17. Air Commodore Harveyasked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement relating to the circumstances in which Private G. Plant and Private D. C. Walker were killed recently in Malaya.
§ Mr. StracheyOn 22nd February a patrol of one officer and nine other ranks from the 1st Battalion, the Worcestershire Regiment, with two police constables, went to investigate a report that terrorists had burned vehicles between Labis and Segamat in North Johore. Some distance from the vehicles they came under heavy fire from a terrorist force estimated to number a hundred, and five other ranks were immediately killed or fatally wounded.
Air Commodore HarveyDoes the right hon. Gentleman realise that Private Plant was under 19 years of age when he was killed and Private Walker was only just 19 years of age, and that Private Walker had just previously been in hospital for an operation and had had no sick leave? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is right that these men, who had a total service of only four and a half months before they left England, should be sent out to fight in a most difficult type of jungle warfare?
§ Mr. StracheyI am answering further Questions on the length of service of these men this afternoon, and perhaps I may be permitted to reply to this supplementary question then.
25. Air Commodore Harveyasked the Secretary of State for War how many soldiers under 19 years of age are serving in Malaya.
§ Mr. StracheyI have called for this information and will write to the hon. and gallant Member.
Air Commodore HarveyIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in the meantime, tens of thousands of parents are in great distress about this matter, and is it not possible, with nearly one million men in the Fighting Forces, to avoid sending out soldiers of 18 years of age to fight in this most difficult war?
§ Mr. StracheyI do not think that we ought to alter the age limit for going to Malaya. It is an intensely tragic thing if any soldier is killed in Malaya or anywhere else, but his exact age as to months does not seem to me to be the main consideration.
§ Mr. R. A. ButlerIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that he said he would answer further Questions on this matter later, and as this is the main issue concerning the question which we are raising, will he vouchsafe a little more information on this vital subject to the House at the present time?
§ Mr. StracheyI will speak on it, but there are several more Questions on the subject. I gave, for example, the exact ages of some men who were killed in Malaya the other day. I think that it would be more appropriate on those Questions.
§ Major Guy LloydSurely, with regard to the Minister's remark that the main consideration is not whether a boy is killed at 18 or not, the question is whether he has had sufficient training?
§ Mr. StracheyI am asked to give the length of training which these men had, and I do give it in answer to a Question on the Order Paper today.
§ Mr. ButlerOn the main issue of policy, will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that this policy of sending young men abroad with only four 224 months or so of training will not be continued, because it is causing grave anxiety in the minds of many families at the present time?
§ Mr. StracheyThe number of months training I will certainly consider with my military advisers, but they are convinced that the present regulations are correct.
§ Mr. ButlerApart from the present regulations, and as this is a question of policy which would alter the regulations, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, in view of the perfectly legitimate anxieties on this subject, he will review the whole question of sending young men abroad at this age?
§ Mr. StracheyI think it is a question of training rather than of age. I repeat that we certainly must not send men abroad who are inadequately trained, and that my advisers are confident that that is not being done.
§ Mr. Ellis SmithWas not an undertaking given that no young man under 19 years of age would be sent abroad? If so, does not that apply to Malaya?
§ Mr. StracheyNo, Sir. An undertaking was given that no young man under 19 would be sent to Korea, but the age for sending abroad to any other theatre is 18 years 3 months.
Air Commodore HarveyDoes not the right hon. Gentleman realise, after his own experience in Malaya, that jungle warfare is more difficult than open warfare? If his advisers tell him that four months' training is sufficient, will not he consider getting new advisers?
33. Air Commodore Harveyasked the Secretary of State for War what training was received prior to leaving this country by Privates G. Plant and D. C. Walker, who were recently killed in Malaya.
§ Mr. StracheyThese soldiers each received 10 weeks' basic training and six weeks' continuation training, together with some further training during the time they were being prepared for drafting.
Air Commodore HarveyHow can the right hon. Gentleman make a statement like that without taking into account the period spent in kitting-up when they first join, menial duties and embarkation and other leaves? Does he not think that this is quite an inadequate period, and 225 now that more men are in the Army will he consider giving these men at least six or seven months' proper training?
§ Mr. StracheyWe can consider this matter, but it is the firm view of my advisers that this is an adequate basic training. Of course, the training does not stop when the men go overseas.
§ Mr. ManuelDoes not my right hon. Friend agree that training must obviously be related to age? Will he seriously consider the views of many Members on this side of the House that no soldier should be sent abroad into a fighting area unless he is over 19 years of age, as in the case of Korea?
§ Mr. StracheyThat can be considered, but so far the rule has been 19 for Korea and 18 years 3 months for other parts.
§ Mr. R. A. ButlerWill the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will reconsider this matter, as 10 weeks plus six weeks is surely a quite insufficient training before sending troops into a fighting area?
§ Mr. StracheyIt can be considered.
§ Mr. ProfumoThe right hon. Gentleman has said that in such cases as this the primary consideration is length of training and not age, but if he had adequate forces at his disposal, would he still take the view that there is sufficient training and that 18 years 3 months is a high enough age?
