HC Deb 06 May 1947 vol 437 cc230-358
Mr. Ayles (Southall)

I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, to leave out "eighteen," and to insert "twenty-one."

Mr. Stephen (Glasgow, Camlachie)

On a point of Order, Major Milner. Do you not intend to call the first Amendment on the Order Paper?—in page 1, line 9, after "subject," to insert: except the only son of a widow living with and supporting his mother. I submit to you, respectfully, that is a point of very great importance, in view of the experience of many hon. Members during past years.

The Chairman

I was not proposing to select that Amendment. In the first place, it is not in the right place, and in the second place the point is dealt with in a new Clause, and I have so advised the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), whose name is the first of those down to the Amendment.

Mr. Ayles

Everything comes to those who wait and I hope it will not be long before we see the end of the Bill. There are three main arguments for the Amendment I have just moved. There is the argument from the standpoint of the lads who will be conscripted; the argument from the standpoint of the country, and the argument from the standpoint of industry. I think I can put the arguments in each case in very brief form. If we take a lad and put him in the Army, we should at all events not take him until he has a fair idea of everything that is involved in the great thing he is to be asked to do. While some lads of 18 are fairly mature, generally speaking, lads of 18 are in anything but a settled state of mind. Their thoughts and emotions are disturbed, their moral and religious convictions are still in a state of development. In that stage, a lad needs all the freedom he can get in the normal atmosphere of the home and in society, in order that ultimately he may be able to find his feet. Instead of that, we take him and put him in the Army, subject him to rigid discipline and to a new servility which often leads to sterility of achievement. Discipline is good, but it should be self-discipline. Obedience is good, but it should be willing obedience. Otherwise, it is slavery. In this Amendment I ask that adolescents of 18 should not be placed in the Army under rigid Army discipline, but that at least three more years should be given to them to get more settled in their ideas and convictions, so that they may be better able to meet the emergencies and temptations of their new lives.

My second argument is from the standpoint of the country. Parliament has decided that the lad of 18 is not a fit and proper person to be allowed the franchise. He lacks experience; he lacks knowledge; he lacks understanding, and he lacks judgment. But the Bill imposes on these lads the most terrible responsibility that they will ever have to face during the whole of their lives. It is a responsibility that has to be carried out by methods which will have to be completely unlearned when they return to civilian life. I want to submit that that is a bad interruption to their lives. In my opinion those three extra years enable a lad to differentiate between the ethics of society and those of war which are, in many respects, opposed to one another. This country is not in need of automatons turned out by a drill sergeant. It is in need of men who have minds that are fresh, and who are full of initiative and adventure.

My third point is that the additional three years in industry will prevent a great deal of hardship if we allow an apprentice to finish his apprenticeship without interruption. I understand that if a lad is indentured the Minister proposes to give him certain opportunities for deferment. In my own trade—engineering—the indenture has almost faded out. A lad with initiative and spirit will often serve seven years under two or three employers. I myself had three employers during my seven years. When one is indentured one is indentured to a person, but when one is apprenticed, one is apprenticed to a trade, and the greater the amount of experience one can obtain in the seven years with regard to the trade the better. The lad himself is all the better for it, and to break into his apprenticeship and prevent him from consolidating his knowledge and skill is bad from the standpoint of industry. Every engineer will confirm that the last three years of a lad's apprenticeship are the most important. To break into that at 18 and condemn the lad to a year of discontinuous employment under military discipline will be the greatest deterrent to the resumption of steady and continuous work which depends upon a man's own volition. So far as his trade is concerned—especially in the precision engineering industry— he will have become so much out of touch with his tools as to have to start all over again. That means frustration for the lad and waste to industry to say nothing of loss to his employers. If we are to have conscription then let us have it in a way which does as little harm as possible to the men upon whom it is imposed, to the country which allows it to be imposed, and to the economic system upon which the life of our people depends.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg (Oxford)

; I trust that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister will not accept this Amendment. The Member for Southall (Mr. Ayles), submitted three tests the interests of industry, the interests of the young man concerned, and the interests of the country. Although I should put the interests of the country first, I agree that these are the right three tests, but perhaps the Committee will forgive me if I first protest against the insult to our young men and women which was implied in a certain sentence of the hon. Gentleman's speech. He seemed to indicate that those who had been called up at the age of i8 since 1939, and had done their service, had become automatons. That has not been our experience on this side of the House. I am not now arguing whether or not compulsory military service is, on balance, a blessing or boon, but it gives a totally unjust picture of the young men of this country to suggest that their recent experiences have turned them into automatons. If the age of i8 is chosen as the age for performing the duty of preparing oneself for the defence of the country there is really no reason whatever to suggest that they will lose in the qualities of initiative or self-reliance. I think it is the greatest pity that such language should have been used.

I protest also against the insult to the Service which was implied in another of the hon. Gentleman's sentences. Nobody could accuse me of being a particularly military figure, but I had the honour to serve in the Army during the war and it is a totally grotesque and perverted picture of military discipline and service which the hon. Gentleman has sought to put forward. To those who experience it it is a noble thing to undergo discipline. May I say this to the hon. Gentleman? Although we should all admit that self-discipline is the best kind of discipline some of us have learned a certain amount by being disciplined by others. Hon. Members opposite may think that they do not need it, but others who observe them from outside may form a different conclusion. To regard the discipline of the modern Services as something rigidly imposed and producing automatons shows that hon. Gentlemen opposing various portions of this Bill are living in the past. That is not a picture of the modern Services. It is, in fact, a grotesque caricature and distortion of the truth.

I turn now to the three interests which the hon. Gentleman has put forward. First, the interest of the young man himself. I represent a constituency which, although not a university is a university town, and although we are much wiser than the constituents of the Burgesses, we do take a certain interest in the affairs of the university in the city of Oxford. I venture so say, with some assurance, on these matters that if this Amendment were carried, the very first thing that would happen would be that nearly all the learned bodies in this country responsible for university education would immediately protest to the Government and ask that the original figure should he reinstated in the Bill in another place. I know that some hon. Members think that those who either deserve or receive—and I make no point about that—a university education, are not worthy of attention, but I think that in a democracy the needs and requirements of universities in relation to national service, are among the very first considerations we should have in mind in a Measure of this kind. I venture to submit that the interests of the lad—properly safeguarded as they are in this Bill in the case of apprenticeship— would be totally disregarded in the case of those desiring to enter the universities, should this Amendment be carried.

