HL Deb 20 March 1911 vol 7 cc530-5

THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH rose to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War how many of the 180,724 men of the Territorial Army stated by him to have been tested in the musketry standard test on an open range failed to qualify.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, before I put this Question to my noble friend I would like to preface it with a few remarks. The noble Lord, in reply to a Question which I addressed to him on February 27 last, explained that there are several arms in the Territorial Force, such as Garrison Artillery and the Royal Army Medical Corps, who do not have to go through a course of musketry, and he proceeded to state that out of 195,585 men who were liable to do musketry, 180,724 had been tested in the standard test on an open range. There was a good deal of confusion in the minds of your Lordships as to what a standard test was, and my noble friend was asked a subsidiary question in regard to that by Lord Ampthill, and the reply he gave was that it was one and the same thing to have passed the standard test and to have fired a full course of musketry. It appears very clear that to pass the standard test does not entail qualification, still less efficiency. I do not wish to occupy your Lordships' time by quoting the musketry regulations; they are extremely intricate and difficult, and are very technical; and, after all, there are many cases over-ridden by the power given to the commanding officer to even change the musketry regulations as laid down. I should like to call your Lordships' attention to a reply given by the Secretary of State for War in the other House in response to Mr. Bennett-Goldney, the Member for Canterbury. The right hon. gentleman stated, a few days after our discussion in this House, that 68,673 men of the Territorial Force had not qualified, as against 126,912 who had done so. That gives a totally different impression from that which was left upon the minds of your Lordships when the matter was discussed in this House, because, according to the Secretary of State's figures, one in three of the total Force have failed to qualify. That is the reason why I ask my noble friend to give the information set forth in my Question.

THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD LUCAS)

My Lords, the actual figures for which the noble Earl asks are as follow: 180,724 men were tested on an open range; of these, 126,912 qualified, leaving 53,812 who failed in the standard test. But, of course, there were a certain number—24,460—who, although they failed in the standard test, did qualify under the alternative methods provided for, in the Regulations. If I may be allowed to do so, I would like to make one or two remarks on the general question of the musketry test.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Would the noble Lord explain the figures given by the Secretary of State in the other House and to which the noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, referred?

LORD LUCAS

There were 180,000 odd men tested on an open range; there were, I think, about 15,000 who were not tested on an open range—195,000 is the total strength of those who ought to have been tested. The number of those who were tested is, as I have said, 180,000; out of that number, 53,000 failed; and if you add those two figures together—the 53,000 who failed and the 15,000 who were not tested—they give, I think, the figure which my right hon. friend mentioned in the House of Commons.

THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH

How many did the noble Lord say were unable to compete at all

LORD LUCAS

I said roughly 15,000. There has been this year very general improvement in the musketry of the Territorial Force. An altogether higher standard has been reached, and it has been reached by very much larger numbers than was the case this time last year. That has been due partly to greater efforts on the part of the officers and men concerned, partly to the efforts we have made to acquire additional ranges, and partly to the fact that we have provided and are providing a considerable number of 30-yards ranges and miniature ranges. But we are very slow, I am sorry to say, in getting new ranges. A considerable number are still required, and we are engaged in the acquisition of ranges at the present moment. Their acquisition, however, is difficult. There is difficulty, in the first instance, in finding a site, and then the process of acquisition is very slow.

With regard to the standard test itself, the figures constitute a useful guide, but I think it would he a mistake to attach too much importance to them. And for this reason. The considerable number of failures to pass the standard test are due, first, to lack of range accommodation, and, secondly, to lack of opportunity. In a great many cases in places where there are a large number of units of the Territorial Force we have range accommodation for everybody; the accommodation, however, is in some cases crowded, and it becomes necessary to tell off to units certain days when they may have the use of the range. In those circumstances it very often becomes necessary to lay down that the standard test shall be fired on a certain day for a particular unit. If a man, for any reason, is prevented from going to the range to be tested on that day, he has to be returned as inefficient, though he may have gone through the whole of his preliminary musketry and be able to pass the standard test easily.

