HC Deb 06 April 1951 vol 486 cc610-22

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

4.3 p.m.

Mr. H. Hynd (Accrington)

I wish for a few moments to call the attention of the House to the release of ex-miners now serving in His Majesty's Forces. For some considerable time the House has been concerned about the supply of coal. As we fully realised that coal cannot be dug except by coal miners, the House gave its attention to the number of experienced coal miners now serving in the Forces. In December last, when I raised the matter in a Parliamentary Question, the Minister indicated, much to my relief, that this matter was under consideration, and we all awaited an announcement. The announcement came on 1st February when the Minister of Fuel and Power said, in the course of a debate on coal shortages: There has been a certain loss of miners, because men have enlisted in the Regular Forces of the Crown. The Services need these men, and, of course, they are doing a good job there, but, nevertheless, the importance of getting the coal we need for the defence programme and other things is so great that the Government have decided that ex-miners who have underground experience of at least six months, and who have joined the Forces on Regular engagements within the last two years, and who are ready to volunteer to return to coal mining in parts of the country where they are needed—that is to say, near their own homes—should be allowed to do so.… The Services are willing to excuse any Regular reservist from the call-up if he is certified to be a coal miner working underground."—[OFFICIAL REPORT; 1st February, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 1116–7.] We in this House are accustomed to try to read between the lines of official pronouncements and to analyse the exact meaning of the words in order to find out where the catch is in anything that looks like in acceptable pronouncement. The miners in the Forces, however, took this news as good news and as meaning that ex-miners with the necessary experience would be released. I confess that when I heard the statement in the House, it did not occur to me that there were certain limitations involved in the words "Regular engagements." In regard to Regular reservists, it subsequently transpired that it apparently did not mean Regular reservists in the normal meaning of the term, but reservists called up under what we call the Z scheme.

I had some correspondence with the War Office just after this announcement, and to my astonishment I found that the announcement made by the Minister had apparently been whittled down in the Department. Of course, the Minister must accept ultimate responsibility for whatever the Department does, but I seriously suggest that the Minister, having made the announcement, then found that his announcement was being subjected to all kinds of restrictions from the War Office. I had a letter from the War Office, dated 20th February, in which it was suggested that full details of the scheme had not yet been decided, but they would not be able to release men from National Service.

That was bad news, especially in view of the fact, as we all know, that miners are not called up for National Service. They are technically not exempt, but in actual practice they are regarded as not eligible, and they are not in fact called up for National Service if they declare that they are miners. In spite of that, we found that those who for some reason or another are in the Forces under National Service were not to benefit by this scheme. Perhaps I should put it the other way and say that the country is not going to benefit by having their services under this scheme.

A week later, on 27th February, in reply to Questions in this House, the Secretary of State for War said that there were only a few miners serving as National Service men. The point, of course, that I and others were trying to establish was that there were only very few serving as National Service men and, therefore, it would not cost the War Office anything to be generous and to release them as they were releasing other people. The Secretary of State said: There would be little advantage in giving these men the opportunity of returning to the mines."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 1913.] presumably because there were so few—an argument which I found it very difficult to follow. He went on to say that the scheme would apply only to those below the rank of acting sergeant on normal Regular engagements. He could not say whether it would apply to ex-miners serving in Korea and he could not give the numbers involved. The statement that he could not say whether it would apply to those serving in Korea seemed to signify that at that time, the 27th February, the War Office had not made up its mind on the details of the scheme announced by the Minister of Fuel and Power on 1st February. I suggest that there was something wrong there. That was the position on 27th February.

The next incident in which I was concerned, because I was busy following up some cases which had arisen in my constituency, was on 6th March, when again I endeavoured to find out how many National Service men were ex-miners of six months' standing in the industry. The reply I got from the Secretary of State was: We think that there are quite insignificant numbers of National Service men involved." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1951; Vol. 485, c. 221.] Again, he argued by implication that that was the reason they could not give way in regard to National Service men. I regarded that reply as quite unworthy of the Secretary of State. It seems to me to be no argument at all against the proposition put forward. Surely, if the principle had been accepted, it should have been paramount in his mind, and to split hairs as between various categories of Service men seems to me to be something that should not be done.

