HC Deb 26 June 1961 vol 643 cc46-58
Mr. Paget

I beg to move, in page 9, line 31, to leave out "fifty-five" and insert "sixty".

This is an Amendment of some substance and one about which those approaching the limit of 55 years, perhaps, feel a little sensitive. I do not feel that I shall be unemployable for every conceivable purpose in two or three years and I do not see why the Royal Air Force should take that view. I do not suggest that in a general way airmen should serve up to the age of 60, but I feel that there are exceptional cases in which the man concerned may wish to continue his service and that the Air Force may have a use for him. Therefore, why not take the power to enable him to continue his service?

Mr. Cronin

I support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). It seems to me quite unnecessary that airmen should be obliged to quit the Service at the age of 55, as the Clause seems to indicate. In these days, there have been tremendous advances in medical knowledge and, in consequence, people keep their mental and physical fitness much longer. Again, work in the Royal Air Force is much less arduous in many respects than in the other Services. It may involve a good deal of mental strain, but not so much physical strain. For instance, much of it is of a technical nature.

It is a little unreasonable that an airman who might be skilled in repairing the radar apparatus in the nose-cone of a Bloodhound should cease to be skilled officially as soon as he has passed his fifty-fifth birthday and should, therefore, have to leave the Service. There is a real danger of losing highly-skilled personnel, particularly those engaged in the technical and equipment branches, if the Amendment is not accepted. I appreciate that there might be occasions when it may be desirable to get rid of a person who is not doing his work as well as he could do. It might be embarrassing sometimes in the case of a senior N.C.O. or warrant officer, but there ought to be some other way of getting round the difficulty than by imposing this age limit of 55.

I believe that there are certain circumstances in which an airman or N.C.O. can stay on beyond the age of 55. If the Under-Secretary of State will tell us something about those circumstances, it might go some way to assauging our difficulties. In the meantime, however, I should like him to give the matter careful consideration and to give us the full reasons why 55 is a more agreeable age than 60.

Mr. Wigg

I would point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) that what the Clause refers to is the term of enlistment under the Clause. If my hon. Friend turns over two pages to Clause 12, he will find what happens to an airman when he has gone beyond twenty-two years. I understand the technical term better in connection with the Army, but at the end of his long-term enlistment the man then continues in the Service. Clause 12 deals with continuance of Regular airmen in the Service after the expiration of their term and there is no limit whatever on the age.

Mr. W. J. Taylor

I assure the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and his hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) that the Air Council is in no way less sympathetic towards the serving man who approaches the age of 55. As I shall show, the Air Council has power to extend the period of service in certain circumstances.

First, I should like to explain the reasons which have influenced us in fixing 55 as the normal retiring age of airmen. There are two main considerations which limit the age to which we can extend a man's service. The first of these is the age structure of the Service as a whole. All I need say on this is that we have to make sure that we avoid a policy which will leave us with an undue proportion of elderly men in the Service at any date.

The second thing to be borne in mind is the need to provide attractive prospects of advancement to young men and to the recruits of the future. This consideration clearly places a limit on the length of time for which we allow airmen to hold the most senior ranks, otherwise we should have promotion blockages affecting airmen at the bottom of the ladder and this would be bound to react unfavourably on recruitment. These are the difficulties which we have to consider in connection with our desire to offer a full and attractive career. We have concluded that 55 is the maximum age to which the full career airman can normally be retained.

4.15 p.m.

I do not see any prospect of increasing the age generally. This does not mean that we cannot make exceptions to keep individual airmen beyond the age of 55 if a man is fit and willing to serve on after that age. If we still want him, he can continue in service at the end of his engagement at three months' notice for an indefinite period. This provision is contained in Clause 12, to which the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) referred.

Our position on the Amendment, therefore, is that while there can be no question of a general increase in the retiring age of airmen, for the reasons which I have stated, the Bill gives us the authority which we need to make exceptions and to continue individual airmen in the Service up to any age. The Amendment would serve no useful purpose and I must ask the Committee to reject it.

Mr. E. Shinwell (Easington)

I have some difficulty in following the arguments adduced by the Under-Secretary of State and by the reference to Clause 12 by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). If Clause 12 means that by making a submission to his commanding officer and giving him the requisite three months' notice, an airman can continue in the service, obviously even the age of 60 does not apply. I do not know whether it means that by making the necessary submission and giving the requisite three months' notice, an airman can go on to the age of 70 or 75. There must be an arbitrary date when he is called upon to retire and he can be no longer retained in the Service.

Mr. W. J. Taylor

There is no arbitrary date. It is a question of the good judgment of the Air Council in this matter as to whether there is use for the man for an extended period, always assuming that the man wants to continue. It is a perfectly reasonable arrangement that after the statutory age, as it were, of 55, either side should be able to go on at three months' notice.

