HC Deb 10 February 1949 vol 461 cc626-46

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)

I desire to raise a totally different question relating to the Ministry of Labour. Let me begin by expressing my gratitude to the Parliamentary Secretary for being in his place at what is, I fear, inconveniently short notice for him; but he has, with his habitual courtesy, responded to a telephone message. The point I desire to raise, and which I have already notified to the right hon. Gentleman, is the administration by his Department of its system of training grants. I desire to do it in two ways, first by making certain general remarks on the administration of the scheme, and secondly, by way of illustration, by referring to two specific cases in respect of which I have been in prolonged correspondence with the right hon. Gentleman and his Minister, and which I have notified to him I did intend to raise tonight.

The scheme dates back a number of years, and was designed and intended to try to make up to young men whose training for their careers had been inevitably dislocated by the incidence of war—to make up to them by providing training for as much as possible of the time that had been lost in the service of their country. To be more specific, I would venture to refer the House to the long statement made on 25th March, 1943, by the present Foreign Secretary, then Minister of Labour, in announcing the scheme. I shall not trouble the House with most of what he said, but I do desire to refer specifically to certain words he used in describing the scheme. He said: It will apply to those whose further education or training has been prevented or interrupted by their war service."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1943; Vol. 387, c. 1739.] The House will, appreciate that those words are wide.

My case tonight, in brief, is that the right hon. Gentleman's Department, in the administration of that scheme, have narrowed it by the application of certain arbitrary rules, and that as a consequence certain people who might well have thought—and rightly thought—that they were within the ambit of the scheme, have been excluded, and, in my submission to the House, hardship has been done. The rule which in particular has caused a great deal of hardship is this. The House will appreciate that the alternative conditions required to be satisfied by the words I quoted were training "prevented or interrupted." Where it has been interrupted I do not think very much difficulty has arisen. But in the cases where it has been prevented the difficulty—I do appreciate the Department's difficulty—has been in deciding whether, in fact, such training has been prevented or not.

In many cases, bearing in mind the circumstances of war, the only evidence that training for a career has been prevented is the statement of the applicant himself or of his family. I do feel that the Department has been a little oppressive in insisting, in a number of cases, on additional evidence of that. I think it ignores the circumstances of war. It ignores the fact that the young men with whom we are concerned were growing up in circumstances in which they knew that at the age of 18 they would be going to the Forces, and that, therefore, many of them found it very difficult to settle down in the preliminary stages of a professional career; and many others, to their credit, devoted a great deal of the time that they had to preparing for their Service careers by joining pre-service units, and spending a great deal of time in them. It does seem to me, from the experience that I have had in the considerable number of cases about which I have corresponded with the right hon. Gentleman's Department, that the Department, by insisting that there must be more evidence of preliminary steps having been taken before Service—preliminary steps to prepare for a career—have, in fact, prejudiced unfairly the chances of successful application in a number of cases.

Now I will quote—for I have the permission of the young man and his family so to do—one of the two cases which I have already notified to the right hon. Gentleman, because it seems to me to illustrate very vividly the difficulty and the unfairness which the rule I have referred to does impose—and, no doubt, in other cases in the experience of hon. Members. The young man in question is Mr. B. G. M. Ulrich, of 35, St. James's Road, Surbiton. He was born on the 5th December, 1925, and consequently was just under 14 years of age at the outbreak of war. His father has been quite clear that from his earliest years it was intended that this young man should be trained as a chartered secretary, and his career was planned to that end. In view of the fact that when he left school the war was raging, and it was obvious—and, indeed, he had every intention—that before very long he would be serving in the Armed Forces, it was thought useless for him to commence the academic side of his professional training and, therefore, he went into the office of a local company where he did clerical work by way of gaining practical experience; and he, to his credit be it said, spent a great deal of time with the Air Training Corps and in attending night classes at a local school. He applied to join the Royal Air Force for air crew duties and, having served from June, 1944, to November, 1947, was demobilised.

