HL Deb 14 December 1948 vol 159 cc997-1010

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Hall.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

LORD MANCROFT moved, after Clause 2 to insert the following new clause: . Notwithstanding anything in the Principal Act, it shall be lawful for the Service Authority to make Regulations whereby persons who so desire can be, accepted for a period of service shorter than 18 months (or any such less period as His Majesty may appoint by Order in Council under Subsection (2) of Section one of the Principal Act) but in compensation for such shortened period of full time service can be accepted for periods of training during part time service additional to those laid down in Section four of the Principal Act.

The noble Lord said: I am sorry that the Amendment standing on the Order Paper in the names of my noble friends, Lord Rochdale and Lord Bridgeman, and myself, is worded in rather a complicated way. The point, however, is a simple one, and I think I can put it before your Lordships in a few sentences. In the course of the Second Reading debate in this House yesterday, and indeed in the course of all stages of this Bill in another place, two very real objections were voiced from both sides of the House. They were that the number of men being called up is greater than the Services at the moment can properly absorb. The second point was a real fear that this increase of National Service from twelve to eighteen months will further jeopardise and endanger the higher education of the men who are being called up. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, both in his opening remarks and in his winding-up speech on the Second Reading, was fully aware of those fears, and indeed expressed himself sympathetically. He explained that deferment to a certain degree meets this objection, but only to a certain degree. There is still too much uncertainty, too much risk of injustice taking place, too much risk of a man escaping service altogether. Attempts have already been made in another place to deal with this problem but without success. The noble Viscount, Lord Hall, referred to them yesterday.

This Amendment attempts to deal with these two problems but from a slightly different point of view. We are trying to take a different bite at the same cherry—if the noble Lord will forgive my referring to him as a cherry. The educational threat is a real one. This period of eighteen months' service, particularly for university undergradu ates, for apprentices and for students in the learned professions, presents a real difficulty. What we suggest is this. We would like to vary the ratio between the period served in the Regular Forces under National Service, and the period served afterwards in the Territorial Army. Under this Bill, those two periods are eighteen months in the Regular Army, and four-and-a-half years in the Territorial Army. Let me show, by an example, what we want to achieve. Suppose a young man is contemplating reading law at a university. He has to make up his mind whether he will do his National Service before going to the university, or after. His domestic situation and the military situation may be such that he has to abandon going to the university at all. What I am suggesting is that he should be able to elect to do a short period, say, only three months (which can be filled in during the long vacation) in the Regular Forces, and then do an extended period of, say, seven years, in the Territorial Army. He will thus be enabled to fulfil his obligation under this Act and at the same time continue his education uninterrupted.

I think it is essential that some period of basic training should take place in the Regular Forces. Speaking as a Territorial officer, I do not think that the Territorial Army could, at present, take in a large number of men who had received no basic training. I appreciate that this Amendment will present difficulties, and certainly will raise objection amongst those who like the universality of National Service. Selection boards will certainly be necessary to pick out the right types of men to take advantage of this scheme. The Forces' authorities would have to decide what ratio of period there should be between the two types of service, but they have tackled more difficult problems than this in the past. It should not be beyond the administrative capability of the First Lord and his colleagues to think out the solution to this one.

The proposal contained in the Amendment will have one other advantage. We shall be able to get men into the Territorial Army a long time before the date at which we can now expect them. We want those men badly now, as the First Lord knows well. I realise that this may prove a difficult scheme and there are many obstacles to be overcome. I think, however, that we must make an attempt to solve this educational problem and the unfortunate interference that conscription entails. We also want to make sure more men will not be taken into the Forces than can be trained. In 1947, 120,000 fewer men were taken into the Forces than were registered. This Amendment provides one way of tackling the problem. I would like to hear the noble Viscount say that the Government view the Amendment with a favourable eye.

Amendment moved— After Clause 2, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Mancroft.)

3.9 p.m.