Mr. Shinwell

That is merely theory. Everybody knows that it conflicts with the practice. Obviously, when an airman reaches the ages of 55 or 60, as the case may be, and certainly not later, in the opinion of the Air Council and of his superior officers the time has come for him to retire.

I am concerned about one aspect of the problem which came to my notice in a formidable fashion when I was engaged in the administrative side of this affair, not in the Air Force, but in the Army, when I was Under-Secretary. I refer to the difficulty that applies in the case of men who are called upon to retire at what I regard as the comparatively early age of 55 or 60, when it is impossible for them to obtain any alternative employment. Their pension is not particularly extravagant and men of that age are often in the prime of life, but when they are looking around for employment and give their age as 55, 58 or 60, as the case may be, they are told that they are much too old, and they are out on a limb. It is very bad for men of that age not to be usefully employed.

The Under-Secretary referred to exceptional cases in which the Air Council can decide whether a man should remain in the Service. I gather, however, that there is no provision of this nature in the Bill, apart from Clause 12, which is very much in the air.

Mr. Wigg rose—

Mr. Shinwell

Let me complete the sentence, otherwise it will be misunderstood.

Unless there is some provision in the Bill agreeing that the man should continue until the age of 60, when, I think, it would be reasonable, in the circumstances, to ask him to retire from the Service, I am bound to support the Amendment.

Mr. Wigg

My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) fails to understand that there is a great deal of difference between the re-engagement and pensionable engagement in the Army and the Royal Air Force now, and the period about which he was talking.

To go back to pre-war days when my right hon. Friend was Under-Secretary of State for War, as I have said on a number of occasions, a man enlisted in the Army always for twelve years, partly with the Colours and partly with the Reserve, without any claim for pension at all. In his ninth year, when he could be promoted to the rank of sergeant, a man could claim to re-engage.

In the Air Force the peculiar structure of the Service makes it necessary to limit the number of people engaged in a particular trade. I remember the time when only a handful of men were engaged in mechanical transport and after a twelve-year engagement, out they would go. Only in the Army could a soldier re-engage with establish pensionable rights. The long service engagement gave the soldier the right of a pension from enlisting. He could undertake an engagement of twenty-two years if he wished, and at the moment of joining he was entitled to a pension. The Air Force authorities, in their wisdom, have now come along with a similar proposal for the Air Force.

If it is proposed to introduce the right for a man to stay on for a period of twenty-two years, it is necessary to consider the structure of the Service, otherwise we should have an Army or an Air Force composed of "greybeards". If my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) will look at Clause 9, he will see that we are discussing a long-term engagement and enlistment under the provisions in that Clause, that is to say, the right of a man to engage for twenty-two years. The man can continue to serve until he is 55 years of age and then in the majority of cases he will finish.

Clause 12 says that a man who has entered on a long-term engagement can in the last year of his service, give notice to his commanding officer that he wishes to continue in the Service, and the competent Air Force authority will consider the rights of the man, on the one hand, and the needs of the Service, on the other. It can permit the man to continue to serve for as long as the needs of the Air Force allow.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington cannot apply his judgment of events of twenty years ago to the position today because, even until the passing of this Bill, a man had no such right. But now he is to have the absolute right to engage for twenty-two years and finish at the age of 55 or, if he wishes to continue, to give notice to his commanding officer. In the Army, the reference is to the commanding officer. The Air Force is even more careful, and refers to the competent Air Force authority. I dare say that would mean the officer-in-charge of records, who would hold the balance.

Mr. Shinwell

What is the purpose of subsection (2, a), in Clause 9, where there is a reference to attaining the age of 55 years? Is it necessary to include this provision in view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has said about Clause 12?

Mr. Wigg

My right hon. Friend has asked me a question. I assume that this paragraph has been inserted in the Bill because the Air Force cannot afford—certainly the Army could not afford— to give people such a statutory right. If we had an infantry regiment in which all the warrant officers had the right to stay on in the Service beyond the age of 55, obviously it would impair the efficiency of the force.

The Air Force has a different problem from that of the Army. It is an overall problem rather than a regimental problem. It gives the man a statutory right regarding the length of his engagement and then tells him that he may apply in the last year if his service to extend his service and the competent Air Force authority will make a decision. This brings the Air Force, rather belatedly, into line with the Army.

Mr. Paget

We have had some extremely interesting speeches and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has been given the opportunity to display his great expertise. But it seems to me that none of the speeches has had anything whatever to do with the Amendment. The proposal contained in the Amendment would not interfere with the age structure of the Air Force. Everybody understands that. Its purpose is not to make the regular retiring age 60 instead of 55.