On demobilisation, he applied for a grant under this scheme with a view to studying for the examination of the Institute of Chartered Secretaries. By way of further corroboration of evidence of his intentions, he, prior to demobilisation, unsuccessfully applied to the R.A.F. authorities for a Class B release after the end of hostilities with a view to taking his examination. I have been, as the right hon. Gentleman probably thinks, in almost insufferably prolonged correspondence with him on this subject, but he has firmly maintained the Departmental view in the matter. Perhaps I may be allowed to quote from the second paragraph—I will quote any other paragraph if he so wishes—of his letter to me on 5th January of this year in respect of this case, in which he states: This type of case, where there was a considerable period between the applicant's leaving school and joining the Forces but in which he did no organised studies, always present difficulty. I think it is reasonable that such cases should be looked at closely as obviously awards cannot be made merely on the applicant's statement that he always intended to pursue a certain line of study. While, therefore, we try to interpret the Scheme as generously as possible, these cases must be decided on their individual merits. He goes on to recite and accurately to state the facts of the position, and says: In the circumstances, Mr. Ulrich cannot be regarded as satisfying the eligibility conditions relevant to his case, i.e., that he was prevented from beginning organised professional studies before his national service, because of the intervention of that service. That seems to pose the case with complete clarity. The word of the applicant and of his father, with some corroboration both from the aspect of the practical work and from the point of view of the applicant applying for a Class B release, is in sufficient. That is to say that there is what lawyers would call an onus on the applicant to establish beyond reasonable doubt his intentions to pursue these lines of study, and his own word and that of his father are not to be accepted as sufficient evidence.

I feel for the reasons which I have given that this ruling is a rule which can and, as I think in this case, has caused manifest injustice, because it seems to me that this young man acted as was reasonable and patriotic in the circumstances of the time, and that it is extremely oppressive of the hon. Gentleman's Department to say, "If only you had not done training with the Air Training Corps but had done preliminary training for the examination of the Chartered Institute of Secretaries we would have given you the grant, but because you spent your time in pre-Service training and in practical work in connection with your profession, we shall not accept your evidence that you intended to take up this career."

Mr. Swingler (Stafford)

I should like the hon. Gentleman to address himself to this question. Supposing the Ministry of Labour had accepted, on such a basis, the word of the applicant about his former intentions, or the word of his parents, how would he prevent the scheme from being open to wide abuse? Surely, if that were so, quite a large number of people could claim that they had intentions of undertaking some kind of further education or training and, if there were no other conditions and no evidence had to be produced, the Ministry of Labour would then have to accept these cases which in itself might lead to injustice.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his interruption, which I know is meant to be helpful, because it enables me to put more clearly perhaps than I have been able to the point which I have in mind. The point is twofold. In the first place, every day our courts of law act on the verbal evidence, without corroboration, of individuals as to facts of this sort. Their evidence is weighed and often accepted. Secondly, when we are dealing with a young man who has beyond doubt suffered a great inconvenience to his career by serving, in this case, for nearly four years in the Armed Forces of the Crown, it does not seem to me unreasonable to say that if he subsequently desires to take up training for a profession—and the number of people who so desire is limited—he should be given a grant to establish him in that profession. Nothing can make up to him for the loss of four vital years in his training. As all hon. Members know, an interruption at that period of life inevitably sets back the time in which a young man can be qualified for a profession or capable of earning his living at it. Therefore, where one desires training I think it reasonable to accept his word.

I do not think that the grants are so unduly generous as to tempt people who do not want in fact to train for a career. These professional trainings are arduous; they demand a great deal of work and application; and I do not think there is any risk at all that people would make false statements in this matter in order to obtain a grant for a very limited period, if they were not seriously trying to fit themselves for a profession. If there be any risk, as of course there must be in any administrative scheme, I would prefer to risk the Ministry of Labour occasionally rather than risk doing an injustice to a young man who, whatever else may be true or untrue, has given up some years of his life and risked that life in the service of his country. If one must bear these risks, I would make clear that I would prefer to balance it in that way. That is the case for Mr. Ulrich which illustrates my initial proposition.

