§ Resolution reported, "That a sum, not exceeding £8,623,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of His Majesty's Army (including Army Reserve) at Home and Abroad (exclusive of India), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914."
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely)I hope that the House will permit me to intervene in only a few sentences to say with what poignant regret we all feel that there is a gap in our ranks. For many years past there never has been an Army Debate at which Mr. George Wyndham has not been present. It is, indeed, a tragic thing that today should be the day when the last sad service to his memory is being held in this country. Mr. Wyndham brought to our Debates on military matters great knowledge—for he had served in the Army, both in peace and war, with great distinction—an unfailing tact, great industry, and, while he had also a determination to point out weak places, a complete absence of partisanship and of bitterness. It is, indeed, perhaps one of the strongest tributes to his memory in this regard, that although he was such an eloquent man, and although he could illumine all he touched in Debate, yet in dealing with Army affairs he constantly would concentrate the attention of the House on matters which might seem to those who were not acquainted with the subject to be matters of comparative detail, but it was because he knew what was really necessary for the British Army, working within the limits within which we do work; and I think we can truly say this, that those who know most about the Army are agreed that the fact of Mr. Wyndham's presence in this House, and not only his administration at the War Office, but the speeches which he has made here, have all tended to improve the Army. I do not wish to detain the House, but, speaking as Secretary of State for War, I hope that the House will not be sorry that I should be permitted to pay 1942 this tribute to his memory. He "nothing common did nor mean" in this or in any other respect, and in him this House loses one who added greatly to its knowledge. Certainly the administration of the War Office loses one whom the War Office learned to love, for he was their valiant champion and defender, and, above all, the Army loses one who will always be remembered as a very brave and faithful soldier.
Major WILLOUGHBYBefore we vote the pay of the officers and men, I feel sure it will be agreed that we require to get the fullest numbers and the greatest efficiency possible in return for the expenditure incurred. I have frequently addressed the House on this subject, and on this occasion I would point out that it is to be feared that this year the proportion of trained soldiers and Reservists that we ought to have will be less, unless we do something to obtain a greater number of men. Neither those who have any experience of the Army, nor the military advisers of the right hon. Gentleman, would say that it would be to the advantage of our Army not to have a greater number of trained soldiers in our first line when mobilisation should be found necessary. I ask Members of the House to impress upon the Secretary for War the necessity for adopting methods of recruiting in order to fill up the numbers we have voted, the establishment having fallen below its strength. The right hon. Gentleman should consider whether it would not be advisable to do something by which to retain with the Colours men who have not quite finished their service, instead of letting them go earlier, as is sometimes done. The Secretary for War should also consider the advisability of letting continue those men who are willing to extend their services, seeing that at the present time recruiting is slack. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War quoted the words of Lord Nelson, "One volunteer is better than ten pressed men." In making that statement Lord Nelson was somewhat unkind to those who served under him, because under his command they performed one of the greatest feats in the annals of our country. Any Britisher, when the necessity arises, is ready to defend the honour of his country and his flag. I personally do not favour compulsion. I think it is far better to have the service of men who render it voluntarily, though I know that a period of good trade, when employment is more easily obtained and wages 1943 are better, reduces the number of recruits and makes recruiting slack. But I do say that, if we are to have a voluntary system, I, for one, wish to do all I can to encourage it. I submit that the Government ought not to be too economical where it is a question of allowing men to continue in the Service. Where men can be obtained who wish to serve in the Army as a profession they ought to have the assurance that at the end of their career they will not find themselves in want and misery, as many of our old soldiers are to-day. This year, I would point out to the Secretary for War, recruiting is likely to fall below the minimum, which is a very small one and ought to be increased, and I urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that methods should be adopted whereby a greater number of men who are anxious to serve their country may be induced to remain in the Army and extend their service.
§ Sir COURTENAY WARNERI should like, before proceeding to a consideration of the Vote, to associate myself with the Secretary for War in his expression of sympathy and regret in the loss which the country has sustained by the death of Mr. Wyndham, a former Secretary of State for War, with whom I had many an argument across the floor of this House, and everything that the Secretary for War has said of him I know to be absolutely true. In regard to the Vote, on the question of additional pay, in order to encourage recruiting, I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken will find how difficult it is—
§ Sir C. WARNERI think the hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke of additional encouragement, or liberality, or something of that kind, but I apologise if I misunderstood him. I have found, in an experience of many years, that there is only one way in which to encourage recruiting to any considerable extent, and that is to go back to the equivalent, of the shilling given to the recruit in former days, when the shilling had greater value than at present. If in these days 5s. or 10s. were given to a recruit, I believe that a great many more recruits would be obtained than are got at present. Many a young man would be willing to join the Army if he could obtain a sum which would enable him to pay some debt of a few 1944 shillings or assist his wife and children. In regard to one point to which I wish to call attention, namely, the reduction of honorary posts, something has been done, but I would point out that those honorary posts, while they do not involve much work, do involve considerable pay. I think a little more might be done, and that more generals in full pay should be doing some active work in organising the Army, while there should be fewer of those honorary posts. Some practical economy still remains to be effected in that direction, and I think some economies might be made in respect of the higher-grade officers who are now getting full pay. Another question is the proportion of guns in the Army, I think we are still behind foreign countries in regard to the proportion of Artillery—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat does not come under this Vote.
§ Sir C. WARNERI bow to your ruling, Sir; I thought it came under the same Vote. I desire also to draw attention to the question of the Flying Corps. The pay for them is, I notice, considerably more than the pay for the Engineers and others, but we have to consider the enormous risks these men take and the enormous danger there is. We have been very fortunate in this country and had fewer accidents than foreign countries. Though the danger may appear less, there is no doubt about it that every man who goes up in a flying machine risks his life and deserves not only a little extra pay, but very considerable extra pay and consideration. There ought to be special provision for accidents, because he is injured under the same conditions practically that he would be in active service. Special pensions and special allowances ought to be made for the widows and children of the men who lose their lives in flying, and I do not think the pay is quite sufficient even now for the men who are actually running these risks. It may be said that the colonel receives £800 per year, and that that is very good pay for what he is actually doing, but he has gone through a very critical and dangerous experience in getting that amount of knowledge which gives him safety in the air, while the lower grades, who go up for the first or second time to manage a flying machine, though they have every possible instruction, are in the same difficulty and danger in which the higher grades are. I do 1945 plead with the Secretary of State to consider the enormous risks. I was asking the other day after a friend of mine who has got a high position in the Flying Corps, and whom I had known as a subaltern, and I was told, "He looks rather wild; very much drawn, and as if he had an anxious time." No doubt when a man is put in control of an aviation school or anything of that sort the strain and anxiety is something tremendous, and he deserves some special treatment. I know brevet rank confers a certain amount of extra, pay, but that does not compensate for the enormous strain in controlling what is, in fact, a scientific department, and the worry and danger and trouble of thinking not only of his own life but the numbers of lives of those serving under him. Therefore, I do ask the Secretary of State to consider these particular items. There is another, matter to which I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman's consideration, and that is to see if in future the Reserve cannot be increased by some small sum so as to strengthen the National Reserve, which has no money spent on it. There are men at present who have got all the qualifications, having been well trained. I heard of a case only yesterday of a man who served eighteen years in the Army and who is forty-one years of age. He could not have any military employment or any pay from the Government as retention, and was simply in the National Reserve. Such a man as that would certainly be a great addition, if some small Grant were given to encourage the National Reserve. Though I do not put it as strongly as a correspondent of mine in a letter in which he said that the Territorials might be done away with altogether if they only had the National Reserve properly looked after, I do think they are a body of men that ought to be seen in the Army Estimates, and ought to be considered and something done for them.
