§ 44. Mr. Ness Edwardsasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why his Department, after consenting to a few days early release for an airman, whose name has been sent to him, to take up residence at college, subsequently only allowed an 2020 early release conditional upon the loss of a month's pay, a month's ration allowance, £8 clothing allowance and railway fare home.
Mr. WardFor reasons which I have explained to the right hon. Member in correspondence, this airman was not entitled, in the circumstances in which he was released, to discharge leave or the benefits which normally go with it. He was told that this would be so before his release was approved.
§ Mr. EdwardsIs not the hon. Gentleman aware that this young man was told in February this year that he could have his release to go to college and that, as he admits in his letter to me, the whole matter was badly handled at Command stage? Ought not this to have been avoided by giving the boy weekend leave to take up residence in college and then for him to have come back to serve the rest of his time in the Forces? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that it is a scandalous business to give a young man release a few days early and then penalise him to the extent of nearly £40? As the hon. Gentleman is going to another Department, and as it is Christmas time, could he not do the decent thing, and try to remove this scandalous stain on his Department?
Mr. WardThis airman's application was not approved until the end of September. Immediately before then he was interviewed by an officer of his unit, and it was explained to him that he would not be entitled to these benefits, and the man confirmed that he wished to go. There was no question of earlier consent or failure to make clear the conditions. However, as there seems to have been some misunderstanding in the matter, we have taken steps to see that, when a man puts in an application of this kind, it is made clear to him exactly what it entails and also that it is not definitely approved until he has something in writing.
§ Mr. EdwardsIs not the hon. Gentleman aware that in his own letter he admits that the situation was extremely badly handled? He has already put that in a letter to me. Further, is he not aware that this young man was told in February that release would be arranged for him to take up his college studies? Does the hon. Gentleman mean that this young 2021 man should forfeit twelve months of college life in order to satisfy the ridiculous demands of his commanding officer and the Department?
Mr. WardThis matter arises on a difference on fact between the right hon. Gentleman and myself. I assure him that my information is that the application was not approved until September, and therefore he is not entitled to think that it was approved in February.
§ Mr. StracheyWould not the Under-Secretary agree that in all three Services it has always been the custom to allow release in time to take up an educational course? That has always been done. Is he aware that to penalise a young man heavily financially is just the sort of thing which makes National Service intolerable?
Mr. WardThis man is a Regular, he is not a National Service man. The rules have not been changed. They are exactly the same as, I have no doubt, they were in the right hon. Gentleman's day. Of course, whatever rules are laid down —and we must make rules—there are bound to be some people who will fall just on the wrong side of the line. While I sympathise with this man, I must say that if we altered the rules to suit him, we should get into a muddle.
§ Mr. GaitskellIs the hon. Gentleman aware that we feel that this is a most unfair action on the part of the Air Ministry? We cannot see why this man should be deprived of a month's pay and a month's ration allowance and so on. Will the Minister intimate that he will have another look at the case? It is not a great deal to ask, and as he is leaving the Ministry, it would be a nice gesture on his part if, before he went, he could put this matter right.
Mr. WardThere is nothing that would please me more than to make a nice gesture before I leave. But this is a matter affecting all three Services. These rules are not peculiar to the Air Ministry. If we altered the rules for the Air Ministry, we should have to alter them for all three Services, and that is not a gesture which I can make now. These rules have been in force for a long time, and this is the first case of any difficulty which has arisen.
§ Mr. StracheyWould not the Under-Secretary agree that in practice this has never been done before in the Services? Certainly I do not remember any such case when I was at the War Office, and I do not remember any in the time of my successors. Will not the hon. Gentleman look into the question of there being any necessity to do this? I do not agree that there is any necessity, and I am sure that the rule could be applied quite agreeably.
Mr. WardSomehow or other we have to draw a line, and a line has been drawn. This man fell short of it by eight days. I agree that it seems hard, but there will be a lot of similar cases. We have to accept the fact that if we made an exception for this man, we should have to do it for everyone else. I am not prepared now to give an assurance that we should do that. There are implications in such a decision which go beyond the Air Ministry, as I have tried to explain. Certainly, I shall bring the matter to the notice of my successor and ask him to have a look at it, but beyond that I cannot go.
§ Mr. GaitskellCertainly there has to be a rule of some kind or another, but we have the impression that the rule has been harshly administered in this case. I ask the hon. Gentleman, who is now the ex-Under-Secretary of State for Air, to confer with his right hon. Friend the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the Treasury are also involved—and incidentally, we warmly welcome the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment as Leader of the House—to see whether something cannot be done to meet this case.
§ Mr. EdwardsIn view of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I shall refrain from attempting to raise this matter on the Adjournment—it would be the first time I had given such an intimation in ten years. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do the decent thing in this case.