The second case which I desire to quote illustrates a slightly different aspect of the matter, but clearly, to my mind, illustrates the rather narrow way in which the right hon. Gentleman's Department is administering these matters. This is the case of Mr. C. G. Wyatt, of 25, Grosvenor Gardens, Kingston-on-Thames. He has three-and-a-half years service with the Armed Forces to his credit, and he emerged with a wound in respect of which he has been awarded a 20 per cent. disability pension by the Ministry of Pensions, and is also, as a consequence, on the hon. Gentleman's own Department's register of disabled persons. He is, therefore, again a person who has not only given years but has suffered physical injury in the service of his country. This young man was demobilised last year, and from 13th September last year has been on his own initiative taking a course in wireless telegraphy at the Wireless Telegraphy Training College at Earls Court.

A certificate which I sent to the Department indicates that he has made admirable progress. I should add that his disability prevented him from following his pre-war avocation, and I understand that the right hon. Gentleman's Department do not dispute that in certain circumstances he is entitled to a grant. But what they have sought to do—and this does seem to me to be oppressive—is to say that he shall not have a grant in connection with training in wireless telegraphy. I shall put their point of view in a moment, but generally their attitude is that a young man who has on his own initiative started this training, in which he has made good progress, and in which despite his disability he can be efficient, is not to be permitted to have a grant to pursue studies in wireless telegraphy.

The right hon. Gentleman wrote to me, as he always does, a very full and reasoned letter on the subject, and I desire to refer to it. In his letter of 26th November, 1948, he says: The short point is that there are, at present, persons qualified in wireless telegraphy who are finding it difficult to obtain posts and, for this reason, training under the Scheme for 2nd Class Postmaster-General's Certificate is confined to men who have served as radio officers in the Merchant Navy and hold only the wartime special certificate, and who wish to reenter the Merchant Navy. I think you will agree that it would be most unwise to encourage men to take a course of training for an occupation in which the prospects of employment after training are so remote. That raises two points. First of all, Mr. Wyatt does not consider that his chances of obtaining employment after training are remote. He is a very capable young man who has investigated this matter at considerable length and in considerable detail, and he has satisfied himself that provided he passes the course sufficiently creditably he will obtain employment. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that no young man in his senses is likely to undertake a difficult course with the prospect of obtaining no employment at the end of it. His Department think they know better. Of course, it may well be that there is some difficulty in placing people in this trade nowadays, but that is no reason why somebody who is already undergoing a course is not to receive a grant.

I concede that were we starting this matter de novo, were the right hon. Gentleman's Department advising this young man at the beginning as to what to do, they would not only he within their rights but would be doing their duty in advising him to take some other line, in which they thought it would be easier to obtain a post. But where one is dealing with a young man whose heart is obviously set on this particular training, who may set out on it and doing very well in it, then it seems to me that those considerations do not arise. His case is strengthened by the fact that he is on the Disabled Persons' Register, and therefore the right hon. Gentleman's Department will in any event be under an obligation to make special efforts to find him some employment in due course. That is, after all, the object of the Disabled Persons' Register.

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

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman acknowledges that. Where a young man has had the enterprise to train himself for something physically possible to him, in which despite his disability he is doing well, it seems wrong to refuse him the grant to which he is admittedly entitled simply because it is thought that at the end of the course he may have difficulty in finding employment, although he himself, the person most directly concerned, who has inquired at the college about vacancies and received what he regards as quite satisfactory information, is confident that he can find employment. Here again it seems that the Ministry is applying the scheme with that degree of restriction and oppressiveness which diminishes its benefit and value in particular and, in my view, very deserving cases.

