§ The Minister of Labour (Mr. Edward Heath)I will, with permission, Sir, make a statement about the arrangements for call-up to the Forces in 1960.
It has already been announced that there will be no further call-up after 1960 and that men born on or after 1st October, 1939, will not have to register under the National Service Acts. The needs of the Services for National Service men during the remaining period of call-up have, therefore, to be met by men born in or before September, 1939. Most of those concerned will be men who have had their call-up deferred to complete their training or studies, so as to become skilled workers or obtain professional or academic qualifications. The remainder will be largely men born in the third quarter of 1939, because men in earlier age groups who did not receive deferment have almost all been called up already.
It is now clear that the number of men whose deferment is due to end in 1960, and who will become available for call-up, is likely to be appreciably larger than is required. The Government have, therefore, decided that men whose deferment for training or study ends on or after 1st June next will not be called up. The great majority of the men affected by this decision will be apprentices, but university students and men taking professional qualifications will also be affected. The decision will also apply to men granted a period of post-apprenticeship deferment under the special scheme for certain work of high priority.
Men whose deferments expire or are terminated before 1st June, 1960, and those who have not been deferred, will continue to be called up for service in the ordinary way. In addition, men whose call-up has been deferred for so long as they remain in their present employment such as coal miners, members of the Merchant Navy, or secondary school teachers, and men who have had their call-up postponed on the ground that it would cause exceptional hardship, may expect to be called up if their deferment or postponement finishes before the end of 1960. The special arrangements for doctors and dentists are unchanged.
1049 I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of the classes affected. Those concerned will be informed individually in the next few weeks.
§ Mr. RobensWe are greatly obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for clearing up this whole question of the call-up—now that we are reaching the end of it—and I am sure that he will understand that we will want to look at the details when they have been printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and will then probably want to put one or two questions on individual classes.
In the meantime, will the right hon. Gentleman clear up the question of the people on deferment? As I understood from his statement, those who are deferred by reason of study or training on lst June will not be called up at all, but what about those who are deferred on hardship and other grounds? Are they to be included in the category not called up on 1st June? In other words, will all those who are deferred for any reason whatever not be called up if they have not been called up by 1st June?
§ Mr. HeathAs the last part of my statement indicated, those men who have been deferred because of their employment, in particular the classes I mentioned—coal miners, members of the Merchant Navy, secondary school teachers, and those in agricultural employment—will be called up if they leave their employment before the end of 1960 and have not reached the end of the age of liability, which is normally 26 years. The same thing applies in the case of hardship, but those postponed on hardship grounds can, of course, apply for an extension during that period up to the end of 1960.
§ Mr. G. BrownWill the Minister say, having reached this decision, what is the size of the Army that the Government have decided on? Is it the 185,000, or the 200,000?
§ Mr. HeathThe actual size of the forces is, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence, but these figures will allow us to meet the needs of the Services for National Service men during 1960.
§ Major Legge-BourkeCan my right hon. Friend say whether there will be an opportunity for those who are at 1050 present deferred for reasons of agricultural employment, and whose deferments run out, to reapply for deferment until National Service itself runs out altogether?
§ Mr. PrenticeWill the right hon. Gentleman make clear the position of those deferred on hardship grounds? It seems to me that there will be a case now for reviewing all those with short-term postponement and, in the majority of cases, probably extending it beyond 1st June, 1960, and so excluding them altogether. Will the Minister also ask his officers to take a very sympathetic view of all categories? I am thinking of fathers with young families, or men maintaining widowed mothers or other dependent relatives. It seems to me that in the position to which he now refers we should exclude all the men in those categories.
§ Mr. HeathWhen their postponement on grounds of hardship ends they are able to apply for further postponement in the usual way to carry them on for as long as is justifiable, but it would not, I think, be fair to give an automatic postponement, or to wipe out their liability for call-up, because some young men are still being called up. In fairness to them, we must continue the hardship procedure.
§ Mr. ChetwyndCan the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how many men he wants, and how many are available in the pool over and above those on deferment or whose deferment has expired? In view of the improved conditions in the world, would it not be better to scrap National Service at the beginning of 1960, and devote the whole of the energies of the Government to increased voluntary recruitment to get these numbers?
§ Mr. HeathAfter this announcement, the number of men remaining in the field for call-up will probably be about 60,000, to provide those required for the Services during 1960—
§ Mr. ChetwyndAll of them?
§ Mr. HeathYes, all of them, as far as we can see at the moment. It is, therefore, not possible to wipe out National Service in the way that the hon. 1051 Gentleman suggests. The total number who have received deferments in one way or another is now about 300,000, but 140,000 of those are deferred for reasons of their employment, and 150,000 by reason of apprenticeships or studies. The deferment of a very large number of those 300,000 extends past the end of 1960, so they would not be called up in any case.
§ Mr. BellengerCan the House take it from the right hon. Gentleman's announcement that he consulted his Service colleagues, and that they are satisfied that they can get their requirements from Regular enlistment and do not need National Service any longer?
§ Mr. HeathThe figures I have given allow sufficient National Service men to meet the needs of the Services in 1960.
