§ 36. Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Labour if he will instruct his officers in their consideration of applications for postponement of National Service to give special consideration to cases of fathers with more than one dependent child, in view of the hardship involved for the mother.
§ Mr. HeathSpecial consideration is already given to applications for postponement of call-up made by men with one or more children. I recognise that if there is more than one child the mother's difficulties may often be greater, but the full circumstances of each case are carefully considered.
§ Mr. AllaunWhile thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, does he not think that there can be exceptionally few such cases where real hardship does not arise?
§ Mr. HeathI remain of the view that each case must be treated on its merits. If a great number of these cases are suffering hardship, then they will receive sympathetic consideration from the tribunals.
§ Mr. PrenticeIs not the reference to special consideration rather ambiguous? Is not that the kind of instruction liable to different interpretations by different officers in different parts of the country? As my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) has just pointed out, in every one of these cases there must be a real element of hardship and, in view of the general manpower position, surely all these cases can now be excluded.
§ Mr. HeathThe hon. Gentleman is going further in saying that there must be an element of hardship. I cannot accept that. They must be considered on their merits. I think uniformity is obtained over the country. The figures show that the proportion of cases which received postponement has risen from 57 per cent. in 1955 to 75 per cent. in 1959. 1279 This shows that sympathetic attention is being given and many more cases are being postponed.
§ Mr. PrenticeIn dealing with young married couples with more than one child, facing possible separation for two years, surely there is real hardship in virtually all these cases? Is it not playing with words to say that each case must be considered on its merits?