I received a letter later, on 15th March, from the Secretary of State in which he developed the argument a little further. He said: National Service men are not included in our scheme for the release of ex-miners from the Forces. I do not think that there is any illogicality in this. A Regular soldier who is an ex-miner can be regarded as one who has changed his career. We are now giving him an opportunity to go back to his original career, since in the opinion of the Government the need to build up a strong force of miners is paramount. National Service men, however, are men who, whatever their civilian careers, are called upon to serve with the Armed Forces for a limited period only, after which they revert to the careers of their choice. It is this distinction between a complete change in a man's career and the mere interruption of it which has led the Government to make the differentiation to which I have referred. I venture to make two observations in reply. The first is that when he referred to National Service men as only having an interruption of their careers, I would repeat what I said about the fact that miners are not normally called upon to serve as National Service men. Surely, if the Government recognised their importance to the extent of not calling them up, if by any chance they volunteered, or hid the fact that they were miners, or for any other reason got into the Forces, they are just as important and should be released to do what is admitted to be just as important work in the mines.

The second point to which I wish to draw attention is that if we talk about the difference between careers and the interruption of a career, what about the position of the Regular reservist? The Regular reservist is only having an interruption in his career because he has done his time in the Forces and is back working at his career in the mines. He has suffered a temporary interruption by going back into the Forces. Therefore, on the argument of the Secretary of State he is one of the people who ought to be released to follow his normal career. That seems to be about as logical as anything can be.

It has been very difficult to understand just exactly what this scheme now is. I have been unable to find out full details, but so far as I can get it from a negative angle, looking at these questions and answers, correspondence and announcements, I get the impression that it does not apply to National Service men, to Regular reservists, to those who joined before 1st January, 1949, to those of the rank of acting-sergeant or above, or to those serving in Korea or Japan. Perhaps, if these are not all the exclusions, the Minister will be good enough to add to the list.

As far as I can gather, looking at it from the positive end, it does apply to Regular soldiers, except those serving under certain specific engagements—Class C, which I understand means National Service men who have extended their service by six months, Class K, who are people on special engagements enlisting for Korea, Class N, which is a class of specified tradesmen who follow their normal trade in the Forces, or Regular reservists. It does not apply to any of these.

It applies to those below the rank of acting-sergeant. Anybody who has been smart enough to rise to the rank of acting-sergeant or above is unlucky and remains in the Services. It applies to those who enlisted after 31st December, 1948. They Lave to be up to a required medical standard with six months' underground experience in the mines and they have now to be serving outside Korea or Japan. After all that, they have got to be subject to acceptance by the Minister of Fuel and Power.

That limits the scope of the announcement very considerably indeed. I am unable to find to how many men this announcement actually applies. Perhaps the Minister can give us the figures. I suggest that the number cannot be large, and if the extension I have suggested were conceded, the number would not be very much larger. Apart from the position of the men themselves, I suggest that this is an example of how not to do things. Having made the announcement, the announcement should have been implemented in a generous spirit, and we should not start immediately to trim it and limit it.

It does not apply to Regular reservists. The Regular reservist is normally an elderly man, and therefore a more experienced miner. By implication, he would be a man who would be most useful if he returned to the pits. Therefore, why on earth it does not apply to the Regular reservist when it applies to the Regular soldier is something I cannot understand, but that is the ruling that has been laid down.

I gather from Questions which have been addressed to the Ministers in charge of the other two Armed Forces that similar restrictions apply there. Today we can only be concerned with the Army, because the Under-Secretary of State for War can only be responsible for the Army. I ask whether it is possible for him to say how many men have been released under these arrangements and how many would be eligible for release if the announcement were implemented in the spirit as well as in the letter?

I have two specific cases from my constituency which I should like to mention. One is a man who was a Regular reservist and an experienced miner. He did his war service and came back to the mines. As a Regular reservist he was recalled and has fought in Korea, but has been invalided to Japan. He has done his bit in the full sense of the word. Even he has been denied his release under these arrangements. That I think is carrying matters a little bit too far.