LORD ROCHDALE

My noble friend has outlined the purpose of this Amendment extremely clearly. Therefore, in supporting him, I will be very brief. There are, however, one or two points I should like to mention. My noble friend has spoken of the advantages that would accrue in the case of the university student's education. Just as strong a case could be made out for the young man who is serving his time as an apprentice in some particular trade. I am perfectly well aware that, at the moment, a man who is so serving his time can, if he chooses, have his call-up deferred and then do his National Service afterwards. The Armed Forces no doubt look towards getting some of those men whom they badly require, but I suggest that there are other points to be considered. One of them is that the more assistance or encouragement we can give to a man to take up some skilled trade, to get down to it and serve his time, the better. Every advantage should be given to such a man as compared to his neighbour, who might be quite prepared to take up some less skilled occupation. The more men we can get to serve their time as apprentices in these highly skilled trades, the better. I would suggest that that is a particularly important aspect when we consider the great responsibility that all industrial activity bears to-day.

I wish now to make another and quite different point. Under the Bill when it becomes an Act the National Service man will come into the Auxiliary Forces, and in particular the Territorial Army, only after a period of eighteen months. That means that the volunteer cadres who are now being recruited into the Territorial Army will have a further six months in which they have, so to speak, to carry on by themselves. I regard that six months as likely to create a very definite problem for commanders and unit commanders in keeping interest alive, having regard to the small numbers we have in the Territorial Army at the moment. I would suggest that if we could enlist some of these particular classes of men and increase the numbers of the Territorial Army, we could to that extent make the training far more interesting for all concerned. It would also make it possible for those volunteers (who are always having impressed upon them that they are to be the instructional staff for the National Service men when the latter come into the Territorial Army) to "keep their hands in" at instructional work. This will give them some feeling that they are doing a useful job of work, whereas if they are left too long by themselves I am very much afraid they will begin to doubt it.

Like my noble friend, I realise there will be many difficulties should this Amendment be accepted. He mentioned the case of unfair discrimination between categories who may be affected by this proposal and others, but I cannot help thinking that it is not beyond the wit of the War Office to work out ways and means whereby any question of unfair discrimination could be avoided. Particularly would that be the case if, as I tried to point out, it was applied not merely to university students but also to young men in industry. There may be other difficulties. It would probably mean that the permanent staff in the Auxiliary Forces would have to be increased, but again that is only a minor point. I very much hope that the noble Viscount, when he comes to reply to this Amendment, will be able to give us some encouragement that it is being seriously considered.

3.15 p.m.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL)

I am afraid that in replying to the points which have been put by noble Lords I have to be cruel to be kind—cruel in the sense that I cannot accept the Amendment, and kind to them in the sense that I am protecting them against themselves. We think that this Amendment goes to the very root of National Service. National Service is really based upon universality. We want to apply that as far as we possibly can—and, indeed, we are making every effort to do so. I would not like your Lordships to take the pessimistic view which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft has in relation to the call-up. It is true that we have deferred once this year, for three months, the call-up of National Service men. But I would like it to be understood that we are not losing these men by deferring them for three months; we are merely raising the age from eighteen to eighteen and three months. It is not intended (and indeed it may not be necessary) to defer for more than one period of three months in each of the next three years. The probabilities are that next year we shall not have to defer at all. If we do make one deferment in each of the next three years, the age at which National Service men will be called up will be nineteen.

Now, my Lords, let me deal with the case which was put by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft—that of the university undergraduate. I think it can be said that we are all anxious to do what we can to interfere as little as possible with the lives of these young men, whether university graduates or apprentices, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale referred. Unfortunately, in applying National Service we are bound to interfere with the lives of these young men. To take the case of the university undergraduate, he can defer his call-up until he has completed his university career, in exactly the same way as the apprentice can. Indeed, we would encourage the apprentice to finish his apprenticeship before he is called up. I think it is true to say that each of the Services—and the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy particularly—are anxious to get these young men into their Service to do the skilled job for which they are trained. There is a shortage, and that is one of the difficulties of the unbalanced service which we have, particularly in the Royal Air Force. So we will encourage these young men to complete their apprenticeship and become skilled men, and their skill will be fully recognised and used in the Services.