I have gone on longer than I intended, and I do not desire to weary the House with further cases, although I suppose that there is not a Member of this House who has not had similar cases in his constituency. My plea to the right hon. Gentleman is this: Do not spoil this magnificent scheme—which I admit at once has conferred great benefit upon a large number of young men, and which has been of the greatest social value—by permitting a narrow and, in the worst sense of the term, bureaucratic attitude to be applied to its administration. I say quite frankly to the right hon. Gentleman that I feel that the two cases I have quoted still merit reconsideration, although I have, by correspondence and Parliamentary Questions, carried them as far as and perhaps further than the tolerance of the House would permit.

While I think that those two specific cases merit reconsideration, it seems to me that still more is reconsideration merited in the whole general administration of the scheme. I suggest that a greater willingness to accept the word of applicants as to their intentions, and a greater willingness to give freedom to applicants in training for the career of their choice, will greatly increase the value of the scheme, and, what is more important, will enable this country to make up in some small degree to the young men who have served her for what they have lost in time and injury in her service.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Swingler (Stafford)

I should like to say just a few words in support of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). With most of his views on Ministry of Labour questions I disagree, but I am very glad on this occasion to support him in this plea to the Ministry of Labour, and to take the opportunity of saying that I accent the answer he made to the question I put to him during his speech—an aspect which must be faced in a straightforward manner.

There are obviously great risks on both sides. What we are suffering under at the moment are what are no longer risks but certainties of hardship in particular cases, which are happening because of the restrictive conditions of the scheme. On the other side it is quite clear that if merely the word of the individual or parent were accepted as sufficient evidence, the scheme would then be open to abuse. We have to face that fact. It is quite certain that if no evidence that a beginning has been made of education or training for which the individual is applying had to be produced, then any ex-Service man could say that he had had the intention, which in fact he had not, to undertake a certain career, or to enter a university, or whatever it was, and the Minister of Labour would be bound to accept his word or that of his parents and allow a grant under the scheme.

Whilst I agree this is a magnificent scheme, the idea of which was magnificent in its inception, the trouble from the very beginning has been that the whole stress was on the question of interruption. That is borne out by the quotation made by the hon. Member from the speech of the Minister of Labour in the Coalition Government. To begin with, the object was simply to assist ex-Service men whose educational careers or training had been interrupted. The provision to deal with the prevention of education was then introduced, but the conditions laid down for eligibility made it very difficult to prove one way or the other whether or not a man had been prevented from undertaking a certain course of education or training. I wish that the thing had been settled very much wider than that, and that the right had been given to any ex-Service man who wanted to undertake some course of education to get a grant under the scheme and to undertake that course, without introducing the idea of interruption or prevention.

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames when he points out that these were men who had made a very definite sacrifice of years of their lives and separation from their families. They had a right to certain things to rehabilitate themselves in civil life on coming out of the Forces. Whilst the hon. Member was speaking, I had in mind a case in my constituency of a young man who was doing engineering work before the war, who went into the Army and was put into the Royal Army Medical Corps. While he was there he acquired an interest in chiropody, and when he came out of the Army, instead of going into his old job, he made the financial sacrifice of giving up his job to study chiropody. He applied under the scheme, but was turned down for any grant to assist him to go to the University of Birmingham to take a professional degree. He happened to be able, after a period of time, to obtain a grant from the county education authority. Cases of this kind could have been brought within these further education and training schemes.

I entirely agree that so far as administration of these schemes is concerned the grants and awards have mainly been made to those who could prove interruption, and they have not been made in other cases because there was no proof, although plenty of people knew the applications to be true. Therefore, a sense of injustice has been created among many who regarded themselves as eligible under the scheme. I wish from these Benches to support the plea that has been made to the Minister to carry out the administration of this scheme a little more generously, particularly in the kind of cases mentioned by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames.

9.2 p.m.

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn (Great Yarmouth)

I wish to add a few words to the plea that has been made by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). I thought that he made a very reasonable speech in terms which all must echo from their personal knowledge, from the knowledge of those things we are bound to pick up if we do our constituency work in any way approaching a model for this type of case. I can speak from my own experience of these things, and I appeal to the Minister to instruct his Department to interpret these rules and regulations in the widest possible way. I myself have been interviewed by some of these people, and I would not like the impression to get about that they do the thing badly. The experience of my constituents shows that the Ministry has on the whole handled the matter very well. That is shown by the experience of many of my colleagues who were in the Services, and by relatives of mine, all of whom have benefited and are now citizens leading a normal professional life. This work has been very good work indeed, but it is obvious that we do come across cases like those quoted by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames.

