Clause 10.—(CONVERSION OF SHORT-TERM ENLISTMENT IN REGULAR AIR FORCE INTO LONGE-TERM ENLISTMENT.) (Hansard, 26 June 1961)

§ Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)
I do not think we should pass this Clause without a certain amount of questioning and criticism. Very young persons are to be called upon to enlist under the age of 21 for considerable periods. These persons are far too young to undertake these long-term agreements. For example, we are told that, A person shall not give notice … before attaining the age of seventeen years and six months. 59 That is too young.
A young person under the age of 21 should not be called upon to undertake a long-term agreement such as twenty-two years in the Royal Air Force. I wonder how many young people seriously sit down and plan their lives twenty-two years ahead in such an institution as the Royal Air Force. The character of the Service, and the background to it, must change perpetually as the years go on. What is likely to happen to the Royal Air Force in the next twenty-two years? We know of the great scientific advances being made. The kind of aircraft which will be flying in four or five years time, let alone in twenty-two years time, will be very different from the type of aircraft flying today. I suggest that, by a series of specious advertisements and promises of security, the Air Ministry is attracting young men into an occupation which might be a dead-end occupation.
I know that many young people are being asked to undertake this commitment without having any real understanding of what it involves. Very plausible Royal Air Force recruiting officers visit some schools and hold out prospects of early retirement with special pensions and bonuses, so attracting young people from other professions. These officers have gone to secondary schools in my part of the world and have enticed into the Royal Air Force young people who are needed for our teaching profession.
It is far more necessary to attract young people to take up scientific careers than to go into the Royal Air Force, because it is more likely to be an advantage to themselves and to the nation. If the Air Force changes during the next four or five years, as is likely, with the advance of science, the country may have to provide some kind of compensation. We are in danger of making the Air Force too attractive, in contrast with careers in education or in industry. As a result, young people could be persuaded to take up what may prove to be a dead-end occupation when they could much better have devoted their services, youth and intelligence to a more productive form of national activity.

§ Mr. Wigg
My hon. Friend seems to have failed to appreciate that the Clause 60 does not deal with people who are in school, or are likely to have a career in the Air Force put forward to them as an attractive proposition. It refers to people who are already serving in the Royal Air Force. A man serving a 12-year engagement would not add anything to that engagement by taking advantage of these provisions; all that he would do would be to qualify for a pension. These provisions are inserted in the interests of the man.
It is true that a young man serving a short-service engagement and then converting it into a 22-year engagement would have the added liability of carrying on for a further twelve years, but he could break his engagement at twelve years, which he could have done in any case. I should have thought that my hon. Friend would have had nothing against the Clause. There is no question of young people being told a story and persuaded to join, and then finding the conditions to be very different from what they thought. In this case the man would have had a bite at the cake; he would have liked it, and would have asked for more. In those circumstances, I cannot see why my hon. Friend is against the Clause.

§ Mr. W. J. Taylor
The remarks of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) merit a brief reply. The man who converts to a 22-year engagement when under the age of 21 will always have had less than four years' service. He is not the person at school; he is already in the Service. What he is seeking at this point is security. He wants to provide himself with a good career, with a pension at the end of it. He does this deliberately. He can break his service again later in his career if he so desires.
If he converts to a long-term engagement he will have his right to break his service before the 12-year point, under the provisions of Clause 9 (1). If he is already serving a 12-year engagement there is no further commitment for service on his part, but he gains the promise of a career with a pension if he elects to stay on beyond the option point. That is a pure advantage to him. The man converting to a 22-year engagement from one of less than twelve years may commit himself to twelve years, but he could equally do that from the age of 17½, by 61 enlisting or converting to a normal 12-year engagement. The main difference if he takes on the long-term engagement is the prospect of a pension. The hon. Member's argument has no validity.