§ Mr. StracheyI think that the matter is rather one of training than of age, but I am advised that the training is thoroughly adequate for the purpose.
§ Mr. BellengerIs it the firm conviction of my right hon. Friend's military advisers that 16 weeks' basic training is sufficient to enable a soldier, whether he be 18 or 19, to go into action in places like Malaya?
§ Mr. StracheyYes, that is their view, that the 16 weeks' training is an adequate period for the purpose these troops are called upon to fulfil in these theatres.
§ Mr. A. R. W. LowWould the right hon. Gentleman not agree that 16 weeks' training before leaving this country might be sufficient provided that when the man got to Malaya he was then given at least four weeks' training in jungle country be- 226 fore being sent out on active operations? Is it not clear from the figures he has given to the House that these men did not have even one week's training before they were sent straight into active operations; and is there not something very wrong about that?
§ Mr. DribergWhen my right hon. Friend repeats that 19 is the age for Korea, is he aware that at least one young man was sent to Korea at the age of less than 18½ and has been killed; and, while it is true that this young man was not in the Army but in the Royal Marines, should not the age be uniform for all three Services?
§ Mr. StracheyThat is a different question not entirely within my responsibility.
Mr. VaneIf 16 weeks' training is sufficient before a soldier is sent to Malaya, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the two years' period of National Service is a gross misuse of manpower?
§ Mr. StracheyNo, Sir. The purpose of National Service is not merely training. I must make it perfectly clear to the House that one of the main purposes of National Service is to reinforce the active Army.
Air Commodore HarveyOn a point of order. In view of the right hon. Gentleman's reluctance to give an assurance that he will look into this matter again, I beg to give notice that I shall raise it on the Adjournment at the very earliest opportunity.
§ Mr. SnowFurther to that point of order. In view of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has just said, does that invalidate further supplementary questions on Question No. 34?
§ Mr. SpeakerWe must wait till we hear the answer to the Question.
§ 34. Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenportasked the Secretary of State for War the ages of the five men of the 1st Battalion, The Worcestershire Regiment, who were reported to have been killed last week in a bandit ambush; whether they were members of the Regular Army or were National Service men; on what date they were enlisted; what were their ages: and how much individual and collective train- 227 ing they had had before arriving in Singapore.
§ Mr. StracheyTheir ages respectively were 22 years 2 months; 20 years 9 months; 19 years; 18 years 11 months; and 18 years 11 months. Two were Regular soldiers and the others National Service men. All had received the requisite 16 weeks' training before being sent to Malaya. I will, with permission circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the dates of their enlistment and their ages at the time.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenportis the Secretary of State aware that there is a widespread feeling, in every home in the country, that the age of 18 or 19 is too young to send these boys into action against seasoned troops? Why not let them grow up a bit and, above all, give them more training before they take part in this most highly skilled form of guerilla warfare.
§ Mr. StracheyChanging the age would really involve changing the age for National Service, which is a much wider question. We have already discussed the point about the training.
§ Mr. SpeakerI think this had better be debated on the Adjournment, as notice has been given.
§ Mr. DribergOn a point of order. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has given notice to raise this on the Adjournment starts balloting now he will only get the Adjournment in a fortnight's time. In a fortnight's time the Easter Adjournment is coming on, and in view of the wide interest in this matter on both sides of the House, would you consider allowing a certain amount of time to it on the Easter Adjournment?
§ Mr. SpeakerI think the hon. Gentleman has forgotten that next Thursday we discuss the Army Estimates, and it would be perfectly in order to debate the matter then.
§ Mr. George WardFurther to that point of order. As this Question relates very closely to my constituency and refers to the Worcestershire Regiment, and as I have had a great many letters from my 228 constituents about this matter, might I ask, with great respect, whether you would allow me to put a supplementary question?
§ Mr. SpeakerI am sorry, but I thought the hon. Gentleman would have risen on the previous Question which dealt with the same matter. If it is his constituency, I will certainly allow a supplementary question.
§ Mr. WardIs the Secretary of State aware that a great many people in Worcester have written to me about this matter, many of whom have relations in the Worcestershire Regiment; that every one of them has expressed the opinion that 18 is much too young, that the amount of training given is much too little, and that they are extremely worried about the whole thing?
§ Mr. StracheyI think the training is the essence of the matter rather than the age, but I cannot go beyond what I have already said.
§ Mr. SnowOn a point of order. On Question 33 the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) said he would raise the matter on the Adjournment, and I then asked you whether that invalidated supplementary questions on this Question. I did not understand you, Mr. Speaker, to answer then.
§ Mr. SpeakerMy answer was that I thought we had better hear the answer to Question 34 before I gave a Ruling. Having heard the answer, I think the matter should be discussed on the Adjournment about which notice was given. That is my Ruling.
§ Following are the details:
| Date of enlistment | Age at the time | |||
| Years | Months | |||
| June, 1946 | … | … | 22 | 2 |
| May, 1948 | … | … | 20 | 9 |
| June, 1950 | … | … | 18 | 3 |
| July, 1950 | … | … | 18 | 3 |
| July, 1950 | … | … | 18 | 3 |