HC Deb 11 May 1916 vol 82 cc985-99

(1) During the present war, notwithstanding anything in Section seven of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, the orders and regulations for the government and discipline of the Territorial Force made under that Section—

  1. (a) may authorise a man of the Territrial Force when belonging to one corps to be transferred without his consent to another corps, and may authorise a man of the Territorial Force to be posted without his consent to a battalion or other body of the Regular Forces included in the corps to which he belongs or is transferred; and
  2. (b) in the case of an officer or man in the Territorial Force who is liable to service outside the United Kingdom may, for the purposes of such service, and notwithstanding anything in any instrument defining the conditions of such service, authorise the drafting of any such officer or man to any unit of the Territorial Force within the corps to which he belongs or to which he may be transferred;
and those orders and regulations may also provide for the maintenance of the rate of pay of a man who is transferred without his consent to a different arm or branch of the Service in cases in which it appears desirable to the Army Council that the rate of pay should be so maintained.

(2) This Section shall affect officers or men of the Territorial Force notwithstanding that they were commissioned, enlisted, or re-engaged before the date of any order or regulation under this Section.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "During" ["During the present War"], insert the words "the continuance of."—[Mr. King.]

Colonel GREIG

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "in" ["in Section seven of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907"], to insert the words "the Army Act or any Act amending the same or in."

The Amendment is one which further extends the power of the law. The Clause itself is directed at getting rid of a Section in the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act of 1907 which made it impossible to transfer men from one unit to another or from one branch of the Territorial Force to a branch of the Regular Army. That principle was the central principle in that Act, and I am aware that there has been a good deal of heartburning and apprehension caused by the introduction into this measure of this Clause. We had a discussion on this on the Second Reading of the Bill, and the President of the Local Government Board was good enough to convey to me an expression of opinion. Perhaps, first of all, I may be permitted to refer to a communication to the Renfrewshire Territorial Association which has been published in the "Paisley and Renfrewshire Gazette": The chairman, reporting on an interview that he and others had recently had on behalf of Scottish Territorial Force Associations with the Adjutant-General, stated that every evidence had been afforded them that in the eyes of the chief military authorities the Territorial Force and its administration were held in high estimation, and they were assured that everything consistent with military exigencies would be done to preserve the individuality of the Territorial Force and its administrative authorities. That is in entire accord with what the right hon. Gentleman conveyed to me. I have his words here, and if he will give me authority to read them I shall be glad to do so.

Mr. LONG

indicated assent.

Colonel GREIG

I am sure it will relieve a good deal of anxiety in the Territorial Force. On the discussion of this Clause on Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman conveyed to me in writing the following statement: The Army Council authorise me to state that transference shall only be carried out when absolutely necessary. They will always and carefully consider the just claims of local patriotism. They have no intention to allow any injury to the Territorial Force now or in future. The object of the Clause is to liquidate the assets of men the War Office have at their disposal. It is to make the Territorial Force transferable from one corps to another, or to the Regular Army, and it is at that point my Amendment comes in, because if it is right to make the Territorial Force transferable to the Regular Army, why should it not equally apply the other way when the exigencies of the situation demand? My Amendments are all directed to that object. It seems to me the proposal would liquidate the assets of the nation to an even greater extent than the Clause does. There is another side to the question. When two brothers are serving in, say, units of the Regular Army, there is a King's Regulation that the elder brother can claim the younger brother. This happened in my own experience the other day. The younger brother enlisted, and was sent against his will to a unit of the Regular Army. His elder brother, who was in a Territorial unit, applied for the transfer of his younger brother to the unit in which he was serving. That was objected to, and could not be carried out on this ground: Transfers to the Territorial Force from the Regular Army are not admissible; therefore this application cannot be entertained. My Amendment will not only liquidate the assets of the nation in the way of men, but it will permit an older brother in this way to claim his younger brother to serve with him. My other Amendments to this Clause are consequential, and my sole object is to render the liquidation of the forces complete, and not to make it possible to transfer the Territorial Force without the Territorial Force having the same right in regard to the Regular Force, if the exigencies of the military situation demand.