Then we come to the interests of the country. I understand the specious and attractive character of the argument which tries to establish a connection between the privilege and right of voting, and the privilege and duty of serving one's country in time of war. None the less, I consider that the argument is a misleading one. Both are obligations which come to all of us should we reach maturity. The exact age, whether it be 18 or 21, is a matter partly of tradition and partly of convenience, and while it applies equally to us all, there can be no necessary or immediate relaxation of the date upon which one obligation is imposed rather than the other. If there is an argumènt to be drawn from that I should have thought it would be that the convenient date at which to confer the right and duty of voting would be that at which the military service obligation had been faithfully performed in time of peace. I should however prefer to say that this is a question which must be determined in the light of experience and of practical considerations. So far as I can see, the practical considerations and the experience in recent years indicate that the first stages of preparation for military service can be properly undertaken at the age of 18. Nothing is gained and probably a good deal is lost, both from the point of view of the young man and of the country, by postponing an obligation which has in any event to be undergone.

Lastly, the hon. Gentleman put forward the interests of industry. I do not claim to be a great expert upon industry, but I do present to the Committee the argument that the directly opposite conclusion, to that which the hon. Gentleman sought to advance, is true. Is it better to break off a lad's career after he has become safely engaged upon some trade, industry or profession—after he has already made a start in it—or, on the whole, before he has done so? Those of us who, in the last war, had to break off our careers in the early 20's to perform this sacred obligation, learned to our cost how very fatal to our prospects that can be. If we consider the interests of industry, which must have a proper supply of people to serve it, and the interests of the young men and of the country, I am convinced that 18 and not 21 is the proper age.

Mrs. Ridealgh (Ilford, North)

I support the Amendment. The State recognises that at the age of 21 a young man is capable of exercising a vote and forming a judgment on national affairs. If the State is not prepared to recognise the capabilities of a young man before that age, it should not require him to be conscripted for national service before that age. Furthermore, it is not carrying out the principles of democracy, because it the State is seeking, by compulsion, to take away part of a young man's life, he ought to have some say in the matter, and that will not be the case if this Bill goes through in its present form. At the age of 21, the young man is not only more mature in his judgment, but has greater stamina, and will, therefore, be better able to stand up to the rigorous training which seems to be accepted as the standard for the modern Army. This rigorous training seems to me to be inevitable, if these young men are to he fully trained within 12 months.

In the Bill, we agree to the granting of deferments to students, taking up university careers, and to indentured apprentices. These deferments are important and very necessary, but I suggest that the completion of all training, whether indentured or otherwise, is just as important. Skilled craftsmen in the engineering industry are agreed—and this applies to any other industry—that continuity in training of apprentices is extremely important. They say that' if an apprentice breaks off in the middle of his training, even for one year, his training will be adversely affected. Where this happens, a man is often put back years before he can reach the high standard of skill which is necessary in a highly mechanical industry like engineering. Experienced craftsmen are firmly of the opinion that what counts most in bringing out the mechanical aptitude, which is so important to the engineering industry, is the groundwork carried out during the years of apprenticeship. If that training is broken, it is likely to make it extremely difficult for a man to pick up where he left off.

Again and again we are being told that the world markets will soon be buyers' markets and not sellers' markets, and that we in this country are dependent on exports to keep up our standard of living. One of the greatest assets, in marketing these exports, will be the skill and craftsmanship of our producers. What happens to a young man when he goes into the Forces? The methods adopted in the Forces, in planning the whole life of the individual conduce to taking away his sense of responsibility. The Services arrange what he shall do, how he shall do it, and when he shall do it. They feed him, clothe him, and even provide him with his amusements and attend to his dependants. There is little left on which he can think for himself. So he tends to become slipshod and careless, with a consequent loss in pride of craftsmanship. The skill and aptitude of the individual is also lost, unless he happens to have retained a certain—

The Chairman

I hope that the hon. Lady will address her remarks to the point before the Committee, namely, whether the age should be 18 or 21.

Mrs. Ridealgh

I am trying to point out that breaking-off training at the age of 18 will affect not only the individual, but the interests of the country. It was from that angle that I was endeavouring to put forward my argument. I know that I have painted a black picture, but I know that what I have said has been only too true in the case of those who had their training broken in the past. Not only have the lads regretted the breaking of their training, but so have the experienced craftsmen who helped to train them, and they are very unhappy about the present situation. There should be no hesitation, on the part of trade unionists, in demanding that the age be increased from 18 to 21. It is in the interest of trade unionists, and in the interests of industry generally, and I hope that we shall have the support of all the trade unions on this Amendment.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs)

I think it would he to the advantage of the Committee, if at this stage I indicated the views of the Government. The Government do not propose to accept this Amendment. The hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Ayles) put up his reasons for this Amendment, under three heads, most of which were answered adequately by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). It is apparent that the hon. Member for Southall has not realised that deferment is not restricted to indentured apprentices, but also covers non-indentured apprentices, and, what is more important, those who are called just "learners," who have not the privilege of being apprentices, but are being taught a trade. All who are going through a course of instruction for a trade, or who are going up to the universities, shall have the right to ask for deferment.

Mr. Braddock (Mitcham)

Will the Minister indicate who is going to be affected under these conditions?

Mr. Isaacs

If the hon. Member had waited to hear what I am about to say, there would have been no need to ask that question. I was making clear what was already indicated on Second Reading, that any apprentice, learner, or student going up to a university, may himself make application for his service to be postponed until after his training has been completed. Therefore, there is no question of the employer having the right to say "I want this lad deferred." It is the right of the young lad himself to ask for deferment. The Government, on their part, will want satisfaction that there is not only a bona fide apprenticeship, but a bona fide opportunity for a lad to learn a trade. In my own experience, I know of firms which have taken on four or five lads as apprentices. I know of one firm in South London which claimed to teach lads how to be compositors. This firm had one journeyman and six apprentices, and was not really teaching the lads anything. Such lads cannot claim to he deferred, nor can a firm claim for them, unless we are satisfied that there is real opportunity for the lads to learn their trade, and not be exploited as cheap labour—

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay (Combined English Universities)

I understand that apprenticeship covers 5 per cent. of the workers. The right hon. Gentleman has now introduced the word "learners." Can he define what he means by "learner"? Who will determine whether there is such a thing as a bona fide learner?

Mr. Isaacs

It will be the duty of the manpower boards to satisfy themselves that there is a genuine learnership, or apprenticeship, in existence. These boards had great experience of dealing with similar work during the war.

Mr. Manningham-Buller (Daventry)

The right hon. Gentleman says that the manpower boards will decide this issue. On what principles will they act? What will be the definition of "learner," for them to consider? What test will a board apply to determine whether the case before them is the case of a genuine learner? What the right hon. Gentleman has said may be valuable, but it is extremely vague. Cannot he be more precise?

