the usual inevitable delay. Having told us that he might well have earned the title of "old soldier," he said that he had written to ask what, if he accepted the option given to him, would be his liability to recall, in what rank, and in what corps.

The Minister dealt with the rank situation, and I support my hon. and learned Friend in his request for a promise as to rank to be included in the Bill, although he made no reference to the question of corps. In the last annual Army Act, there was a Clause, of which not all of us approved, to the effect that those who now enlist in the Army have no option as to the corps into which they are pushed. But these pensioners when in the Services had the right not to be transferred from one corps to another against their will. I shall be glad if the Minister will say whether they will keep that right if and when they are recalled. I should like an answer to that question because I think it is important. As the hon. Member said, it is a matter which is bound to affect the option still open to 14,000 odd pensioners. I trust that the War Office will be able to answer that point through their Air Ministry mouthpiece.

It is a pity that Ministers who move Bills of this sort should give merely a verbal undertaking as to how they will be operated, when such undertakings might well be put into the Bills themselves. Although the value of an undertaking given by a Minister is, of course, considerable, its value, when incorporated in an Act of Parliament, is much greater. I ask them to consider very carefully the requests made by my hon. and learned Friend and to accede to them by incorporating new Subsections in the Bill during the Committee stage.

6.30 p.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan (Perth and Kinross, Perth)

I should like to ask for a little more information on two points. One is this question of calling out, or not calling out, on behalf of the civil power. At present what I might term the ordinary Reservist is liable to be called out, if his particular category of Reserve is called up, for purposes of aiding the civil power. I understand from what was said by the Under-Secretary of State, who introduced this Bill, that the new type of pensioner will not be liable to be called out. I should like him to reflect a little more on that and to consider whether it is a desirable thing that one class of Army pensioner should be liable to be called out to aid the civil power whereas another class should not. As a general principle it is most undesirable to have two more or less identical classes—at least they think they are identical—in a position where one has to do a dirty job and the other has not to do that job. There is no job a soldier hates more—or an airman, too, I am sure—than that of being called out to aid the civil power. It looks as if a rather unnecessary distinc- tion is being made between those two classes of pensioner.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Low) mentioned undertakings given by Ministers. The Under-Secretary gave an undertaking that these men would not be called out and, if that is the case, I think it should be made quite clear in the Bill. It would mean only a small addition, but it would make the position crystal clear, although I think it is an undesirable thing in itself.

Mr. M. Stewart

It is, I think, more than an undertaking. It springs from this. These pensioners are only to be called out when the Reserve is deemed to be called up on permanent service. I am advised that the legal position is that if Reserves are called out to aid the civil power, they are not deemed to be on permanent service, and it is from that that the non-liability of these pensioners would spring.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that a little clearer, but I still think it is an undesirable distinction between two kinds of pensioner.

The second point I wish to raise concerns the forfeited pensions, and arises in Clause 5 (3). I gather from this—I may be wrong, in which case the hon. Gentleman who is to reply will put me right—that a man who has wholly forfeited his pension will not be liable to be called up. He gets away with it for having been a bad boy, whereas the chap who did his job has Reserve liability. It is open to doubt whether that is a desirable thing or not. I can quite understand, of course, that the War Office may not want the gentleman who forfeited his pension, because he probably will not be much use to them if they get him.

Thirdly, I should like to emphasise what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) said in this respect: great care should be taken to keep in touch with these Reservists about their physical condition. In 1938, at the War Office, it was my job to set up boards, to select personnel for boards, to vet Territorial and Regular Army Reservists, because, although they got their call-up for various jobs for which some years previously they were thought to be suitable, when they turned up they were found to be quite unsuitable either through a change of figure or some other disability. A great deal of time was wasted in filling these appointments. I suggest that very careful arrangements should be made to keep in touch with these men to see that they are fit both mentally and physically for any job for which they are required.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Harden (Armagh)