Mr. LONG

My hon. and gallant Friend has sought to obtain from the Government, I gather, a public expression of the views I expressed to him privately. I cannot help congratulating the Committee that the patriotic action taken in regard to this particular Clause should be represented and led by my hon. and gallant Friend, who has done such wonderful work for the Territorial Force ever since the beginning of the War. I do not know whether the Committee are aware of the number of men he has raised up to now, and I am not sure he knows himself, as he may have lost count by this time, but I am very glad that one who occupies so well recognised a position in the Territorial Force should be here to deal with this particular Clause. Undoubtedly it has raised a great deal of anxiety and misgiving in the country. At the beginning of the War there was a widespread feeling—I know my hon. and gallant Friend opposite held it strongly, and did his best to safeguard the force of which he is a member—that the tendency of the time was to injure the Territorial Force by not giving them the recruits they required, and the drafts which were necessary, and that it presaged disaster to the Territorial Force in the future when the War is over. I am happy to say I have the authority of the Army Council and the Adjutant-General to state that every effort will be made to avoid using this force at all except where it is necessary in the national interests; that he himself will guard, so far as it is possible for him to do so, the local feeling which has created the Territorial Force, and which has provided one of the finest bodies of men this country has ever sent to take part in its wars abroad. He will do everything in his power to safeguard them and to see that this local feeling is properly considered, and, so far from threatening its continued existence at the end of the War, he says there is nothing further from his thoughts or anticipation than that anything of the kind shall happen. I hope that statement will be explicit enough for my hon. and gallant Friend, and that the fears which have been entertained will now be dissipated. I cannot conceive that any Army Council would dare to face the position and the anger that they would bring upon themselves if they sought to interfere with the Territorial Force, which has already firmly established itself, and which, during the War, has won such glorious, laurels for itself by the part it has played in our great battles in various parts of the world. Therefore, I do not think there need be any anxiety as to the future of that force.

As to the Amendment, I am not quite sure whether it is the Amendment which is on the Paper, or whether the hon. and gallant Member varied that, but I hope-he will not think it necessary to press it, for this reason: I am advised, after most carefully examining his Amendment, and the ones that follow, that the power he seeks is now possessed by the Army Council; that by Section 83 of the Army Act, Section 1 of the Army Amendment Act, and the Army Transfers Act, 1915, it is possible during the War to transfer a soldier from one corps to another, whether it is the same arm or branch of the Service or not. The facilities this Clause gives already exist as regards the Regular Army. Under these circumstances it would be dangerous, to put in those words, and I hope my hon. Friend will not press them. We will consider the question again, and if I find that I am mistaken, I shall be ready on behalf of the Government to reconsider the matter at a later stage.

Captain CASSEL

May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that when the former Act was before the House I asked that men who under that Act were brought into the Regular Army and wished to join the Territorial Force and subsequently intimated their wish that they might be transferred, I was told that that was not possible. What is the position? I raised this point on the last Bill and I was told there was nothing in it, but I still think there is. Under the Military Service Act and the Derby scheme and under this Act a man is deemed to be enlisted into the Regular Army. Enlistment into the Territorial Force direct has almost ceased. Consequently the only way that the Territorial Force in the future will get its men will be through the men coming from the Regular Army. What is done at the present time? They are in the Regular Army first and I am not aware that they are ever transferred to the Territorial Force, and if they are merely posted they are men in the Regular Army attached temporarily to the Territorial Force. I do not quite understand what the position of those men are, and I should like to have the point cleared up whether those men are really men in the Territorial Force. At any rate they have never enlisted under the four years' attestation which brings them into the Territorial Force, nor have they been transferred to the Territorial Force. Their position seems to be that they are men in the Regular Army temporarily attached to the Territorial Force, and that leaves them in an unsatisfactory position from the point of view of the Territorials.

