§ 6. Mr. Redmayneasked the Minister of Labour what percentage of men eligible for enlistment in the war 1939–45 were exempted on grounds other than medical; and how many of such exempted men are estimated to be under 30 years of age today.
§ Mr. BevanIt is estimated that about 40 per cent. of the men registered under the National Service Acts during the war were deferred on industrial grounds, of whom about 400,000 are now under the age of 30. This includes a proportion of men who would have been rejected if they had been medically examined. 1909 About two-thirds of these were employed in coalmining, agriculture or the Merchant Navy, and most of the remainder were key men in the engineering and metal industries.
§ Mr. RedmayneIn view of the fact that these numbers are something like half the Z reservists under 30, what is the availability of those men for military service?
§ Mr. BevanThe hon. Member seems to have misunderstood the purpose of the additional training. It is to give a refresher course to people who have already received some training.
§ Mr. RedmayneThat is understood, but, at the same time, is there not also the long-term policy which the Minister must consider?
§ Mr. BevanThen these men would be among those who would be over age and they would not be called up.
§ 19. Mr. David Rentonasked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to ensure that men who were exempted from military service for the whole, or most of the period, from September, 1939, until July, 1945, through being in reserved occupations, but who are now still under 40 years of age, will be called upon to take their fair share in the defence of their country during the next three years.
§ Mr. BevanSome of the men to whom the hon. Member refers were called up after July, 1945, and are liable as Z reservists to recall. With regard to the others, I have no power to call up men over the age of 26.
§ Mr. RentonIs the right hon. Gentleman trying to create an un-military caste? Why not fair shares for all?
§ Mr. BevanHon. Members really ought to try to bear in mind what we are trying to do. These tendentious questions, based upon a misunderstanding, give rise to more misunderstanding.
Mr. Charles Ian Orr-EwingThe right hon. Gentleman has, in answer to three Questions, said that he is only calling up highly trained people, but I have details of a case where a person has received 13 days' training and is now 44 years of age. Does it not seem a little unfair that such people should be called up while those 1910 to whom my hon. Friend has referred are disregarded?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterCan the Minister say on what he founds his statement that he has no power to call up any man over 26, in view of the fact that his predecessor based his decision to that effect purely on policy and not upon lack of power?
§ Mr. BevanThe Question relates to the next three years, which we must assume to be years of peace. The call-up is governed by the National Service Act. under which liability ceases at 26.