§ Mr. ShinwellDoes not the Minister realise that the question put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) is very relevant—that it is not a matter for the Secretary of State for War or the Minister of Defence, but for the Government? As the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for the call-up of men for National Service, will he relate what he has announced to the House to the numbers of men required for the three Services? For example, in the case of the Army, is it related to 165,000 men, or to 185,000 men, or to 200,000 men? When we know the specific number required, we can understand what the right hon. Gentleman is talking about.
§ Mr. HeathOf course, it is a very relevant figure, but what we are dealing with here is the number of National Service men for whom the Services are asking during the coming year. These 60,000 men are sufficient to meet the needs of the Services and, of course, we have allowed a slight margin.
§ Mr. G. BrownI must press the Minister on this. What are the needs of the Army? Does the Army require 165,000, 185,000, or the 200,000 figure that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Head) said was absolutely essential? What are the Army's needs?
§ Mr. HeathThe right hon. Gentleman must put any question as to the actual structure and size of the forces to my 1052 right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence.
§ Mr. BrownWith respect, Mr. Speaker, we do not choose which Minister makes a statement. Is it not the fact that if a Minister, on behalf of the Government, makes a statement, it must be assumed to have been made after the Ministers have done the sums? I am asking the right hon. Gentleman what answer they have arrived at, having done the sums? Is it not a fact that if he does not know the answer the sums must be regarded as invalid?
§ Mr. HeathNo, Sir. To meet Services' needs a field of about 60,000 National Service men will be required in 1960, and this is the arrangement that we have made to meet the demand.
§ Mr. PagetIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that, necessary as it has been in the past, the calling up of young married men with young children is apt to create, both in the present and in the future, very grave social problems indeed? Now that the need for men is not the same, will he include that category in the class of those who can have a compassionate postponement which, in present circumstances, will amount to no call-up?
§ Mr. HeathI appreciate very much the difficulties that arise in those cases. Of course, marriage and children in themselves never were grounds for postponement, but any hardship caused by National Service in those circumstances was. On 12th May last, all the authorised officers were circulated by my predecessor, who asked them to give particular and sympathetic attention to such cases. I have been watching those cases very carefully, and I am again circularising all the authorised officers, emphasising this point to them.
§ Dr. KingAs the Minister's statement is of especial importance to men serving in the Merchant Navy, particularly as there is a disparity between the respective dates of the deferment allowed, will he see that a clear statement of all the applications of the statement gets to all the ships of the Merchant Navy?
§ Mr. G. BrownThe Minister has made an announcement the significance of which we all want to take into account. 1053 Has he been told by his colleagues what is the total figure that the Services want to achieve? Has he been told why they deduce that 60,000 more is enough? If he has been told, why will he not tell the House?
§ Mr. HeathBecause I do not think that this is an occasion for entering into discussion about the various strengths of the three forces.
§ Mr. ShinwellDoes the right hon. Gentleman not realise that he is missing the point entirely? He said that we want 60,000 men in a stipulated period. What is that related to? What is the objective for the Services? If we do not know that, we do not know whether 60,000 men is too many or not enough. Would he be good enough to let us know before the Christmas Recess what the 60,000 men required relate to?
§ Mr. HeathI am always anxious to give the House all the information that I can. What the statement relates to is the fact that a field of 60,000 National Service men is required by the services and that this is the way in which they are to be obtained.
§ Mr. SpeakerAs usual, there are great difficulties about debating a matter on a statement when there is no Question before the House. There will be an opportunity to debate part of this problem on Thursday.
§ Mr. ShinwellOn a point of order. Do I understand that you will provide facilities for us on Thursday to enable us to debate this matter, Mr. Speaker? So far as I understand, the programme of, Adjournment debates for that day is arranged and there is no provision in it for debating the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman; but if we understand that provision is to be made we shall be only too glad to point out the defects of the right hon. Gentleman's statement.
§ Mr. SpeakerNo; I am sorry if I misled the right hon. Gentleman or the House in any way. I was wrong in my recollection, for which I apologise.
§ Mr. HeathPerhaps I may mention, Mr. Speaker, that one of the Adjournment debates allocated for Thursday is in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), about a particular aspect of National Service, which is the call-up of married men with children
§ Mr. PeartOn a point of order. Would it be in order, Sir, for me to ask the Minister to tell me to which Services the 60,000 men are to be allocated?
§ Sir T. MooreThat is not a point of order.
§ Mr. LiptonBut it is a good question.
§ Mr. SpeakerNo. There is a difficulty in debating these matters when there is no Question before the House. What I was referring to when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) asked me a question was the period of 45 minutes which has been allotted among the Christmas Adjournment debates relating to the call-up of men with dependent children. It is to that section of the problem to which I was referring.
§ Mr. G. BrownFurther to that point of order. Are you saying, Mr. Speaker, that it will be in order—we shall be delighted if it is—in that debate, which is likely to be a very narrow one, to raise the question of the size of the forces which the Government have decided they ought to have?
§ Mr. SpeakerNo. I am not saying that. I should be surprised if any words I had uttered, even inadvertently, gave rise to that implication.
§
Following are the details:
Men liable for National Service whose call-up is deferred as below and whose deferment is due to expire on or after 1st June 1960 will not be called up.