Mr. Isaacs

We want the manpower boards to use that which is most useful in cases like this—common sense. What would apply in the case of one firm, might not apply to another. There must be a genuine contract of learnership or apprenticeship, and that contract must be in a place where the lad has been apprenticed in accordance with the regular custom of the trade, and where there is an opportunity for him to learn his trade. It will be for the board to say, "This is a genuine case. The lad wants to be reserved for the time being to finish his training, and we think that he has made out his case."

Mr. Hopkin Morris (Carmarthen)

; If this matter is to be left to the common sense of the board will it be left to the common sense of different manpower boards throughout the country? In other words, will there be no law governing these cases, but merely the discretion of each board?

Mr. Isaacs

There are many industries, and many kinds of learners. In the printing industry an apprentice is bound by an apprenticeship deed; in Scotland, he is not, but the apprenticeship is just as genuine even though there is no deed. There are other lads who are taken on as learners, and each industry or each office may have to be considered. It can be left to the manpower board to decide. They will have latitude in deciding what is the right thing to do in a particular case. The boards will, if necessary, take into account representations by employer and worker; there is no other way to do this, except by laying down rigid rules and regulations, to be interpreted in the letter rather than in the spirit.

Now we come to the question of whether this calling up of apprentices will ruin their career by taking them away before they have finished their term of training. There are two schools of thought about this matter. I have heard it said by craftsmen that it ruins a boy to take him away in the middle of his apprenticeship. On the other hand, others have said that it is far better that the boy should go away in the middle of his apprenticeship, and come back and pick it up again, than that he should be taken away when he is just beginning to practise his trade. There are excellent schemes in operation, initiated by the Coalition Government, for apprentices who came back to their trade. If an apprentice goes away and comes back, it is agreed, in many cases, that he should serve only 18 months to complete his apprenticeship, instead of the usual term. That is an indication that he is coming back with a wider knowledge of the world, and of life. That has been proved to be the case. It has also been argued that these lads do not know what they are being asked to undertake. Well, they may not have known what they were being called upon to do during the war but, nevertheless, they did it. Many lads of this age volunteered, before the war, for such bodies as the Territorial Army. Many of a younger age are now joining the Auxiliary Training Corps, the Sea Cadets, and organisations of that kind. If they know what they are doing now, surely they will know what is expected of them when they go into the Forces.

There are other factors which have influenced the Government to stick to their proposal. If we adopt this proposal there will be nobody to call up for three years, because, as I would remind the Committee we are amending the existing Act, which provides for call-up at 18, and not making new law. If we called up these lads at 21, they would not be free from Service and Reserve obligations until they were 28. If we call them up at 18 they will at least be free three years earlier. We must adhere to our decision to call them up at 18. There is the question whether these lads will be helped in their future life by this call-up. They will get out of the rather narrow restricted circles of home life, and meet other men; they will see life from another angle; it is our belief that service in the Forces now —not as it used to be—will broaden their minds, will widen their education, and give many of them a chance of learning a new trade, or continuing to practise their present trade. For these reasons, the Government must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Churchill (Woodford)

I must compliment the Minister of Labour on the admirable speech which he has made, showing the great care and attention to detail with which the preparation for this Bill has been undertaken. A very pliant and flexible structure has been erected, one which enables the needs of individuals to be fitted in, with the least possible injury or inconvenience, with the hard requirements of the State in these severe times. As to the age at which men should be called up for service, there is no doubt that to call up at 1S will be a less severe tax on the community than to call up at 21. At the age of 18, a year in His Majesty's uniform, and in what we hope will be the improved conditions of new Army life, may very well fill a part of their continuous education. Also, how good it is that there should be at that time, when people's minds are so pliant, a mingling of classes, on terms of equality, without the slightest regard to class differences or the fortunes and accidents of life. It seems to me that 18 is a very valuable age from the social point of view. From the military point of view, 19, perhaps, would have been better. A youth has more physical endurance as a fighting person, a fighting creature, at 19, and is probably worth more than at 18; but from the social point of view, and the point of view of adaptation —and it is hard to reconcile the Service machine to the ordinary life of the people and the ordinary bringing up of individuals—there is no doubt to my mind that to begin at 18 is a less severe form of national service than to begin at a later date. As to 21, that seems to me very severe. I think that the hon. Gentleman, who, with charming Victorian ideas, has spoken to us about the wicked Army and all that has not measured the differences in the sacrifices demanded of an individual British male called up at i8 to run through this course, and of one called up at 21.

Mr. Ayles

I think that the right hon. Gentleman is doing me an injustice if he attributes to me any such terms as "wicked Army." What I said was "The ethics of war as opposed to the ethics of society," which is quite a different thing.

Mr. Churchill

As to the ethics of war and the ethics of society, we are all in favour of the ethics of society. The reason why this Bill was brought forward is that we were so worried lest the ethics of society should be upset by the ethics of war. I must return to the question, and the Committee must consider it, of how much greater sacrifice it would impose on citizens to begin this strain at 21 and run on to 28, than to begin it at 18, when it is part, almost, of the educational system. There can be no comparison of the two. From the point of view of the social application of this compulsory service, I certainly do not wish to fasten on to the hon. Gentleman, who made his speech from the highest possible motives, any desire to cast a slur upon the Army; but things change as time goes on. The Army is a very different business now from what it was in the days when a red coat was not allowed inside a public house, and was treated as the scum of the population, until a war broke out, and he had to go and fight, and then he was a hero. It is very different now. A national Army is quite different from an Army of volunteers, who were produced largely by the pressure in the economic market. I am all for volunteers who come from some uplifting of the human soul, some spirit arising in the human breast, but to create a modern Army on a voluntary basis, by the mere pressure of the economic system, is entirely contrary to the kind of world on which our outlook is now fastened.

I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister gave very good and effective answers. I was very much struck by the care and pains which he has taken on some parts of this Bill. I wish we could have similar good treatment on other aspects of our affairs, but this was evidently thought out behind the scenes, in very great detail, and with very great knowledge of the weak places and the danger points of attack. Clause 14 gives very great latitude. I compliment the Government on the internal structure of this Clause, about which I shall have something to say later in these discussions about the sudden changes that have been made in all these calculated complications; but that would not be in Order now. I cannot use up, at this stage, any ammunition which I am reserving for another occasion.