The same thing applies with regard to the conditions under which tests are very often fired. There have been many cases where very bad weather conditions have existed on the day when the test was fired and caused a very bad result. One very striking instance of that came to my notice. In one of the Northern Divisions there is a battalion which, according to the view held by the officer commanding the Division, is probably far the best battalion at musketry in the Division. The battalion takes particular pains with its musketry; it puts all its men through a very careful progressive course of training, and towards the end of the season it puts them through the standard test. Last year that battalion came out the worst of the whole twelve battalions in the Division, and that was simply owing to extremely bad weather. There is another reason why you cannot altogether go by the standard test. In the case of one battalion, for which we have not yet been able to obtain range accommodation, it was arranged last year that they should do their musketry in camp. They went into camp, but the officer in command, finding that he would not have time to put the whole of the battalion through the whole course, including the standard test, did not put any of them through the standard test. Nevertheless, he took them through a considerable amount of musketry; they fired between 30,000 and 40,000 rounds of ammunition; yet they had to be returned as not one single man having qualified in the standard test. I give these instances to show that, although the standard test is a useful guide, you cannot take the figures simply as they stand, without any qualification whatever, as at all a fair standard of what the musketry of the Territorial Force is. We are not the least satisfied ourselves yet, and we are making all the efforts we can to provide further range accommodation—open ranges, 30-yards ranges, and miniature ranges. I am sure that the chief thing that is the matter with the musketry of the Territorial Force is lack of accommodation, and that is a deficiency which will put itself right, I hope, in a short time.

THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH

My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say a word or two on this important subject before we leave it. I should like to add my own experience to what has fallen from the noble Lord opposite. Two of the great difficulties which the Territorial Force have to face with regard to musketry are lack of ranges and lack of opportunity to use them, and one reason for that lack of opportunity is the crowded nature of the ranges and the difficulty of allocating time to the various units that have to fire on particular ranges. In my own county we have had at least one range—I think two—condemned. That means that the units which use those ranges have to make other arrangements, and fresh arrangements are not made without considerable difficulty.

I think everybody will admit that the country has a right to have a sufficient and efficient standard of musketry, and it will be the duty of those who are interested in the Territorial Force to do what they can to see that that standard is reached. But there is one thing that ought to be borne in mind. It has been continually thrown in our teeth that a very large number of the Territorial Force never fired a shot at all last year. In ninety-nine cases out of every hundred that has been due to the fact that there has been no opportunity to fire. The General Officer commanding the Northern Command complained a good deal of the standard of musketry and pressed very strongly the benefit of week-end camps. I do not know whether the noble Lord has considered the possibility of encouraging week-end camps. Our own experience has been that where we have been able to avail ourselves of them the result has been very satisfactory. In one case a company which I could name got eighty per cent. of full marks after two days at the range at a weekend camp. But we have found that what is necessary to supply these camps is not always forthcoming, and that when application has been made there has been great difficulty in supplying the units with what is necessary for these week-end camps. The matter is of great importance. I do not ask for any additional grant, for we all recognise that the War Office and the Exchequer have treated us very generously this year.

There is another difficulty with regard to week-end camps. It is that when men go down on a Friday and shoot on the Saturday and, where the conditions are favourable, on the Sunday, a good deal of objection has been taken to Sunday firing. If my historical education is correct, there was a time, in the days of the bow and arrow, when young men in the parishes were fined if they did not shoot on Sundays. When it is remembered that arrangements are made for attending Church Parades in the mornings, I think there should be consideration shown to these men in their endeavour to perfect themselves in what is, after all, an essential part of their training.

THE DUKE OF BEDFORD

I should like to ask the noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for War whether open ranges include 30-yards ranges. The noble Lord mentioned a certain number of men who became qualified in musketry by means alternative to the standard test. Does that allude to men who fire a certain number of rounds, and, irrespective of the result of their practice, become qualified?

LORD LUCAS

We use the term "open range" as meaning the full-size range, not the 30-yards range. With regard to the noble Duke's second question, he will find the whole thing in Paragraph 361 of the Territorial Force Regulations, which gives an alternative for the purpose of qualifying for the grant. The alternative is— One attendance at an open range for the purpose of firing the practices of the standard test, and in addition two attendances at an open, miniature cartridge, or 30-yards range, provided that not less than 50 rounds of ball ammunition or the equivalent value in miniature ammunition have been expended during the year. There is a further alternative in the case of recruits, the first provision of which is for the purpose of coaching the bad shot, and the second for the purpose of dealing with those cases where there is lack of range accommodation. With regard to what the noble Earl, Lord Dartmouth, said, I should like to say that we are very much in favour of week-end camps for the purpose of musketry, and the grants given which can be applied to those and other purposes have been considerably increased this year.