§ Mr. AMERYI should like to join in the tribute paid by the right hon. Gentleman to the memory of Mr. Wyndham. I think the small band of Unionist Members who in recent Sessions have worked at the cause of Army reform owe a great deal to his leadership in this matter. Again and again in Debates he has summed up brilliantly and clearly the various arguments from our different points of view. Also outside of this House many of us owe a great deal to his encouragement and sympathy in trying to study the question of the Army. As one of those who owe a 1946 great deal to Mr. Wyndham in the matter, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman one thing that struck me in all his consideration of Army questions was the single-mindedness with which he was always concerned with the question of really securing military efficiency, and the entire absence of a mere desire to embarrass or annoy the present occupants of the War Office. 1f I might add one word it is this, that those of us who are interested in Army affairs must remember that his death is not the only loss we have suffered in the course of this Administration. I would like to remind the House of that other great loss, sustained in the death of Mr. Arnold-Forster—another man who gave such single-minded work to the cause of the Army, and who literally wore out his life in working for that cause.
I desire to refer again to one or two points, as to which I should like an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman, with regard to the position of the officers and members of the Aviation Corps, which figures on this Vote. The right hon. Gentleman may remember that last year and again in the Debates in March, I asked him to consider very carefully whether the position of those officers and men in the framework of the Army should not be one of direct subordination to the General Staff. I urged on those occasions, and I need not repeat the details, that the main work of the Aviation Corps will be to collect intelligence, and that that work is most particularly associated with the functions of the General Staff. Further, I urged that this new discovery and new element introduced into war is bound to modify entirely, sooner or later, the whole system of tactics of the different arms, and such questions as the use of Cavalry, and all those questions are bound to be considered very carefully by the General Staff. During the whole of this period of transition, during which the art of aviation is developing, it is most imperative that the Flying Corps and the General Staff should be most closely associated. I hope I may have from the right hon. Gentleman a clear satisfactory assurance, because he did give me very considerable hopes when I raised the question before, that the Aviation Corps will be directly under the General Staff. Closely associated with that, I would like to urge that the provision of the necessary money for training officers and men in aviation should not be confined to the Regular Army in this country, but 1947 should be extended to the Regular Army in South Africa and other parts of the Empire. I urge this, not only because very valuable experience may be gained in aviation in other climes and under other conditions, but also because it is going to be an essential feature of modern military training that troops should be trained in the presence of and in combination with aeroplanes, and should understand what it is to be flown over and to work in co-operation with them. Therefore I would urge that as soon as possible the necessary provision should be placed on the Estimates for training in aviation officers and men in South Africa, in India, and wherever there are troops. The same applies with regard to the Territorial Force here. In the general Debate in Committee, hon. Friends of mine repeatedly urged from the general point of view of effectiveness of defence, the futility of having a Territorial Force without equipping it with the necessary complement of aeroplanes. I would urge on this occasion the necessity of making that provision in order to make the training of the Territorial Force a reality.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe Territorial Force comes on Vote 4, and the materiel for aviation which the Territorial Force might use would fall on Vote 9. Therefore neither of those aspects of the question can be raised on this Vote.
§ Mr. AMERYI thought I was keeping myself within the provision of money for the pay of officers and men of the Aviation Corps. I will not pursue the point further. The point raised in a previous Debate by the hon. Member for Sunderland as to the necessity in making provision for this corps that the War Office should be generous, is well worth urging again. I regret that in his reply to the hon. Member for Sunderland the Under Secretary for War was distinctly unsympathetic. His whole view was that you should not add too much to the non effective Votes. We are not discussing non-effective Votes to-day. But on the question whether or not those who serve their country should be treated generously, it is necessary to remind the House that not only are there the non-effective Votes, strictly so called, but that a very large non-effective Vote is included in the Vote now under discussion. I mean that unless you treat your officers and men, particularly your men, gener- 1948 ously, you do not get the material that you require, and therefore a large part of the money spent on pay to-day is devoted to the pay of men who are not effective. A very large number of the men on this Vote are non-effective. The moment mobilisation comes, you have, owing to the extreme youth at which you enlist your troops and to the difficulty of maintaining a sufficient physical standard, to reject and leave behind an immensely high proportion of the men whom you are paying under this Vote. Therefore, for all purposes of efficiency and economy, a large part of this Vote is non-effective. It is most essential that something should be done to induce to enlist men of a better class physically and at a somewhat riper age, so that when you mobilise you might achieve the end urged just now by my hon. Friend, namely, that a really substantial proportion of your serving troops should be able to take the field, and that you should not have to make up the units with a very large proportion of Reserves. We have not only to consider the present extent of the Vote; there is also the question of the future. If we are to deal adequately with the Army from the point of view of the future, we shall be confronted with a very different state of things with regard to this Vote for the pay of officers and men of the Regular Forces.
This is not a Debate in which we can discuss the question of the Territorial Force, but I may say that when that question comes to be dealt with, whatever solution is found for providing an adequate force for the defence of this country, that solution will react upon the Vote we, are now discussing, and will affect the amount of money we shall have to vote for the Regular Army. Admitting, as I think everyone does, that the present and prospective condition of the Territorial Force is hopeless, admitting that you have to find a solution, you must consider what effect that would have upon the Regular Army and upon the amount of money provided therefor. To my mind, any solution which aims at providing a Home Defence Army on the pay basis—and I do not think that that is an impossible basis—as distinguished from national service, will mean, in view of the class of men you will have to attract, an entirely different rate of pay from that now offered to the Army. The number of men that you can attract at 1s. or 1s. 6d. is strictly limited, and you are not getting them to-day. The moment you 1949 try to remedy the condition of the Territorial Force by offering really adequate compensation for the time given to training you will be confronted with the rivalry which you yourselves create with the Regular Army, and you will be compelled to raise substantially the pay of the Regular Forces. After having gone into calculations very carefully, I have come to the conclusion that if you dealt with the problem of Home Defence on the voluntary pay basis it would involve increased Estimates, not only for the voluntary Territorial Force, but more particularly for the Regular Army and Special Reserve, and to same extent for the Navy, of anything from £15,000,000 to £20,000,000 a year. On the other hand, I believe that if you introduced a system of national service for the Home Defence Force, under which you would bring in contact with the art of war large sections of people who are not brought in contact with it to-day, you would get a much greater stimulus to recruiting. You would probably get a much larger percentage of men with some element of training and of a better physique joining the Regular Army, and the present Vote for the pay and establishment of the Regular troops would to a much larger extent than to-day be an effective Vote, and to a much smaller extent a Vote for the pay of boys while they are growing up into men adequate and fit to serve the country in war.
