§ 2. "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 5,000,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918."
§ 3. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of His Majesty's Army (including Army Reserve) at Home 1947 and Abroad (exclusive of India), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918."
§ Second Resolution read a second time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ Mr. TENNANTI wish to make an appeal to my hon. Friend, but I do not desire an answer to-night, because I know he cannot reply without consultation with his Department. I understand there is a process going on in the Army at present of taking skilled mechanics from the Army Service Corps and utilising them in the trenches as Infantry. I wish to ask my hon. Friend whether he will engage to place before those responsible a statement to the effect of the wastefulness of such a proceeding. These men are generally the more skilled and experienced motor drivers who have been engaged in the last ten years at least in driving motor cars. They are not equal to the fatigues of marching. They have never been accustomed to walk. They are of mature age—between thirty-six and forty—and they have had a long experience and training as skilled mechanics. I think the War Office must realise that in the fullness of time they will require a larger amount of that kind of skill than they will be able to lay their hands upon. I cannot imagine a more wasteful method of utilising manpower than by taking away these skilled men, who are not very young, and utilising them in this way. They will not last very long. You will only be filling your hospitals with men quite unequal to the strain of serving as Infantry soldiers, and moreover the time cannot be very far distant when that kind of material will be most valuable to the Army. Furthermore, we ought to look to the period when the War will be over when we shall require instructors in mechanical knowledge and science of various kinds, and if we put these men to this purpose the chances are that you will run very short of that kind of skill, which will be of the greatest value to you for instructional purposes. In view of these facts I would plead with my hon. Friend to lay before the two Departments concerned—the Quartermaster-General's Department and the Adjutant-General's Department—my statement, I hope backed by his views, and I would ask whether it would not be possible if they cannot stop altogether from denuding the ranks of the Army Service Corps of these 1948 men, to fix an age limit beyond which they will not take these skilled mechanics. I suggest thirty-five, or even an earlier age if you could, though I know the Army has to get men for the Infantry, after which you will not take any more of these highly skilled men. I make this suggestion entirely in the interests of the Army and the Army Service Corps.
§ Mr. BOOTHIs it not a fact that these Army Service Corps men are paid much higher than men in the Infantry—6s. a day as compared with 1s.? At the time of voluntary recruiting, when the impression got abroad that compulsory service would follow, Members of Parliament had numerous communications from different parts of the country requesting them to use their influence to get men into the Army Service Corps. There is a certain feeling on the part of the Infantry now that a number of men who have no more right to be in the Army Service Corps than they have are employed there at a higher rate and are not running any risk. I do not plead for either side, but when I heard a portion of the case stated from the Front Opposition Bench I thought I would like to make it a little more comprehensive. Further, is my hon. Friend quite sure that there are not too many men in some departments of the Army Service Corps? I cannot say there are, but Infantry men and Infantry officers have great suspicions that there are. I do not say a huge army, or anything of that kind, but a considerable number of men who might just as well be serving in the Regular Army. I do not like to use the phrase "Combing out," which is hackneyed and does not meet this case, but when I hear a plea made for men to remain in the Army Service Corps it should not be accepted by the House. With regard to skilled mechanics, if there are men of that class in any numbers I should think some of them are wanted in munition works. I do not think they should be kept in the Army Service Corps because they are too good for Infantry. I cannot understand anyone being too good for Infantry if he he is of military age. I do not appreciate the argument that because they are mechanics they cannot go into the ranks of the Infantry, and if there is a surplus we know well that these skilled mechanics are required in some of the munition works. I know of one works where the military authorities have scheduled a certain number of men to leave, and they 1949 picked out the skilled men—semi-foremen—who are teaching and encouraging the others. When you have dilution of labour and the introduction of women, it is vital that your principal men, who are looked up to in the shop and are of commanding influence because of their skill, should remain there. If there is a surplus they should not be kept in the Army Service Corps merely because they are there. If they are not wanted in the Infantry, can my hon. Friend see his way to send some of them to engineering works?