We do not want the Territorial Force to be merely a name to which Regular soldiers are attached. There is no sort of feeling in this matter, and we all have the same object, namely, to secure military efficiency. The right hon. Gentleman has fully recognised that the Territorials have rendered most valuable service in this War, and he has given assurances which I am sure all those who felt anxious in regard to this matter will accept as quite satisfactory. We recognise that, although it is a great hardship that men should be, contrary to the contract laid down in regard to the original Territorial Force,' transferred from one corps to another. That is a hardship, but hardships have to be set aside in the case of military neces- sity, and where it is justified I should offer no opposition because the moment it is said that this is essential for military purposes that is the sole consideration. The right hon. Gentleman has said that it is to be used most sparingly, and only in cases where it is absolutely necessary. I have had several cases brought to my notice where in the past this has not been observed, but after what the light hon. Gentleman has said I am sure it will be attended to. I should be glad if the Government would explain exactly what is the position of a man enlisted under the Military Service Act, under this-Act, or under the Derby scheme. If he has been put into the Territorial Force is he transferable? I was told that he could not be transferred. Although I shall offer no opposition to this Clause, I should be glad if the Government would make the position clear.

Major HAMILTON

May I point out that you cannot transfer these men? First of all, you have to discharge them from the Territorial Force and then re-enlist them in the Regular Army or vice versâ. I had to deal with many cases, and I know perfectly well what the arrangements are. The case which my hon. and gallant Friend has given of an elder brother who wishes his younger brother to join him is a real hardship. This cannot be done because the elder brother happens to be serving in what we call the New Army and has enlisted and been posted to the New Army unit instead of the Territorial unit, and permission is absolutely refused for him to be discharged and re-enlisted in order that he may transfer to serve with his brother in the Territorial unit. There is no difference now between the Territorial Force and the New Army. The Territorial Force has undoubtedly done a great deal better than anybody expected or thought possible. Not only have they done this, but they have done service second to none with the exception of the original Expeditionary Force. With regard to the Dardanelles we hear a great deal about the Anzacs, but the 19th Division there was a Territorial unit. After the Expeditionary Force had suffered heavily at the beginning of the War the Territorials took their places in the trenches, and my own unit was one of the very first to undertake that duty. It is not likely that we shall want many men transferred. My hon. and gallant Friend said there was a difficulty about recruiting at the present time. Personally I have not found that to be the case. The men are sent in small bodies to units, and as far as the Territorial Force is concerned, I think we have been treated very fairly.

Captain CASSEL

But they are not members legally of the Territorial Force.

Major HAMILTON

Not legally, but they serve with the Territorial Force, and I do not anticipate much trouble there. I know this is largely a matter of sentiment, but if it is impossible to get a younger brother to serve with his elder brother just because it is a Territorial unit, that makes the Territorial soldier feel that he is rather looked down upon as an old-fashioned volunteer, and that sort of sentiment should be taken away at this period -of the War. The right hon. Gentleman said it was permissible to do this, but this letter definitely says that it is not permissible to transfer a soldier from the Regular Army or allow him to be posted with his elder brother. If that is done that is all I want. This Amendment would make it legal, and my hon. and gallant Friend says it would liquidate the resources at the disposal of the War Office. This proposal makes it possible to do in a legal manner what the right hon. Gentleman says he is quite willing to do. In that case why should the Amendment not be accepted? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will agree to consider it on the Report stage.

Mr. LONG

My hon. and gallant Friend is most seductive in the manner in which he puts his case. May I point out, however, that it is one of the first principles of legislation not to put in an Amendment unless you are sure that it is likely to do what you wish to be done. I am not sure that I grasp the whole difficulty, but I gather the case is that the machinery by which you secure the exchange of a man who is a Territorial or a Regular or vice versâ, is so complicated that it is seldom used, or in the majority of cases it is not used at all. On the other hand, the Army Council, as a matter of course, post Regulars to Territorials in large numbers, and they are doing it constantly. Then my hon. and gallant Friend asks what is to happen to the Force if you go on posting men who are in reality Regular soldiers of the New Army, and who are not Territorials. The real cause of this difficulty is not so much the effect of legislation as the fact that direct enlistment through the battalion has practically stopped. There is practically no direct enlistment from its own natural source of supply, and therefore the battalion is dependent upon those recruits who are posted to them by the Army Council. That is what is now going on, and I am informed as a matter of fact that all the recruits we are now taking are recruits whose period of service lasts only for the War, and when the War is over and the New Army comes to the end of its service it will be necessary for the men to reengage, and it will be open to them to join the Territorial battalion in which they are interested.

