HC Deb 17 December 1959 vol 615 cc1689-704

1.39 p.m.

Mr. Frank Allaun (Salford, East)

I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary has had any talks recently with National Service men. If he has, he has probably learned that the married men doing their National Service tend to become a community apart. They are so preoccupied with all the worries about their wives and sometimes about their children, wondering how their wives are managing without them, that they become cut off from their fellows. If the men are so upset, how much more upset must their wives be when they are left alone, literally to carry the baby.

Last week, the Secretary of State for War told me that he estimated that 1,200 men had been released on compassionate grounds in the last year. I am concerned about those who have not been released and, even more, about those who are still being called up. It does not apply only to married men with young children. Some National Service men who are called up leave behind widowed mothers living alone or with young children. It is a striking thing that people are tending to marry very early nowadays. Out of 143,000 National Service men, roughly 19,000 are married men. Many of them have young children. The number of those with widowed mothers living alone is not known, but it must run into many thousands. I am absolutely certain that very real hardship is arising. I know that because dozens of cases have been brought to my attention in my constituency of Salford, East, and I am certain that there are other cases about which I never hear. If all this hardship is arising in one half of a city in one constituency, it is fair to multiply that by 630 to cover the hardship throughout the country. Many hon. Members have told me of cases arising in their own constituencies, and I am sure that the Under-Secretary is inundated with cases.

I will tell the House about one case which arose last month. It concerned a 21-year-old mother, Mrs. Dorothy Beckett, the wife of a ship's rigger at Salford docks. This couple, both aged 21, have a baby aged 2 and a baby aged 1. They are living in one of the worst housing areas in Salford, which is saying something. They live in a house without a bath, hot water or inside toilet, and it needs a man in the house to keep the elements out. The girl's mother used to live in the same street, but has now removed. If the man is called up, the girl will be left alone to cope with two babies.

Recently, there has been some relaxation by the Ministry, for which I am grateful. It was stated that exceptional hardship was at least likely to arise in the category of a National Service man with a wife and baby. How much more likely is it to arise when there are two babies to look after? This was a cast-iron case. The man applied to the Military Service (Hardship) Committee, but was turned down. I regard this as utterly intolerable. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor), who shares a desk with me in the typing room upstairs, told me when I mentioned it to him that he had an identical case with two young babies. These men are not volunteers. They are conscripts, and it is peace-time.

I can quote a number of hardship cases in Salford, but I am sure the same thing is happening in other constituencies. I remember one couple coming into my advice bureau, the father and the mother each carrying a sleeping child. The mother was finding it impossible to cope with the kiddies in her husband's absence. The bills and the debts were mounting. She was going frantic with worry. The young man had been absent without leave three times to get back to help his wife.

I remember being asked to meet another National Service man at 10.30 at night in the dark on a street corner in Salford. He was "on the run". The police were after him. He had gone home to be with his wife and children. I advised him to catch the midnight train back to his barracks, which he reluctantly did. I know another case where the man had been absent without leave six times to be with his family and had spent a considerable period in the Army gaol in consequence. I am told that at one barracks not 100 miles from Manchester there is a constant service of taxis in which men who have been absent without leave are taken back to barracks.

I wish now to tell the House about cases of widowed mothers being left alone. The first is a case of a father dying of cancer of the liver. There was a doctor's certificate to that effect. The mother had an internal operation and had been told by her doctor that she must not lift her husband from the bed on to the commode. There was also a young daughter of 11. I tried to get the National Service man a compassionate discharge, but failed. I tried to get him compassionate temporary release and failed. The most that I could achieve was to get him moved to a barracks near his home. The father subsequently died and the mother was seriously ill. Despite that, the authorities would not release the young man from the Forces.

I received the following letter from another widowed mother: I have written to the deferment board and they are as hard as nails. When I asked how I can live on my widow's pension I am informed I can apply for a grant. That grant is National Assistance. I shall refuse it. My heart is not too good and recently I had an operation on my arm because I lost the use of my right hand. I am supposed to have another on my foot. At 62 one cannot face up to things as you can when you are younger. This week I received another letter from a soldier's wife with a young son. She said that her husband's call-up had forced her to sell their home because she could not keep up the mortgage instalments and meet her mounting debts. She wrote: The heartbreak of having to break up the first home I ever had got my nerves had, and the doctor attending me advised my husband not to leave me on any account. It is nearly impossible to get lodgings with a child. Please help me to save a once happy marriage. I have learned from bitter experience of these cases that no consideration is taken of financial hardship because it is said that hardship grants are made. What do they amount to? For a widowed mother with two young children, including the soldier's allotment of 10s. 6d. and rent allowance, it amounts to five guineas a week for the mother and two children. Take the case of a National Service man who has finished his apprenticeship, as mostly they do, and is earning a man's wage of, say,£13 a week. That is not a fortune on which to bring up a family. If he is called up, the maximum the family will get, including the grants, family allowances and all other things, is£8 a week. That is a mighty drop in a family's income. It is not true to say that no financial hardship arises in that case.