With regard to the pay of officers, we all welcome the promises—I wish they were to be fulfilled at once—made by the Secretary of State. At the same time I confess it does not seem to me that what he has offered is by any means adequate to the needs of the Army. After all, we have always got to consider, in dealing with the question of officers, that the Regular Army does not exhaust the number of troops we should have to put in the field in any great war. We cannot have more than a comparatively small Regular Army. As South Africa taught us, and as the Elgin Commission reported after that war, one of the essential features of our whole system has always been the possibility of a large expansion in the time of a great war. Within certain limits the men can be improvised. You cannot improvise officers, still less a General Staff. Therefore it seems to me to be essential that we should hold out special inducements, not merely to get just a bare sufficiency of officers for the Regular Army and a bare sufficiency for the staff for the Divisions, as they are distributed in the United Kingdom to-day; 1950 we must have a real surplus of officers, and above all, a surplus of men who have taken pains to study and qualify themselves for staff work. Therefore, I would urge the right hon. Gentleman to consider in the near future whether the additions he has proposed to the pay of the officers should not be still further increased and made still more substantial; and more particularly, that there should be a real substantial reward given to those officers who qualify themselves for staff work. It is quite true that those officers who get staff appointments do get better pay to-day; but what is required is that those officers who qualify and do not get staff appointments, but go back to ordinary regimental work and pay, and have no return at all at present except a vague prospect of future appointment for the pains they have taken, should get an immediate and adequate return for their work.
Apart from these points that I wish to raise, there always remains behind the general question as to what extent the whole Vote at present is not largely ineffective because our Army policy has never been adequately thought out. Again and again in these Debates we on this side of the House have asked the Secretary for War what really the Army is for; by what standard of military necessity in war the strength of its various parts are determined? Why do we provide for an Expeditionary Force of six Divisions? We have never been told. Are six Divisions adequate? If not, we are not spending enough. They may be much more than adequate; in that case the £10,000,000 spent under this Vote may be wholly excessive. It seems essential to economy in this matter, as in every other business, that we should really know what we are driving at; for what purpose the Army is required. This was the question that Mr. Wyndham so often urged in these Debates. We have not yet had a clear answer, either from the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor or from the right hon. Gentleman himself. I do submit that we should have an answer to that question.
§ Mr. J. WARDI do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down into abstract questions on the policy, which are entirely out of my comprehension; but I do want briefly to support the observations of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who opened to-day's discussion; the suggestion being that if we are bound up with the voluntary system that we support, and which Labour men 1951 all over the country insist upon supporting—if it is to be made a success, unquestionably economy in the pay of the men is a thing almost impossible. It is quite clear, if we are going to maintain our voluntary system against the attacks of those who wish to have a system of conscription or compulsion, that we can only do that if we pay the Army well. We have either to have compulsion or to pay. That is exactly the situation. One has to consider the reports one gets, and letters such as I have sent to the War Office claiming pensions for men who have served twelve or thirteen years with the Colours—may be several of those years abroad—with health impaired and some of the best years of their life given to the Service, with absolutely no prospect of saving anything—indeed, it is a moral certainty that both the ordinary private or the noncommissioned officer can just live—these men, I say, having not gone the full time for a pension, find themselves unable to return to civil life as ordinary workers. It is a very great hardship that the Regulations are so framed as to preclude consideration of cases like these. It is a condition of affairs that voluntaryists are bound to take into consideration. No matter what the expenditure may be, they are bound to face it. It is useless to imagine that we can go on as at present, especially as our countrymen become more intelligent and more educated. The men from whom we draw recruits are a different class even to twenty years ago. They have been taught in the schools. A boy now at sixteen or seventeen, even amongst the poorest of the poor, wants to see his way to a career. The pay of the private soldier should be shaped so that the youth sees his way to earning a living as he would ordinarily. It is evident there is no way between paying the soldier a decent wage or compelling men to serve. There is no alternative. The economists of the Army, and at headquarters, and those even who preached economy from these benches in the actual pay of the soldier, are the real conscriptionists. You cannot maintain the voluntary system in a great industrial community like ours—I dare say you might do it in an agrarian population—but you cannot in a community like ours expect to get hundreds of thousands of capable men transferring their services to the Army unless they are paid a decent wage while they are serving, with a fair prospect after leaving of at least securing a 1952 minimum of comfort. The Army Council would be well advised to take this subject into consideration.
I do not take any notice of the criticisms as to they youth of the Army. I myself was serving at the front at nineteen. There are plenty of good, capable men at that age—apart from physically deficient youths that it would take the Army some considerable time to make efficient soldiers of—but mere youth is not a sufficient criterion to decide as to efficiency. Some young men at eighteen or twenty are as good soldiers as ever they will be at any time. As a matter of fact, as long as a man is physically fit and has the right training it is a moral certainty that anything above seventeen years of age is a good age for the soldier.
With reference to one point, whether the amounts paid to the soldier for removal from one place to another is sufficient or not, I should like to mention this: I was travelling in a train some time ago with a gang of soldiers. They were non-coms., being transferred from one place to another. They had no idea of who I was, and they talked quite freely of the number of time they were shifted and the miserable sums they were paid. I never entered into any conversation with them, but I only wish the Secretary of State for War had been there to hear that discussion. The sums paid them for shifting their wives and families from place to place were too absurd for words. They could not move for it with a donkey or by any other means, and it is little grievances such as this that are really important in matters of this kind. I have always taken an interest in these affairs. I suppose the influence of the Army and Navy is like hydrophobia, once you have any connection with it you never lose your interest in it; it fastens itself upon you and you are forced to take an interest in it afterwards. These men were asking one another what they received, and I heard sums, which I will not mention, which they were allowed for the removing of their wives and families from one place to another. I am not sure they amounted to the railway fares. It is things like that that really requires investigation. When it comes to fighting, if the non-coms are deficient or discontented, the whole thing is up. It is a disgrace that a great wealthy country like ours should employ men and put aside some hundreds of thousands of men for our defences and for the defence of our territories and the maintenance of law and order within the 1953 Empire so that our commerce, trade, and interests might be protected and go on without interruption, and that we should haggle about paying them a miserable 1d. or 2d. a week extra. It is a disgrace that matters of this kind should be allowed to continue. Whatever may be said about equipment, one thing is certain, there is no middle course between paying the men of the Army better and compulsory service, and undoubtedly better pay is the way out of the difficulty. We cannot go on with the voluntary system when wages rise, and when we are improving the status of our working classes, from whom the soldiers come, and succeed in getting soldiers for the same rates of pay as those of twenty years ago. It is absurd to imagine it can be done, and the sooner the situation is changed the better for every-body concerned.
§ 1.0 P.M.
§ Sir CHARLES HUNTERThe right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, when he introduced the Army Estimates, made the announcement that he proposed to grant special extra pay to some of the lower ranks and the non-commissioned officers. I think that statement was received not only with satisfaction throughout the Army, but also by nearly every Member who sits in this House. Although I do not agree with a good deal of the administration of the Secretary of State for War, I congratulate him most heartily upon having made this announcement, and having done something which had not been done by any Secretary of State for War for the last 108 years, because the present pay of the Army officer of the junior ranks is no longer a living wage, and bears no comparison not only with the increased cost of living but to the pay given in nearly every other profession. In fact, the subaltern officer at the present moment is not receiving as good pay as the driver of a London County Council tram. Let us see what this grant of extra pay is really to amount to. I do not say am quite correct, but no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong as to what he means to do with regard to the pay of the officers. It is a most curious thing that one of the most important things the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in his statement has hardly been touched upon at all in the course of the Debate except by my hon. Friend the Member for one of the Divisions of Birmingham (Mr. Amery). I think I may divide what the right hon. 1954 Gentleman said into two categories: First, increase of pay in the junior commissioned ranks, also senior majors and colonels, and special grants to those non-commissioned officers promoted from the ranks. What the right hon. Gentleman proposes doing as regards the subaltern is that he should receive after two years' service an increase in pay of 2s. 6d. per diem; the rank of second lieutenant is to be abolished altogether; captains, after three years' service, are to receive 3s. per diem; majors, after twenty-four years' service, an increase of 2s.; lieutenant-colonels commanding, an increase of from 3s. to 5s. This total increase was to amount to between £100,000 and £150,000 a year. I do not quite understand why the increase is not more accurately estimated. It is surely well known how many officers there are in each one of those ranks, and it seems rather a large margin. I thought the Secretary of State said it would cost £136,000. I have very little to say to the right hon. Gentleman about the increase in the pay of the officers, except to congratulate him on having proposed it.