§ 4.0 P.M.
§ Mr. HOGGEI should like to ask my hon. Friend what action the War Office is going to take in view of the declaration of the Leader of this House in regard to the value of men for industry as compared with the Army? Less than a couple of hours ago I had a conversation with a man who is providing the Army with boots. His factory is producing some 4,000 pairs of boots per week for the Army. He has been asked by the War Office to double that production for the rest of this year, and at the same time the War Office is taking away the bulk of the skilled men from the factory for the Army. It is obvious that the two things cannot be done. We all know the difficulty. My hon. Friend knows the difficulty. Perhaps he may be in a position this afternoon to acquaint the House with any decision that the War Office has come to with regard to the proportionate use of these men. Obviously it is an extremely important thing, both for our success in the War and the maintenance of our industrial fabric at home, and I should be glad if he can reassure the House on that point. A second point on which I should like a little information is the position of men in Class W Reserve. Class W Reserve is well known to my hon. Friend and he knows that in that class there are being put large numbers of men who, while they are in that Reserve, have no pay, their wives and dependants have no allowance, and the men themselves if disabled have no right to apply for a pension. The only privilege which exists for them consists, I think, of treatment in a military hospital should they be ill. A paper has been issued from the War Office by which it is provided that through the Statutory Committee a payment of 14s. a week can be made to men in Class W Reserve if they are unable to obtain civilian employment, 1950 and are in needy circumstances. It also leaves with the Statutory Committee the power, if they find these men so physically unfit as, in their opinion, not to be satisfactorily retained in Class W Reserve, to report to the medical officer at the War Office, so that on inspection he may give them their final discharge. I should like to ask why the War Office imposes this duty upon the Statutory Committees? There always seems to be a delegation of power to bodies over which the War Office has no control. The War Office does not control the Statutory Committee at all. A man who is in Class W Reserve should, if he is unfit to be discharged at once either to B or B T Reserve, should be restored to civilian employment; and it does seem to me an extraordinary position that that man should not be enabled to get out of the Army by a simple application to the medical boards, which deal with that and other matters.
I think the facts are notorious in regard to Class W Reserve. There are men in Scotland, for instance, in the mining portions of Scotland, who have been retained in Class W Reserve with the idea that they can go back to their work. The experience of these men has been that they have found they are unable to work, and they are in the position that though they are unable to work they are still in the Army, and cannot get their discharge from the Army, and, therefore, cannot apply to the Minister of Pensions for a pension if they are disabled. I should like to know whether the hon. Member can report to the House any progress that has been made in going through Class W Reserve and restoring as far as possible to civilian employments men who, at the present moment, are kept in that Reserve. A remark was made by my hon. Friend, in reply to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden), who put a question which concerns a great many of us in regard to the classification of men into categories. The Under-Secretary of State for War said that he could assure the hon. Member for Blackburn that the War Office were reclassifying all those men.
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson)I said that we were proposing.