I consider that the Bill has been drafted with great care and knowledge of the life of the people. It is a pity that we have to do these things at all. If we have to do them, on the whole the texture of this Bill as originally drafted, and this fixing A the age, seems to me to reflect an unwonted credit upon His Majesty's Government. Of course, when we come to the conscripted Armies of Europe, 19 to 21 has been the three years' service usually operated. That is very hard. Take a man of 21; he is probably going to get married. At 21 he is supposed to have Finished his training for a great many of the arts and crafts, or he has become settled in his point of view, and then to take him away for 18 months, or even for 12 months, may be a great interruption. But youth is flexible and pliant, and I think that the Government have acted wisely in this matter. I had not noticed the arrival of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence on the scene. He is a sort of culprit arriving on a bench to which we are offering our compliments.

I trust we shall not attempt to prolong the age of calling up to 21. I cannot think of anything more dislocating to the ordinary life of the country than that. I cannot think of any countries before the war, which had to defend great land frontiers and the soil they lived on from invasion at any moment, and which began at such a retarded age as that. The hon. Gentleman has been right to raise this point; it is one which should be brought out in open debate. But I hope he will feel as a result of this discussion that it is possible for him to defer to the view expressed by his own leaders on this point, a view with which the Opposition associates itself.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Hopkin Morris

When I heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour, who has just been so effectively complimented by the Leader of the Opposition, I first realised what was the point of the Amendment. The point of the Amendment is not that it is in the interests of the young men, or of industry, that the age should be raised to 21. I am sorry that the mover of the Amendment seemed to think that that was the case. The real case for the Amendment was made by the Minister of Labour. The real case, he said, is a practical one. If you raise the age to 21, then for three years there will be no one to call up under the Bill. I, as an opponent of the Measure in the interests of the safety of the country, would welcome the argument of the Minister of Labour. He has really made a case, which I did not believe existed until I heard it, for postponing this matter, and giving the country some time to reconsider it.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay

I could hardly believe my eyes when I first saw this Amendment on the Order Paper. Then I saw who was proposing it, and I realised that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Southall (Mr. Ayles) was an uncompromising opponent of military service.

The only discussions on the question of age which I have heard were concerned with the ages of i8 and 19, but the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) has made the case for the Government, in addition to the words spoken by the Minister of Labour. I happen to be one of those who came back to the university after the first war was over, and it was the experience of those at the university then, as indeed it is the experience of those at the university today, and at every emergency training college in the country, that the two or three years in between school and university enabled the students to come back very much refreshed and on the whole better students.

I admit that the logic of this argument would lead me into a very difficult field, because it would almost assume that it was necessary to have a war, in order to have some sort of break between school and university. However, the question really depends on what is to happen between 18 and 19. We come to that in a later Amendment. As far as we are concerned here, if the period between 18 and 19 is not envisaged with a great deal more imagination, and with more educational and technical experience than the Service Ministers at present seem to devote to it, that year is going to be a rather wasted year. I would beg my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee who have already spoken not to have quite such a simple view of the army in peace as they have of it in war. In war it is a different thing. Often men are caught up at 17½. My friends who are at present in the Army in this country are wasting their time and in Germany they are doing something worse.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)

What?

Mr. Lindsay

They are completely losing their moral, and if the hon. Member does not believe me let him go and see for himself. It is not quite a simple matter when we are discussing the question of age. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) that this Bill does give very great flexibility, inasmuch as military service can be entered into between 17½ years and after deferment, but we shall have to know a lot more about learnership. I have been going into this question, and I cannot find any definition of learnership. The number of apprentices in the country is between four and five per cent., and what I want to ask is this; Is the right hon. Gentleman going to get his numbers in the right proportions? Suppose all students who are going to be called up say they want to go in at 17½. Incidentally, I do not know what the sixth forms in the schools are going to do if that happens, but that is another matter. Supposing a very generous recognition is given to learnership not five or even 10 per cent., but 20 or 30 per cent., are we going to get very many people at 18 at all?

I daresay that this is rather outside the scope of this Amendment, but I quite understand the hon. Member for Southall putting down this Amendment, because he is against the whole thing. The age of 21 is to him better than 18, although no one has ever heard of any other country in the world suggesting 21 before. I have heard 18, 19 and even 20 suggested as ages at which young men should be called up, but not anything higher. I agree that this is a land of precedent, but as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford has pointed out, to defer calling up until 21 would do a great deal of harm to the industry of this country. I cannot see that there is any case for that, but when we come to discuss other questions in the Bill we want to take care over the definition of "learner-ship"; the kind of numbers that the Minister expects at different ages, and, above all, the kind of training the Services are going to give. Those are questions which will be raised on subsequent Amendments.

Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)

The question of whether compulsory service should begin at 18 or 21 is not a matter of principle, and it is rather a mistake for people who are opposed to the Amendment, to attribute to the mover the motive that because he is opposed to the Bill anyhow, he is proposing this Amendment. The principle has nothing to do with the Amendment, and even if this Amendment were passed, the mover would still lose on the main question. So many people who have spoken have complimented the Minister on making the complete case against the Amendment that I was left wondering why they spoke at all, because if a complete case were made, it would hardly need any support. The fact that so many people have supported it makes me wonder whether, in fact, they are not shaky about it despite all the arguments that we have heard.

I do not think that the arguments of the Minister of Labour were good and I do not think that a case was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill). Several of the arguments were patently quite unmaintainable. For instance, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour began by saying, "But we could not possibly accept this Amendment because the effect would be that nobody would be called up for three years." Why in the world would that matter? The Bill does not begin to operate until 1950. It comes into operation in 1949, but it will not be in effective operation for the first time, until 1950. Therefore, the loss of time involved does not appear to be a very important matter. If the Bill were to be put into operation immediately after it receives the Royal Assent, I could see some force in the argument, but to accept this Amendment would not postpone calling up for three years. As the Government are not going to call up anybody until 1949, there does not seem to be much in that argument. I may be wrong in what I am saying but if so I should be glad if anyone would point out the error to me. The argument put forward by the Minister of Labour is not a conclusive one and I will leave it at that.

The next argument upon which my right hon. Friend relied seemed to me equally inconclusive. Dealing with the arrangements, he said that it was a mistake to call up people in the middle of their learnership or training but he used mutually contradictory arguments. He said first that many people think it better to interrupt the period of service than to wait until it is concluded, and then interpose a compulsory interval between the completion of their service, and the commencement of the trade. If that is seriously meant, what becomes of the other argument used by my right hon. Friend, that in every case where there was a serious interruption of learnership the manpower boards would in any case defer the call-up until the learnership was completed? The right hon. Gentleman must make up his mind, if this is a disputed question, on which side he is. Nobody can say how these deferments are going to work.

