§ 2.45 p.m.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON)My Lords, with permission, I should like to make a Statement about the Report of Lord Donaldson's Committee on Boy Entrants and Young Servicemen. The Report has now been published as Command 4509, and copies are available in the Printed Paper Office. The Government are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, and his colleagues for their very valuable review of a complex and difficult subject.
The Committee accept that the need for adequate defence forces demands a system of binding engagements. They also acknowledge the opportunities to leave that already exist for those who, for various reasons change their mind about a Service career. At present, about 12,000 boys and adults are allowed to leave prematurely each year. Nevertheless, the Committee conclude that all who join the Services before the age 17½, whether on boys' or adult engagements, should be allowed to change the terms of their engagements when they reach the age of majority.
They recommend that most boy entrants should have the right at the age of 18 to confirm their original engagements or to reduce them to three years. But they recognise that this would not give the Services a fair return for apprentices who need two or more years training. They therefore recommend that these 123 long-term apprentices should have three options at the age of 18—to confirm their original engagements, to complete their training and then give five years' productive service, or to leave forthwith in mid-training.
We have had to consider these recommendations against the background of the extremely serious manpower situation which we found when we took office, and we have had to weigh carefully the consequences of any relaxation of the present engagement structure for the maintenance of the strength and efficiency of the Forces. We have concluded that, on balance, it would be right to accept Lord Donaldson's main recommendations, with one modification.
While we appreciate the motives of the Committee in differentiating between apprentices undergoing long training and the majority, on balance we have concluded that in fairness we ought to treat boys in both groups alike. In some cases they live, work and train side by side. They would find it hard to understand why, when they reached 18, some could leave at once and others only in three years' time.
In order to put the two groups on a much more equal footing, we have decided to introduce a scheme under which everyone who joins before the age of 17½ will have the opportunity at 18 of confirming his original engagement or choosing to leave three years after his 18th birthday or completion of training, whichever is the later, There will be no option to leave at 18 for the small group of apprentices who undergo long training but equally they will not be required to serve for as long as five years after the completion of their training.
Although the Committee's recommendations were framed in relation to the raising of the school-leaving age, which will occur in 1972–73, the Government have decided to introduce the new arrangement on April 1, 1971. It will apply not only to those who join thereafter but also to those already serving who are still under 18.
The Government have accepted all the other recommendations of the Committee, except that which recommended that the size of the Defence Budget should be adjusted to take account of the social and economic value to the nation of the 124 training of boys. We regard this recommendation as impractical.
The Committee recognised that implementation might have to be phased. Because of the Navy's manpower shortages, this will be necessary in the case of Recommendation 3, that the period of service required before adult naval ratings and Royal Marine other ranks can apply for discharge by purchase should be brought into line with the other Services. However, we intend to make steady progress year by year, so that by 1977, at the latest, the Royal Navy will be in line with the other two Services.
My Lords, I am very conscious of the risks in our decision for the manning of the Services. I believe, however, that we have struck a reasonable balance between the need, which we accept, for some liberalisation of the present arrangements, and the need to provide adequate defence forces. I should like, if I may, to draw attention to the tribute which the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has paid to many aspects of Service life and training. In his own words,
… the Services provide a form of education and training available equally to the less privileged, which is not provided elsewhere and which is of the highest value to the individuals and the country.I am confident that with this relaxation of the engagement rules, and with the new impetus of the present Government's defence policy, increasing numbers of boys will avail themselves of these opportunities.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his clear reading of the Statement, bearing in mind that he has only just flown back from—I am never sure whether it is Singapore, Washington or somewhere else, just before lunch, and he has made a speech in between times. I think he is doing very well.
This is an important Statement and an important Report. Although it has not been possible to study the Report, it is obvious that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and his very high-powered Committee, which included a number of names from the Services, like Sir Desmond Dreyer and others, have gone thoroughly into a problem that used to cause some anxiety in the previous Government, and certainly among a number of noble Lords, including in particular 125 my noble friend Lord Brockway, in this House. It is not for me to criticise the Government's decision, because the previous Government were awaiting the Donaldson Report. It appears to me, subject to the fact that we shall want to study this Report, that the Government have acted not without some courage in this matter. I have no doubt that the noble Lord received advice from some people that to go even any way down this road would be disastrous. It is difficult to judge that until it is tested in practice.