§ Mr. HOGGEI take it, then, that the War Office are proposing to re-classify all these men. That is a very simple 1951 observation, but it may have very far-reaching results. It may mean, for example, that the War Office have at length made up their minds that a large number of men in these various categories are no use to them as fighting units, and they consider, in view of what was said by the Leader of the House, that the time has arrived when less energy should be devoted to putting men into categories with the idea that they may be transferred finally into the Army than to maintaining those men in the industrial walks of life. If, therefore, my hon. Friend can give the House any idea of what the War Office has in their mind in regard to re-classification, I am certain we should all be obliged. My hon. Friend knows that the classification is almost as shifting as the sands. A man who may be retained and classified as in C 2 or C 3 may find himself in a very few weeks, or months, lifted into the category of A1 and put into the ranks of some fighting unit. My hon. Friend shakes his head at that, but I think we could all give him examples. If he had been present the other day in the House he would have heard examples. I do not intend to repeat the illustrations, but I may state briefly that I gave to another Minister a case in which inside of four months a man went from C2 into a regiment which my hon. Friend knows perfectly well, the Seaforth Highlanders, as an Al man. That may be due to a mistake by the medical board, or it may be due to other circumstances, but at any rate sufficiently unsatisfactory results have occurred from this quick gradation of men from one category to another as to warrant my hon. Friend in making some sort of reassuring statement in regard to the re-classification which the War Office propose. My fourth point deals with the condition of the camps in various parts of the country. It is essential, I think everybody will agree, that once the men are taken they should be housed, clothed, and fed under the very best possible conditions. I do not know whether it is fair to allege anything against any particular camp, and I do not want to put it on any higher ground than this, that in correspondence one has had with friends in the Army and with others, there are serious complaints with regard to the condition of several of our camps. I can give my hon. Friend the name of the camp that I have particularly 1952 in my mind, and I dare say other hon. Members are in the same position. The complaint really deals with the insufficiency of clothing at night, and the way in which food is cooked, not that men cannot get enough food, but that they do not get it served to them in an appetising enough way, and complaints of that kind. I know that at the beginning of the War it was impossible to deal with matters of that kind.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThis Vote does not deal with camps; it is devoted to men only.
§ Mr. HOGGEIn referring to the camps, my object was to ensure the protection of these men. If, however, you say that that does not come under this Vote, I will content myself with the three points I have already raised, first, with regard to the C W Reserve, second, with regard to reclassification, and third, with regard to the removal of men from the Army into industry, or vice versa.
§ Major EDWARD WOODThere is one point I wish to bring to the attention of the hon. Member, and I trust it may receive his sympathetic consideration. At the present moment pressure is being placed upon officers commanding units in France to submit the names and to urge non-commissioned officers and men to allow their names to be put forward for commissions. I know of several cases where, if these men take commissions, they lose their right to their long service medal or the corresponding medal in the Regular Army. I have seen the responsible officials who deal with this matter at the War Office, and I understand they are severely tied down by Regulations which are of old standing. I think there is considerable support in official circles for the view that, inasmuch as these Regulations were made for peace conditions, they are not wholly applicable to a state of affairs when pressure to take commissions is coming from the top, and when, therefore, those at the top would be unwilling to do anything to operate or militate against the thing being successful. I should be very glad if the hon. Member could see his way to give some reconsideration to this matter, and could decide that in cases where, for instance, a man may be two or three months short of earning his long service medal, he shall not be debarred, from it by accepting a commission, which he does for the greater good and for the general efficiency of the Service.
§ Mr. LOUGHI would like to ask my hon. Friend a question in regard to the withdrawal of exemptions which has been announced. These withdrawals are causing a great deal of inconvenience in business circles, especially in the City. A case I have in mind is that of a business where there were thirty-three men of military age, and an examination was made into the position of the business, and thirty men were taken and only three left. Great difficulties have been experienced in carrying on the business by women and substitutes of various kinds. What is taking place now is that the decision of the tribunal which left those three men is constantly being reopened. I would like to ask as a general question, what is the use of a tribunal dealing with a case and deciding to give exemption for short periods of two or three months if the War Office constantly comes in and orders all exemptions up to a certain age to be withdrawn, without regard to the decision that has been arrived at by those who have carefully heard the circumstances of the ease a fortnight or three weeks before. Under what law can the military authorities issue a general ukase that all exemptions up to a certain age are withdrawn without regard to the decisions in those cases which have just been made by the tribunals—decisions which will expire, perhaps, in a month or two? Cannot the War Office respect the decision of the tribunals, especially seeing that those decisions will soon give an opportunity for review? In the particular case I have in mind the exemption expires on the 12th April. It was granted in January for two months. Only three men were left, or one-tenth of the total number employed, and even those exemptions have been withdrawn, without regard to the decision of the tribunal. That does not seem to me to be legal. It looks as if the War Office were overriding the decisions of these properly constituted authorities and putting businesses into a state of uncertainty, which is hopeless to the proper conduct of any commercial or industrial undertaking. Under what law is this done?