The other statement on which I shall have something to say is as to the extra, amount granted to the non-commissioned officers promoted to the commissioned ranks. In this case it is proposed to grant £150 on promotion instead of £100, and also to make what the right hon. Gentleman calls "Secretary of State scholarships," which are to be given to these men for the first three years of service, amounting to £50 each. I do not think that £150 grant for a man joining the commissioned ranks is sufficient, because the noncommissioned officer has to find the whole of his uniform and barrack furniture and a thousand and one other things. I should prefer to see this sum very considerably increased, particularly if the non-commissioned officer has to go to India, where the conditions are totally different. I think, considering the higher scale of pay which the officer gets in India, these officers would be glad to go out there.
If the officers are allowed to count their service in the ranks as service afterwards, I should like to know if they are allowed to count their service in the ranks for pensions. That would place them on an unfair status as regards the other commissioned officers. Although I am in favour of noncommissioned officers being promoted to commissioned ranks, I foresee a very considerable danger in making this promotion too easy, because you will find a great 1955 many men, owing to the enormous expense of training their sons for the Army, will take the opportunity of sending them into the Army through the ranks. I do not say that the officer who has been trained in the ranks is not a good soldier, but. I do not think he is equal to the officer who has had two years' training at Sandhurst, and it is important that we should not interfere with the status of those officers. We have lately spent very large sums indeed in practically rebuilding the whole military college at Sandhurst. I believe it now contains 750 semi-officers who will train there for two years, and there is no doubt that the officer who has gone through two years at Sandhurst, and has obtained a knowledge of fortifications, tactics, and other branches of military science, is an infinitely better officer than the man who comes from the ranks. I foresee a very considerable danger if entry into the Army is made too easy from the ranks.
As regards the scholarship branch of £50 a year, I think it would be better if those grants were open to all the subalterns of the Army. By all means give special grants of £50 a year to any officer who is thoroughly qualified in any branch of the scientific sections, or in the French or German language. It is the men with great ability who will probably gain those scholarships, but it should not be confined to them, and they ought to be open to all the other branches of the Service. I wish to say a word or two about the staff. I put forward a very strong plea that there should be an extra grant made to these officers who have passed and qualified themselves as staff officers. I know that this is not so popular in the Army as increasing the pay of the officers all through the branches of the Service, but at the same time we have to realise that the staff college officer is an absolute necessity in time of war. He has to go through a very special training, and their numbers are very limited, and although you may make an officer of a man of ordinary ability, you cannot make a staff college officer of him. Very often when you have got your man trained he has not the aptitude for staff work. During active service most of the responsibility generally falls on the staff trained officers, and if we could only know what actually happened in the recent war in Turkey, I think you would find that the success of the 1956 Bulgarians was entirely owing to the fact that their staff officers were able to mobilise and mass their troops in large numbers where they were required.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe subject which the hon. Gentleman is now dealing with would more appropriately come on the Military Education Vote.
§ Colonel BURNI find that I am able to travel a certain distance with the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) in regard to what he has said. At the same time, however, I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman, who, whenever a demand is made for some reform in the Army that costs money, will probably meet with a blank refusal from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think the difficulty as to the future of the soldier may be got over, not by increasing his pay, but possibly by offering him some inducement in the future. I firmly believe, if the right hon. Gentleman will consider that point, he will be able to induce the best class of recruit to offer himself for enlistment in the Army. The position of the soldier on discharge is one that we very often deplore. When a man enlists, I do not for one moment believe that he considers deferred pay or gratuities that will be given to him on the completion of his term of service. I do not think he enters into that, but if some opportunity were given to the soldiers in their spare time during certain periods of the year of learning a trade in order to fit them for obtaining a livelihood at the completion of their service, I think it would have a very valuable effect in the direction of inducing the right class of recruit to offer himself for Army service. If, in addition to that, certain positions in Government offices like the Post Office and the police were to be offered as an inducement to those who enlist, then I think the difficulty in that way will be very greatly minimised.
With regard to the men who enlist for twelve years' service, at the end of that time only 10 per cent. of the twelve years men are allowed to continue on and complete their twenty-one years' service. I understand that the reason for this is that the Secretary for War desires that the Reserve should accumulate, but at the same time those twelve years men are the soldiers whom the officers desire to remain in the regiment, because they are a very valuable addition to the British Army. If a man serves his country faithfully and well and conducts himself properly during 1957 his service, then I do think that he has a great claim on the State, and, though I am grateful for what has been done already for those men, I still think that something more might be done in the future, and, if it is sympathetically done, I feel that the difficulty in that respect will be considerably diminished.
I wish to say a few words on the question of the Mounted Infantry School. The Mounted Infantry has been a very valuable force under certain conditions and on certain occasions. It has been an excellent force when fighting uncivilised troops, but I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman or any experienced Army officer would tell us that the Mounted Infantry can be used against modern Continental troops. The opportunities on which it could be used would be comparatively few. We know that in South Africa it did valuable service, but the Boers were masters of the art of using Mounted Infantry. Their ponies were beautifully trained and would stand fire and everything. The Boer Army was composed principally of Mounted Infantry. We keep up this Mounted Infantry School and send officers and men there for instruction. We take away our best and smartest officers and men in order that they may be instructed in Mounted Infantry. Every commanding officer of an Infantry regiment would tell you that his regiment is decidedly weakened by these men being taken away, and I very much doubt if the result justifies the expense. The Mounted Infantry officer or soldier is supposed to be able to perform all the duties of a Cavalry soldier. If you can train a man in that short time as a Cavalry soldier, what is the good of keeping up the Cavalry at all? I think myself that if the money voted for the Mounted Infantry Instruction School were devoted to the extension of the Cavalry School, either the Central Cavalry School or the other Cavalry Schools, one of which might very well be in Ireland and the others in suitable places where the ground is fitted for Cavalry manœuvres, it would certainly be a great assistance generally to the instruction of Cavalry officers. We have a small number of Cavalry soldiers, and we want the best and most efficient, and at these schools they certainly can be taught and receive all the valuable information for the higher training of a Cavalry officer. I am sure that anything we could do to increase the efficiency of our Cavalry officers and men would be very valuable to the British Army as a whole.