I wish to mention an aspect which is generally ignored. It is wrong to separate men and women at that age and in that way. This sexual separation is unnatural. How much heartache is involved when the man is sent to the other end of the country or perhaps the other end of the world? How many happy marriages are broken up in consequence? It may be said that this is a sentimental argument, to which I reply "So what?" Is the only consideration to be the needs of the military? Are not human needs also to be considered?

The Minister may also say that in wartime, when Hitler is at the gates, such sacrifices are made. That is certainly true, but Hitler is not at the gates, and many of these men are wasting their time in square bashing, potato peeling or just doing nothing.

The total number in the Forces at the moment is 565,000. Of these, 143,000 are National Service men. We all know that by December, 1962—and not before time—all the National Service men will be out. The total is then to be 375,000, which is 190,000 fewer than the present total. That means that if every National Service man were discharged today there would still be in the Forces 47,000 more men than would be required in December, 1962. A great relaxation is, therefore, possible, but I regret to say that it is not being made.

In May of this year the Parliamentary Secretary's predecessor was good enough to receive a deputation consisting of my on. Friends the Members for Stocktonen-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd), Newton (Mr. Lee), and Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) and myself. He received us most sympathetically. We told him that two years earlier the then Parliamentary Secretary had said —and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for quoting, because I do not want to err: … there are certain classes of cases where exceptional hardship would be likely to arise from call-up and where alternative arrangements are often most difficult to make."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1957; Vol. 566, c 148.] He said that there were five such categories, and all of them were very reasonable.

There had not been any suggestion at that time, however, that an additional hardship of illness had to be proved. We said that although we understood that it was not necessary to prove that the widowed mother living on her own or the young wife with young children was ill, we now invariably found that unless a doctor's note certifying serious illness was produced the application was refused. The Parliamentary Secretary agreed that that was wrong. He also agreed that an additional category of those cases where undue hardship was likely to arise should be included; that is to say, the National Service man with a child.

As I say, the Parliamentary Secretary was most sympathetic, and we went away well satisfied. Three days later, on 13th May, the Minister of Labour said that he was issuing instructions to his officials to consider with the fullest sympathy cases where experience had shown that exceptional hardship was likely to arise and alternative arrangements were often difficult to make. Such special consideration was to be given to married men with families where there were difficult home circumstances. I believe that the intentions were good, but the results have not proved to be good. Doctors' notes are still being sought, and, unless there is serious illness, there is no release.

I thought that the understanding as stated was good enough, but experience is showing that in different parts of the country the Ministers officials are interpreting this instruction in different ways. I cannot blame them for that, because there is no thermometer for measuring a degree of hardship. I must say that I believe that where there is a child or children there must be hardship in these cases, and it should not be necessary to have to prove any other degree of hardship. In addition, great uncertainty exists among a lot of these men, as they do not know whether or not they will be called up in a few months' time.

I am therefore driven to the conclusion that these whole categories should be postponed on hardship grounds. Last week the Secretary of State for War told me: The difference between the hon. Member and myself on this point is that he has it in mind that the fact alone that a young man is married and has two children should of itself be grounds for excluding him from doing his National Service. I do not agree with that." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1959; Vol. 615. c. 497.] I repeat—there must be hardship in these cases, and there should be no need to prove all the factors. Why could not the Government postpone these whole categories? Admittedly, it would mean an amendment of the Act, but that is not a revolutionary business. Acts are being—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche)

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman cannot, on the Motion for the Adjournment, suggest amendments to legislation.

Mr. Allaun

That has rather stymied me, I must admit. However, I hope that it will be borne in mind that not long ago certain classes of teachers were granted postponement, and I hope that other classes can be treated similarly—

Mr. R. J. Mellish (Bermondsey)

This is an important point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. My hon. Friend says that if married men with children were to be exempted, or their call-up postponed, it would need legislation. I should like to be quite clear about that, as I am not sure that he is right.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Peter Thomas)

Perhaps I may be able to help. I do not think that it would be necessary to amend the legislation. If the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) were to suggest that the procedure for postponement should be used I do not think that it would involve legislation, but if he were to suggest that they should be exempted under the existing legislation, I think it probably would involve an amendment of that existing legislation.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Yes. I understood that the hon. Gentleman was proposing legislation.

