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”.
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?
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.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
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”.
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.