PART-TIME NATIONAL SERVICE (Hansard, 3 April 1950)

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

I beg to move: That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Regulations, dated 6th March, 1950, entitled the National Service (Part-time Service) Regulations, 1950 (S.I., 1950, No. 308), a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th March, be annulled. In the few minutes which will elapse before this Business will be interrupted to deal with the affairs of the London County Council, I hope that I can give hon. Members the intentions of the movers of this Motion. The Minister of 930 Labour will recall that when the National Service Act was going through this House, he and his colleagues were warned by a number of my hon. Friends that the important powers given to him and his colleagues over the lives and well-being of a large number of young men would be submitted to the strictest scrutiny by hon. Members of this House. I am perfectly certain that hon. Members on all sides, of the House will agree that the exercise of these immensely important powers is a very proper subject for Parliamentary scrutiny. I might perhaps add in parenthesis that it is a little curious that the members of the Independent Liberal Party, who believe themselves to be such champions of people called up for National Service, have not found it convenient to be present during this Debate.

The intention of this Motion is to obtain from the Minister of Labour a clarification of these particular regulations, which, as hon. Members will be aware, deal almost entirely with the very necessary subject of regulating the impact, of part-time service upon the employment and arrangements of a number of young men, when, having carried out their full-time service, they pass to the second stage under the National Service Act—their compulsory part-time service. These regulations have been laid at a very timely hour, since, as hon. Members are aware, the first of the men to be affected by them will pass into that phase of National Service during the coming summer.

I hope it may be possible to deal with these Regulations by what I might describe as an interrogatory rather than an aggressive method. The purpose of my hon. Friends and myself is simply to ascertain from the right hon. Gentleman the precise significance of certain passages in these Regulations, and also to suggest to him, for his consideration certain defects, which, though perhaps secondary in importance, are none the less to some of us blemishes upon the Order.

In the first place, I would invite the right hon. Gentleman's attention to Regulation 1 (4). I will read the words: Any reference in these Regulations to a form set out in the Schedule hereto shall include a reference to a form approved by the Minister substantially to the like effect. That is, though a small thing, in some degree an abuse of the power of delegated legislation. What we are asked to do 931 by these Regulations is to approve the forms, and those forms are of some importance, in the Schedule to the Order. Then after the House of Commons has approved them, the right hon. Gentleman will have power to issue them in a different form provided only that they are substantially to the same effect. As I understand it, it is a question for his opinion, not the decision of any outside body, as to whether or not those forms are substantially to the like effect. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman and through him to his Department that when Parliamentary sanction is sought for the exercise of delegated power, the House should not be asked to approve one form and then that the form should be varied, but that the Minister and his Department should make up their minds what form they want and get Parliamentary approval for it. That is a secondary point.

I should like to pass to a question which is of greater importance. Under Regulation 3, provision is made for the procedure to be followed when a man desires to come to the re-instatement committee to obtain compensation, his employer having dismissed him because of his liability to part-time service. His power to go to the committee is provided by Section 51 of the National Service Act, 1948, and I am perfectly certain that all hon. Members regard it as right and proper that if an employer behaves so badly as to dismiss a man because of his liability for part-time National Service, it is right and proper that that man should have a right to compensation.

It will be seen that the right of that man to proceed for compensation can only be exercised if he starts those proceedings within 42 days of the matter arising, subject to one further condition—that if the chairman of the reinstatement committee thinks there is good cause for granting a further extension then he can do so. That means, generally speaking, that a man who is wronged in this way has got to start his proceedings within the 42 days.