HC Deb 26 June 1961 vol 643 cc42-6

3.56 p.m.

The Chairman

The first Amendment selected is that in the name of the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin), in page 8, line 36, and it may be convenient to the Committee to discuss with it the later Amendments in the name of the same hon. Member in page 9, line 4, to leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and to insert: the date of his attestation or his eighteenth birthday, whichever be later, and in the case of women—the date of attestation. and that in page 9, line 9, to leave out subsection (5).

Mr. John Cronin (Loughborough)

I beg to move, in page 8, line 36, at the end to insert: or (d)in the case of women enlisting in the regular air force a term not exceeding six years as may be prescribed, being a term of air force service. I think that it might be convenient also to discuss the Amendment following this Amendment, also in my name, to leave out lines 37 to 42, if that is agreeable to you, Sir Gordon.

The Chairman

So be it.

Mr. Cronin

We are placed in some difficulty, because that Amendment goes with the first two Amendments on the Notice Paper, to lines 15 and 24, to leave out "term" and insert "long term enlistment", which are not selected.

The Chairman

Those Amendments are not selected, because they were discussed previously on Clause 3.

Mr. Cronin

I move this Amendment with some brevity, and will speak briefly to the three Amendments concerned. As we know, the Government got themselves into serious difficulties the last time that we discussed the Bill and on this occasion we are very anxious to help them. We want to expedite the passage of the Bill in every possible way, so if we speak with a good deal more brevity than on the last occasion it will not be for any lack of ceremony or any lack of desire to go into these matters very thoroughly, but simply to expedite business, in view of the Government's previous difficulties.

This is purely a drafting Amendment, as are the other Amendments which we are now discussing. They have been drafted by the fertile pen of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), and we think that they are a considerable improvement on the drafting in the Bill as it stands. We have a great respect for the Government's draftsmen, but we feel that on this occasion their drafting is somewhat cumbersome and tautological, and that nothing would be lost in clarity if the Amendment were accepted.

Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton)

I want to add very little indeed to what my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) has said. I am not clear about the first two Amendments, which are not selected, and the Amendment to leave out lines 37 to 42. Those lines certainly could not be done unless something were put in their place. What is proposed in the first two Amendments which are not selected is what I suggest should be put in the place of the six lines which. I suggest should be omitted. In other words, what I am saying is that six words should take the place of six lines. But the Amendment in page 8, to leave out lines 37 to 42, does not make sense without the Amendments in page 8, lines 15 and 24.

4.0 p.m.

The Chairman

The Amendments in page 8, lines 15 and 24 and the Amendment in page 8 to leave out lines 37 to 42 were not selected.

Mr. Paget

I am sorry. I thought that the Amendment to leave out lines 37 to 42 was selected.

The Chairman

The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) wished to refer to the Amendment to leave out lines 37 to 42, and I said that I had no objection to that.

Mr. Paget

I am sorry. I had not followed that.

It cannot be disputed that my suggestion would entail far fewer and more easily comprehensible words than those of the Clause. Why do the words which I suggest have a different effect from that of the words in the Clause?

Mr. George Wigg (Dudley)

I am at a loss to know what we are discussing, but, in an endeavour to come to grips with the matter, may I say that I have studied the Amendments and that I should like to ask one or two questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) on them.

What I cannot understand is why a distinction should be drawn between men and women in relation to these engagements. It is clear that, if the Amendments are carried, the term of the engagement of a man could date either from the date of attestation or from his birthday, whereas the term of engagement of a woman can date only from the date of attestation. Why such a distinction should be introduced, I do not know. It is a new principle. Possibly there is a hidden reason for it.

I have always understood, ever since the controversy over terms of service started about ten years ago, that a short-term engagement is one thing, with a minor qualification as far as the Army is concerned, and a long-term engagement another. If the Amendments are carried, it will leave the matter in the air. If the proposal is accepted, the words "in the said sections" in the last line on page 8, will be in complete isolation.

I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough can explain why this new principle has been introduced to differentiate between men and women concerning the date of attestation, why the evaluation of the long-term engagement has been altered and to which sections the words "in the said sections" refer.

Mr. Cronin

I think that it would be beneficial if we heard what the Under-Secretary of State had to say about this before we went any further.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. W. J. Taylor)

As I see it, the Amendments make one change of substance. As the Clause is at present worded, women under the age of 18 may enlist either for a term running from their eighteenth birthday or for a term of up to six years running from the date of attestation. Under the Amendment the engagement would always run from the date of attestation. In practice, this probably would not matter very much—

Mr. Wigg

With respect, it would make one very important difference. If women serving a long-term engagement can join at 17 years, it will very seriously affect their pension rights.

Mr. Taylor

That is so. But most are likely to come under these terms, anyway. If a girl has in mind a long-term career in the Women's Royal Air Force, it will be in her interest to enlist on an engagement which runs from her eighteenth birthday, since service under the age of 18 does not count for pension. The engagement running from the eighteenth birthday is a new concession for recruits under 18 years. There is no particular reason why it should be restricted to men. That is the view that we take in this Bill.

I think that to some extent the other Amendments are a matter of taste. The definition of the relative date from which a term of enlistment is reckoned saves words, but it does not make the Clause simpler. I think that this was the point which the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) made. The present wording gives separate definitions for people enlisting over the age of 18 and for people enlisting under the age of 18. Therefore, a man can pick out the definition which applies to him and learn directly what the relative date means in relation to his own engagement. With the amended form of words, he would have to work it out from an omnibus definition. Obviously this would not matter very much, but we think that it would be a disadvantage to a man in looking up his own case.

The proposal to roll up the special subsection about women raises much the same considerations. Under the Bill women can enlist on any of the engagements concerning periods of service open to men. In addition, as I have said, women under 18 can come in on engagements of up to six years running from the date of attestation. Since this will now be a special provision applicable only to women and will probably cover the bulk of Women's Royal Air Force recruiting, it seems sensible to us to put it in a subsection of its own where anyone to whom it applies can readily find it.

For all these reasons, we much prefer to leave the Clause as it stands, and I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Cronin

As the Under-Secretary of State said, this is purely a matter of taste. No great point of substance is involved. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. W. J. Taylor

I beg to move, in page 9, line 2, to leave out from "the" to the end of line 3 and insert "said section fifteen".

This is a drafting Amendment. Section 15 is specifically referred to in line 38 on page 8 of the Bill. It is, therefore, necessary to insert the words "said section fifteen" in line 2, on page 9 and to leave out the words: section of this Act relating to persons therein referred to as existing airmen. …

Mr. Cronin

My hon. Friends and I agree entirely with the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.