Let us look at it. If we are in favour of interrupting the period of training on the ground that it is better to go back to a period of training, then we do not want the power of deferment, and all that part of my right hon. Friend's speech, which is devoted to showing that everybody inside a certain period would be deferred, was a speech against his own point of view. If, on the other hand, we think they ought to have the period of compulsory service and call-up in the middle of the period of training, then we do not want elaborate provisions and elaborate machinery to prevent that very thing. [Interruption.] Did my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary say "Rubbish"?

5.0 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards)

I did not say "Rubbish" at all. What I said was that it was optional for the person to be called up.

Mr. Silverman

I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. But I do not follow him, because it is not optional. Optional means at the choice of the man called up, but the Bill does not provide that it is optional at all. It provides that a man may choose to apply, but it does not provide that a man may choose to be deferred. If he chooses to apply there is a manpower board which will decide the question, and presumably, since the National Service Acts already on the Statute Book apply, they will decide on the basis of hardships. The question they will have to consider is precisely the question which my right hon. Friend did not touch upon in his speech, namely, whether it is better for the period of training to be interrupted or whether it is better for it not to be interrupted. If he is coming down on the side of the view that it is better to interrupt, the argument put forward by the mover of the Amendment has not been replied to at all.

This question of 18 or 21, although there is no precedent for it in any of the continental models which we are following in having such a Bill in this country, is really quite an important question on social grounds. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said that it was in any case better from the military point of view to have a man at 19 than at i8, and I suppose, by a parallel reasoning, it would be better to have him at 21, from a military point of view, than at 19.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles (Down)

Perhaps 42 would be still better.

Mr. Silverman

There are people who believe that Conscription Acts are usually passed by Parliaments whose average age is beyond the calling-up age fixed in the Act. [Interruption.] If the hon. and gallant Member wants to say something, he had better get up. I think that is a dangerous kind of retort to make. If it is true that 19 is better than 18 from a military point of view, it would seem to follow that 21, from a military point of view, is better than 19. It would not necessarily follow—the arithmetic is sound but the logic faulty—that 42 or 84 would be better.

I am saying that 21 would be better from the military point of view than 19, and I think it would also be better from a social point of view. It is a great pity to take a boy at the age of i8 and place him compulsorily in a milieu where all responsibility for his actions is removed from him—[HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] Certainly—where hp is treated as a cipher, where he has to do things not because they are right in themselves but because he is ordered to do them, and where the test of good membership of the society to which he belongs is not an individual judgment, a conscientious appreciation and balancing of one circumstance against another, or the proper taking part in a social order, but mere blind obedience to orders, which is the only virtue. There are times when that is a good thing; I am not inveighing against it altogether as a permanent principle, but I am saying that it is better not to do that with a boy whose mind is still in the formative stage. It is much better to encourage people of that age to think and choose and decide for themselves, and do what they think right against all the world. If there comes a time when one is bound by other necessities to compel them into an atmosphere where personal judgment, responsibility and choice are necessarily subordinated to other considerations, it is better to do that when the mind is more formed than to do it while it is less formed. I think, therefore, that on both military and social grounds, the case for the Amendment is made out.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles (Down)

I would like to return to the argument put forward by the mover of the Amendment, the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Ayles); I refer only to his point about the engineering trade. I nave not had the privilege of knowing what the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) said about what went on in the universities, but in the engineering trade, the average boy or young man comes in at the age of 16. At 18 he has done two years of his training, and has got through at any rate some of the dirty work. Now, in future, he is to be called up, and will probably return to the trade when he is 19 or 19½ years of age. I put the question to myself whether, when I served my time as an engineer, it would have been better for me to be called up at 18, or to have waited until I was 21. I believe it would have been better for me to be called up at 18 years of age, and I do not believe it would have done me the slightest harm to be in the Army for 12 or i8 months. I think I should have returned with more force of character, with my mind made up to pay attention to myself, and to learn my work, and I think I should have been a more useful man to my employer.

I take it that the trade unions themselves raise no objection one way or the other, but the employers, who are very seldom mentioned in this House, would, I am quite sure, be very glad to have a young man back at his trade again at 19½ years of age having seen something else. Just as, when one goes abroad, one appreciates one's own country better when one gets back, in the same way a young man who has left his trade will probably appreciate it more when he returns again from the Army. He will come back as what, in the old days, we used to call an "improver." A man in the last year of training as an engineer used to be called an "improver" and was probably getting approximately a journeyman's wages. If the Government resist this Amendment I believe they will be wise; it will be in the interests of the engineering industry, of the young men themselves, and of the country in general.

The Chairman

I hope the Committee is now ready to come to a decision and pass on to the next Amendment.

H

Hon. Members: No.

Commander Maitland (Horncastle)

Running through the Second Reading Debate was the desire that we should man our Services by volunteers if possible. The Minister of Labour made that point very clear. He said that the class of young man who would be coming into the Services at the age of 18 would form a valuable reservoir for volunteers. He went on: Many of the young men called up to do their r8 months' service may find the Services so attractive to them that they may desire to continue in them, and to continue for a fixed period longer than their 18 months.' —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st March, 1947; Vol. 435. c. 1680.] I consider that serving in the Services, and in the Royal Navy in particular, is an honourable duty, and that we shall find a large number of young men who will volunteer. It will be much more difficult for them to do so if they are called up at the age of 21 instead of at the age of i8. I hope that the Committee will support the Government on this issue.

There are two other points I wish to make. Both the mover of the Amendment and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) made the point that young men coming into the Forces would have their initiative damped down. I have been connected for some time with technical training in the Navy. I assure the Committee, and the two hon. Gentlemen in particular, that we have spent our entire time trying to teach young men to think for themselves. At the end of a year's training many of these young men display an enormous difference not only from what they were when they entered the Service but from others of the same age when joining up straight out of private life. I cannot speak for the other Services, but I expect they work on exactly similar lines. We have not been unsuccessful in our endeavours in this respect in the Navy.

Mrs. Leah Manning (Epping)

The young men are not all going into the Navy.

Commander Maitland

The second point is that I am a firm believer in discipline. I believe that far from doing harm it must do good to a young man at the age of 18. I am sure that Mr. Horner, for one, would agree with me. The mover of the Amendment mentioned self-discipline. In my opinion external discipline often leads to self-discipline. For those reasons I cannot but think that it would be an excellent thing if young men of that age were subject to it.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Logan (Liverpool, Scotland Division)

I am convinced that the Amendment is justified, from my understanding of the situation at home, because it will enable youths to finish their apprenticeship. Experience in the Army is not of much use in a factory, from the practical and business point of view. When a young man is learning his trade he can go to a trade school, and he may want to go on to higher classes. His parents may deny themselves many things in order to give the lad an opportunity of learning his trade. Very often that self-denial is accompanied by the receipt of lower wages, if the young man is in an indentured apprenticeship. It is self-denial and discipline of the highest order. Military training may mean a lack of discipline for the young artisan, who needs the discipline of the home, in order to make him into a good citizen.