§ Mr. LOUGHPerhaps the hon. Member will be putting a question and expecting a sympathetic reply, instead of someone on this side giving a foolish answer. I 1954 am surprised at my hon. Friend. On the general question I would ask, what is the good of our setting up tribunals for the purpose of granting exemptions if they are all swept away day by day by the military authorities? Where the exemptions expire in a short time, why should not the War Office allow this short period to expire, and show some respect for the decisions of the tribunal, instead of reopening them constantly every few weeks, and putting businesses to a very great deal of trouble and annoyance at a most difficult time?
§ Mr. SNOWDENMay I say, arising out of observations which have been made just now as to the legal authority under which the War Office act, that, from the experience which I have had—and I have had a great many cases of illegality on the part of the War Office—I have come to the conclusion that the War Office is a law unto itself, and that it has the greatest contempt both for Acts of Parliament and for Regulations. There were two or three matters referred to at Question Time this afternoon about which I would like to say a word or two. One was the question of soldiers' leave. I am sure that a great many Members of this House sometimes get a very large number of names of soldiers, many of whom have been on service for a very long time, and have not been granted any leave. It is not a very uncommon thing to get a letter from a soldier who has been on active service for eighteen months or two years, and during that time has never had an opportunity of seeing his family. I recognise, as I am sure every Member recognises, that this is a very difficult matter for the War Office to deal with. I recognise that it would be impossible for them to interfere in individual cases; but the point I want to put to my hon. Friend is that I think there might be some better regulation governing soldiers' leave. I understand that at the present time it depends entirely on the discretion of the Commander-in-Chief. But he does not appear to be acting on any rule or system. One frequently gets cases of this nature, that particular soldiers have got no leave at all, while others who have been serving for much shorter periods have been so fortunate as to get leave. Would it be possible to put the soldiers on a sort of list and give them leave as far as possible according to rotation upon that 1955 list? It is not for a novice like myself to make suggestions, but I would point out the existence of this very real grievance, and would urge the War Office to do everything possible to effect an improvement.
The question raised this afternoon dealt not with the leave of soldiers on active service, but with the leave of men at home, and my hon. Friend referred to the War Office Regulations, which he said were as far as possible carried out. Last week I had a case of a considerable number of men from my own Constituency who had just been ordered to France and had not been granted any leave, and my hon. Friend said that it had been found impossible to grant it. That is very regrettable. I think that it shows bad management on the part of someone. I cannot imagine any emergency that could have arisen that ought to have prevented this leave being given. My hon. Friend will realise that this a discrimination which is likely to arouse a sense of injustice. If some men are going to be given leave and it is going to be denied to others, the men to whom leave has been denied will not leave these shores in a very good frame of mind. In the interests of the good spirit of the Army I think it important that cases such as I have just quoted should be as rare as possible. I hope that the matter will be investigated.
Another matter to which I wish to refer is the case of men of delicate physical condition who ought not to be in the Army and who were in Class C2 or C3. They are now being re-examined in a very perfunctory manner. We get the most serious complaints about the character of the medical examination. I have put before my hon. Friend, within the last week or two, some complaints from his own constituency on behalf of Constituents of mine who are resident in his constituency, attached to the Cameron Highlanders. These were C 3 men who had been ordered for substitution drill. They were taken away from this Lancashire regiment and attached to the Cameron Highlanders. They have been re-classified, some of them being put in a very high classification. In every case they tell me that the medical examination was of the most casual and perfunctory character, that they were never examined at all, but that the doctor simply looked at them and said, "We pass you for A1, or B1, or 1956 whatever it is," invariably a very much higher category. In view of the undisputed fact that there are, shall I say—I do not wish to exaggerate—hundreds of thousands of men in the Army who might be called physically unfit, who are certainly unfit for any active work and who would be played out if required to undergo any severe exercise, is it in the interest of the Army and of the nation that these men should be kept in the Army? A great many though quite unfit for Army work are quite fit to do useful work of a civil character.