There is then the very difficult question of selection. Let us take the case of the undergraduate and the apprentice. How are we to make a distinction between those two classes and other classes which might bring forward claims almost equal—no doubt, in their opinion quite equal—to the claims of the undergraduate and the apprentice? If we are to reduce National Service basic training to six months and then extend the period of Reserve for that purpose, there will be a very large opting for the shorter service and the longer Reserve, and someone will have to decide the question. I would assure your Lordships that the three Service Ministers, together with other Ministers of the Government, have given very close consideration to this question of selection. It is a most difficult task; the nearest approach to perfection in this selection would be by a ballot, and even that is not very desirable. Moreover, that in itself would not give the guarantee which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, asks for the undergraduate or, indeed, which the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, asks for the apprentice. So far as we can see, it is impossible to accept this Amendment.

May I put one other point? In the Services, at the present time, we require not merely numbers—though of course we do require them—but also efficient and well-trained men. It cannot be suggested that a scheme whereby a person leaves a Service after six months of basic training and goes into the Territorial Army, or into the Auxiliary Service of one or other of the other two Forces, would do justice to those men who have to spend the full eighteen months in that Service. Then there is the difficulty of training. At the present time, one of our problems in connection with the matter of training is to give the necessary efficient training to the National Service man. Noble Lords will realise what it means to, say, the Army, which may take in anything from 100,000 to 110,000 men each year, or each period of eighteen months. I am sure noble Lords will recognise what a vast amount of thought and what a great number of persons are required to plan the training and to see it carried out.

If we are to have two methods of training—one being the basic training of National Service men who are leaving at the end of six months—it will mean they will have to be treated differently in many ways from the National Service men who have to complete what is regarded as essential training in the course of the twelve months. From the point of view of the Territorial Army, it would certainly add to the weight of the burdens already resting on that Force. It would provide the numbers, but not the type which we think will be attracted if we carry out what is the Government's intention at the present time. Noble Lords will realise that in the Second Schedule of the principal Act the Government have powers to reduce the training where that is regarded by the Service Departments as being necessary. We think that that power is sufficient. We cannot allow National Service men who are called up just to opt; as I say, it will be difficult to select. That and the other difficulties to which I have referred, together seem, to my mind, to be overwhelming. For the reasons which I have given, I ask the noble Lords not to press this Amendment.

3.24 p.m.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

The noble Viscount, as he always does, has given us a full and clear reply. He has also given us, I admit, some fairly strong reasons why we should not press the Amendment. His reasons, I think, fall into two parts. His plea is, first of all, that it would be impossible to make the discrimination administratively which this Amendment woud entail. Alternatively, he thinks that the Service Departments can deal with all these hard cases in one way or another, by proper deferment, in such a way as not to prejudice the men's careers. It is anyone's argument. The argument about administration is a very common one. I have a good deal of sympathy with it, having at different times been in administrative positions myself. But one must remember that administratively this is the easy way. It is far easier if you can hold a line and have the same rule for all. It is very difficult once you begin to give way at any point in the line.

The trouble about such an arrangement arises because all people are not alike, and all the circumstances of the people concerned are not alike. Whereas I can see arguments for keeping this rule, I feel that it is quite probable that the operation of this rule will, in fact, bear very unfairly on certain classes of young men who are called up, not merely from their own point of view and having regard to their careers but also because we may find ourselves dealing with particularly valuable classes of young men—the coming lawyers, medical men and technical apprentices to whom Lord Rochdale specially referred, and the young scientists whom no one so far has mentioned in this debate. It is very important that such young men should be properly looked after, not only in respect of their call-up but also in respect of what they do when they are actually in the Services.

