HC Deb 27 June 1955 vol 543 cc159-68

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Colonel I. H. Harrison.]

10.1 p.m.

Mr. Norman Dodds (Erith and Crayford)

I am grateful that time has been allocated to me to enable me to deal with anomalies applying to National Service which could not be adequately dealt with at Question Time. The reason for this Adjournment debate on anomalies in National Service is my deep concern about the unsatisfactory answers given by the Prime Minister when I asked a Question on the subject last week. I refer to last Thursday, 23rd June, and the Question which I then put to the Prime Minister, as follows: MR. DODDS asked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the growing dissatisfaction at the way the National Service scheme is being operated because of the anomalies which exist; and if he will therefore cause an investigation to be held designed to ensure that this compulsory scheme will give the maximum confidence to the public and a greater degree of satisfaction to those who are required to serve. In a supplementary Question, I asked: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that there is deep concern that so many of the most active young men in this country are finding it possible to evade National Service? The important point is that in answer to the supplementary Question, the Prime Minister said: … I have read very carefully the series of Questions and supplementaries which have been asked in this House in connection with this matter for some time past, and I think that the particular case about which so much has been said is one where the verdict was clearly the correct one,…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd June 1955; Vol. 542, c. 1501–2.] If this Adjournment debate serves only one useful purpose it will be well worth while. I want to make it crystal-clear that it is not my concern whether or not a well-known cricketer is asked to do his two years' National Service, but it is my concern and the concern of many other people that if that well-known cricketer can be exempted because of his physical limitations no other man who is as bad or worse in the physical sense should be called up to serve in the Armed Forces. A yardstick has been disclosed, and it is essential that in this compulsory scheme it should be applied whether a man is a prominent athlete or not.

The substantial evidence that I have, which I am passing to the Prime Minister for his consideration—and I still ask for an inquiry into this scheme—shows an unsatisfactory state of affairs which cannot be allowed to continue. In one letter I have received it is summed up as follows: If he is not fit for duty, there must be hundreds of such fellows doing duty who have the perfect right to be out of the Services. Another extract from a letter says: Although I am a Tory, I have completed my National Service, I feel as you do that the whole principle of the National Service Act is at stake in this case. I have raised this question of the anomalies because great principles are at stake.

One important facet of the evidence is that many young men who perform fantastic feats of physical endurance do not seem to be well enough to share the burden of compulsory service. I have a long list of boxers, tennis players, jockeys, racing motorists, cricketers and footballers who so far have "dodged the column" in a most blatant way. In other words, there seems to be one law for the athletes and another for the not-so-athletic. I am sure that an inquiry would reveal a shocking state of affairs.

The public are concerned because of the way in which this evidence is getting over. On Saturday, 16th April, in an interview with Max Robertson on television, a well-known top-ranking tennis player was asked how he managed to play tennis while serving in the Royal Air Force. He replied that he was conveniently posted near London and was able to get away at 3 p.m. each day and at weekends in order to practise and play. Asked how the R.A.F. would react should he be chosen for the Davis Cup Team, he again replied that he thought that he would be allowed time off to play.

This sort of thing, going into the homes of people, often where mothers and fathers are quite happy that their sons, even with physical limitations, should attempt to do their bit in this compulsory service, only tends to upset, not only the parents and their relations, but the people in the Forces. I have many letters from people in the Services who feel that some are being excused duties when they are much more able in the physical sense to do them than these young men who have never achieved any great fame on the athletic field.

In many cases the men concerned are brilliant youngsters who have great academic honours and who in this great competitive age could do much good for the country if they themselves were being given some of the facilities which are afforded to the athletes. I think that if an investigation took place at Woolwich—I mean at the Royal Artillery depot—it would be found that quite a big percentage of men in the athletic field never move further away from London than Woolwich. All this seems to indicate that there is need for an inquiry into this aspect of our national life.

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, who knows that I have put these queries to the Prime Minister, will explain, when he replies—because the explanations so far given do not seem to be convincing—why in the case of the well-known cricketer his Department sent that man to the Royal Air Force. Was there any difference of medical opinion when he got into the Royal Air Force, where, it is suggested, he could not serve? Was it a fact that the Ministry of Labour gave the grading as Grade II(a) feet? If so, if that is an unacceptable grade, why was he sent to the Royal Air Force? We should clear up the question why there is this disagreement between the Ministry of Labour medical board and the Royal Air Force, which within a few days found that that man was not fit enough for service.

I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service to bear in mind that his Department is sending out many letters to men who are being called up, and about whom submissions are made that they are not fit enough. I quote a typical letter, showing what is going on: National Service Acts. I am writing in reply to your letter of"— there comes a date— regarding the medical grading of your son and to inform you that at the beginning of 1951 it was decided that the Services must make use of more men in the lower medical categories. Since May, 1951, men of certain medical assessments placed in Grade III have been considered available for call-up. If it is part of the policy to call up men who are in Grade III and to retain them, why are men of not such a low grade able to get out? I know of cases of men who are even Grade IV, men who would like to get out of the Services. Why are they being retained when other men of not so low a grade are able to get out—men who, afterwards, show by their physical achievements that they are probably very much better than other men who are retained? I have many cases I could quote, but time does not allow me to mention them all individually. I can mention only one or two as examples.

