I wish to raise the question of the release from the Forces of men who hold scholarships before the time at which they would otherwise be released if they waited for release in their age and service groups. The present position was stated to us by the Minister of Labour on 4th February', when he said: It will be open to universities to apply for the release of scholars and highly promising students in any subject who are still serving in the Forces and are in release groups one to 62. He went on: Arrangements will be made for men who can be released to be made available as far as possible shortly before the beginning of the 1947–48 academic year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February, 1947; Vol. 432, c. 1560.] It was understood that approved men would be released at the latest in September of this year. Frequent attempts have been made by myself and by hon. Gentlemen on all sides of the House to get that principle extended to borderline cases, and in particular to extend the age and service groups covered by the Minister's statement. The Minister has consistently refused any extension. The Ministry of Labour Gazette says, on page 186, in an article relating to students of universities: Special application may be made for the release of certain members of the Forces outside Groups 61 and 62 who have had a period of employment on civilian work of national importance. With that exception, there has been, I think I am right in saying, no extension of the statement which the Minister of Labour made. Let us examine the position. Men in Group 62 will be released, under the Clause in the release scheme, before the end of 1947 if they are in the Navy, so that those who are in the Navy are not covered. In the army or Air Force they would be released—I think one may make a reasonable forecast—in January or early February of next year. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour shrugs his head —[Laughter]—I mean he shook his head, or he may have shrugged his shoulders. I regret to say that he probably did both. It appears from the statement already made that Group 61 is to be released in December. If that is so, we may take it, unless His Majesty's Government propose to slow their demobilisation scheme very much, that Group 62 will be released in January or February. I think that forecast is reasonable. Therefore, it is clear there is a gain of about four months allowed to these men.

Let us compare what happened last year, when it was open to universities to apply for students between Groups 1 and 55. They would be released by September, 1946, so that they might take part in the 1946–47 academic year. In actual fact, some men in Group 55 in the Army or the Royal Air Force have not even been released yet. In some cases they were released in June. Therefore, in so far as the same scheme applied last year, there was a gain, as it were, of nine or ten months. To pursue the argument further, it would seem, again making a reasonable forecast, that if one applied the principle which was applied last year in selecting Groups 1 to 55, one should this year select Groups between 1 and 70.

It is very difficult for any hon. Gentleman who is not in the Government to make a forecast of what group will be released in June or July next year, but it is quite clear that it will be a group substantially in advance of Group 62, and if the Government are going to implement the many promises that have been given about the release of men who were called up in 1944, 1945 and later years, it is quite clear that they have got to hurry on their release schemes. So I say again, in order to emphasise my point, that if they adopt the same principle as was adopted last year, they should extend the groups covered by this concession from Groups 1 to 62 to Group 1 to about Group 70. That is my first point. I would add that it would appear that by mid-next year, at any rate, men who will be released will have served only between two and two and a half years in the Forces, whereas now they serve slightly over three years.

I should like to give the House one or two examples of how the scheme is working at the moment—if the statement that I have read out, made by the Minister of Labour in February, is strictly applied. Three cases have been put to me. They are quite simple, and I will weary the House with them for a minute or two. The first case is that of a signalman who is a constituent of mine. He was born in July, 1926. He took his Higher Schools Certificate successfully in 1944 and was awarded a scholarship at Manchester University. He was called up in September, 1944; he is, therefore, age and service group 63. The curious thing is that a man of the same scholaristic calibre as he who was born in September, 1925—and not July, 1926—who did not get his Higher Schools Certificate exactly at the same age, but had his call-up to the Forces deferred so that he might take it at the same time as his six months younger colleague got his Higher Schools Certificate, also got a scholarship and also joined the Forces in September, 1944, and just because he is older, he is group 62, not 63, and he qualifies for early release. That seems to be preferring a man just because he is six months older and has taken six months longer to get the Higher Schools Certificate.

The second case is a young officer, a son of a holder of the Victoria Cross, born in 1926—the exact date does not matter. He got an open scholarship at Trinity, Oxford, and volunteered in August, 1944, but because he volunteered for a regiment to whose primary training establishment there was no drafting until September, he was not able to be called up until September, 1944, and therefore, instead of being group 62 he is group 63, entirely without any fault of his own. The scheme seems to be working very unfairly in his case. The third and last case is that of a leading aircraftman born in 1927—a year younger—who got a scholarship at the age of l6f to Corpus Christi, Oxford. He did one year there and then volunteered for the Royal Air Force. He, too, is not in group 62. He is in group 63 or 64, and he is also unable to come back and resume his studies.

Those are the individual cases that come about because of the present rule. This question of individual hardships was raised last year by the Senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) and the reply was that while it was realised that it might be hard on those men, if the Government started "monkeying about" with the scheme, even at that late hour, it would lead to dissatisfaction elsewhere. The objection to "tinkering about" or "monkeying about" with a scheme does not seem to me, in 1947, to be an adequate reason for inflicting unnecessary hardships on men with above the average standard of brain power and application.

So much for the individual point of view. Now let me take the national point of view. In this country at all times, and particularly now, we want these men who are gifted with more than the average brainpower and application, and who have won scholarships, circulating in the community as a positive asset, having finished their education as early as possible. If the Parliamentary Secretary will arrange the release of men between groups 62 and 70 so that they may start their academic year this October, they would then come into circulation one year earlier than if they had to wait until next year, and that would be a national economy. To those two points I would add, on the general principle, that in the discussion we had in this House on the National Service Bill, it was made clear by the Minister that it was hoped that, when the Bill passed into law and was being applied, the individual interest would at last take priority over the national interest. We quite realised that during the war the national interest and the interests of the scheme must take precedence, but now we are in a transition stage, and I ask the Minister this afternoon if he will not adapt the present scheme to fit in more with the individual interest.

I believe he will get up, when the time comes for him to reply, and will say to me, "His Majesty's Government, of course, sympathise and understand, but the universities are full and, therefore, it would be of no use if His Majesty's Government changed their rules now." I realise that there is great pressure on the universities and, of course, there are many applicants for places in the universities. That is bound to be true. It is probably true to say that if you took a thousand men away from the list of applicants for each university, they could still say they were full, but I am asking His Majesty's Government to give preference to those boys and men who have scholarships. I want to be quite open about that. I would add that in many cases the universities are full because His Majesty's Government are insisting on filling buildings in university towns with civil servants. I am told that in Cambridge today, there are 2,559 civil servants who were not there before the war, and there is so much less accommodation available. I do not want to be depressing about this, but there is that point to be considered, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will bear that in mind if he is to answer that the universities are full.

I asked a Question in this House as to how many scholars would be affected by an extension of the rule, and the answer was that the information was not avail able. Until the information is available, I would suggest that the Minister should go ahead with the extension of the scheme on the assumption that there are not sufficient men to make it impracticable to extend it to Group 70 at least.