We have heard the word "abuse" mentioned, but I must confess that I cannot see any question of an abuse of these facilities arising. I cannot imagine a man who goes into the Services round about the age of 18 or 20 not having new ideas formed during his Service life. We hope that the period of Service will be a civilised thing, and that it will help to prepare these men to become responsible citizens later in life. It is obvious that if these boys travel to East Africa or other parts of the world, for example, their point of view is widened and they get wider interests, which can even change the ideas they have about the job they want to do in after life. I have seen that happen time and again. We should give every facility to let that development take place, because we shall get better citizens as a result. I gather from older friends that these regulations were interpreted in a much wider sense after the previous war.

I recall the case of one of my friends who went into that war towards its end. I do not think he had any settled ideas about a profession. At any rate, when he came out of the Army he had not the necessary qualifications for a settled profession, and so he decided to take up a textile course. He found that he could not use his textile knowledge, and so he went into some other activity. At the moment he is a member of a very learned profession in this City. It shows that that experience has helped to make him the man he is today was not useless. I could give further examples, such as a man who is now an eminent professor, whose life before entering the 1914–18 war was very humble compared with what it is today. We should give every facility to these people to widen their knowledge and to change their minds. If there is one in a thousand who abuses the privilege of embarking on several years of training for some profession or calling, then all well and good; he has not only wasted our time but he has also wasted his own.

9.7 p.m.

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

I am sure no one can complain about the manner in which this problem has been tackled tonight, and I thank the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) for giving me the opportunity to state to the House the exact position in relation to this very important matter affecting the lives of so many young men and women who have done their service in the Forces. I should like to deal first with two points raised later in the Debate. In the first place, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Swingler) is quite wrong when he says that prevention is not a condition for receipt of a grant. There are thousands upon thousands of cases where people have received grants because the war has prevented them from embarking upon training. Prevention is a condition for the receipt of a grant.

Mr. Willis (Edinburgh, North)

But in how many cases have people been refused a grant?

Mr. Ness Edwards

I suggest that hon. Members should wait to hear the story because they will then be satisfied that this Government and the country can take very great pride indeed in this scheme. It was suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Squadron-Leader Kinghorn) that there has been a very narrow interpretation and that the treatment is almost unsympathetic.

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn

I did not say that.

Mr. Ness Edwards

If one narrows the scheme, one is unsympathetic. I have met the officials who deal with these applications, and I have requested them to regard the file of every applicant, not as a file of papers, but as a young man or woman who has sacrificed much for the country whose future life will depend upon the decision that is taken. I have asked the officers to treat every one of these applicants as they would their own sons and daughters, and I am satisfied from experience that this is the manner in which they approach these applications.

As to the second point, it is an instruction to them that wherever there is doubt whether an applicant is within the scheme or outside it, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the applicant. That is an instruction to every officer dealing with these applications. In these borderline cases when it is a matter of individual merit and it is very difficult to obtain a 100 per cent. decision, these officers are approaching the applications with every sense of fairness and are trying to do what they regard as right for both the applicant and the country.

It is suggested that there is hardly any danger of abuse. I am sorry to say that even ex-Service men tell lies sometimes. I am afraid that a number of applications—though not very many—have been based upon fabrication and not truth. That is not the generality, but I am sure that the House would not agree to our deliberately and blindly throwing away the State's money to people who are not entitled to the benefits of the scheme.