I am not sure that my answer covers the whole of the ground, but I do not want to have any misunderstanding. I think the case of the single individual must be met, and there should be no difficulty in bringing about this change. I have been asked myself to take up such a case. I think that difficulty really ought to be met, and I will take care to bring it before the Adjutant - General without delay. With regard to the other point, I do not see how we are going to carry it further under the present system except by interpreting the Adjutant-General's promise in the sense in which it is given, namely, that as long as he is responsible for that branch of our Army and administration he will take care that our Territorial Forces do not suffer. That is the only security we can give, and I ask my hon. Friend not to press this Amendment. I will consult those who are responsible for the drafting, and if it is found necessary I will bring up the question again on Report.

Colonel GREIG

I should like to be permitted to thank my right hon. Friend for the manner in which he has met us on this Amendment. The point is a difficult one, and I am not sure the machinery is quite as effectual as probably some of his expert advisers think, but I understood the right hon. Gentleman to tell us that it would be thoroughly considered Before Report and, if necessary, an Amendment introduced. Under those circumstances I would ask my colleagues associated with me in this Amendment not to press it any further, and I will ask leave to withdraw it.

Leave withheld.

Mr. RADFORD

I want to clear up one or two points. I have listened, with a sense of satisfaction, to the assurance given by my right hon. Friend that the power to be conferred by this Clause will be acted upon with the greatest consideration, and not in such a way as to destroy the entire organisation of the Territorial Army. While I received that assurance with satisfaction, and while I rely on the good faith of the right hon. Gentleman making that promise and giving that assurance, yet I am bound to say that I really attach very little importance to it. The fact is that in the circumstances of glorious war, and in the complexity of glorious war, these assurances of what it is intended to do in order to promote good feeling, are of little or no importance. Therefore, it is extremely likely that the power which is given by this Clause, of depriving members of the Territorial Force of rights conferred upon them by the Territorial Forces Act, will, in practice, result in very grave and serious injury. I have little doubt about it. While I say that I have implicit confidence in the good faith of my right hon. Friend, but I do not think we shall get what no doubt he thinks we shall get as the result of this communion with the Army Council. Passing from that point to the Amendment which is now before us, it seems to me that we have either to accept a Clause which imposes a grave injustice which we all regret, and which we all admit, on members of the Territorial Force, or accept the Amendment proposed by my hon. and gallant Friend for Renfrewshire (Colonel Greig) and extend that injustice to the whole Army. It may be said that it is not such a great injury to inflict an injustice upon the Territorial Force as to inflict the same injustice upon the whole Army, but, on the other hand, that has the merits of equality, because they are both treated alike and if they have equal reason to complain, that should be a solace to them. For my part, I do not like it and I earnestly desire that some Amendment may be passed which shall save the members of the Territorial Force from the danger with which they are threatened and shall not involve the regular Army in a like injustice.

Question, "That the words proposed be there inserted," put, and negatived.

The CHAIRMAN

The next five Amendments are all consequential, and the following Amendment (In Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "may" ["and those Orders and Regulations may also provide"], and to insert instead thereof the word "shall"), standing in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Prestwich (Sir F. Cawley) and others conflicts, I think, with that which we decided on Clause 10.

Major-General Sir IVOR HERBERT

In point of fact, I suggest that the Amendment brings this Clause into line with the concession which has already been made on Clause 10.

The CHAIRMAN

I am ready to hear the hon. Baronet, but it appears to me to conflict with the decision of the Committee on Clause 10 as amended. Is not that so?

Major-General Sir IVOR HERBERT

I do not think so. I had better state the object of it.

The CHAIRMAN

Yes.