We had an Army Order or something of the sort a week or two ago to the effect that C 3 men are now going to be put into the Army Reserve and used for National Service. I have seen a great many of these men, who one only needs to look at to see that they are totally unfit. For instance, there is one who is almost blind and has never done any training for the Army, and can be no good in the Army and will simply be an expense to the nation. The doctor says that his eyesight is quite incurable. He is C 3. I made an application to my hon. Friend for this man to be sent back to civil work. He is a skilled warp twister, and that is a fine employment in which there is good demand for labour at the present time. Yet his discharge is refused. I know that he is totally unfit for the Army, and I know that according to the dictates of common sense he should have been discharged from the Army long ago, and put to some work of national importance, where he would be rendering service to the country at a time like this when it is so necessary. It seems to me that this classification is going to result in the creation, or shall I say the addition to the already enormous number of men who have broken up in the Army. If you are going to take a man who really is only fit for C 3 and going to put him into B or A he is not going to stand the physical strain, and, to use the words of military representatives at the tribunals, that man will crack up, he will be in a hospital most of the time, he will be an expense to the country, and eventually he will have to be discharged; whereas if he were in the Army Reserve, while still in Class 3, and then put to some civil work of national importance, he might continue to be an asset to the country. I hope that the points I have put to the hon. Gentlemen will receive careful consideration.
§ Mr. ARTHUR RICHARDSONI desire to place before my hon. Friend some cases of what I consider very great hardship. The observations which I am going to make are in no sense a criticism of the administration of the hon. Member, as in cases on which I have approached him I have always received the most sympathetic treatment, and wherever he could rectify them they were rectified. But I have had this week cases exactly of the nature of those to which the hon. Member for Blackburn has referred. One is a case in which a woman writes that her son has been in France fighting for the last eighteen months and he has never had any leave. I hope that it will be possible to secure that this man shall have some leave. In another case, which is similar to that brought forward by the hon. Member for Blackburn, a young man was taken before an Army doctor and examined in a very cursory fashion, and passed into the Army, although at the very time he was under his own doctor and was being treated for tuberculosis. I have sent this case on to the War Office, and I hope that my hon. Friend will make very strict inquiries into it.
I desire now to bring before the House what I think is one of the greatest injustices arising out of the discrimination which is made between officers in the Territorial Army and officers in the Regular Army. I wish to refer to a case of a man who was a member of a Volunteer Force for thirty-eight years. He went out to France two years ago as a major, and for the last thirteen months, before being invalided home, was commanding officer of his regiment. He came home sick. After being home some months the doctors declared him off the sick list. He applied to the War Office for another job. The War Office could not find him a job, because he was a member of the Territorial Force in which he served thirty-eight years, and not one of the Regular Army. He is out of a job. His business was closed down, his partner went out at the same time as he did. His partner had his right arm blown off, and because this man is a member of the Territorial Force, and not in the Regular Army, he has to stand by without a job, he has no business, and he is without any money, whereas had he been a member of the Regular Army no matter how long he was standing by without a job he would have received half-pay. It is to this 1958 particular case I desire to call the attention of the War Office. It is a very hard, a very unjust case, and I think the country would not desire that a man who had served thirty-eight years in the Territorial Force, who had fought two years in the trenches, being commanding officer for thirteen months, and who came home injured, and when he was better, was willing to go out again, should not have his case dealt with in a better way, and I trust that it will be carefully considered by the War Office.