1958 If we can save money on any of these heads, I am sure anyone who is really interested in the Army would be very glad to see some steps taken to call for a mobilisation. We want to know exactly on what we can count. Many of us would like to see how we stand, so that we could know what force, in the event of war being declared, we should be able to command. I think that it would be very much more satisfactory from the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman and of the Members of the House to know what our position would really be. I see that in the Vote we are discussing to-day there is a decrease of £3,000 for field training. I hope that there is some good reason for this decrease, because we do not get too much of these minor operations or manœuvres in this country, and in my opinion it is cheeseparing economy to lessen the amount of this training. I am very glad to see that the Army Reserve is to be increased by 6,000 men, because these Reserves, in case of an Expeditionary Force being called abroad, would be a very valuable addition to the Army. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman or any Member of this House can look on the National Reserve as a real reserve in the sense that the men will be fitted to join the ranks in the event of our Expeditionary Force being ordered abroad. Many of them have never been in the Army at all, and they get, no training year after year. How can men without uniform, without officers, and without training be fit to take their place in the Army to face a Continental foe? I can quite see that you might in times of invasion make considerable use of them as orderlies.
§ Colonel SEELYOn a point of Order. There does not appear to be anything in this Vote relating to the National Reserve. If that is so, my hon. Friend, when he comes to sneak, would not be able to reply to the hon. Gentleman's point, and it would seem rather discourteous.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley)That is so.
§ Colonel BURNI will not pursue that any further. The hon. Baronet the Member for Lichfield (Sir T. Courtenay Warner) spoke of highly-paid appointments which he thought might be done away with. I am sure that the right, hon. Gentleman, or indeed any Member on that bench, knows that there are not many of these appointments available at the present time, and I do not know of a single 1959 appointment where the officer does not thoroughly earn the pay that he gets. I think perhaps the hon. Member did not realise that the Army is not a profession in which you expect to make very much money, and, if an officer who has served well gets a good position in his more mature years, I feel certain that he thoroughly deserves it, and moreover, that the work that he does justifies the appointment. There is one appointment about which I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question, and that is the Inspector-General of Oversea Forces. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the appointment is justified by the work that is done by the Inspector-General. In the British Army we have a regular system which is carried out, whether in Egypt, Malta, Gibraltar, or India, and I do not think that any general officer commanding in any district would start a new system of drills or of anything to do with the Army; therefore I do not see what this Inspector-General can do. I feel that economies might be effected in connection with the appointment and that the money now expended on it might be devoted to something which would be of more service to the Army and to the country generally. I mention these points hoping that the right hon. Gentleman will give consideration to them. In anything that I say about the Army I speak entirely from a non-party point of view. I consider that the Army, as well as the Navy, ought never to be in the political arena to be shuttlecocked about, and I shall always be glad to co-operate in any way I possibly can in promoting the efficiency of the Army generally.
§ Captain JESSELWe on this side of the House listened with very great attention to the remarks of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. John Ward). I have always been under the impression that the hon. Member was a great upholder of the voluntary system, and, in common with many of his friends who sit upon those benches, deadly opposed to any form of conscription. If he is such a stalwart supporter of the voluntary system I think he has given very poor service to that cause by telling such a dark and dismal tale of the fate of any private soldier who enters the Army. I would like to remind the hon. Member and those who agree with him that it is not so many years ago the pay of the private soldier was raised by about 50 per cent. It is true that the 1960 actual pay is the same as it was, but great facilities have been given in other directions, and I believe I am not far wrong in my statement that, in recent years, the pay of the private soldier has been raised to the extent I stated. In addition to that there are the much greater opportunities which are now afforded to the private soldier of getting on when he leaves the Army. Owing to the Regulations laid down by the War Office considerable time and trouble are now expended in the training of men and in teaching them trades when they are not occupied on their military duties. I admit that more might be done, but we must not lose sight of the fact that a great deal has been accomplished, and I know there are a great many men from all branches of the Service who are now filling very good positions in private life, driving motors and mechanical vehicles of that description.
There was, however, one point on which I had considerable sympathy with the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Stoke, and that was when he talked of the insufficiency of the travelling allowances and the amount for luggage allowed, not only to non-commissioned officers but to the men of the Army, when they change their quarters from place to place. That not only affects the men, but it also affects the officers. These are little points, but, in the aggregate, they represent a considerable amount of saving to the War Office, and they cause a great deal of discontent in the Army. As the hon. Member for Stoke has pointed out, when such matters are discussed in public places people are rather inclined to think that the Army is not all that it is painted, and that there are many causes of complaint. I think in that respect, as well as in regard to questions of pay and pension, where men not very well educated make claims and are disqualified on some technical ground of a minor character, the War Office would be well advised not to take too harsh or strict a view of the position. It is these small points which cause so much grumbling among all ranks in the Army. I cannot agree with the hon. Member in his contention that the position of the private soldier or of the non-commissioned officer, who now, owing to the concession granted by the Secretary for War, may aspire to be an officer, compares at all unfavourably with that of men in civil life. The hon. and gallant Member who last spoke said that if the Secretary of State for War put forward propositions 1961 they were always refused by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I must say that that has not been the case in regard to the present Secretary for War. He has succeeded in getting from the Treasury a considerable increase of pay for the officers of the Army, and on that I think he is to be greatly congratulated, because, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Bath, he is the first Secretary for War who has done anything of the kind for over a hundred years, and I may tell him that the officers in the Army will always appreciate the fact that he has been the first to recognise their position in this matter.
I am glad to see the hon. Baronet the Member for Lichfield (Sir C. Warner), who takes such a great interest in Army matters, is in his place. He talked about the number of high officers in the Army who had nothing to do. With the exception, perhaps, of the Inspector-General for the Mediterranean, a post on which we think the money is not particularly well spent, I cannot understand to what class of officers the hon. Baronet refers. The late Secretary for War took considerable pride in the fact, in his speeches on the Army Estimates, that he had greatly improved the prospects of officers in the Army by providing so many more posts, and it was for that reason that he resisted the efforts that were being made on this side of the House to get more pay for the officers. But he provided more posts for the Army because there has been a great deal more to do in recent years, and the appointment of more officers of higher rank has been necessitated by the reorganisation of the Volunteer Force and the creation of the Territorial Force. We have a splendid staff in that Territorial Force—general officers, divisional officers, brigadiers and brigade-majors—but they constitute a necessary staff for the Territorial Army, and this, of course, has given more opportunities for officers in the Army to obtain promotion. I think they were necessitated by the admirable reorganisation effected by the late Secretary for War when the Volunteer Force was converted into the Territorial Force. In these circumstances the hon. Baronet is not quite justified in saying that there are a good many officers of high rank appointed who have nothing to do. I think he will find they are fully employed. As to the question of the higher appointments in the staff, I am glad for the sake of the officers in the 1962 Army that there are these appointments, because it is a greater inducement to a man to take up the profession of officer in the Army if he knows these higher appointments are to be obtained. I cannot agree with the proposition put forward by the hon. Member for South Birmingham (Mr. Amery) or the hon. Member for Bath (Lord Alexander Thynne) that a certain number of the appointments which are going to be given to officers of the Army should be ear-marked for those who have passed through the Staff College. I have the greatest respect for education and for officers who are sufficiently able to pass the difficult examinations of the Staff College, but having arrived at the Staff College, the chances of a man who gets the magic letters indicating that he has passed Staff College after his name are far greater than those of any other officers in the Army. All the great plums and billets in the Army are available to him, and the unfortunate regimental officer, who may be an equally good soldier but has not sufficient educational accomplishments, is told, "No, you cannot have this or that, because you have not passed Staff College." I think these officers have sufficient advantages given to them after passing Staff College, and they should not have, ipso facto, extra pay for the reason that they have passed Staff College. The hon. Member for Bath admitted that if a man had passed through Staff College and taken up a post, it was his own fault if he did not get on; therefore I cannot see on what ground he makes out his claim for officers who fail when they have been appointed to particular posts, or that there should of necessity be higher pay for those who have passed Staff College.