My position in this matter is rather difficult. This was a very bold and imaginative scheme produced by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, when he was Minister of Labour, assisted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale), who was my predecessor. They laid down the terms and conditions which have to be applied. We are considering not a new scheme but something which was laid down in 1943 by the Coalition Government and accepted wholeheartedly by the House as satisfactory and just. It is that scheme which I have the responsibility of administering. Wherever possible, applicants are accepted for the scheme, even if it means stretching the rules a bit, but if they are clearly outside it, I should not be doing my duty to the House if I conceded grants to them.

I want now to look at the two schemes which have been mentioned. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames dealt with two schemes——

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Two cases.

Mr. Ness Edwards

And two schemes. He dealt first with the case of Mr. Wyatt. I am sorry to have to mention the man's name. In that instance, the hon. Member dealt with the case of the vocational training scheme. As the House knows, there is the training scheme for the industrial worker and the further education and training scheme in the academic section, and in between comes the vocational training scheme. Mr. Wyatt's application came under the vocational training scheme. It will be of interest to the House to know that in the last 18 months there have been only three cases of complaint under that scheme and only those three cases have been brought to our attention. The decision of the Department was reversed in two cases, and that means that only one case under the vocational training scheme which has been brought to our notice in the last 18 months has been rejected.

Unfortunately that is the case which the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames has raised. It is an important fact that this is the only case brought to our notice in 18 months which has been turned down, and I ask the House to realise that in those circumstances it is a record of which the Ministry has every right to be proud. It is a great thing that we can say that only one case is outstanding. It is true that Mr. Wyatt had a desire to become a radio operator. He is entitled to a grant and we have never refused him a grant, but what we say is that we ought not to give him a grant for a profession which is overcrowded and for an employment in which we have 85 men who have been trained and are still unplaced.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

How many of those 85 are on the disabled persons' register and are therefore entitled to priority in placing?

Mr. Ness Edwards

I cannot give the exact figure offhand, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that a considerable number of them are registered disabled persons. That was our position, and I advised the hon. Gentleman to try to persuade Mr. Wyatt to see the Department and find a type of employment for which he would like to be trained so that we could give him the maximum assistance. We are advised in these matters not by some civil servants living in ivory towers but by the advisory committees which were set up. The advice from the advisory committee on this subject is, "Do not train any more men for this type of job." We have therefore used the machinery to which this House is a party. Is it suggested that because I am pressed in an individual case like this I ought to turn down the advice—it is tantamount to a decision—of advisory committees set up, not by me, but by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epsom?

I have very great sympathy with Mr. Wyatt. We are prepared to give him a grant for training for any employment in which he is keen to take a chance but we should be wasting the country's money and deluding this young man if we assisted him to continue a form of training when there is very little hope of placing him in such employment. I am sorry that our copy-book is blotted by this one case over the last 18 months. I should have preferred to see it completely white.

I come now to the case of Mr. Ulrich, a case under the further education and training scheme, the upper reaches as it were. This young man left school when he was 14½ without taking his school certificate, without getting the basic qualification for the career for which he wanted to train. For 3½ years after that he did nothing at all to suit himself or to qualify himself to undertake training in the career which he now says was the career of his choice. Does the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames wish to intervene?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

This young man did the practical office work which, in his father's considered opinion, was a useful preparation. Also he attended night school, which the right hon. Gentleman did not say. He also fitted himself for service with the Armed Forces.

Mr. Ness Edwards

But he did nothing at all to qualify himself for the basic examination in all this time, and he had three and a half years in which to do it. I would not count that against him altogether, but it is a condition of the scheme that he must have the basic educational qualifications. I am being invited to break a condition of the scheme. However, as I say, I would not hold that wholly against him if he could say, "I discussed this matter with my school master" or "I discussed it with the head teacher of the night school." If he could produce evidence of that sort, it would be some independent evidence which would perhaps lead me to say that in this case the training had commenced and that it was really the war which prevented him from taking his basic examination.