§ Colonel Sir H. GREENWOODI desire to express my sympathy with what has been said by various Members in regard to officers and men at the front getting leave. While, however, I feel sympathy with the desire of men who have been out there for some time to obtain leave, I would at the same time like to bring before hon Gentlemen the difficulties which commanding officers experience in granting leave—difficulties with which I am familiar from personal experience. I received my baptism of fire with the Gordon Highlanders just after the Battle of Loos. That battalion had gone further than any battalion in the Army, but, not being supported, was compelled to retire. It went out as one of the battalions of the first Kitchener, or New Army Division, namely, the 9th, and some of the men had never had leave up to and after the Battle of Loos. As it happened, the Gordon Highlanders lost over 700 men, and 300 only were left to carry on the very onerous duties of the battalion in the most difficult trench line in the history of the Western front, namely, the Ypres salient. It was with the greatest regret that the commanding officer had to refuse leave to officers and men who went out with this division in November, 1914, and who had been through the famous Battle of Neuve Chapelle and Loos, and other battles. Anybody who knows the history of the New Army knows that the 9th and 15th Highland Divisions were in the hardest part of the trenches. When officers or men desired to have leave, the commanding officer was compelled to say "No" to their applications, because, to hold the line in safety every single man, non-commissioned officer, or officer was needed. It is the case frequently at the front, and more especially was it the case in days gone by, that it is inevitable that as a battalion grows old it becomes wasted 1959 away; and, therefore, it is not fair to criticise harshly—I do not say that hon. Members did so, for they dealt with the matter in the most friendly manner—this inability of the men to get leave, for, after all, the security of the trenches and the duty of the units overrides any personal desire on the part of the applicants for leave, or personal wish on the part of the commanding officer to grant it. So much for that.
I must say I myself was astonished to find something in the nature of a protest from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Tennant), who at one time was Under-Secretary for War. He protested against the combing out of the Army Service Corps in the interests of the Infant. It is an extraordinary thing that the right hon. Gentleman, who for so long held the same position in the War Office, and who was for so long a member of the Army Council at a period when it did not meet so frequently as has been the case since—for reasons into which I will not now enter—should make any protest against combing out of the Army Service Corps, who notoriously, in the early days of the War, was filled up with men who can now, at any rate, better serve their country in the Infantry than they possibly can in the Army Service Corps or any other non-combatant corps or semi-combatant corps. I do not say a word against the men or officers of the Army Service Corps. They answered the call for volunteers, and when they have done everything possible it is no greater hardship to take the Army Service Corps man or officer and put him into the Infantry battalion than it is to drag from their homes thousands of men, whose businesses may be ruined, under the Military Conscription Act and put them into any battalion to which they may be allocated. For myself, I think the War Office is only showing wisdom and judgment in its action towards all the British Army when it combs out from the Army Service Corps men who are generally willing to go—indeed, always willing to go—and puts them into the front line to do their duty as Infantrymen.
There is one other matter to which I wash to refer, and that is the vexed question of decorations. I myself do not express any decisive opinion upon it; I have 1960 never heard anybody from the Field-Marshal downward who could; but I must say I should like to bring the attention of the hon. Gentleman who so courteously represents the War Office just now to the fact that this is a question which looms largely, and in many cases is a real grievance, among officers and men at the front. I am not particularly interested in those at home. I think a line should be drawn as wide as the Channel between the men and officers who serve abroad and the men and. officers who serve in this country during the War. In the Army abroad, no matter how bitter the fight may be, no matter how monotonous the routine of the trenches or elsewhere may be, three things are always in the minds of the officers and men—pay, promotion, and reward. It is inevitable that it should be so, and that these discussions should go on in regard to these three points, even in the lull of severe contests. I wish to impress upon the hon. Gentlemen who represent the War Office, and who we know are sympathetic in respect of this legitimate grievance of all ranks and arms of the Service, that they should do their best to come to some decision that will meet—and here I speak especially for the Infantry—with the approval of that sorely-tried arm of the Service, that bears the brunt of every contest, and which from the beginning of this War has suffered as no other arm of the Service ever has, or ever can suffer, unless it be the Cavalry, which in proportion, of course, suffered just as bitterly in the early days of the War, and which may again, in subsequent operations, have to undergo sufferings. It is the Infantry who have been bearing the great brunt of the casualties in this gigantic struggle, and I appeal to the hon. Gentlemen representing the War Office to do their best to put heart into hundreds of thousands, even millions, of men and officers, who deserve the best that we can do for them, to meet their legitimate, commendable, and honourable ambitions in regard to the question of decorations.