The other point to which I wish to direct attention is one often raised in this House, that is the question of the pay of the Inspector-General of the Mediterranean Command, who, I believe, is called Inspector-General of the Oversea Forces. I have never been able to understand what is now the policy of the War Office as regards that officer. What are his precise functions now? I believe I am correct in stating that they are not the same now as when he was originally appointed. When originally appointed I believe it was only for the Mediterranean, and to look after and inspect Gibraltar and Malta, and also to go to Egypt. I understand that he now goes to any part of the world, and that recently he has been to Japan and 1963 China. Whatever he may do, he seems to be a very expensive officer. He gets £5,000 a year, which is more than the Inspector-General at Home receives, who only gets £4,000. He gets more pay than the generals commanding either at Alder-shot or in Ireland, and in addition to that—I do not say there is a very expensive staff, but a staff in proportion to his very high rank as a general officer.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI think the hon. Member is raising a matter of larger policy which does not arise on Vote 1.
§ Captain JESSELI submit to your ruling, Sir. I was only anxious to elicit why this officer receives the highest pay of all general officers in the Army. I know his pay includes allowances, but I should like to know the reasons why he is paid such a high sum. I will, however, pass from that and conclude by asking the Secretary of State a question. My hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Burn) raised the question of the National Reserve. The Secretary of State very courteously said that the question did not arise on Vote 1, which is the pay for the Army. In the Memorandum the Secretary of State issued this year with the Army Estimates, he quoted certain figures as to the pay of the National Reserve, but I cannot find in the Index or anywhere in the. Army Estimates themselves any place where the actual pay of the National Reserve is included. Perhaps later on, when the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary replies, we may be told where the figures are, so that if we wish to raise a discussion on the question we may know the proper place to raise it.
§ Sir JOHN JARDINEI have only one or two questions to put upon this Vote, and they arise in regard to page 40 in regard to Appropriations-in-Aid. I notice that the Estimate for the present year for payments by the Indian Government in respect of deferred pay have gone down. I should like to know whether that reduction from £65,000 to £54,500 is one that is likely to be continuous in the future. As regards the lump sum payment by the Indian Government, £861,500, that is followed by
less contributions made by the Imperial Government towards the cost of garrison of Aden, £100,000.I should be glad to know what proportion that bears to the actual cost of the garrison at Aden. The next item is a 1964 deduction from the lump sum of £130,000 towards the cost of transport of troops to and from India. Is there any chance of that, or any of the other chief items that make up that lump sum, being reduced in any way in the future?
§ Sir J. D. REESThe Secretary for War in paying a touching tribute to the memory of Mr. George Wyndham was driven, as many of us would be, to quote the language of poets rather than to use his own, and he made a very apt quotation from the poem of a Republican poet about a Royalist King. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has read that poem to the end and whether he remembers the last two lines which are:—
The same arts that did gain Power must it maintain.I would commend those words to him and beg him, in the exercise of his high office, not to be continually suggesting that a trained man is as good as an untrained man and the less you have of both the better; which, I take it, very accurately, if perhaps rather briefly, summarises his creed. While he was referring to the late Mr. Wyndham, it occurred to me also that there are two lines which I might be permitted to quote which are particularly applicable to that right hon. Gentleman whose handsome face and eloquent voice it is hard to believe we shall never see and hear in this House again. They were the lines applied to a famous French General:His mourners, two great hosts, his friends and foes. Prayed for his gallant spirit's bright repose.Mr. Wyndham had no foes except those who were political, and the quotation can only have a political application. It occurs to me that upon this Vote regarding the pay for the officers and men of the Army I should have imagined, and I still hope, it is possible to make a few remarks regarding the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman in the character, which I think he so completely fulfils, of the Mark Tapley of military affairs. Other hon. and gallant Gentlemen who, of course, speak upon all these matters of detail with an authority that does not attach to a civilian, have referred to some of these matters, and I trust I shall not be out of order in begging the right hon. Gentleman to take into account not only the views of hon. and gallant Gentlemen who have addressed him from this side of the House, but of Noble Lords, for instance, on his own side in politics, like Lord Joicey, a great employer of labour.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI am afraid the hon. Gentleman's enterprise misleads him. This is not the occasion for a general debate. We are limited solely to the question of the pay of the officers and men of the Army.
§ Sir J. D. REESI regret it. I rather feared I should fail. I took great pains to endeavour to keep within the rules of order. Shall I be in order, as one who has lately come from France and seen upon every wall an appeal to the people of that country saying the numbers of men—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe number of men was decided some few months ago. The hon. Gentleman is too late.
§ Sir J. D. REESIt is not my fault that two months ago I sat the whole Debate out and could get no opportunity to speak. I am aware that India is out of order. Is the exclusion of India out of order upon this Vote? Is it, since this is a Vote for the pay of His Majesty's Army, irrelevant to this Vote that the Indian revenues pay Capitation Grants which provide a portion of this £8,623,000? I should have imagined that it would be in order.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe Resolution that has been read to the House has in it the words "exclusive of India."
§ Sir J. D. REESMy intention was to ask whether the contribution on account of Capitation Grant was not in order, and whether the amount of it could not be discussed, but I leave it at once. Equally it would be out of order, I presume, to endeavour to obtain any information as to the intention of the Government as regards the numbers of men. I quite anticipated the great difficulty of discussing the matter. Here is a matter which possibly may be in order, and I want information upon it. Officers serving in the British Army were formerly transferred to the Army in India, and while they served in the British Army they qualified in the language test, and were then transferred to the Army in India, a course which has now ceased to be adopted, to the great hardship of the officers concerned. I am afraid that is on the borderline also, and I leave that.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERIt is a very long way over the border line. This is the fourth time, and if the hon. Member is unable to find something relevant to the Vote, he ought not to occupy the time of the House.
§ Sir J. D. REESThe pay of aviation officers at any rate is upon the Vote, and, I presume, the terms upon which they are appointed to the Royal Aviation Corps. In that case I should like to know why it is that no permanent appointment can be made to the Aviation Corps. It seems to me to be an unsatisfactory system. We have seen in the occurrence of the day before yesterday how necessary it is that there should be—
§ Colonel SEELYThat had nothing to do with the Army.
§ Sir J. D. REESAt any rate it is necessary that we should have in this country some great improvement in aptitude for aviation, and I think the circumstances under which no permanent appointment can be made and also the circumstances that officers from the Indian Army who are at Home on leave are not able to find opportunities of being appointed to the Aviation Corps—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. Member seems wholly unable to appreciate the fact that the time for the discussion of general policy has long gone by. We are now dealing merely with the pay of the men.
§ Sir J. D. REESThe only other remark I have to make is to associate myself most heartily with the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. J. Ward) in his desire that the pay in the Army should be increased. I think it does him great honour. I hope and believe it will be increased. The British officer is a man who always grumbles and never strikes—always complains and always does his duty. Some increase of pay for him is long overdue, and I am not sorry that amongst all the hon. and gallant Gentlemen who have addressed the House someone who is not a soldier but has lived amongst soldiers should have an opportunity of stating how absolutely necessary some increase is and how long it is overdue, both in regard to officers and men. I am very sorry that the matters which I wish to raise are out of order, but it was worth my while to make an effort because it is exceedingly difficult to raise these points. They are out of order now, and there will be no opportunity on the one day in the year on which any matters connected with India, come forward. Therefore, I have no occasion to make such an abject apology as I otherwise should for the effort to introduce into the discussion 1967 subjects which are of great importance, thinking it unfortunate that neither on this nor on any other occasion can it be brought forward.