Mr. Allaun

Yes. I must apologise for my mistake, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) and the Parliamentary Secretary for showing me the way out of my error.

I hope that that course will be followed. Even if a handful of men were postponed who were not in real hardship, no tragedy would result. There is room for relaxation, as the figures I have quoted show. There are more men than are needed and, in any case, National Service is shortly to be ended altogether. There are real objections to a selective call-up. That is unfair to men called up while others in other jobs are not, but I do not think that any reasonable person could object to the deferment of these categories of men, which is a far better alternative.

If this proposal were adopted, it would mean that men in these categories who are already serving would also be able to obtain compassionate discharge. On a previous occasion a Government spokesman said that the same conditions which apply for deferment of call-up would apply to men already in the Forces. If the Parliamentary Secretary is unable to give an undertaking now I would like at least to ask him to consult his Minister and the Minister of Defence to see whether this proposal could be accepted.

1.58 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Mellish (Bermondsey)

I want to support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) that the whole question of those now liable for call-up in these last remaining months should be looked at very sympathetically. My hon. Friend has a very good reputation in this matter, because for many months now he has been arguing that at any rate a married man with children should not be called up. Of course, it is always argued against him, and those who think like him, that this procedure creates so many anomalies.

The problem of call-up generally is that it immediately creates anomalies, and always has. Certain classes always have to be deferred because of their work, and under the present Act it is the luck of birth whether or not a young man is called up. I am fortunate enough to have a son who misses call-up because he happens to have been born a month later than the stated date.

When we talk of anomalies, I am always very much reminded of the late Ernest Bevin, who I consider to have been the greatest Minister of Labour that ever lived. He always said that the Ministry of Labour could do anything, provided it had a Minister who was strong and powerful enough to say to his men, "This will be done. Find ways of doing it and if you get into any trouble while you are doing it I will protect you." In other words, he gave the orders at the top and protected all those down the line, and consequently they found ways of putting into effect the orders that he gave.

It will be remembered that there was a national call-up during the war. Millions of people were involved, and as a consequence there were many anomalies. I remember a time when the miners were called up. Then it was realised that this was a mistake and the miners were left alone. There is no doubt that there are large numbers of people clue for call-up but who need not be called up if a direction comes from the Minister. My hon. Friend for Salford, East has mentioned a case based on his own experience.

We know that the Navy do not want any men. I understand that the Royal Air Force requirements are infinitesimal. Therefore, the majority of these young boys will go into the Army when they are called up. I speak with knowledge, having been round many Army camps during the last year and having discussed National Service, and I find that Army commanders are perturbed at the fact that in trying to build an Army for the future they have an element of National Service men, which is at times an embarrassment to them.

My hon. Friend made a fair point when he said that when many of these boys are called up there is not much for them to do when they get to their units. There n no longer the need for overseas service. That is going out fast. These men, in the main, have to perform camp duties and that sort of thing, which is so frustrating.

A directive should go out in the case of all married men, particularly those with children, to the effect that each individual case shall be considered sympathetically to see whether such men need be called up at all. One of the problems that I find with the young married man is that he has almost invariably got a housing problem; children have come along rather quickly, and he is living with in-laws. Then we get the young wife approaching Members of Parliament and local councillors asking us to help to solve their problems.

I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give more than a sympathetic answer, and I should like him to give us very good reasons if he cannot meet us. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary can assess the numbers involved, but I suggest that after June of next year large numbers of youngsters who would have been due for call-up will not, in fact, be called up. I do not believe that the Minister or, indeed, the Government are inhuman. I believe they are just as sympathetic as we are in these matters. I ask the hon. Gentleman to make a gesture of good will and to say that in spite of the anomalies which will be created, he will say to the officers in the Ministry of Labour, "This you will do" and, as in the days of "Ernie" Bevin, we can be certain that the Ministry will find ways of dealing with the matter to the satisfaction of us all.

2.4 p.m.

Mr. Victor Yates (Birmingham, Ladywood)

I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) on having raised this matter. I wish to refer briefly to one aspect of the question.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) has alluded to the married man with children. I should like to make a special plea for the only son of a widow. I noticed in the Report of the Ministry of Labour for 1958, the last one issued, there were 2,063 cases refused by hardship committees. I take it that some of those cases are among those referred to by my hon. Friend. Many of us have had our attention drawn to such cases. They include not only the married man, but also the widow.