The other case is that of a man who had been a miner and got his call-up notice. He decided that he would go and get it over and not have National Service hanging over his head as a possibility until he reached the age of 25. Later on he might leave the mines or get married and would still have to do his National Service. He is now in the Army as a National Service man. When he read this announcement, he did not appreciate that there might be a catch in it, so he wrote to me to ask whether there would be release for him under the scheme. The answer is, no. There may he some technical reasons for it, but I fail to see them.

Even if there are technical reasons, I suggest that the overriding need for as many men as possible in the coal mines should be one of real consideration to the War Office, and that they should extend the scheme as far as possible. They are spoiling the scheme completely. They have caused unnecessary dissatisfaction without giving any benefit to the Forces since the number of men involved cannot be of all that use. On the other hand, every experienced miner we can get back into the pits digging coal will be doing a really good job for the country.

For those reasons, I appeal to the Under-Secretary to consider, even at this date, extending this scheme to apply to all ex-miners in the Forces with six months' experience who are willing to return to underground work in the mines.

4.20 p.m.

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

In replying to my hon. Friend I should like first to make clear what the scheme is, and how closely it is in conformity with the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power on 1st February. That announcement was quoted by my hon. Friend, and I would remind the House of the wording of it. My hon. Friend made great play with the idea that there had been some attempt not to observe the spirit of that announcement or to whittle it down. That contention will not bear examination. The words used by the Minister of Fuel and Power were these: the Government have decided that ex-miners who have underground experience of at least six months, and who have joined the Forces on Regular engagements within the last two years, and who are ready to volunteer to return to coal mining in parts of the country where they are needed—that is to say, near their own homes—should be allowed to do so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February, 1951, Vol. 483, c. 1116.] One does not need to be a Member of Parliament to understand what that statement means.

In the first place it must be clear to anybody who reads it that it does not apply to National Service men. The words are quite explicitly who have joined the Forces on Regular engagements within the last two years… My hon. Friend said that when he heard it did not apply to National Service men, it was bad news. Really it should not have been news of any kind to him. It was apparent from the moment the statement was made.

Again he referred to splitting hairs between different categories of Service men. It is not splitting hairs to distinguish between men on Regular engagements and men who were in the Forces in virtue of the National Service Acts. Once again, from the moment the statement was made, it was clear it applied to the one category, the men on Regular engagements, and not the other. One of the two examples quoted by my hon. Friend was of a National Service man who had previously been a miner. This man on reading the statement, he said, did not realise there was a catch in it. There is no catch at all. If the man read the statement he would have read the words, "who have joined the Forces on Regular engagements…". He could not at the time have supposed that the statement referred to himself.

I want to put the point clear beyond doubt that at no time has it been suggested that this scheme would apply to the National Service men and no one could have been under any misapprehension. There are two very small consequences that follow from that. There are men in the Forces on a Class C engagement which merely amounts to adding voluntarily six months to their period of National Service. The scheme does not apply to them either, but the number is small and, in any event, if they wish to return to the mines, it is merely a question of the unexpired portion of their six months. Once that is over, they will be able to do so.

Then there are the men on category N engagements. This engagement may be described as almost a replica of the ordinary National Service engagement. The total number of men on N engagements is very small indeed. We have then, in the C and N engagements, only an obvious and consequential extension of the principle that was clear from the start, that the policy did not apply to National Service men.

Another thing that must be quite clear to anyone reading the statement is that it could not apply to reservists because the words are: who have joined the Forces on Regular engagements within the last two years… Now a man who has joined the Forces on a Regular engagement within the last two years cannot possibly by now be a reservist. Again there is no question of having to read between the lines or of looking for a catch in the statement. It was quite clear that the statement could not include reservists.

From that there arose a really difficult problem. Men on Reserve who have been recalled and are now serving in Korea are naturally concerned and even distressed by the fact that the National Service man in Korea goes home without fail when his time is up, that the greatest care is taken to see that the National Service man leaves Korea in time to be discharged in this country within the statutory limit. Meanwhile the Reservist must remain and serve in Korea for a period of between 12 and 18 months after his recall, sometimes even after the date of his Reserve liability has come to an end. That situation creates a certain amount of dissatisfaction in the minds of Reservists.

Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)

Bring them both home.

