If the Conservatives win the general election, teenagers will be expected to take part in national service when they turn 18.
Exactly how the scheme would work has not yet been hammered out. The Tories have said they would set up a royal commission – a type of public inquiry – to come up with the details.
But here is what we know so far about what teenagers could be doing, who might be exempt and what would happen to those who refuse to take part.
Community volunteering: The vast majority of teenagers would take this pathway.
It would require them to spend one weekend a month volunteering, for one year – 25 days in total.
The voluntary placements would be in the local community, with organisations such as the police, the fire service, the NHS, or charities that work with older isolated people.
Conservative MPs have given various examples of the kinds of volunteering teenagers could do, including delivering prescriptions or food to infirm people, being a lifeguard, supporting communities during storms and working with search and rescue.
Advertisement
Military training: 30,000 teenagers would be able to take up places to spend a year full-time in the armed forces.
Young adults would need to apply for the programme and tests would be used to select the best candidates.
This pathway would not involve combat. Rather, young people would “learn and take part in logistics, cyber security, procurement or civil response operations”, the Tories said.
Talking to Sky News’s Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips, Home Secretary James Cleverly said those who choose the military option “will be motivated to join the military” after the year-long placement.
Who will be exempt?
The Conservatives have not announced details about who would be exempt from national service – but they have confirmed that royal children would be expected to take part.
When national service was in place after the Second World War, it covered “able-bodied men” and excluded blind people and men with a mental illness.
It is not clear whether similar rules would apply under the new proposal. Disabled people may not be automatically excluded as they were in the past given voluntary placements are likely to be suited to a wide range of people.
Where national or military service is a full-time requirement, people may be able to get an exemption if they are a university student, only son, single parent or professional athlete.
Would women have to do it too?
Yes, the plan involves all 18-year-olds regardless of gender.
Women were first included in national service during the Second World War, but after 1945 they were no longer included despite the scheme continuing for men.
How is national service different from conscription?
Conscription legally requires people to join the Armed Forces for a certain period.
The Tories’ plan for national service is different in that it does not compel people to serve with the military.
“Nobody will be compelled to do the military element,” he added.
It remains unclear how it will be made compulsory.
Speaking to Times Radio, Foreign Office minister Anne-Marie Trevelyan compared the compulsory nature of the proposed national service to young people having to attend school until they are 18.
She did not rule out the possibility of parents being fined if their children do not take part, but said the details of how the scheme would be made mandatory would be established by the royal commission.
Writing in the Mail on Sunday, the Mr Sunak said: “To those who complain that making it mandatory is unreasonable, I say: citizenship brings with it obligations as well as rights. Being British is about more than just the queue you join at passport control.”
Will people be paid?
Mr Cleverly said those who do the military element will be paid – while those who choose to volunteer will not be paid.
How would it be funded?
The Conservatives said the national service programme would cost £2.5bn a year and would be funded by cash previously used for the UK Shared Prosperity Fund and cracking down on tax avoidance and evasion.
At the start of this year, top military officials touted the idea of conscription as they discussed what could happen if NATO went to war with Russia.
The head of the British Army said UK citizens should be “trained and equipped” to fight in a potential war, while Britain’s former top NATO commander said it was time to get over the “cultural hang-ups” around conscription.
Downing Street ruled out any move towards conscription, saying army service would remain voluntary.
But a similar model to the Tories’ national service scheme has been pitched recently.
Last year, centre-right thinktank Onward proposed a “Great British National Service” scheme.
Like the Conservatives’ current proposal, it focused on volunteering and suggested 16-year-olds should have to complete a certain number of volunteering hours.
A key difference was that it was not mandatory – it proposed a system where 16-year-olds were automatically enrolled, but could opt out.
Research commissioned by Onward showed 57% of British people supported national service and 19% opposed it.
It found the most popular model included civil and military activities, with 53% more likely to support a mixed programme.
The ideas won the support of the leader of the House of Commons, Penny Mordaunt, and former Tory minister Rory Stewart.
What has the reaction been?
Critics from across the political divide have dismissed the Tories’ plan as unserious, while leading military figures are sceptical over how it would work.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:22
Sky’s military analyst Sean Bell assesses national service plan
Sir Keir Starmer called the national service policy “a sort of teenage Dad’s Army“, while Labour’s shadow work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall accused the policy of being “yet another unfunded spending commitment”.
She told Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips: “That UK Prosperity Fund is supposed to be used to tackle economic inactivity and helping people get back into work so that really undermines another one of their arguments.
“This is an unfunded commitment, a headline-grabbing gimmick.”
Mr Cleverly said the main point of the policy was to make sure “people mix with people outside their bubble” for “community cohesion”.
He said: “We want to build a society where people mix with people outside their own communities, mix with people from different backgrounds, different religions, different income levels.