The Clause states, in subsection (2), that Where a person in air-force service enlisted as aforesaid his conditions of service may, on written application in that behalf made by him to his commanding officer and with the consent of the competent air-force authority … That gives discretion to the competent Air Force authority as to whether the man can continue at all or for how long. In its wisdom the authority may think that a man should not serve beyond the age of 55.

In an exceptional case, when the authority decided to make the term of service longer, it might be that a mere three months' notice would not be suitable for the purpose. Some highly technical jobs could be done by old men. They may be jobs in which age and experience may be an advantage. There may be cases in which a man may want to know that he has a job for a certain period, and three months' notice may not be satisfactory to him. Even more so, it may not be satisfactory to the Air Force. In a particular job, requiring a particular expertise, training or experience, the Air Force may wish to rely on being staffed-up. The Service may want to have people on which it knows it can rely to serve for a certain period. Why should the hands of the competent authority be tied?

To accept the Amendment would commit the Air Force to nothing at all. It would simply widen the discretion to deal with the exceptional and not the general case. I suggest that the Amendment is reasonable.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale)

I have listened very carefully to the speeches which have been made on this Amendment. We have heard two experts on the subject, my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg).

Mr. Wigg

I would not put myself quite in the class of my right hon. Friend, because I generally get my facts right.

Mr. Foot

I was about to pay my hon. Friend that compliment. It would have come better from me, perhaps, than from him. All of us in these debates, particularly the Minister, wait to hear what my hon. Friend has to say, because he can usually explain a Clause better than can the Minister himself. I must confess, having listened to what the Minister said and what my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley said, that I was not quite sure they were saying the same thing.

My hon. Friend is now saying that Clause 12 gives some mitigation of the position under Clause 9, but I was not quite clear that that was exactly the same claim made for the Clause and the present position by the Minister. I listened to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who said that the Clause did not commit the Air Force to keeping anyone in the Air Force longer than it wished. If that is the case under the Clause, I cannot see why it should not be accepted. If it is not the case, it alters what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley.

For us amateurs in these matters it might be of assistance if we could be given a few figures showing what happens now. How many are there in the Air Force who reach the age of 55, who wish to stay on, but who are denied by the authorities the right to do so? If we were told those figures we might be able to form some judgment whether it is desirable to alter the present position and whether the Clause alters it in the way in which we should wish. If there are very few cases where it arises that a person wants to stay on after 55 we are asking about not very much. Alternatively, it could be argued that if only a few who reach 55 wish to stay on and are denied the right because the matter has been referred to commanding officers 01 the Air Council, it might be perfectly reasonable to slay that we should give the choice to the man as well as to the Air Council. I do not see why we should not do that.

There is another conflict of evidence between two whom I never like to see fall out, my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley. My right hon. Friend said that there are very few who want to stay on after 55 and who are denied the right to do so, but my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley takes the view that this proposal would disrupt the whole Air Force. Who is right? I cannot see whether we shall have enlightenment from the Minister about who is correct. It would be easier for those who wish to know whether they should support the Amendment or not if we could know how many wish to stay on after 55 and are denied the right to do so. Then we could consider if it would not be more just—particularly in view of the difficulties for people of 55 to get another job—to waive the matter and give them the choice of deciding, instead of having the matter absolutely under the decision of the Air Ministry. That, I understand, under the arrangement of the Clause without the Amendment would be the position.

Mr. W. J. Taylor

The very expert exposition of the existing legislation given by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) could, not be bettered by any Minister, I am grateful to, him for putting it better than I could put it. He asked about "the competent Air Force authority". That would be the Air Member of Council for Personnel. It would be at that level.

On the question raised by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) about the numbers, I am sorry that I have not figures available, but I think that they would be extremely small. The essential point is that Clause 12 allows us to be selective. The hon. Member for Dudley explained that it allows the Air Ministry to hold the balance at the time according to the requirements in any particular trade or section of the Service. If the Amendment is to mean anything at all—and here I take issue with the right hon. Member for Essington (Mr. Shinwell)—it means that an airman is to be engaged to 60 at a much earlier stage. It must mean that. For the reasons I have explained, we could not accept that if we altered the three months' notice under Clause 12 it would not create difficulties.

Mr. Cronin

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman quite understands the position. A man may be retained until he is 60 only with the consent of "the competent Air Force authority".

Mr. Taylor

I have dealt with that point. When an application was received it would be dealt with in the organisation. Responsibility for the ultimate decision rests on the Air Member of Council for Personnel.