Many men who volunteer for the Royal Air Force are told that they will be accepted if they sign for three years, but, having signed for three years, they are told that they do not reach the medical standard required for Regular service. In that respect Grade II (a) feet is looked upon by the Royal Air Force as not being a suitable grade for overseas service. Yet young men of that grade, when compulsorily called up, are directed to the Army, and within three months find themselves posted overseas to Japan or Malaya. Why should one Service refuse men of Grade II (a) feet and then another Service not only accept them but even send them overseas to Malaya or to Japan?

In the case, for instance, of the well-known cricketer, he said he was only too happy to serve in National Service. Why, then, could he not be accepted for one of those jobs which Grade II and Grade III men have to do in the Army? Why, if people are happy in the Army, are they turned down or rejected even when they express a desire to be in the Forces?

It is not only a matter of the men with Grade II (a) feet. Here is another letter: My son has not only bad feet but has had chest trouble all his life and eye trouble which at times blurs his sight. When the ophthalmic surgeon who has treated my son for his eye heard he was in the Army doing his service he was surprised. A man with all those physical limitations is now in Cyprus. It is because of this yardstick which has been so prominently brought to the notice of the public that the parents of many of the boys feel upset, because they feel that their sons are not getting a square deal.

Last Wednesday, I asked in the House about a young man who, it is obvious, was not fit to be in the Royal Air Force.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward)

Who said it is obvious?

Mr. Dodds

It is my submission that it is obvious.

The yardstick for a well-known cricketer is that which we know. Another man who has been taken into the Service has two broken toes, a leg fractured in two places, no movement in the centre joint of his big toe, and walks with a limp. I would suggest that it is obvious that there is something wrong. This young man has been sent to Iraq. He has not even been kept in England to do his service. The answer to a Question I put last week was that he was being brought back to England.

Mr. Ward

It had nothing to do with his feet. He was brought back to this country because he is suffering from dyspepsia.

Mr. Dodds

That may be so but, in addition to trouble with his feet, he has other complaints which indicate that he should not be in the Service.

There is case after case of men being retained in the Services for no other reason apparently than that they cannot reach the top flight in athletics. It appears that the future of the country depends on being successful in athletics. Men who have great academic qualifications and whose services are badly needed in civilian life have not an earthly chance of being released if they are not also in the top flight in athletics.

In a case which arose last week, the Minister said in the House that the man in question was being discharged. I would have said that it was obvious that he should never have been in the Forces. That man has great ability. The British Standards Institution has accepted his plans for atomic shelters. He was engineer in charge of the building of great blocks of flats, yet for eight months attempts have been made to get him out of the Service, whereas a cricketer is in the Service for only a few days and is then released.

Mr. Ward

The case which the hon. Member has just quoted is one that I have been watching very carefully, as a result, not of representations from the hon. Member, but of representations from his own Member of Parliament, who happens to be our Chief Whip, by right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Buchan-Hepburn).

Mr. Dodds

That may be so, but the man's father has written to me to say, I do not know how to start thanking you for all you have done for me and my son. After months of trying to get him out, you have got him out in a few days and we owe you a debt of gratitude which we shall never be able to repay. Months and months of effort have been needed to get this man out of the Service, whoever got him out, but athletes are either not taken into the Services at all or are out in a few days.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air may be smiling tonight but I have a great deal of evidence from all parts of the country which clearly indicates that many people are deeply concerned. The Minister who now smiles cannot appreciate that sooner or later this will be brought home to him.

At the Co-operative Congress held recently in Edinburgh a delegate said that a son of his, a National Service man, had been informed that he would be sent to Germany instead of to Malaya if he signed on for seven years. That statement made quite an impression. His Member of Parliament has taken the matter up, and the War Office has admitted that that point was put to the man.

The father, who feels in this matter very much like many other fathers do, is trying to form an association which will have an organisation to concern itself with taking up anomalies of this kind and bringing them to notice in the right quarter.

He said: We have societies for the protection of dumb animals and wayward and backward children and this and that, so why not a protection society for National Service men? We have reached the stage where an inquiry is necessary to show either that these allegations or insinuations are totally unfounded or to make changes which will provide a deeper sense of justice and fair play all round, not only among the men who serve, but among parents, many of whom feel that their sons are not having a square deal.

10.20 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Watkinson)

It is a very good thing that hon. Members on both sides should occasionally give us the opportunity of looking at National Service. In fact, I do not think the House would be doing its duty if it did not keep this particular Service—which takes so many of our young men away from their jobs for two years—very closely under review. That is quite a different matter from making a lot of detailed observations on a number of cases which are quite microscopic compared with the number of men doing their National Service, and from those cases drawing broad conclusions which are not justifiable at all. I shall endeavour to answer as many of the broad conclusions of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) as I can in the ten minutes he has left me.