Major GUEST

The object of this Amendment is to bring Clause 11 into line with Clause 10.

Mr. LONG

Oh, no!

Major GUEST

Under this Amendment, "those Orders and Regulations shall also provide for the maintenance of the rate of pay" except, as the other Amendment would say, "the Army Council decide that that proviso shall not apply."

The CHAIRMAN

If that is the claim—I do not think it is so—the hon. Member is entitled to put it before the Committee and have it cleared up.

Major-General Sir I. HERBERT

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "may" ["and these orders and regulations may also provide"] and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."

I shall be glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say upon the subject, but the object of this Amendment is to bring the Clause into line with the concession already made on Clause 10, so that a man of the Territorial Force who is transferred against his will shall not lose by that transference. If he is serving in a unit which has a higher rate of pay and he is transferred to a unit which has a lower rate of pay, he shall not lose by that transference. It is perfectly immaterial whether it has anything to do with Clause 10 or not.

Mr. LONG

I understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman behind (Major Guest) to say that this Amendment was put down in order to bring this Clause into conformity with the previous Clause.

Major-General Sir I. HERBERT

Not in order.

Mr. LONG

That was the reason given.

Major-General Sir I. HERBERT

I think my right hon. Friend is mistaken. I do not know what my hon. and gallant Friend says, but I stated that it did as a matter of fact agree with the concession which has been already made. The point of the Amendment is a very simple one. It is to protect a man from compulsory loss inflicted upon him by the transference to which he is subjected. If a man is transferred, say, from the Artillery to the Infantry, and he is not protected by such a Clause as this, amended as I propose, he is liable to a loss of pay. As it stands in the Bill, it is permissive. "The orders and regulations may." We make it mandatory, and say, "The orders and regulations shall," because we consider there is no excuse for subjecting a man to a loss of pay because he is transferred in the interests of the public.

Mr. LONG

I understand that my hon. and gallant Friend proposes this Amendment with the definite object, as I had anticipated, of making it obligatory, where a man is transferred from one corps in which he is receiving higher pay to another corps in which the rate of pay is lower, that he shall retain the pay he has been receiving in the higher-paid corps. He shall receive it in all circumstances. That really is not in conformity with the previous Clause. The change we have made merely transposes the way in which the discretion of the Army Council is to be exercised. Here my hon. and gallant Friend proposes to lay it down that the man shall not, if he is transferred, lose in any respect his pay or allowances.

Major-General Sir I. HERBERT

I could not proceed to consider the Amendment which comes lower down, but although this puts it in a mandatory form power is still left to the Army Council to consider these cases, and if the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Wardle) were accepted it would make it incumbent upon the Army Council to show a reason for doing it.

The CHAIRMAN

Now I think I see. The hon. and gallant Member cannot do that. He cannot move this Amendment on the supposition that some subsequent Amendment may be accepted, because it might not. It would leave the Bill in the position of having two contradictory Clauses in it, and it is my duty to see that is not done.

Major-General Sir I. HERBERT

I do not think that quite follows from what I have said. My right hon. Friend was going on to draw a distinction between this and the previous Clause, and I thought it well to draw his attention to what was coming further on. Personally, I should be perfectly satisfied with my Amendment leaving it in this mandatory form, but my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport has put down another Amendment, and I thought that might be fairly accepted.

The CHAIRMAN

I think, under the circumstances, it is my duty to withdraw the Amendment from the consideration of the Committee, and to call on the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Wardle) to move his Amendment.

Captain CASSEL

The two Clauses are not really contradictory. The first applies to the Regular Army, and the second to the Territorials.

Major GUEST

The Act of 1915 applies to the Regular Army, and this Clause deals with the Territorial Force, and it is to put the two on a par that this Amendment is moved. We want to provide that a man shall not lose pay by being transferred. With regard to the point whether it should be left to the Army Council to decide or not, that is not raised by the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend or the Amendment down in my name.

The CHAIRMAN

I must leave it to the Committee to decide the point, and consequently the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman is still before the Committee.