We have two problems here. First, there is that of calling up a man at the right time, so as to cause as little interference as possible with his civilian career; and, secondly, that of ensuring that we do not damage the prospects of a man becoming valuable in his profession or trade by misemploying him when he is in the Service. I cannot help feeling, on that score, that it will very likely be found in time that some greater use of the Second Schedule of the principal Act will be wanted than the noble Viscount seems to contemplate at the present moment. I think that we may have to have recourse to it if we are to avoid damaging these very valuable national assets—the coming scientists, doctors, professional men and so on.

I also think that the noble Viscount was very optimistic in thinking these deferments would disappear, and that after a time we should catch up to a proper date of call-up. It might work the other way, and we might be forced to the necessity of writing off, in some way or other, the whole of a class or its equivalent. In that event, the Government would have the alternative either of writing off a class altogether, and not training them, or adopting some sort of system such as is envisaged in the Amendment. These, to my mind, are questions which have an important bearing on the future. I would repeat that nothing which the noble Viscount has said removes the problem which we have put. If, therefore, we do not attempt to insist upon this Amendment this afternoon, I think we must make it plain that we shall regard it as our duty to watch the position carefully, and we shall count upon noble Lords opposite and the Service Departments to do the same. We shall not get over the problem merely by upholding the stone-wall rule and not deferring anyone. The problem will still be there. But we shall ask the Govern ment and the Service Departments to watch it on the understanding that they will come back to it—and that we shall have to come back to it—if things do not go right. If that is clearly understood and agreed to, I think that my noble friends will agree with me that this Amendment may be withdrawn.

VISCOUNT HALL

I can give the noble Viscount the assurance that this matter, which we agree is one of very great importance, will be very carefully watched by His Majesty's Government. If at any time the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and his colleagues are apprehensive that we are not paying the attention to the matter which they think we ought to be doing, we shall be happy to discuss the question with them.

LORD MANCROFT

Before formally withdrawing this Amendment, perhaps I may be allowed to thank the noble Viscount for his full and careful analysis of the position. The trouble with His Majesty's Government is that they are so dreadfully conservative. What the noble Viscount is frightened of, I think, is the difficulty of having to make a very nice decision. But the Government are perfectly prepared to make some very nice decisions now and then as he may know—or perhaps it may be that the noble Viscount has not tried to send any money to France lately. On the understanding that the Government will keep a careful eye on the position, that we shall do the same, and that in the future we shall hear further from the noble Viscount about this matter, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

House resumed.

Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of December 9), Bill reported without amendment.

VISCOUNT HALL

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Viscount Hall.)

3.30 p.m.

LORD WEBB-JOHNSON

My Lords, I recognise that it would have been more appropriate had I raised during the debate on Second Reading of this Bill the points which I wish to raise, but unfortunately I had other official duties which prevented my being present. Therefore, I pray your Lordships' indulgence while I deal with some of the points arising out of Clause 3. When the principal Act was under preparation, I placed before the Government, and it was accepted by them, a plea that the calling up age should be the same for all, including medical men and dentists, but that there should be power, at the request of the individual for the calling-up age limit of twenty-six to be extended to thirty. I readily agree that experience has shown that it is necessary for that age to be advanced to thirty; otherwise, as was explained by the noble Viscount the First Lord of the Admiralty, many men would escape liability for service. Moreover, I have to bear in mind that medical men and dentists are in a special category, for when they are called up they are called up to commissioned rank. That may be regarded as making them more favoured than others, but it must be remembered that this is not entirely disinterestedness on the part of the Legislature, because the Services must have medical officers.