I think this represents a real advance in dealing with a matter which offended, I think, the consciences of all liberal people in this country, in which I particularly include the noble Lord himself. We shall want to look at this matter. While acknowledging that the Government have already accepted many of the recommendations of the Donaldson Committee, we shall certainly want to consider whether the period of three years is really necessary. I understand that in the Royal Marines, for instance, people go after one year. It may be that the Royal Marines can do what other people cannot do. We shall want to look at this subject and we may want to debate it. But in giving this welcome, I must say that what is proposed represents an advance, and I would echo what the noble Lord said at the end of his Statement as to the excellent quality of this training. It is superb training and the results are very good. It is a natural thing that young men of a certain age—and they all get married remarkably young—will want to dash out into "civvy" street, and with a certain delay they might not want to rush quite so vigorously. The question is whether it should be a three-year wait or something less. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE)The noble Lord is rambling.
§ LORD SHACKLETONI hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will contain himself at this moment, because we are discussing an important matter and we really do not want lots of interruptions from him.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI would merely say to the noble Lord that I thought towards the end he was beginning to ramble.
§ LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEYMy Lords, I should like to welcome very much this Report. It is a most welcome change from the policy of the last Government, who appeared to be prepared to accept that something which they officially said was morally wrong could be politically right—something which the Liberals have never believed. My welcome must include one reservation and one question. The reservation is that I think it is a great pity that the difference between apprentices and non-apprentices has not been evened up by giving non-apprentices the right to leave at 18. It is not the apprentices who find themselves unhappy, in a sense; it is often the non-apprentices. They are the people who are quite literally "doing their nuts"—if I may use that expression—at just about that age of 18 or 19. I think it would have been a great advance if they could have been given the option to leave at 18, as was recommended.
The question I want to ask is this. I understand the problems about phasing out the naval arrangements to make them fit in with the Army and Air Force, but I should like to ask whether, if Service recruitment improves, as it may well do as a result of this training, the rate of phasing could be re-examined.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, may I just answer the two noble Lords who have spoken, before the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, intervenes? I should like to thank both noble Lords for the way they have received this Statement. I know well that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has the future and interests of the Services at heart, and this came through in what he said to-day. I should just like to say this about the composition of the Committee, because I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. The noble Lord drew attention to the fact that Admiral Dreyer, for example, was on the Committee. But this was not a Committee composed purely of people from the Ministry of Defence: there were eight independent members on it. It was by no means a Committee which was, so to speak, an inbred Committee from the Ministry of Defence.
I agree with the noble Lord that this was a difficult decision to take, and of course there were differences of opinion about it. But I think one can argue—and I hope this is right—that by doing what 127 we are doing we may encourage more boys to join rather than fewer boys. Certainly this is something that we must hope, because, as I have said to your Lordships on a number of occasions, I am seriously worried about the manpower position in the Services. I am equally grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. It is not for me to stick up for noble Lords opposite, but I would say that, after all, they appointed the Donaldson Committee, and for all I know, if they had had the opportunity they would have come to exactly the same conclusion that the Government have.
I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has got the point about the apprentices quite right. The point is that Lord Donaldson said that apprentices, because of their long-term apprenticeships, should have the opportunity of leaving at the age of 18, but not others who are not apprentices and who should be required to serve for a further three years. I think we felt that this was a distinction which would prove difficult to justify and might lead to trouble, and that it would be better to put everybody on the same footing. There are, of course, arguments both ways, but this is the conclusion to which we came. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, asked me whether, if Service recruitment got better, and particularly in the Royal Navy, we could speed up the process of getting the Navy into line with the other Services. Of course that is so, and we shall do that as quickly as we can.
§ LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEYMy Lords, I think I did get the point, and I am sorry if I was not lucid in my intervention. I was merely making the point that if the two groups should be brought into line, as I agree they should be, it was the non-apprentices who should be brought into line with the proposals for the apprentices, and not the other way round.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, as one who took some initiative in raising this issue in the House, may I first thank the noble Lord for his Statement? As a Back-Bencher I must put my comments in the form of questions. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that those of us who have given evidence to the Donaldson Committee are tremendously 128 appreciative of the way in which they have considered these questions? Is it not clear that that Committee, representing both the Defence Departments and others, have reached a compromise on this matter? May I ask the noble Lord whether he will enable us to debate this issue, because obviously it is impossible to deal with it by question and answer.