In the United States of America the only son of a widow is never called up. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to have consultations with the officials at the Ministry. I am sure that they give sympathetic consideration to these cases, but I suggest that where it is clearly established that a man is the only son of a widow a special arrangement should be made whereby on the first application, without having to go before a hardship committee, an authorised person should be able to release a man in that position from being called up.

I have two cases in mind. In one, there is a young man in Birmingham whose mother is ill. She has worked herself into a nervous condition because of the prospect of his being called up in January. I have had to tell her that the case will have to go before the hardship committee. Another case is of a young man, who is not the only son but is the only son at home, his father being in prison. That family has enough anxiety already. I have much sympathy for the case to which my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East has referred, but I think, also, that it is very sad for a widow who is torn with nervous anxiety because her only son is to be called up, knowing that so many hardship cases have been refused and that it is unlikely that he will be exempted except on health grounds.

2.7 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Peter Thomas)

The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) has for many years demonstrated great interest in the matters which have been raised in this debate and his speech today was delivered, if I may say so, with characteristic sincerity. There is no doubt that he and his hon. Friends who have spoken have a real appreciation of the difficulties that often arise when men with family responsibilities are called up to do their National Service. This appreciation of the difficulties involved is shared equally by my right hon. Friend and myself as well as by those in my Department. I should not like it to be thought that the human aspects about which the hon. Gentleman spoke so eloquently are not fully and sympathetically considered in the many cases with which we have to deal.

As the hon. Member will know, there is no Government Department with more experience of or greater concern for human problems than the Ministry of Labour. The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) made a plea for us to look at these questions sympathetically and I can assure him that we will. He also mentioned that the numbers of National Service men may, in the context of military requirements at the moment, be embarrassing. I can assure him that that matter is considered extremely carefully. As he knows, there are at the moment 50,000 young men who were expecting to be called up and who have now been told that they will be released from their National Service obligations. The matter is continually being looked at.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) mentioned two cases. I should be grateful if he would get in touch with me about those two cases, and either write to me or see me about them. He will understand that one cannot deal with examples such as those without knowing the full details. I shall be very pleased to see him at any time about the cases that he has mentioned.

The hon. Member for Salford, East stated that about 19,000 married men are now doing their National Service. Many of those, of course, have married after they have enlisted, and there are no statistics of the number who have children. In any event, the hon. Member will appreciate that the question of compassionate release from the forces on grounds of hardship is not a matter for my right hon. Friend. Our concern is with those who have not yet been called up and it is to that part of the hon. Member's speech that I should like to confine my remarks.

As hon. Members will know, National Service is a general statutory liability and only a few small classes of men are not liable in law. These categories which are exempted by law are, for example, ministers of religion, blind persons and mental deficients. In addition to this exemption of certain classes or categories, there are provisions whereby the strict obligation to do National Service can be relaxed in respect of certain individuals. These are, first, the provisions for deferment, and, secondly, the provisions for postponement, both being quite different provisions with quite different objects.

Deferment can be given in the case of students and apprentices and for people in certain categories of employment. It is through these provisions that certain classes of teachers, to whom the hon. Member for Salford, East referred, were not called up. Postponement is a special provision to deal with cases where exceptional hardship would result if the individual were called up for service.

There are, of course, certain groups of people on whose members National Service would impose more hardship than it would on the members of other groups. Most hon. Members would, however, agree that there can never be certain and complete generalisation and that each case of hardship must be considered on its individual merits.

The hon. Member has suggested that the procedure for postponement should be used as a device to exempt from National Service all married men with dependent children. The hon. Member for Ladywood mentioned another category of men with widowed mothers living alone or with young dependants. To use the postponement provisions in such an indiscriminate way would be a grave misuse of the statutory intention of the postponement provisions and would in many cases operate unfairly. I am sure that the hon. Member appreciates this. Probably his main concern —certainly, the main concern of the hon. Member for Bermondsey—was that full and proper consideration should he given under the existing postponement procedure to the hardship involved when men with family responsibilities are called up.

Mr. Mellish

Ordinarily, if National Service were not within sight of being abandoned, I would agree with the hon. Gentleman that postponement used in that way would be quite wrong. We are, however, nearing the end of National Service. Surely it would be a good thing to use just that procedure to ensure that whole classes of people were not called up. The anomalies already exist and, as we argued earlier, there will always be anomalies.

Mr. Julius Silverman (Birmingham, Aston)

Can the Parliamentary Secretary think of any case of a married man with a child or children in which there is not exceptional hardship in the case of call-up? Surely, everything depends upon the interpretation of "exceptional hardship". At a time when National Service is drawing to an end, in any event, is not this an exceptional hardship which should be taken into consideration?