I would ask the Under-Secretary to consider fully the position of the small man who is a pensioner, who builds up his own small business and then receives his recall to the Services under this Bill. He is under military law when he gets that recall and he should, therefore, go at once. I think, however, that he should be given some time in which to hand over his business or make some other arrangement so that it may be continued in his absence—so that he can make some arrangements whereby he has not, in consequence of his recall, to meet financial loss afterwards. Secondly, I would emphasise what has already been said, that if a man is to be recalled, all possible steps should be taken to permit him to come back in a rank not lower than his own substantive rank. Thirdly, I would ask the Under-Secretary whether the figures he gave for those who would be recalled include those pensioners who are at present in Eire.

6.35 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas)

The hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), in particular, and other hon. Members put a number of points to me, and it is quite clear that they are all trying to help to make this a better Bill. I shall answer some of the points and we will consider between this and the next stage many of the suggestions which have been put to us for improving this Bill.

A very important point made by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry was on the necessity for this Bill. He admitted that it was necessary, and I want to emphasise that fact. Of course, it is true that our pensioners, the pensioners of the Army and of the Royal Air Force, would come back readily and willingly in an emergency, but we must have firm figures with which we can do our ordinary manpower calculations. The Admiralty for the last hundred years have had this certain information that in the event of an emergency they would have retired senior non-commissioned officers—and they knew exactly the numbers—to train the new men and to man the Fleet.

The hon. and learned Member made several points about the machinery of the Bill. The first was on the expression "deemed to be enlisted" from the time of recall. The hon. and learned Member raised the case of a man who might be in a reserved occupation or other important occupation which was not necessarily reserved. We can cover that and we will, in fact, cover it in conjunction with the Ministry of Labour and National Service who are, of course, very much concerned with this. If these men are in an occupation which is either reserved or which is considered at the time by the Ministry of National Service to be of over-riding importance, they will not be called up.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

Can we be given some indication of how the machine is going to work, because in this Bill all that happens is that the War Office sends a notice. If there is to be machinery, then it is desirable that we should be given some indication of how it will operate, in the case of the Service pensioner in a reserved occupation or in an occupation which might not be reserved or, as was said by another hon. Member, in a case of a compassionate nature.

Mr. de Freitas

Our lists of pensioners will be lists of individuals, as the hon. and learned Member appreciates, and we shall know the occupation of each one of these pensioners. The Ministry of Labour and National Service will then tell us whether that particular man is of more value in his present job. Each man will be treated on his own merits after considering exactly what he is doing. It follows naturally from the fact that these men are to be treated as individuals and are not going to be called up by a general proclamation.

The question of how unfit a man may be—how he may have deteriorated—although he still has his liability for service is difficult. It is very hard to guard against, but we shall go a long way to cover it by asking the man to notify us of changes in his health. The man him- self usually knows how he is getting on and we shall do what we can to meet the point by having medical examinations and not leaving it to the ordinary recall medical examination at the centre to which he has to report.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan

Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to put a question before he leaves that point, because I think it is important? This sounds rather a loose arrangement. Does it mean that the two Service Ministries are now going into a huddle to work out plans which will be told us at a later stage? I do not think it will be very helpful to wait for a chap to say that his figure has become awkward, or something of that sort—whatever may happen to him. There will be the same difficulty if he changes his job two or three times. It will be difficult.

Mr. de Freitas

If he changes his job a great deal he is probably not of so much value in civil life. However, I do not think that will happen. I think we shall be able to keep a tag on that. I agree that it will be much more difficult on the medical side; but we shall do our best. Now, as to the question of a man's going overseas and receiving his recall too late. This is not a complete answer, but I would point out that he does notify us of his change of address, because of his pension. If a pension is commuted, the recipient cannot commute the whole of it, and there is always something left over. It is extremely likely therefore that we shall be in constant touch with the man in respect of the payment of the balance. I want to emphasise that these men are looked at as individuals, and their records will be as complete as they possibly can be. I think we shall know whether he is overseas or not, unless he has just gone off on a holiday.