However, I have had no evidence of that kind placed before me, and one must in such cases get some evidence of intention. In this case it is not so much interruption as prevention. If I could get some independent evidence that there ever was the intention, some fact to get hold of, it would be possible to do as I have done in other cases, where I have stretched the scheme to pull in those boys. Where the local headmaster has written to say. "This was the boy's intention, I discussed it with him before he left school," I have accepted that evidence. But to accept evidence four or five years afterwards—in this case much more—as to what was the intention seven or eight years ago, written now by the father, with not a single fact to support it as far as I can see, is asking too much. I should not be discharging my responsibilities to this House properly if I laid it down as a matter of principle that a father can write a letter to the Ministry saying that it was the intention of his son eight years ago to become a doctor or an architect, without the basic educational qualification, without a school certificate, without doing any organised studies leading to that certificate.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

The right hon. Gentleman has suggested this evening what I do not think he suggested to me in our previous correspondence, namely, the kind of evidence which he says might satisfy him; for example, from a schoolmaster or possibly—he did not suggest this, but I suggest it to him—from the firm with which the boy worked. I have not asked for such evidence because it had not been suggested to me that that was the sort of evidence required, and I do not say that it is obtainable, but if it is, will he even now reconsider it?

Mr. Ness Edwards

I am always prepared to reconsider any case in the light of new evidence from any hon. Member of this House. I have reversed decisions hundreds of times on the basis of new evidence. I do not want to invite hon. Members to submit that, but they have the right to do it, and they would only be doing their duty by their constituents if they did so. I give the assurance quite freely that if new evidence is brought on any case, not only on this case, I will reconsider the decision.

So that the House may know exactly what has been done, let me give some figures. Of all the applications since 1945, we have made 129,638 grants. The money spent on this scheme has been well spent, and it is a scheme of which this House has every reason to be proud. I heard some comparisons of what happened after the first world war with what has been done under this scheme, and I say to the right hon. Gentleman opposite and to those associated with him in the Ministry of Labour that, when they conceived this scheme, they conceived something which has proved a blessing to these 129,000 students in this country who have benefited so much from it.

Mr. Willis

Could my right hon. Friend say how many have been rejected?

Mr. Ness Edwards

I am coming to that. Of the 167,166 net applications, there have been awarded 129,638 grants. The rejections amounted to 33,402. Of the net applications 77 per cent. have had awards, 20 per cent, have been rejected and 3 per cent. are outstanding. When one has regard to the vast field covered, this is a highly satisfactory result. I was looking at the graphs today which show that the right hon. Gentleman started giving grants just after 1943. At that time a number of cases of men discharged on medical grounds came under the auspices of the right hon. Gentleman. The graphs show that the present percentage of rejections is not more than in those days when the right hon. Gentleman was dealing with cases of men turned out of the Army on medical grounds, and about which there was not such a passage of time over which to get evidence as to either intention or interruption.

In order that the House may be satisfied about the general procedure, let me explain it. An applicant applies to the appointments office in the region in which he lives, from whom he gets a decision. If that decision is against him and he writes a letter to the appointments office, his application is sent to the Ministry. The matter is then looked at again. The decision may be reversed or upheld. If the applicant writes a further letter to the Minister in disagreement, should the decision have gone against him, the case can be referred by the Department to the Reading tribunal, presided over by Lord Reading with the able assistance of Miss Florence Hancock, Professor Low, and a number of other people about whose sense of fairness there can be no complaint from either side of the House. In cases of very great doubt they make a decision one way or the other. I am prepared to submit the case of Ulrich to the Reading tribunal for their decision. That is one way.

In other cases the applicant puts his case to his Member, who writes to my right hon. Friend or to myself, and one of us sees the whole of the file relating to the case. In many cases, in view of new information contained in the letter from the Member, decisions have been reversed. Very often the Member knows what to say and the applicant does not. In other cases, of course, we confirm the decision. But whenever there is a genuine doubt, my right hon. Friend or I refer the case to the Reading tribunal. There is only one case, I think, in which a Member has communicated with us when we have refused to put it to the Reading tribunal, because we thought that we should be wasting the tribunal's time. Can anything be more obviously fair than that method of administration?