Mr. Stewart

My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is now asking, not for the implementation of this scheme, but for something quite different. Here we have a scheme which from the start was not to apply to reservists. In justice to the natural feelings of the reservists in Korea, to allow other men serving in Korea to return home and be discharged from the Forces was a matter that required careful consideration. The right answer was given that the scheme should not apply to men serving in Korea.

It does not apply to men who have reached the rank of sergeant or above. That, I agree, is not contained in the statement by my right hon. Friend, but the Minister of Fuel and Power made it clear that the men concerned must have volunteered within the last two years. Very few such men would have reached the rank of sergeant or above; the numbers must be extremely small. The reason for the exception is obvious. Those concerned are clearly men with a real enthusiasm and a gift for soldiering. The injury that would be done to the Forces by their going would be out of all proportion to any advantage that might be conferred on the mining industry.

The scheme applies to men with six months' experience in the mines who joined the Army on Regular engagement within the last two years. It does not apply to men on C and N engagement or to men serving in Korea, or to men who have reached the rank of sergeant or above. That is the scheme as it is now being operated, and it does not in any way depart from the statement made by my right hon. Friend. There is no breach of faith in either letter or spirit.

Having made that point clear, that the policy we are pursuing is the policy that was announced, let me now examine the question of whether it is the right policy and what are the reasons for excluding National Service men and reservists. To deal first with National Service men, there is a fairly strong general argument for not increasing the number of ways in which a man might escape—if that is the right word—National Service. Already the ways in which a man may for some reason or another not do National Service are watched rather jealously by those families in which there is a son who has to go and do National Service. There is always that consideration against increasing the number of ways in which National Service may be avoided. In addition, there is the reason which was explained to my hon. Friend by the Secretary of State. The National Service man will, at the end of his period of service, be able to return to mining. What we were trying to do by this scheme was to enable men who wished to do so to make a real change of career from soldiering to serving in the mines. That is what we have done.

I turn to the exclusion of Reservists. We must remember that great as are the needs of the mines the needs of the Forces are also great, not only for numbers but for experienced men. My hon. Friend said that the Reservist who after leaving the Colours has been in the mines is an experienced miner, and is of special value to the mining industry. But the Reservist is, in view of his past experience, also a more experienced soldier. If he would be more valuable in the pits he would also be more valuable to the Army. What makes this question difficult is that we are balancing against each other two services which are vital to the nation, the Armed Forces on the one hand and the mining industry on the other.

I would not now discuss all the comments made by my hon. Friend about the importance of service to the nation through the mining industry. But he must admit that service to the nation through the Armed Forces is, at the present time, of equal value, and that the Armed Forces, as well as the mines, are still faced with the problem of shortage of men particularly shortage of experienced men. There was good ground, therefore, for not extending this scheme to reservists. I would add that we have in one respect gone further than the announcement; that we are not now calling up any man who is on the Reserve and who is at the present time working in the mining industry. To that extent we have actually gone further than the terms of the statement by my right hon. Friend.

I have tried to make clear that the policy we are pursuing is the same as that originally announced, and that there were good reasons for the policy being what it is. Now as to actually carrying it out. We have been most anxious, the policy once decided, to make sure it should not be frustrated by any defect in administration. The announcement was made on 1st February. On 23rd February the War Office had issued instructions to units. The same course was proceeded with by the Admiralty by 27th February, and the Air Ministry by 3rd March. Any man who comes within the terms of the statement and instructions may make application. His application may in no circumstances be withheld. All such applications are forwarded to the National Coal Board. They have to decide whether the man can be profitably used in the mining industry and whether his physical health will make him useful, but that is a matter for the Coal Board to decide.

As to numbers, I cannot at present say what are the numbers making such application or who have so far been released. It is possible that within the last two years something like 6,000 ex-miners have entered the Forces on Regular engagements. From that we must make the minor subtraction of men who may be in Korea or who have reached the rank of sergeant or above. Then we may get somewhere near the figure of the total of those who may make this application. In general, this scheme does not attempt to be a solution of the manpower problem in the mining industry. It is simply a modest and reasonable contribution towards solving that problem. Because the need of the Forces for men, and experienced men, is very great the contribution which the Forces can make to solving the mining industry problem is necessarily limited. I suggest we have made it in the terms of the statement.

The Question having been proposed after Four o'Clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-seven Minutes to Five o'Clock.