A very important point which we shall consider putting into the Bill is the matter of pay and pension. As to the matter of rank, it is not only substantive rank but war substantive rank on which we work. But I think we should recognise that normally when a man is recalled the Service to which he is recalled will be expanding. Therefore, I can only endorse what my hon. Friend said, that it should be only on rare occasions that a man is put in a lower rank. I do not see how I can go further than that. I ask hon. Gentlemen to bear in mind the fact that the Service would probably be expanding when the man was recalled.

I come to the point made by the hon. Member for North Blackpool (Mr. Low), who talked about the desirability of dividing "emergency" into "special" and "general." We will look at it. It is of extreme complexity, as he himself appreciated. We did see the effect this Bill would in the long run have on the employment of an ex-Regular. We have a little experience of this in the cases of the ex-Naval pensioners. So really valuable is the ex-Regular of every one of the three Services that employers employ them even though they are aware of the disadvantage of their having to report. A more difficult point is that of a man's being recalled to a particular corps. We could not guarantee that the man would go back into the same corps; but——

Mr. Low

Before the hon. Gentleman proceeds with that "but," I want to ask him whether it is not the law, or the Army convention at the moment, that a man who enlisted at a time before the dates on which the new Clause of the new Army Act came into operation is privileged, in that he cannot be transferred from one corps to another against his will. There is the legal point, which the hon. Gentleman has not answered, and the point of practice, on which he is giving a rather hooded answer.

Mr. de Freitas

I am answering on the position in the future, because the effects of this Measure will be with us for a very long time. I should not like to answer offhand on the position at the present, but I understand that it is satisfactory. For the future, we could not give that undertaking. A change in the structure of the Army may occur—is bound to occur—which will make it impossible to recall a man to the same corps. However, we must remember that these men are being called up because of their specialist knowledge, and that it would be in the interest of the Service itself to make the best use of such men; and that would nearly always mean recalling them to the corps in which they had served before.

Let me now take the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) on the question of forfeiture. What he said is perfectly true. A man who is a wrongdoer gets away with it. He is really more trouble than he is worth. That is why we have not covered him. The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Harden) asked about the man in a small business. Even at present, when a young boy has been called up for National Service there is no difficulty—I have certainly found none—in getting postponement of his call up, if he has immediately got in touch with the authority calling him up. The business affairs of these pensioners would naturally be more complex, and I can see no difficulty in having the same system for them.

I have given several undertakings to look at suggestions which have been made, and my hon. Friend and I will do so. I hope that the House will now give this Bill a Second Reading.

6.48 p.m.

Brigadier Head (Carshalton)

It was not my intention to speak, and I shall not detain the House more than a minute. I assured the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, who is concerned with the next Order on the Paper, that I did not intend to speak, and I do not wish to deceive or disappoint her. But arising out-of what the Under-Secretary of State for Air has just said, I should like to put forward the suggestion that he should re-consider very carefully the scheme he outlined whereby these men, if in a reserved occupation, and if required for and liable to call-up under this scheme, will have their cases considered on their separate merits by the Ministry of Labour and by the Service Ministry concerned. It seems to me that if such a scheme is instituted it will result in an immense amount of paper, a great waste of time, and the employment of many clerks and others in those Ministries. Do not let us institute a scheme which will pile up overheads. Let us decide, once for all, that the Services should have the men or the Ministry of Labour, and not have these tribunals that will consider individual cases.

Mr. de Freitas

I really am sorry. I did not mean to give the impression of tribunals and so forth. I do not think that the scheme I mentioned will make it necessary to have a large amount of paper piled up, as the hon. and gallant Member fears. It would be the ordinary day-to-day dealings of one Department with another. If a man is in agriculture, for instance, we shall know it, and know of his relative value in agriculture or in the Service.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—(Mr. Hannan.)