I assure the House, and do so without blushing, that if there is one job of which I am proud, it is the job we are doing here. We are giving young men a square deal under this scheme. I agree there might be a case for looking again at the scheme as a whole, but that would have to come before Parliament. The present scheme, however, has been accepted by the House and I know of nothing being administered by the Government more generously and humanely than is this scheme by the Ministry of Labour. I rest my case on that. We are doing a good job of work, something of which all of us, on both sides of the House, have the right to be proud.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I did not want to interrupt the Parliamentary Secretary, but there was something in his concluding words which I did not properly hear. Did he say that he had submitted the Ulrich case to the Reading tribunal or that he would do so?

Mr. Ness Edwards

I have made, in effect, two offers. First, I am prepared to listen to, or to consider, any new evidence which the hon. Gentleman cares to submit. Second, I am prepared to submit the case as it stands to the Reading tribunal. Perhaps he will let me know, when convenient, which course he would prefer. I want to do the right thing and not to be unfair to Mr. Ulrich. I do not want to penalise him. If he is entitled to this, he shall have it. If it means stretching the case a bit, let him have it. If the hon. Gentleman can give me any new evidence—which would be his best course—I am quite prepared to consider it.

9.34 p.m.

Mr. McCorquodale (Epsom)

I should like to say a few remarks as the right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to refer to me in most generous terms. The House is indebted to him for giving us a full explanation of how he is carrying out the scheme. I think the House in general will be satisfied with his explanation and grateful to him for giving it. It will help us all in dealing with applications in our constituencies. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it was well worth while my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) raising this matter and giving us the opportunity of this Debate. I think my hon. Friend can be well satisfied that, since he opened his case, the Minister has given him some grounds on which he can work. I trust that on reconsideration both cases will be admitted.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Austin (Stretford)

I hope my right hon. Friend will not find it inconvenient if I follow him. No discourtesy is intended, but I rose at the same time as he rose. I have shared the experience of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) who raised this subject in such reasonable terms tonight. I have had quite a number of failures and a very small minority of admissions into the scheme. The revelation made by my right hon. Friend tonight that there has been only one rejection in the vocational training scheme in the past 18 months came as a great surprise to me because, in endeavouring to keep up with the figures, I take the trouble to look at the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" and if my right hon. Friend is right, my views about rejections have been confined to the further education scheme only and not to the vocational scheme.

Mr. Ness Edwards

May I correct what may be a misapprehension? I referred to the vocational training scheme and to three cases brought to our notice at headquarters. I hope my hon. Friend will not confuse that with the further education scheme, details of which appear in the "Gazette."

Mr. Austin

That explanation makes me wonder whether it would be better to look up the files and bombard my right hon. Friend with applications for a second time. One point should not go unnoticed. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames referred to an applicant who had not taken the school certificate and, apparently, this disqualified him from the outset. Does it follow from that, that all who have taken the school certificate, which is a necessary basis, are automatically included as successful applicants? This is an important point and if that is so, I would suggest to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames that he should advise his student immediately to cram the school certificate as quickly as he can.

I wonder on what basis the Reading tribunal arrive at their findings. Do they arrive at their findings on a view of the correspondence, on the application made by the individual concerned, on the rejection and arguments adduced by the Ministry, or do they ask the applicant to make a further application in the form of an examination? I am wondering whether a tribunal whose findings are based only on previous written statements, are not being arbitrary in some way, and whether the composition and structure of the tribunal might not be strengthened if they included some preliminary form of examination by which they were able to decide whether the applicant has the necessary qualities for entry into a particular trade or profession.

I admit that there is a danger of abuse of this scheme if the Ministry leave it wide open to all who apply, purely on their application. No one is decrying the scheme. Those who have spoken have been unanimous in their praise of the scheme, but what they are all asking for is greater latitude and greater discretion in the entry into the scheme. Many trades and professions in this country are not yet fully manned and they are desperately in need of recruits. If only on those grounds, I hope the Minister will look at this again and try to make further provision for a wider field of entry from applicants from all over the country.