First of all, may I say that I am replying for the Government and that, whatever Questions the hon. Member may have put to or whatever answers he may have received from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, it is the Government's view that there is no reason at all for the kind of inquiry into National Service which he has been advocating. There is no growing dissatisfaction with National Service. Why? Because it is fair, and because it is the outstanding determination of my right hon. and learned Friend, of the Prime Minister and of all the Service Ministers that it shall continue to rest on the only possible basis of being fairly and equally applied between one man and another, whatever his calling, whatever his social background. Whether a man is good at tennis, cricket or football does not enter into it at all.

How do we apply the necessary medical and other tests that have to be applied? In any scheme such as this that takes in hundreds of thousands of young men there are bound to be specific cases where there is a conflict of medical or other evidence. I do not blame the hon. Member. I am very glad that he has raised this. As I have said, he is doing his duty in raising it, but we really must not draw broad conclusions on hundreds of thousands of young men from a very few specific cases.

Therefore, the first point I want to make—and I must make it for the sake of the parents of the men who are called up, and to show that those men are fairly and properly called up—concerns medical standards. The hon. Member— I think back in 1953—quite rightly spent a lot of time and energy in attacking the efficiency of the National Service medical boards.

Mr. Dodds

Will the Minister agree that I did get four young men from my constituency out of the Forces?

Mr. Watkinson

I think all of us in our constituencies endeavour to do our duty to our constituents—I do not regard it as more than my duty in doing other than that—but those four young men have nothing to do with the broad question of National Service as a whole. They may show the efficiency of the hon. Member as a Member of Parliament towards his constituents, but they have nothing to do with the broad question of National Service.

There is an appeal procedure from the National Service medical boards, and I think that it shows how fair they are when I say that out of some 300,000 medical examinations which have been made since the appeal procedure was started they have been only 2,671 appeals, or 0.8 per cent. of the examinations. Even in those appeals the original grading was confirmed in 42 per cent. of cases—and indeed in 11 per cent. the gradings were raised. That clearly shows that although everyone knows that there is this right of appeal—and it is very proper that there should be—the number of cases that go to appeal is fractionally small, and even in those cases more than half of the gradings are either confirmed or raised.

As an example of how easy and quite natural it is to fall into error, the hon. Member mentioned jockeys. They are quite a good example, because they are deferred for training, as I think they should be. If an apprentice in the engineering industry can get deferment, why not a jockey? As far as we are concerned, one trade is as good as another as long as there is a proper training scheme, and there is.

At the end of that two years' training a man is called up if he is found fit for service. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, with his great energy, could find some jockeys who, although apparently fit, have not been called up. The reason is that the smaller jockeys are the better they are for their trade and some do not measure up to the minimum height required by the Services. Therefore we cannot call them up however much we might wish to do so. That is a clear example of how easy it is to misjudge a man who is apparently fit and should have been called up, but yet cannot be called up because of a proper requirement on the part of the Service concerned. If there were time, I could give a great many examples of that kind.

The hon. Gentleman has made much play with specific cases. I understood that he was raising the general question, and therefore I am not proposing to reply to specific cases, except to say that again the medical requirements of differing Services are bound to vary. For example, the medical standard for a fighter pilot or, indeed, any pilot in the R.A.F. is bound to be very different from the medical standard of a man in the Royal Army Pay Corps who will do nothing but sedentary home duties. So again, if one tried to compare the medical standard of the man in the R.A.F. with the man in the Royal Army Pay Corps, while each is doing an equally useful job, there would be some odd comparisons if we tried to apply the medical test of one to the other. That is another reason why I am not prepared to answer specific cases in this House without a prior knowledge of exactly what is to be raised. We cannot generalise because, if we do, we are being grossly unfair to individual people. A lot of play has been made about racing motorists, for example. I will not go into those cases again, except to say that my right hon. and learned Friend and I are entirely satisfied that on proper medical grounds the action taken was correct.

I have applied the same test to the other gentleman mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I am satisfied there too after two consultants' examinations that the grading of this man was such that he should not have been retained by the R.A.F. Again, however, it is no use going into——

Mr. Dodds

Is the hon. Gentleman referring to the cricketer?

Mr. Watkinson

We are talking in generalities. If the hon. Gentleman has a specific case to raise, I will answer it, but only if I know exactly what I am dealing with. We can all be overenthusiastic. The Press—and I am only quoting the Press—claims that the hon. Gentleman even wants to get people out of the Army who want to stay in it. If he wants to do that, good luck to him, but we can be over-enthusiastic in these things.

Mr. Dodds rose——

Mr. Watkinson

I am sorry but I have not time to give way. For the sake of the hundreds of thousands of young men who do their Service, it is right that on behalf of Her Majesty's Government I should say that the medical tests are as accurate as medical science can make them.

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)

Would the Minister give way?

Mr. Watkinson

I am sorry but I cannot do so at this stage. We do not differentiate in any way—and we are the people who call up these boys—between them except on proper medical grounds, except on grounds of deferment, where they are entitled to it, except on grounds of their own choice of Service, which we give them as far as we can. Therefore while any hon. Member has a perfect right to raise individual cases, it is wrong to draw a general conclusion that National Service is either unfair or is bearing too hardly on one man as against another. It is for this reason that I, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, entirely reject any question of an inquiry as being in any way necessary under the circumstances.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.