It is a very controversial question whether 18 or 21 is the best age at which to give service to the State. I think a boy ought to be able to go on with his work, have the benefit of home life and reach maturity before he gives his service, as he is likely then to be a better citizen. I am not a pacifist. I want to see the young men of this nation get the best possible opportunities. From my practical experience at home I am convinced that we shall lose many boys from industry after their Army life if they begin it at 18. When they come out of the Army they will not return to their jobs. Continuation of their studies and learning their trade with their friends in the workshops until the age of 21 would be beneficial to the nation, to home life and to the young men. At that age they would better understand their own weaknesses and would be able to come back better men to their jobs. I do not believe in the interruption of learning, because young people may lose their skill when they cannot continue their jobs. It is essential that men who have to manipulate machinery should be adept in the use of their hands. I am convinced that the Amendment is wise, and I shall support it.

Mr. Pickthorn (Cambridge University)

; I will not weary the Committee with any long arguments upon the main points, which I think have been sufficiently discussed. My own conclusion is that there cannot be any doubt that educationally, whether the word "education" is taken in a narrow or in a wider sense, there must be an advantage in there being an opportunity for some boys—I would say a high proportion—beginning their military service at the age of 18. Therefore the Committee would be well advised to reject the Amendment, which proposes to make that impossible for all boys until they are 21.

That seems to me really to be the short point and the main point, but I hope I may be forgiven if I detain the Committee for two or three minutes, in case the Parliamentary Secretary be about to reply, to ask whether we might have a little more clarification of one or two expressions used by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the test of the deferment would be whether, in the opinion of the tribunal—in the common sense of the tribunal, was his phrase— there was a genuine contract of learnership. I think that is rather a horrid word, but I do not blame the Minister for it, and I dare say it was a necessary technical term. Surely, there must be in the Minister's Department—even in his head —some definition of those words with which the Committee ought to be favoured.

What is common sense? I never quite know what is the meaning when one talks about common sense. I take it that it means the general feeling, and finding of people in general., about something or other—that is the common sense of the question; it may be that when you go into it technically, or with scientific instruments, and so on, you will find that feeling or finding not quite right; I think that is the meaning of common sense. If that is the right interpretation of the words, I want to know how the tribunal is to have a common sense. What principles are to be laid down for it? Secondly, I want to know whether the Minister, when he spoke of the contract of learnership, was really meaning a contract in the strict sense, or whether he meant no more than that the tribunal was to make sure there was a genuine process of more or less systematised training going on. I do not know whether that is what he meant. If he will forgive me, that is not what he said. He spoke of a genuine contract. It ought to be made plain whether the thing is to be made a matter of a contract in a strict sense or not. Thirdly, I suppose there trust be some kind of estimate or guess about the percentage, because obviously the Minister's whole argument—that if we accepted this Amendment, for three years he would have no recruits—was an argument of much weight, but if that argument is of weight, the Minister is clearly under a duty to know and to tell us how near he expects to be driven to that by exemptions, because clearly if there were any serious risk that there would be 70 per cent., 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. of long deferments on grounds of learnerships, he would be falling into the difficulty of the Amendment, although he was resisting the Amendment. Therefore, I think he owes it to the Committee to give us information on those three points before we part with this Amendment.

Squadron-Leader Donner (Basingstoke)

. Might I ask the Minister to elucidate one point, which arises partly from what has been said by my hon. Friend the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) and partly from questions put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. ManninghamBuller) to which he received no adequate answer. The Minister said that common sense would be used by the tribunals. I do not know how many of these tribunals there are to be. Are they to be on a regional basis? Are there to be 20, 40 or 50 of them? If there are to be that number, and if they are to act, not upon recognised principles laid down by the Minister, but merely upon common sense, it is likely, is it not, that there will be differences of judgment and, therefore, inequality of treatment as between one locality and another and between one man and another. I feel sure the Minister would be the first to admit that nothing would be more unfortunate than that some young man felt a grievance because his appeal for deferment had been refused whereas the appeal of another man of the same age, perhaps coming from a different part of the country, had been successful. I ask the Minister to tell the Committee how many of these tribunals there are to be, and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the common sense to which he referred will work out uniformly so that there will not be injustices and inequalities.

Several hon. Membersrose—

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont)

Mr. Manningham-Buller.

Mr. Keenan (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

On a point of Order, Mr. Beaumont. May I ask what is the practice of the Chair in calling hon. Members from different sides of the Committee?

The Deputy-Chairman

It would be quite out of Order for me to reply to that question. It is entirely within the discretion of the Chair which hon. Members are called.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I do not intend to traverse in any detail the arguments that have been adduced in favour of this Amendment. The argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) really put the point in a nutshell in saying that the effect of the Amendment would be to exclude a young man who wanted to get his wholetime service done when he was young from any opportunity of doing so, and so might interfere with that individual's career. There is under this Bill a wide discretion as to the time of service, but as the Minister said, that very largely depends upon the way in which the deferment machinery is operated. I hope we shall get a much clearer statement from the Parliamentary Secretary than we had from the right hon. Gentleman in the Second Reading Debate and again today. The right hon. Gentleman said, on Second Reading, that with the exception of underground miners, no deferment would be allowed on industrial grounds. He is now saying, as indeed he said before, that there will be deferment in the case of a genuine and satisfactory apprenticeship being in operation. He said it must be genuine. How is the tribunal to determine that? What test is it to apply? Is it to be left to each tribunal to apply any tests it likes? If that is allowed to happen, there will be a great diversity of decisions in almost similar cases between the respective tribunals.

Again, if the test is to be whether there is a genuine contract of apprenticeship in accordance with the custom of the trade. in a place where the apprentice can learn, that may be very applicable, for instance, in the printing trade, but what about the man employed in agriculture? Is he to be regarded as being apprenticed if he is working on a family farm, if he is what the Minister calls an honest, square case, and if he is employed on a farm where he can learn? Will that be regarded as a studentship or learnership? I think that, before we pass from this Amendment, we ought to know of what principles deferment is to be granted and, in particular, whether young men who are engaged in learning farming genuinely will also be able to get deferment in the same way as those engaged in printing, to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred. We are entitled to know the conditions and general principles on which such deferments will be granted. Young men who will have to make up their minds whether or not to apply for deferment want to know in advance whether or not they are likely to obtain it. One wants them to make their plans for their own future to a large extent. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with those points as fully as he can, so that we may know how deferment is to operate in peacetime.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Ness Edwards

It appears that the Committee have rather anticipated the Amendment to Clause 16 standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) which deals with deferment. I do not know how we have got off the road in this way.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I think we have got off the road but I hope we have not prejudiced discussion on that Amendment. It happened because the right hon. Gentleman brought in the whole question of deferment which, of course, becomes relevant in answering the Amendment now before us.