Sir Keir Starmer has insisted the “vast majority of farmers” will not be affected by changes to Inheritance Tax (IHT) ahead of a protest outside parliament on Tuesday.
It follows Chancellor Rachel Reeves announcing a 20% inheritance tax that will apply to farms worth more than £1m from April 2026, where they were previously exempt.
But the prime minister looked to quell fears as he resisted calls to change course.
Speaking from the G20 summit in Brazil, he said: “If you take a typical case of a couple wanting to pass a family farm down to one of their children, which would be a very typical example, with all of the thresholds in place, that’s £3m before any inheritance tax is paid.”
The comments come as thousands of farmers, including celebrity farmer Jeremy Clarkson, are due to descend on Whitehall on Tuesday to protest the change.
And 1,800 more will take part in a “mass lobby” where members of the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) will meet their MPs in parliament to urge them to ask Ms Reeves to reconsider the policy.
Speaking to broadcasters, Sir Keir insisted the government is supportive of farmers, pointing to a £5bn investment announced for them in the budget.
Advertisement
He said: “I’m confident that the vast majority of farms and farmers will not be affected at all by that aspect of the budget.
“They will be affected by the £5bn that we’re putting into farming. And I’m very happy to work with farmers on that.”
Sir Keir’s spokesman made a similar argument earlier on Monday, saying the government expects 73% of farms to not be affected by the change.
Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs Secretary Steve Reed said only about 500 out of the UK’s 209,000 farms would be affected, according to Treasury calculations.
However, that number has been questioned by several farming groups and the Conservatives.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:28
Farming industry is feeling ‘betrayed’ – NFU boss
Government figures ‘misleading’
The NFU said the real number is about two-thirds, with its president Tom Bradshaw calling the government’s figures “misleading” and accusing it of not understanding the sector.
The Country Land and Business Association (CLA) said the policy could affect 70,000 farms.
Conservative shadow farming minister Robbie Moore accused the government last week of “regurgitating” figures that represent “past claimants of agricultural property relief, not combined with business property relief” because he said the Treasury does not have that data.
Agricultural property relief (APR) currently provides farmers 100% relief from paying inheritance tax on agricultural land or pasture used for rearing livestock or fish, and can include woodland and buildings, such as farmhouses, if they are necessary for that land to function.
Farmers can also claim business property relief (BPR), providing 50% or 100% relief on assets used by a trading business, which for farmers could include land, buildings, plant or machinery used by the business, farm shops and holiday cottages.
APR and BPR can often apply to the same asset, especially farmed land, but APR should be the priority, however BPR can be claimed in addition if APR does not cover the full value (e.g. if the land has development value above its agricultural value).
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Mr Moore said the Department for the Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the Treasury have disagreed on how many farms will be impacted “by as much as 40%” due to the lack of data on farmers using BPR.
Lib Dem MP Tim Farron said last week1,400 farmers in Cumbria, where he is an MP, will be affected and will not be able to afford to pay the tax as many are on less than the minimum wage despite being asset rich.
A split is emerging in the cabinet, with Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson revealing she will join several of her colleagues and vote against the bill to legalise assisted dying.
Ms Phillipson told Sky News she will vote against the proposed legislation at the end of this month, which would give terminally ill people with six months to live the option to end their lives.
She voted against assisted dying in 2015 and said: “I haven’t changed my mind.
“I continue to think about this deeply. But my position hasn’t changed since 2015.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:41
Details of end of life bill released
MPs will be given a free vote on the bill, so they will not be told how to vote by their party.
The topic has seen a split in the cabinet – however, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has yet to reveal how he will vote on 29 November.
Ms Phillipson joins some other big names who have publicly said they are voting against the bill
These include Deputy PM Angela Rayner, Health Secretary Wes Streeting, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood and Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds.
Advertisement
Border security minister Angela Eagle is also voting against the bill.
Senior cabinet members voting in favour of assisted dying include Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, Science Secretary Peter Kyle, Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy, Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn, Transport Secretary Louise Haigh and Welsh Secretary Jo Stevens.
The split over the issue is said to be causing friction within government, with Sir Keir rebuking the health secretary for repeatedly saying he is against the bill and for ordering officials to review the costs of implementing any changes in the law.
Sky News’ deputy political editor Sam Coates has been told Morgan McSweeney, the PM’s chief of staff, is concerned about the politics of the bill passing.
He is understood to be worried the issue will dominate the agenda next year and, while he is not taking a view on the bill, he can see it taking over the national conversation and distracting from core government priorities like the economy and borders.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Details of the bill were published last week and include people wanting to end their life having to self-administer the medicine.
It would only be allowed for terminally ill people who have been given six months to live.
Two independent doctors would have to confirm a patient is eligible for assisted dying and a High Court judge would have to give their approval before it could go ahead.