§ 2.0 P.M.
§ Lord ALEXANDER THYNNEI do not want to say anything which would lead the right hon. Gentleman to suppose that any Member of this House, or anybody in the country interested in the Army, does not appreciate his efforts to improve the position of the British officer. At the same time, I should like to call attention to the great difficulty which he and his predecessors have experienced in getting suitable officers for the Cavalry, and to point out how that matter is really affected by the scale of pay which is enjoyed not merely by the junior ranks, but by an officer throughout all stages of his career. If a man goes into an ordinary civil profession, he has the legitimate expectation that when he reaches certain ages, and after completing certain periods of service in that profession, he will get an increase in the scale of his remuneration. If you take an ordinary business, I think that undoubtedly does obtain. In an ordinary great business you will find that in the various grades men of the same age are undoubtedly receiving approximately the same scale of remuneration. Unfortunately this does not happen to the same extent in His Majesty's Service, because the rate of pay is governed by promotion, and however able a man may be in the discharge of his duties, he does not get that increase in the rate of pay to which his ability and his age entitle him until, owing to the extraneous circumstances which obtain in regard to his patricular regiment, he obtains promotion from one rank to another. Therefore, we have this curious anomaly in the British Army, and especially in the Cavalry at the present moment, that we have officers drawing the rate of pay of majors after twelve years' service, while we have officers equally able, after twenty years' service, only drawing the rate of pay of captain. It has been suggested at different times in the history of this particular question that there should be an allowance made in respect of a certain number of years' service—a system which at one time obtained in the old Indian Staff. I do not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should adopt what is now regarded as a somewhat old-fashioned expedient which did not work very satisfactorily in India, but, at the same time, I 1968 do suggest that he should endeavour to meet this question of inequality of pay by trying to deal with some of the inequalities of promotion on which that inequality of pay depends. I think anybody who knows the recent history of the British Cavalry will agree with me in saying that in recent years, so far from any attempt having been made to reduce this inequaltiy of pay by mitigating the inequalities of promotion, the administration of the right hon. Gentleman has tended to aggravate the difficulty rather than to mitigate it. I will only state as an illustration what has recently occurred in one particular Cavalry regiment. There we had a case in which a junior officer was promoted to the command of the regiment over three senior officers. Three majors were passed over, and a junior major in that regiment was promoted to its command. I have nothing whatever to say with regard to the ability or the qualifications of the major who was appointed. I feel that any discussion on that point would undoubtedly be out of order on the present occasion, but I do suggest that here was an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to have done something in the direction I have indicated by bringing into the command of that regiment one of the very numerous squadron leaders in the Cavalry, some of whom have served twenty years—men who have taken the Staff College certificate, and who are in every way qualified to command a Cavalry regiment, but who, owing to the vagaries of regimental promotion, have not been able to obtain promotion to that rank, and who stand very little likelihood of ever getting command of a regiment. They are, therefore, still condemned under our present system to draw the pay of a major when, under more fortunate circumstances, in any other regiment, they would be drawing what men of similar years' service—very often a less number of years' service—are drawing, namely, the pay of a colonel. I suggest that by this particular promotion in the 4th Hussars the right hon. Gentleman has inflicted a great injustice, not only in the matter of promotion, but also in the matter of pay.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe question of pay and organisation does not arise here.
§ Lord A. THYNNEI was endeavouring to show that the question of pay in a matter of this sort was affected by the matter of inter-regimental promotion. I 1969 should like to call the right hon's Gentleman's attention to the great opportunity he had in the case of the 4th Hussars of doing something in the direction of promoting, and enabling officers by promotion, to enjoy a higher rate of pay. Efficient officers in other regiments, in present circumstances, can hope to obtain the higher rank in which they would draw the higher rate of pay.
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker)A number of interesting points have been raised, many of them within the limits of the Vote we are discussing, and I will endeavour to reply to them. Several hon. Members drew attention to the condition of this year's recruiting, and I am bound to admit that it is not altogether satisfactory, but at the same time, if you take the figures for 1912–13 and of the two previous years, you will find that, although in the last year there was a slight fall as compared with the year before, they are, still for the present year above the former number. When considering the question of recruiting it is wise and well to remember that there must be ups and downs. I believe that if you took a large number of years you could show that the figures went up and down with a certain regularity, and that when the bottom point is reached the balance is redressed, and in the course of time we reach a higher point. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Amery) suggested that one of the main causes was emigration. The hon. Member for Stamford (Major Willoughby) said that we were really at the point at which we must rely on compulsion by hunger to get men for the Regular Army. I do not think that that is true. I know that it is often said that our power to raise recruits for the Regular Army depends directly on the starvation limit. Surely what is really meant is that a man will compare the advantages that he is likely to get by offering his labour in the ordinary civil labour market with the attractions of the Army. It is perfectly true that those attractions will vary from time to time as compared with the advantages which he is able to secure in civil life. When there is really good trade, it is easier for him to get employment, and good employment. When trade is bad, the relative advantages of the Army and the attractiveness of the soldier's life will predominate, and it is simply this, and not any imaginary compulsory hunger which enables us to fill our ranks with voluntarily enlisted men.
1970 The hon. Member for Stamford said that we might retain a larger number of men with the Colours for a longer time. I think that he must have suggested that so that a larger number might thereby be enabled to qualify for pensions. It is perfectly true that after a certain period a man is fairly entitled to a pension, but we must preserve some sort of proportion in these matters. I have not the exact figure at this moment, but I do assure hon. Members that the percentage of pensions to the total cost of the Army is rising, and is really reaching almost a dangerous point. More important than that, because that is a difficulty that could be overcome by expenditure, if expenditure were justified, if you retain these men with the Colours for a longer period you are striking at the very basis on which our Army is founded; I mean the fact that it is a short service Army. If you do not take these men away from the Colours fairly early you diminish the total number of trained military forces which you have at call when required. The hon. Member for Torquay (Colonel Burn) looked rather at the other end of the story, and raised a question as to what happens to an ex-soldier when he returns to civil life. He did, I think, frankly admit that we have made great improvement in that respect in recent years. I do not think, perhaps, that he realised the amount of trouble which is now taken to train men in trades while in the Army, and the proportion of ex-soldiers in Government offices is now very considerable. I assure him that it is a matter that is always engaging attention. We are always seeking for ways in which we can provide more employment and give a better training so as to fit soldiers when they come back again to civil life. The hon. Member for Birmingham repeated his demand that the Flying Corps should be placed directly under the General Staff and not left in loose association with it. I do not think that my right hon. Friend is able to concede that demand, and I do not think that it is in any way desirable. Certainly at this moment the association of the Flying Corps with the General Staff is as complete as could be desired for all practical purposes, and there is no need to make it any closer.