Mr. Ness Edwards

That was brought in by the mover of the Amendment and it had to be dealt with. It seems to me that we have carried the discussion over a piece of ground which is covered by the later Amendment to which I have referred. I do not want to escape from answering the points which have been put. The Committee should remember that this Bill follows on the White Paper on the Call Up to the Forces. That provides for the call up during 1947 and 1948, and the whole position is laid down in regard to the manner in which deferments are to be operated from an administrative point of view. There has been a great deal of debate and difference of opinion on the question whether 18 or 21 is the right age for call up. I assume that the mover of this Amendment, if it was successful, would not accept the consequences of the success of his Amendment and agree to people being called up at 21. However, that is by the way.

It seems to me that the position is divided into two. That point was brought out very well by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn). With regard to students, the argument is entirely different. The student who takes his matriculation at about the age of 18 must, if he wants to go to university, first assure himself that there is a place in the university for him. If there is a place and he would rather take his training at the university before going into the Forces, he can then apply for that. We shall be advised by the Joint University Recruiting Board, which consists of the vice-chancellors of the universities, whether or not options in these cases hall be allowed. Two considerations apply. One is that there are places in the universities, and the second is that the student who is applying has attained the necessary educational standards.

Mr. Pickthorn

The hon. Gentleman says we shall be advised by the Joint University Recruiting Board on the question whether options shall be allowed. I take it he means whether in any particular case an option should be allowed. He does not mean it is going to be left 'to the vice-chancellors to decide that, after all, there shall not be any options?

Mr. Ness Edwards

They will decide individual cases. The principle has been agreed. That is the position with regard to students. I think it will be agreed that that is an option that should be left to the student. If the student feels that he ought to take his 12 months' service first, and then go to university, that is a right he ought to exercise. In the circumstances, it is a matter for him. In the Bill as it is drafted, that right is given.

Mr. S. Silverman

Is that quite clear? If so, I misunderstood it. Is it quite clear that the decision rests with the man liable under the Bill subject only to his satisfying the Manpower Board either that he is a student under these terms or that a valid contract of learnership or apprenticeship is in existence?

Mr. Ness Edwards

I was dealing only with students. I do not want to be confused. I think my hon. Friend missed the first part of my statement. We must in 1949 when this Bill comes into operation, as now, maintain for the men coming from the Forces the prior right to the available seats in the universities. We must not allow an exercise of this option by too many students to crowd out the men who have already done their service. I think that that will be agreed on both sides of the Committee.

Mr. Stephen

I had a case brought to my attention today. A second year medical student who has failed to pass in one subject at Edinburgh University only gets the right of the one try and then he goes into the Forces, whereas at Glasgow University the student in a similar position may have the right of three tries at the examination before he is called up. Will the Minister take steps to ensure that the same principle operates in each of the universities?

Mr. Ness Edwards

We would like to look at that matter. We want the same conditions to apply in each university. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that a man who has one try and fails should not keep out a man from the Forces who is waiting for a place in the university.

I now come to the industrial side. We have had a great deal of discussion and have consulted both sides of industry about this matter. The general feeling was that 18 was right but that there should be an option, in certain cases where there were bona fide apprenticeships, for the person to be called up to have the opportunity of exercising an option for deferment of his service. How is this done? There are in this country 60 manpower boards which were set up during the war. They functioned throughout the war and they are still functioning and dealing with problems of this sort. First, they dealt with problems of apprentices in the engineering industry during the war. Since I have been in this House I have not heard any complaint about the functioning of the manpower boards in regard to deferment of apprentices in the engineering industry.

Mr. Henderson Stewart (Fife, East)

On a point of fact, is the hon. Gentleman correct in saying that the manpower boards which functioned during the war still function in Scotland?

Mr. Ness Edwards

That is what I said. Manpower boards are functioning for this purpose all over the country. There are 60 of them and they will continue to exercise the same functions under this Bill as those which they now exercise under the White Paper.

Mr. Ayles

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in the last year I have had cases that I have sent to his Department concerning engineering apprentices who only had a year to serve, and who have been forced into the Forces, and that only recently I had one case where a man had only six months of his apprenticeship to complete and he was taken away into the Forces despite all the protests I made?

Mr. Ness Edwards

I quite understand that. Deferments under the White Paper and deferments under the original National Service Act were deferments in the national interest and not the individual interest. In the case of the engineering industry, with developing unemployment, it was felt the time had come to stop this wholesale deferment of apprentices. This has been done under previous legislation and under the present White Paper, in the national interest and not so much in the interest of the individual. Now it is proposed in the Bill under the new arrangement—

Mr. S. Silverman

Under what Clause?

Mr. Ness Edwards

This arises under Clause 16 where there is an Amendment to be moved from the opposite side of the Committee. The matter is set out very fully there and really we should be having this discussion at that stage. With regard to learnership, this was a term which caused great difficulty. The term is used in paragraph 9 on the White Paper on Call Up to the Forces, which says: Articled clerks, learners, those attending certain full-time technical classes, and others in a position similar to apprentices will be treated on the same basis as apprentices. That seems to me to define the position fairly clearly. The learner must be someone in a position comparable with that of an apprentice. It must be a continuous process. Those attending technical classes must be doing so as part of their training for an occupation. It is not intended to exclude men employed by the owners of small businesses because those employers may not perhaps have the business knowledge necessary to formulate paper documents on which the apprenticeship arrangements are based.

I have one last point which I hope will appeal to the Committee. If this Amendment is accepted, it means that no one will be called up for two years, and if no one is called up for two years, will the Committee accept the consequences—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes"]—that nobody can be demobilised for two years, and that the men to whom this Committee has guaranteed release, must be retained?

Mr. Manningham-Buller

The hon. Gentleman has not answered the point I put to him with regard to those employed in agriculture. I would like an answer.