Mr. Thomas

One can imagine many cases of married men with children where there would not be exceptional hardship. There are many cases where men and women are living separate and apart. There are extreme administrative difficulties, as the hon. Member for Bermondsey appreciated when he said that almost all in those classes should not be called up. That is a different matter.

The general tenor of the debate is that full and proper consideration should be given under the existing provisions to questions of hardship involved when married men with family responsibilities or with widowed mothers with dependants are called up. I hope that I can satisfy the House on this matter and assure hon. Members that we are giving particular and sympathetic attention to all applications for postponement that come from men within those groups.

As the House will know, applications for postponement are first dealt with by my Department. My right hon. Friend, through his authorised officers, can grant an application, but he cannot refuse one. If he fails to grant an application, there is an appeal to the independent military service hardship committee and there are provisions for appeal from that committee to an independent umpire.

Mr. J. Silverman

Is this a ground of hardship which the hardship tribunal cannot consider? In a case which I have referred to the Ministry, I am told that the hardship tribunal, being a statutory body, can go no further than its terms of reference before the Minister's statement of 13th May.

Mr. Thomas

If the hon. Member will allow me to develop what I want to say, I think that he may be satisfied. The hardship committee is an independent committee. Before the matter goes to the hardship committee, it goes to the authorised officers of my Department. The hon. Member will find that the authorised officers in the Ministry of Labour can play a great part in this matter.

Since 1957, the authorised officers of my Department have been instructed to make favourable assumptions in dealing with certain kinds of domestic cases where exceptional hardship was particularly likely to arise. Included amongst those are cases where the applicant is the only adult living with a widowed mother and cases of married men with children in which there are difficult home circumstances. The hon. Member for Salford, East referred to these instructions and described them as good intentions, but said that since then nothing had happened. I must emphatically disagree with the hon. Member, because the facts are entirely to the contrary.

During this year, there has been a record number of applications for postponement on grounds of hardship. Already, over 7,000 applications have been made. In 1957, the figure was 5,125; in 1956, 4,188; and in 1956 there were three times as many men registered fit for National Service as there are today. Of the 7,000 applications in 1959, 75 per cent. have been granted, as opposed to 65 per cent. in 1957 and 59 per cent. in 1956.

Although we are unable to analyse the applications to show the circumstances on which they were based, it seems quite clear that very few married men with dependent children can have failed if they made an application for postponement. I was, therefore, somewhat concerned to hear the hon. Member for Salford, East talk about dozens of cases in his constituency and the numerous cases that he could mention.

The hon. Member, with his usual courtesy, was good enough to let me know before this debate the points he would make and the individual cases that he would mention. I am grateful to him for that, because it has given me an opportunity to make inquiries. The hon. Member mentioned one or two extra cases today, and I shall certainly inquire into them. Even with the additional two cases, however, the hon. Member has mentioned only one case which has any reference to my Department. That is the case of Mr. Beckett, in which there are a wife and two children living in poor housing conditions. I agree that that is a case which well merits attention. I have inquired about it and I am informed that leave to appeal to the umpire has been granted. As the matter is now sub judice, the hon. Member will understand that I cannot comment on it.

Concerning the case to which the hon. Member referred on behalf of his hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor), who unfortunately, is not able to be with us today, I have been unable to trace any case in my Department from him similar to the one quoted by the hon. Member. As far as I can ascertain, the hon. Member for Salford, East has not taken up any case of this kind with my right hon. Friend or myself or with our predecessors during the whole of this year. If, however, he has any case of the kind described, I would be only too pleased if he would write to me or see me about it.

I have made inquiries into the type of case which has been referred to by the hon. Member for Salford, East and by the hon. Member for Ladywood—that is, married men with dependants or a man with a widowed mother—and I find that in most cases where they were recently called up, they have not applied for postponement, or that where they have applied they have not stated their full domestic circumstances.

Although most married men with dependants who apply for such postponement are now getting it, we are taking the further precaution, as was hoped for by the hon. Member for Bermondsey, to ensure that no deserving case is overlooked. A supplementary instruction is being sent out this week by my right hon. Friend to our authorised officers, reminding them to examine fully all cases put before them, and to seek further information from the applicant when his case has been inadequately set out, so that postponement can be granted wherever and as soon as possible. They are also being asked to refer doubtful cases to my right hon. Friend, and to accept all applications made after the proper time unless they are clearly frivolous or dilatory.

I hope that the House will agree that this latest instruction should provide every possible safeguard against deserving cases being overlooked, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends that particular and sympathetic attention will continue to be given to those categories to which they have referred in this debate.

Mr. Allaun

May I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his reply, and particularly for giving us particulars of the latest instruction, which should be very well received?