Apprentices
2.
asked the Minister of Labour whether apprentices in Z and G reserves will be exempted from call-up.
Apprentices in occupations which would be of special importance in an emergency will not be recalled.
Reserved Occupations
3.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement as to the occupations which he intends to treat as reserved occupations for the purpose of the recall of Reservists and in an emergency.
10.
asked the Minister of Labour what are the occupations in which men will be reserved for industry in the event of general mobilisation, referred to in paragraph 5 of Command Paper 8146.
These lists are at present purely provisional and subject to change from time to time. Consultation on them with the two sides of industry is about to begin, and they could not at this stage usefully be published. On security grounds it is desirable not to publish them earlier than necessary.
is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention to publish them before their effect indirectly becomes apparent owing to the selection of men for call up as Z reservists this summer?
No. The hon. Member's Question refers to "an emergency" and it would not be desirable to let a potential enemy know the sort of occupations which are at the moment restricted.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is on the other side of the balance sheet, as it were, an enormous advantage to be gained by cer- tainty in this matter both from the points of view of the person concerned and of his own Department? The Service Departments may be guilty of counting men twice unless they know whether they are reserved or not.
I think it is desirable, where we can speak about broad reservations, to give information as early as possible, and I will do that. But I think Members on all sides of the House will agree that there are some special kinds of reservations which it would not be desirable to publish.
4.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will give an assurance that in occupations where there will be a selective call-up, Class Z reservists will, wherever possible, be given the opportunity of deferred positions in preference to those persons who were in these positions during the last war.
No. Sir. This would be quite impracticable.
Why would it be impracticable in the case of certain reserved occupations in which there may be surplus manpower at present? If any have to go can it not be those who were able to dodge the last war?
The hon. Member seems to have forgotten the purpose of the exercise which is about to be undertaken. It is to refresh the training of those who have already been trained.
Could the Minister explain what is the position of Members of Parliament who are in the Z Reserve?
That is entirely another question, but as I took part in a controversy on this matter during the late war I think I can inform my hon. Friend that His Majesty's commands take precedence over everything else.
8.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will give an assurance that all men who are now less than 50 years of age and were in reserved occupations during the last war will be vetted to see whether their present jobs are such as to leave them free to be amongst the first to be called up for active service, in place of some of the Class Z reservists.
No, Sir. Even if this were practicable, I have no power under the present law to do so.
Apart from the present call up of Z reservists, if men are called up at a later period for a longer term, or if hostilities break out, could not this vetting take place?
As I said earlier, I would ask the hon. Member to bear in mind what is really being done. If he does he will then see that these Questions are not on the point at all.
Would the Minister bear in mind, nevertheless, that there are large numbers of skilled men in civil life, possibly not now in reserved occupations, whose occupation in civil life is closely similar to that which they could do in the Forces in war, and that special units of such men might represent a big saving of manpower, and be of great value to the Forces?
They would also be a loss to their industrial occupation. We have to consider and balance the requirements of the Services and of civil occupations. It would be no use calling up men for the Services who would not have arms, because we would not have men in civil occupations to make them.
Is not this extraordinarily high rate of medical exemption proof positive of the rotten nutritional standards under the Tory Government before the war?
I think the whole House will recognise the altruism of my hon. Friend.
Exempted Men, 1939–45
6.
asked the Minister of Labour what percentage of men eligible for enlistment in the war 1939–45 were exempted on grounds other than medical; and how many of such exempted men are estimated to be under 30 years of age today.
It is estimated that about 40 per cent. of the men registered under the National Service Acts during the war were deferred on industrial grounds, of whom about 400,000 are now under the age of 30. This includes a proportion of men who would have been rejected if they had been medically examined. About two-thirds of these were employed in coalmining, agriculture or the Merchant Navy, and most of the remainder were key men in the engineering and metal industries.
In view of the fact that these numbers are something like half the Z reservists under 30, what is the availability of those men for military service?
The hon. Member seems to have misunderstood the purpose of the additional training. It is to give a refresher course to people who have already received some training.
That is understood, but, at the same time, is there not also the long-term policy which the Minister must consider?
Then these men would be among those who would be over age and they would not be called up.
19.
asked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to ensure that men who were exempted from military service for the whole, or most of the period, from September, 1939, until July, 1945, through being in reserved occupations, but who are now still under 40 years of age, will be called upon to take their fair share in the defence of their country during the next three years.
Some of the men to whom the hon. Member refers were called up after July, 1945, and are liable as Z reservists to recall. With regard to the others, I have no power to call up men over the age of 26.
Is the right hon. Gentleman trying to create an un-military caste? Why not fair shares for all?
Hon. Members really ought to try to bear in mind what we are trying to do. These tendentious questions, based upon a misunderstanding, give rise to more misunderstanding.
The right hon. Gentleman has, in answer to three Questions, said that he is only calling up highly trained people, but I have details of a case where a person has received 13 days' training and is now 44 years of age. Does it not seem a little unfair that such people should be called up while those to whom my hon. Friend has referred are disregarded?
I should like the hon. Member to give me particulars of that case.
Can the Minister say on what he founds his statement that he has no power to call up any man over 26, in view of the fact that his predecessor based his decision to that effect purely on policy and not upon lack of power?
The Question relates to the next three years, which we must assume to be years of peace. The call-up is governed by the National Service Act. under which liability ceases at 26.
Deferments, 1950
7.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of men deferred for National Service in 1950; the number exempted on medical grounds and on other grounds in that year; and the number of men deferred since the passing of the Act who have not been called up on the expiry of their deferment.
The number deferred in 1950 was about 110,000: some of these deferments expired before the end of the year. The number found to be medically unfit was about 51,000. All men medically fit for service are called up on expiry of their deferment.
Is it the intention of the Minister to review the working of the National Service Acts in order to increase its effect on the avaliability of manpower for defence?
We are doing that all the time.
But not enough.