Mr. Ness Edwards

I am very sorry. I was interrupted so many times. I apologise for not answering the question with regard to agriculture. Here again the position is one of considerable difficulty. It is not intended to call up agricultural people for this year and next year. It may be that in 1949 when this Bill comes into operation there will still have to be block deferments—one does not know— but in agriculture there are certain categories of apprentices, men who are articled and men who have agreements who are not quite in the category described by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I was putting to the Parliamentary Secretary the further case of a young farmer or a young assistant who was working and learning on the farm and who had nothing in writing, nothing by way of a document.

Mr. Ness Edwards

The facts of each one of these borderline cases will be considered by the manpower board.

Mr. Keenan

I want to remind the Committee of what has been said about demobilisation. I do not want those who contemplate the passing of this Amendment to forget that it means that from January, 1949, there will be no call-up for three years. That will have to be taken into account in addition to the present circumstances. What I am particu- larly concerned about is the anxiety displayed in all quarters of the Committee as to who should be deferred. I am not one of those who are at all anxious about national service. I am not a pacifist. I agree that in the circumstances we must have national service. I cannot see how the Government can escape their responsibility for looking after the Armed Forces, and all hon. Members should be behind them in that; but I am concerned about this anxiety to defer everybody. I hope that the Ministers who are responsible will not be too much impressed by all the 'claims that are being made. Let us have national service. Let everyone's share be equal. Too much attention is being paid to deferment. Everybody who is eligible should be called up.

I go so far as to say that not even those who desire to go to the universities and other places should escape. Why should the individual who lacks somebody behind him, either family influence or, as the Minister put it rather unfortunately, an employer who is concerned with the learner, be deferred? We ought not to have it as loosely as this. I am glad that the Minister referred to the manpower board as being responsible for determining such a matter as this rather than leaving it to anybody else, because I feel that the board will take the view that there should be no looking at anybody else. When young people are 18 they should be eligible for national service and there should be no deferment for anyone. No one should have advantages over anyone else. It should be national service in the true meaning of the term. We should consider this Bill from that point of view rather than from that of being prepared to dodge service, which seems to be the intention in so many quarters of the House.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. H. D. Hughes (Wolverhampton, West)

I would like to ask how widely the manpower boards will go in the granting of deferments. I have particularly in mind the building industry. In my area only a very small percentage of the boys in the building industry have indentures, or any written evidence of apprenticeship, and the great majority of them have great difficulty in satisfying the manpower board that they are eligible for deferment. I hope that the Ministry of Labour will look into this matter in order to see that large numbers of boys in the building industry are not called up at a time when it is important for them to complete their training.

Mr. Charles Williams (Torquay)

; Frankly I think the Committee owes a deep debt to the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Ayles) for putting down this Amendment because it gives this House possibly the only chance it may have for a considerable time of discussing the right age at which men should enter military service. That point alone is one of very great importance, and I have no intention of giving a silent vote if I can help it. The discussion up to the present has been very largely on the effect of this on university students and apprentices. We have had the opinion of a great many experts and, as happens almost invariably, they disagree.

I am sure that the hon. Member put down this Amendment in complete and absolute innocence. I have listened to many of his speeches and I have always assumed that his innocence was far above that of a normal human being. It can never have struck his mind that if this Amendment were passed, it would completely wreck the Bill. That is what the Ministry of Labour says—we should have a gap of up to two years, it may be a whole two years, with no recruits coming in. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) pointed out that there would also be delay in the demobilisation of the men at present in the Services if exemptions are given to a great many people. In addition to considering the age of call up, we have also to consider how soon we can demobilise the men who are already serving and who will have to serve very much more than the 18 or 12 months. I therefore welcome the fact that the Minister strongly declined to accept the Amendment on that point. I was regretful that the Parliamentary Secretary a little while ago was so hurried or so desirous of stopping the Debate that he did not—

Mr. Ness Edwardsindicated dissent.

Mr. Williams

A number of hon. Members seem to wish to intervene, including hon. Members on the Parliamentary Secretary's side of the House. The Parliamentary Secretary did not say the approximate total number of people he expects to be exempted in the universities. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wishes to interrupt me, I will give way. It is only a matter of courtesy and I know hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like that Tory quality. In the interests of the men serving, I think we should have a very clear indication of how far the postponements will go because, if they are to be very wide, we shall be forcing a large number of men to lengthen their time in the Services. For that reason, although I recognise that there must be exemptions, I hope they will not be too wide.

There is a further point in favour of 18 which I think has only been mentioned casually. It is that there will be a much larger number of men married at 21 than at 18, and although family life may not mean a great deal to many people, yet calling up at i8 will mean calling up more men before they are married. From that point of view alone, if for no other, I think the various moral obligations put first on the one side and then on the other, are completely outweighed by the fact that there will be thousands of cases in which the married life of the men will not be interrupted at all.

Mr. Beverley Baxter (Wood Green)

On a point of Order, Mr. Beaumont. May I ask why a mysterious stranger on the battlements has pulled down the blinds of two of the windows, thus bringing darkness upon us and our castle?

The Deputy-Chairman

It was done on my instructions because certain hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench seemed to find the sun rather powerful.

Mr. Baxter

Do you not think that this Committee might take the risk that English sunlight will not be too blinding?

The Deputy-Chairman

When I think the time has arrived, I will give the necessary instructions for the blinds to be pulled up.

Mr. Frank Byers (Dorset, Northern)

The Parliamentary Secretary made an important statement and I am not sure whether he or the Committee appreciates its importance. I think hon. Members from rural constituencies, however, will realise its importance. He said that the new principle, as far as deferment between the ages of 18 and 21 was concerned, was that the individual would be considered, whereas in the past it had been the national interest that was paramount. Now, however, with conscription in peacetime, it would be the interests of the individual which would be considered by the manpower board. So far, so good. Then he went on, when challenged from the Front Bench above the Gangway on the question of agricultural workers, to say that it might be necessary to have block deferments in the next two years in 1949 and presumably 1950. I think that will be within the recollection of hon. Members. Block deferment means that you are in fact deferring on the ground of national and not individual interest, and I want to challenge the Parliamentary Secretary about which principle is being applied universally, and which principle is being applied as far as the agricultural worker is concerned. Are we to have one rule for people in certain industries, students and so forth, but, when it comes to a question of the national economic interest, are we then to decide that the interests of the individual are to be sub ordinated to those of the State?

Mr. Ness Edwards

I have been quite misunderstood on this matter. What I said was that this year and next year we have a block deferment for agriculture. Then I said that, under the new Bill, individual rights would be considered as being above those of the State. Whatever block deferments may apply in 1949, 1950 or 1951, it will not defeat the right of the individual in the expression of his views in regard to deferment.

Mr. Byers

If an individual wants to be called up at 18, when there is a block deferment in force, he can be called up?