Refusing mandatory National Service won’t lead to prison, home secretary says after Tory policy launch

Published

1 year ago

May 27, 2024

admin

Nobody would go to jail for refusing to comply with National Service under a Conservative government, the home secretary has said.

In the Conservatives’ first policy announcement of the general election campaign, Rishi Sunak said on Saturday he would introduce a new form of mandatory National Service for 18-year-olds if his party wins the vote in July.

They would be given the choice of a full-time military placement for 12 months or a scheme to volunteer for one weekend a month for a year.

The announcement came two days after defence minister Dr Andrew Murrison told the Commons the government has “no plans” to reintroduce National Service and doing so would “damage morale, recruitment and retention and would consume professional military and naval resources”.

General election latest: Tories attack Starmer’s ‘stamina’

The military option would be selective but questions have arisen over whether any teenager who refuses to do either option would be punished.

Talking to Sky News’s Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips, Home Secretary James Cleverly said: “There’s going to be no criminal sanctions, nobody’s going to jail over this.”

He added that “nobody will be compelled to do the military element” but said those who do will be paid – while those who choose to volunteer will not be paid.

Mr Cleverly said the main point of the policy is to make sure “people mix with people outside their bubble” for “community cohesion”.

He said those who choose the military option “will be motivated to join the military” after spending a year with the Armed Forces.

Mr Sunak released a video on TikTok on Sunday explaining the new policy to young adults.

Mr Cleverly 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.

“The bulk of this is about helping build a cohesive society where people mix outside their bubble.”

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.

What does national service mean from a military perspective?

Sean Bell

Military analyst

@BellusUK

The prime minister’s policy has captured headlines, but from a military perspective what has actually been announced?

For the vast majority of 18-year-olds, this initiative would mean completing their National Service in support of society initiatives, involving a weekend’s commitment each month. But around 30,000 would be offered full placements in the armed forces, with concerns raised this might involve conscription.

Rishi Sunak cited Sweden as an example of where the proposed initiative had worked. However, it is always dangerous to compare the military requirements and capabilities of different nations. Sweden has historically favoured neutrality as a defence policy, so conscription allows it to maintain a relatively small military while also creating a wider body of experience in the form of reservists.

However, the UK has a number of overseas territories to protect – such as the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar and Cyprus – and historically the UK government has used its military overseas, with conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and more recently the Red Sea. As a result, the UK needs professional, well-motivated and effective military forces, 24/7.

National Service does have some attractions. It increases the proportion of the civilian population with military experience – who can then serve as reservists – and military training also provides new entrants with life skills such as respect, self-discipline and leadership. It is also a way of providing rapid quantity – albeit at reduced quality.

With the UK facing a growing global threat, most defence experts believe that the UK needs to increase its operational capability – “sharpen its sword” – rather than re-focusing its military efforts to training 18-year-olds on behalf of wider society.

Despite the potential benefits, the UK military has not previously favoured the conscript model as experience suggests it risks compromising morale, undermines professionalism, lowers quality and thus risks compromising lives.

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.”

She added that it does not deal with the big challenges facing young people, and said Labour has a “fully costed, fully funded plan to give young people those real opportunities that they need to build up”.

Politics

Crypto’s path to legitimacy runs through the CARF regulation

Published

2 hours ago

July 5, 2025

admin

Crypto’s path to legitimacy runs through the CARF regulation

The CARF regulation, which brings crypto under global tax reporting standards akin to traditional finance, marks a crucial turning point.

Politics

Tokenized equity still in regulatory grey zone — Attorneys

Published

2 hours ago

July 5, 2025

admin

Tokenized equity still in regulatory grey zone — Attorneys

The nascent real-world tokenized assets track prices but do not provide investors the same legal rights as holding the underlying instruments.

Politics

Rachel Reeves hints at tax rises in autumn budget after welfare bill U-turn

Published

8 hours ago

July 5, 2025

admin

Rachel Reeves hints at tax rises in autumn budget after welfare bill U-turn

Rachel Reeves has hinted that taxes are likely to be raised this autumn after a major U-turn on the government’s controversial welfare bill.

Sir Keir Starmer’s Universal Credit and Personal Independent Payment Bill passed through the House of Commons on Tuesday after multiple concessions and threats of a major rebellion.

MPs ended up voting for only one part of the plan: a cut to universal credit (UC) sickness benefits for new claimants from £97 a week to £50 from 2026/7.

Initially aimed at saving £5.5bn, it now leaves the government with an estimated £5.5bn black hole – close to breaching Ms Reeves’s fiscal rules set out last year.

In an interview with The Guardian, the chancellor did not rule out tax rises later in the year, saying there were “costs” to watering down the welfare bill.

“I’m not going to [rule out tax rises], because it would be irresponsible for a chancellor to do that,” Ms Reeves told the outlet.

“We took the decisions last year to draw a line under unfunded commitments and economic mismanagement.

“So we’ll never have to do something like that again. But there are costs to what happened.”

Meanwhile, The Times reported that, ahead of the Commons vote on the welfare bill, Ms Reeves told cabinet ministers the decision to offer concessions would mean taxes would have to be raised.

The outlet reported that the chancellor said the tax rises would be smaller than those announced in the 2024 budget, but that she is expected to have to raise tens of billions more.

It comes after Ms Reeves said she was “totally” up to continuing as chancellor after appearing tearful at Prime Minister’s Questions.

Criticising Sir Keir for the U-turns on benefit reform during PMQs, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said the chancellor looked “absolutely miserable”, and questioned whether she would remain in post until the next election.

Sir Keir did not explicitly say that she would, and Ms Badenoch interjected to say: “How awful for the chancellor that he couldn’t confirm that she would stay in place.”

In her first comments after the incident, Ms Reeves said she was having a “tough day” before adding: “People saw I was upset, but that was yesterday.

“Today’s a new day and I’m just cracking on with the job.”

Sir Keir also told Sky News’ political editor Beth Rigby on Thursday that he “didn’t appreciate” that Ms Reeves was crying in the Commons.

“In PMQs, it is bang, bang, bang,” he said. “That’s what it was yesterday.

“And therefore, I was probably the last to appreciate anything else going on in the chamber, and that’s just a straightforward human explanation, common sense explanation.”