The three months' notice under Clause 12 does not in fact create difficulty. Acceptance of the Amendment might not commit the Air Force to anything, indeed it would provide us with a power that we should not normally want to use. It would give the impression that the normal retiring age was 60. For all these reasons, we feel that it would be unwise to accept the Amendment.

The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said, in I think as many words, that the Amendment would commit the Air Council to nothing at all. That is true, but we feel that the present legislation is adequate to deal with a situation which is not very demanding. I have been advised, since I spoke of the numbers, that the number of men applying for continuation of service beyond 55 is very small indeed. I repeat that the approval depends not only on a man's fitness but on his desire to continue in a particular trade or rank.

Mr. Paget

The Minister does not seem to follow what the Amendment would do. A man enters on a long term of service. That cannot take him beyond 55, but at the end of it new circumstances may arise. There may be a special department or a special craft for which people are being trained and for which the Air Force has a continuing, but limited, requirement. It wants to be sure of having that craft available for a certain number of jobs which could be done by keeping a limited number of men until they are 60. In those circumstances, to take them on on a three months' engagement might leave the Service short of a particular craft which was vital, but only for a limited period, and would make the training of young men for that craft uneconomic and unnecessary. Those are the sort of circumstances I envisage.

Why should the Air Force tie its hands in this way? The Minister has admitted that the Amendment would not commit it to anything. I cannot conceive that anyone could imagine that the Air Force considers its discretion to keep people in certain circumstances up to a certain age as a right and a policy generally to keep them until that age. This is a discretionary power which might arise only occasionally. There are various crafts for which there is a requirement. One might see a requirement coming which will end at a specific date. It might be uneconomic to train people to do it when the older men can do it.

Mr. Wigg

I must be careful how I handle this matter, in view of the friendly references made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) to my expertise. I offer the excuse that I have been through all these phases with members of my family. I know the heartbreak which can be caused to people by things in regulations which one can never hope to achieve.

The Army and the Air Force have given a man the right to go on for twenty-two years, and they say that, overall, he can stay until he is 55. This limit of age has always been there. It goes back to the beginning of the century and before. If the Under-Secretary of State were ill-advised enough, and disregarded the needs of his Service enough, and listened to my hon. and learned Friend—even assuming that my hon. and learned Friend is right, which he is not—and accepted his argument—which is a purely legal one and above my head—he would affect the overall structure of the Air Force and of the Army. En effect, the chopper would have to come down either on the exercise of the competent Air Force authority under Clause 9 or it would have to be left to Clause 12, because this would be neither the rule nor the exception.

The Royal Air Force has gone a long way from the time when there was a limited number of people it could take, and the realities of the administrative structure are expressed in this legislative reform. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will stay true to truth and reality and not listen to this siren song which, even if my hon. and learned Friend became Secretary of State, would he meaningless and would be bound to bring unhappiness and disappointment to a great number of chaps, who might believe that they were expected to go on while the Secretary of State knew that there would be no vacancies for them in twenty years' time.

Mr. W. J. Taylor

The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has put a plausible case, but I shall not fall for it. Service beyond the age of 55 must still continue to be regarded as a special case designed to fill particular vacancies which may exist at any particular time. I cannot move from that position. The Air Council must be given authority to use its own discretion in this matter, and, therefore, I hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Cronin

I beg to move, in page 9, line 43, to leave out from "person" to "in" in line 44.

This is not an Amendment of great substance and I do not propose to dilate upon it. All of us, on both sides of the Committee, are entirely sympathetic with the object of Clause 9 (4). It is obviously undesirable that an airman or N.C.O. who is undergoing an expensive or complicated course should leave it before it is completed and waste the money and time involved, but this Amendment would increase the discretion of the competent Air Force authority. This is a matter which is obviously of convenience to the Air Ministry, and I cannot imagine that the Under-Secretary of State will find great difficulty in accepting it.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. W. J. Taylor

I am very glad on this occasion to be able to accommodate the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin). The four-year proviso was put in in the interests of individual airmen, so that they should not be induced to extend their period of committed service at too early a stage. However, there will be a further rule that the period of additional service needed as a qualification in these cases should not have exceeded six years.

Since the prescribed courses of instruction for which this further commitment would be needed are never likely to last for much more than two years, it follows that it will be virtually impossible for the man with less than four years' service to commit himself beyond the twelve-year maximum proposed in Clause 9 (1). The value of the four-year rule is, therefore, minimal. If it is the feeling of the Committee, I shall be very glad to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Cronin

On behalf of this side of the Committee, I want to say how glad we are that the hon. Gentleman has accepted the Amendment. It is not a concession of a most sweeping nature, but we are nevertheless thankful for this small mercy and express the hope that this liberality will continue.

Amendment agreed to.

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