Mr. LONG

It really raises the question in a form in which it is convenient to discuss it. As I understand my hon. and gallant Friend's proposition, it is that no man who is serving should lose pay because he is transferred to another branch of the Service. Now this Clause was deliberately inserted for these reasons. My hon. and gallant Friend knows, probably better than most people, that a most objectionable feature in the constitution of the Army is to have two sets of men serving under different conditions for different rates of pay, side by side, doing the same duty. That is a general reason. In this case, of course, there is a special difficulty. When our Armies were raised at the beginning of the War it was necessary to obtain a very large number of men for motor and other transport purposes, and we offered them very high rates of pay—I believe as much as 5s. or 6s. per day. A great many men were recruited for this purpose who have turned out altogether incapable of doing the work which had to be done. Meanwhile, we were able elsewhere to get men to do this work, and the men who have proved incapable are being transferred to ordinary battalions to do ordinary work. It does seem most unfair to have serving side by side, doing identically the same work, and taking exactly the same risks, men with different rates of pay, one man probably getting four or five times as much as another man. Nothing could justify that except the fact that the man was originally engaged on that condition. I shall be told that this is another "scrap of paper" and another breach of the covenant solemnly entered into. There is no doubt that a great deal in this Bill involves breaches of agreements, but the answer is that we are engaged in a great war in which the nation is called upon to make an immense effort and if there are cases in which the interests of the individual conflict with the interests of the nation, then the interest of the nation must prevail. It is therefore impossible under these circumstances for the Government to accept an Amendment which makes it obligatory that these transfers should carry with them the same rate of pay. The Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Stock-port, which accepts the main principle laid down in Clause 10, is one we are prepared to accept with the consequential alterations. But to the introduction into this Bill of the mandatory form embodied in my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment we are bound to offer opposition.

Mr. WARDLE

Let us see where we stand. As I understand it, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Monmouthshire has moved an Amendment which is practically in the same words as an Amendment which I have down. If the Committee accept the word "shall" instead of the word "may," we can proceed to deal with my consequential Amendment which will comply with what the President of the Local Government Board has just said.

Mr. LONG

That is all right.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member for Stockport has, I see, an Amendment to alter the word "may" into "shall," to be followed by other Amendments in immediately succeeding lines to insert the word "except" after "service," and the word "not" after "appears." I take it all these are part of one proposal?

Mr. WARDLE

That is so, and if the hon. and gallant Member moves the one standing in his name, then it is understood that my consequential Amendments will be put.

Major-General Sir I. HERBERT

I am afraid I did not make my meaning quite clear to the right hon. Gentleman. There is no intention on my part to move the omission of the words at the end of the Clause, as I had originally proposed. Now I suppose my right hon. Friend and I are at one.

Mr. LONG

Quite so.

Mr. KING

I am told that this is a very good concession. But it appears to me to be a very bad one. I can only say that if my hon. and gallant Friend had in him the fight I have in me he would not be content with this; he would ask for a great deal more. Still, as he is content, I shall not press my Amendments.

Mr. RADFORD

The President of the Local Government Board seeks to justify the Clause in the Bill after having admitted that it is a gross breach of contract. He seeks to justify it on the ground that we have committed other breaches of contract. That leaves me entirely cold. It reminds me of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Munitions who endeavoured to excite unity on the Compulsion Bill on general principles. I belong to the old school and I cannot rise to the flights to which these young statesmen soar. It seems to me that if a man has got a contract to do a job at a certain rate there is a sense of meanness, which it is difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to justify, in moving him to another place in order that his wages may be cut down by one-half. I hope the Amendment will be persevered with in some form or other. If it is I shall be glad to give it my hearty support.

Question, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived. Word "shall" there inserted.

Further Amendments made: In Subsection (l), after the word "service" ["branch of the service"], insert the word "shall."

After the word "appears" insert the word "not."

Mr. KING

The Amendments which I have on the Paper appear to me to offer a very much better solution of this difficulty than the one which the Government has accepted. I therefore shall not trouble to propose them, but I must say I hope the. Governmen will do better next time.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.