Two or three other Members drew attention to the question of pay given to those who serve in the Flying Corps. Of course, if you take a small figure, a certain number of shillings a day, it is quite easy to make it appear inadequate for the 1971 duties which the Flying Corps perform, but I believe I am right, in saying that on a comparison with foreign countries, France and Germany, our scale of pay is not less generous, and I am not sure that it is not rather more generous. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Sir Courtenay Warner) drew attention to what we all recognise, the terrible risk to life of everyone who serves in that corps for some years, and, apart from that, the daily anxiety of anyone who holds a responsible position at Salisbury Plain or elsewhere, and those are things which we may like to diminish as much as we possibly can, but I doubt very much whether there is any rise of pay which can to any extent compensate for this, nor do I feel that any man in charge would feel any less anxious for the welfare and safety of those below him if he had a larger daily pay. On the other hand, the men who do undergo these risks and suffer these anxieties are glad to do it. At the same time, while I put forward that argument, I can assure those who raised the question and hon. Members who are interested in it that the Secretary of State is considering this matter, and certainly, a very generous view will always be taken of such claims. The question of Mounted Infantry, I think, was raised by the hon. Member for Torquay (Colonel Burn). I may point to something which goes in the direction which the hon. Member desires, that the School for Mounted Infantry has been reduced because two Cavalry regiments have come back from South Africa and also because we have now trained almost as many men for Mounted Infantry duties as we want at present. There is, of course, a corresponding reduction in the Estimates.
An attack, I may call it, was made upon the Inspector-General of the Overseas Forces. The hon. Member for St. Pancras (Captain Jessel) and others criticised his position. Those who are at the War Office know very well the extremely valuable work done, the admirable reports constantly furnished and the information which he is sending back at intervals to us on the disposition and nature of our Overseas Garrisons, and I think it is not justifiable to say that he is filling a post which need not exist or, indeed, is overpaid for the extraordinarily valuable work which he does perform. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward) raised the, question of travelling allowances of wives and 1972 families of non-commissioned officers, and the appeal made was backed from other quarters of the House. I may assure the hon. Member that that appeal has not fallen upon deaf ears at all, and that we intend, with as little delay as possible, to make inquiries into that point. Another hon. Member inquired how it was that the Field Training Vote showed a reduction of some £3,000. That is due to a fact which is continually making its mark on our history. Next year we shall have far more mechanical transport then we have had before, and consequently we shall be able to save a great deal on the hire of vehicles. Several hon. Members called attention to the question of pay, and I think they recognise the great advance which my right hon. Friend has made in this respect. It is a fact that there has been no general increase in officers' pay for more than 100 years. There have been isolated cases where a special increase has been given to one rank, but there has been no all-round increase for more than 100 years. The hon. Member for Birmingham could hardly refrain from complaining that this present increase is not sufficient. Of course, in framing a scheme of the kind which was outlined by my right hon. Friend last month, it is extremely difficult to make sure that you are not going to do an injury to somebody, or to foresee the exact effect, of the changes on all parts of the existing Service. The whole question is now being carefully considered by a strong Committee, and I can assure the House that, as a result of the proceedings of that Committee, certainly no one will be worse off, and a great many will be much better off. I should like to take this opportunity to correct an inadvertent misprint or mistake—
§ Sir F. BANBURYI hope the right hon. Gentleman will make sure that he is able to raise the money.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe hon. Gentleman said that the right hon. Gentleman is taking steps to raise the pay of officers. No doubt that is a very good thing, provided he can get the money to increase the pay; but, in these days of great expenditure, I hope the hon. Gentleman will see that it is possible to raise the money before promising to increase the pay.
§ Mr. BAKERThe hon. Baronet need have no apprehension on that point. Of course, no announcement of so large and costly a change of policy would be made without full assurance that the money would be forthcoming. I was about to point out, when I was interrupted by the hon. Baronet, that in the OFFICIAL REPORT a speech is reported which was made by my right hon. Friend in March last. In a passage referring to the lieutenants' pay, the words are used, "additional rate" of pay. The word "additional" ought not to be there. My right hon. Friend is very much obliged for having had his attention called to the matter, and I only refer to it in order to avoid the possibility of mistake on the point. I was asked two or three other questions, one in regard to India and the falling off in the payment to India on account of deferred pay. That is due solely to the fact that fewer men were transferred to the Army Reserve in. 1913–14 than in 1912–13. It is due to nothing else. I was asked, in regard to the garrison at Aden, as to the contribution of £100,000. That was a sum fixed by the Royal Commission, which reported in 1895, on Indian expenditure as the amount which we ought to allow. That represents our interest in Aden because of the position of that Station on the trade route which leads to the East. I cannot tell without further inquiry how far the £100,000 goes to paying the whole cost of the garrison. I do not intend to occupy the time of the House by dealing with the more general and abstract questions which some hon. Members tried, not altogether successfully, to raise. I have confined myself strictly to the Vote, and I hope I have succeeded in answering most of the questions that have been put to me.
§ Colonel YATEI should like, speaking on behalf of the officers of the Service generally, to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War for his tribute to our late colleague, whose remains are being laid to rest to-day. I thank him as a Member of the Service, and I am sure that all officers will read what he said with grateful pleasure. In rising to take part in this Debate, I desire to join the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent in what he said with regard to the career of men in the Army. I wish, however, to put one or two questions, first of all, to the Secretary of State. Under this Vote can he tell me what is being done with regard to the garrison at Malta, which has been largely reduced and is not 1974 adequate to the duties imposed on it at the present time? I submit that something ought to be done to strengthen that garrison.
§ Colonel SEELYI am afraid I should not be allowed to reply upon that point by the Deputy-Speaker.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThis Vote has nothing to do with the size of the Army, and it deals solely with the pay.
§ Colonel YATEAm I permitted to move a Resolution to the effect that the pay provided for the garrison is not sufficient?
§ Sir F. BANBURYYou can move to reduce a Vote if necessary.
§ Colonel YATEI am afraid I cannot pursue the subject, but on another occasion I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some assurance on the point. The right hon. Gentleman told us of a new travelling kitchen for the Army.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThis Debate is not a continuation of the Debate which took place some time ago on Vote A. The discussion must be confined to the Vote now under consideration.
§ Colonel YATEI wish to ask why it is that brigade commanders are not graded and paid as brigadier-generals. In all the brigades now training throughout the country the men have great difficulty in distinguishing between the lieutenant-colonel commanding the regiment and the colonel commanding the brigade. Then, again, take the pay. You give the colonel £80 a year. He is entitled to £420 and you give him £500 to retain him as a colonel commander. That seems to be giving neither a proper position nor proper pay. The pay is hardly fair to those officers who have to turn out as brigadier generals, and you give them for doing the work of a brigadier general a miserable £80 a year, and you do not even give them the rank. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to consider that. In regard to the career of men in the Army, I agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent in what he said about "blind-alley" employment of soldiers, and doing nothing for them in after-life. We have heard a great deal about blind-alley employment for boys, but the position of the soldier is worse than that of a boy of from fourteen to eighteen years of age, who 1975 has some possibility of finding a career for himself. But for the soldier to give seven years of his life, from eighteen to twenty-five years of age, and then to be turned out into the world without any means of regular employment, is a thing that any Government ought to be ashamed of. There has been a petition from the Royal Engineers on this subject, and the men employed by the Post Office are discussing it. They ask why should not their time in the telegraph service count in respect of future employment. Those telegraph men go back to the Post Office, and the seven years is thrown away as far as pensions are concerned. I would ask if some arrangement could not be made by which at least some portion of the seven years might be taken into account in granting pensions to soldiers who subsequently enter State employment.
§ Question put, and agreed to.