A deficiency in the number of medical officers is obvious at once, even in peace time, while a deficiency of other experts may be revealed only in war time. I am surprised that none of your Lordships has raised the question of the deferment of men preparing for certain professions, such as the law or engineering, so that they could be called up at a later stage as fully qualified experts and put straight into commissioned rank. That might be a way of dealing with the wastage in expert training, but that is rather beyond my province. As I said, I readily accept the raising of the age to thirty, but at the same time I wish to warn your Lordships that that may not provide the number of general duty medical officers required, because there are so many ex-Service men going through the medical curriculum at present that the output of men still liable for military service may be considerably less than it was in the past; and the position may become serious.

I fear a shortage of general duty medical officers, but I warn your Lordships and the Government, who have already been informed from many sources, that there will be a shortage, and in fact there is already a shortage, of specialists. In the debate yesterday anxiety was expressed on all sides of the House that the cream of the youth of this country called up for service should be properly cared for—and I presume that that includes medical care. The extension of the period of service to eighteen months means that a larger proportion of men will be sent to distant fields and their care will require a larger number of qualified and experienced specialists. In the view of the Army Medical Advisory Board, of which I am the Chairman, and of the Medical Personnel Priority Committee, of which I am the Vice-Chairman, the specialists cannot be provided under the present law. Therefore, I earnestly beg His Majesty's Government, and particularly the heads of the Service Departments to give immediate attention to the possibility of making service in the Forces more attractive, of improving the terms and conditions of service, particularly in the medical branches, and of trying to work out a scheme by which the National Health Service and the Forces can to a certain extent be integrated.

In the National Health Service there will be a number of whole-time appointments for specialists, and it may be thought wise that some of these posts should carry the obligation to be liable to be seconded for service with the Forces, the specialist resuming his old position without loss of any seniority, chance of promotion or other advantages. I maintain that we are on the verge of a very serious position, and unless the Government and the Service Departments give immediate and serious attention to it, there is a danger of a breakdown. There is a danger that your Lordships' sons and grandsons may be thousands of miles away from home without the assurance that there is a proper medical service to look after them in case of illness or injury. Do not throw the blame on that magnificent corps, The Royal Army Medical Corps, with which I have had the honour of being associated for forty years, and whose uniform I have the privilege of wearing. The responsibility lies with us, if we send these young men to distant fields and do not arrange for proper care to be taken of them.

3.37 p.m.

VISCOUNT HALL

My Lords, we must all, and particularly someone like myself who occupies the position of political head of one of the Services, take note of any remarks which fall from the lips of so distinguished a surgeon as the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson. He has held an important position in the medical world for a long period and has rendered great service to the Forces, particularly in the position which he occupied during the war. I think it can be rightly said that much of the success of the medical service in the three Forces during the war was a result of the close co-operation between them and the medical profession; and in that co-operation the noble Lord played an important part. For that we are all grateful to him. Of course, I can say little about the points he raised this afternoon, other than to assure them that what he has said will certainly be conveyed to my Service colleagues and the Minister of Defence. I have no doubt they share my view that we must keep the closest and most friendly co-operation between the Services and the medical profession. One has only to read the record of casualties and of those who suffered from illness and disease during the 1939–45 war and compare it with that for the 1914–18 war to see what a marked change has taken place and how many valuable lives were saved and needless suffering prevented by this close co-operation. I shall certainly see that the remarks which my noble friend has made are conveyed to my colleagues, to the Minister of Defence and to His Majesty's Government.

3.39 p.m.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

My Lords, I rise for only one moment to say how much we on these Benches appreciate the weighty intervention that has been made in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, and also to say how glad we are that the noble Viscount opposite has said that he will give these matters the consideration which they deserve. I will add only this. This matter affords another instance of how nothing appears yet to have been done to implement that part of the White Paper on the Ministry of Defence issued two years ago which forecast economies in the administrative Departments of the Services by integration of the kind my noble friend Lord Webb-Johnson mentioned just now. There is here, quite clearly, a field to be explored, and, as I have said, we are very glad that the matter is to be considered in the light of Lord Webb-Johnson's remarks.

On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.