One question I would put immediately is this. Did I hear the noble Lord correctly that it would be 1977 before these recommendations would be applied to boys serving in the Navy? Is he aware that I have had in my hands over 300 letters from boys serving who wish to have an opportunity to get out of the Services? The vast majority of those letters came from boys who are now in the Navy. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he will reconsider this extraordinary decision: that boys who are contracted to serve for 15 years at the age of 15, should have to wait for seven years before they have an opportunity of leaving.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I am sure it is my fault, but that is not what I was trying to say. The boys in all three Services will have the same opportunities after April, 1971. I was saying that recommendation No. 3—and perhaps the noble Lord will be good enough, when he has an opportunity, to look at the Report, which is quite long—suggests that the three Services' practice should be brought into line as regards the period of service required before adult Naval ratings can apply for a discharge. It is a different period of time in the Navy from the other two Services, but because of the manpower situation one cannot do this at once; it will take some time to bring the Navy into line. I hope that the Navy will be in the same state as the other two Services before 1977, but I cannot guarantee it.
With regard to the noble Lord's other questions, I am most grateful for the way that he has responded to this Statement. I know what an interest he has taken in this matter, and I should be happy to have a debate. No doubt my noble friend the Chief Whip will bear in mind what the noble Lord has said.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the training of 129 these apprentices involves considerable expense which the nation has to provide? May I also ask him whether he is aware that those of us who have been involved in this controversy for many years are pleased that the grievances ventilated during those years are now about to be removed? We welcome the recommendations. For myself, I welcome also the modification which the noble Lord mentioned: that there is to be no differentiation as between trade apprentices and the others. But I would ask: is there to be any reserve liability for these boys? In view of the expenditure involved, and the need for manpower in the Services, for the purpose of our security we require reserves. This is an opportunity to place upon those who have been serving and have gained at the nation's expense, a reserve liability.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, with regard to the noble Lord's last question, we are looking into this matter. I cannot make a Statement to-day, but this subject is being examined. I share his view that it must be examined carefully. I agree with him about the apprentices, and it would be wrong to treat them differently from the others, in view not only of the training that they have been given but also of the importance all three Services—and in particular the Royal Air Force—must attach to apprentices.
§ LORD BLYTONMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, the Leader of the House whether it is within the procedure of this House for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to get up and say that a member of our Party is "flannelling"? I thought that the procedure of this House was for the Leader of the House to guide the business. May I say to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in a friendly way, that his conduct in the past three weeks is oppressing us here, and probably in the near future we will move a vote of censure on him?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, may I apologise if I have caused the noble Lord any offence at all? It seemed to me that as the noble Lord who leads the Opposition was referring to me I was entitled to explain myself. I meant him no offence.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I do not wish to pursue this matter now. 130 I am sure that the noble Earl the Leader of the House is as embarrassed as we are by this. I am bound to say that I find some of this quite intolerable. I will leave it there at the moment. I do not know how long we can put up with it.
May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that we have had an interesting run on his Statement, but it might be worth while to consider having a debate on an Unstarred Question, because some interesting suggestions have come from my noble friend Lord Shinwell and others. It might be well worth while to explore this matter further. I think the noble Lord can be pleased at the reaction to his Statement.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I should be very happy with that, because this is an important subject. Inevitably, as one does not want to make a Statement too long, there are a number of other recommendations in the Donaldson Report to which I have not drawn the attention of the House. I have referred to only the more important recommendations, and I should be very happy with the noble Lord's suggestion.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE)My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, and the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, I would suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, that he might follow his Leader's advice and leave the matter there. I wish, myself, that the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition, had not made the remarks which he made just at the end of his speech; but I personally prefer to leave it there for the time being.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, if the noble Earl is going to start debating it by disagreeing with me, I must take exception. We will say no more at this moment, but will consider in private how we deal with the situation.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, may I say at once that I am extremely sorry if I have caused any offence to the noble Lord who leads the Opposition, and I hope for that reason that he will leave matters exactly as they are. I have known him for many years; he has been a colleague of mine in both Houses; I have the greatest respect for him, and I should be extremely sorry to think that I had caused him personal pain or public offence.