§ General IVOR PHILIPPSThe hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken said that the officers and men of the Army constantly discuss pay, promotion, and reward, but I should also associate with the three points the question of leave. It is really very important that this subject of leave should be sympathetically considered by the War Office. I might say, on behalf of the Department, that everything possible is done 1961 to give leave to those at the front in proportion to the time that the men have been out there. Some Members may desire to know how leave is granted. The Divisional General is called upon to state how many men in his Division have been out for six months, twelve months, or whatever the period may be in the different battalions. The numbers are sent up to headquarters, and, according to the number in each Division, a proportion of the men are given leave to be sent home, but the total number depends entirely on the number of boats and the number of trains available to bring the men home. The great consideration is how many men can be allowed leave, having due regard to the military circumstances. These are the different elements in the case which the Commander-in-Chief has to consider, the trains, the boats, and the number of men in proportion to the periods they have been out there. The leave has to be distributed fairly and equally among the different Divisions of the Army, and the different battalions of the Divisions, so that each man gets a turn according to the time he has been out there. It is very heartbreaking how few do get leave when they have been out a long time, but I can assure the House there is no question about which the authorities in France are more concerned than that of getting the men allowed leave, and it is always given, if possible, to the man who has been out there longest.
On the subject of pay, I think the House should know that the soldiers do talk about it, and the country will have to face the question. The subject of pay is talked about every day by the soldiers. Remember that in France the British soldiers have to serve alongside Colonial soldiers who are getting 5s. and 6s. a day. The Division with which I was connected in France was posted near a Colonial Division just behind the line in France. Those Colonial men had 5s. and 6s. a day, and they drank coffee and beer and went out to buy butter, cheese, and eggs for themselves in the town just close behind the line. What chance had my men with their 1s. a day against those who had 5s. and 6s. a day? They had no chance in a public-house to get attended to, nor could they purchase provisions like those with the 6s. a day compared with their 1s. a day. Indeed, there was an absolute dearth of the ordinary requirements of the British soldier, 1962 because of the increased prices he had to pay. I will give one instance, which I think the Under-Secretary of State will appreciate as a very great hardship. It occurred in a Division which was holding a part of a line, and there was a Colonial tunnelling company working in that part of the line. A Divisional Order was received to send 100 men from a British Division to assist the Colonial company. The members of that Colonial company were men to whom money was practically no object; they could spend their 6s. a day. The men who were told off to join the Colonial company asked, if they were to be attached to the Colonial company and to do the work which the Colonial company wore doing, whether they would get Colonial pay. The answer was "No; you will get English pay." That seems to me to be adding still further to the disabilities under which a British soldier suffers when serving with highly-paid soldiers. I do n6t at the present moment say that the pay of the soldiers should be increased at once, but I do say that, whatever it costs, however many hundreds or thousands of millions, the money will have to be paid sooner or later. I believe myself it would be a great misfortune to pay it to our men now, but it will have to be paid sooner or later. When these men come home you will have to give them the pay to which they are entitled. Just think of the money you pay for munitions. Does anybody hesitate to pay a munition worker an extra 5s. or 10s. a day?
§ Mr. SPEAKERDiscussion on the pay of the Army cannot be raised on this Vote.
§ General PHILIPPSI am sorry. I will not pursue the matter now, but I will take another opportunity of raising the question, which is important. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Tennant), the late Under-Secretary for War, made rather a startling remark the other day when he answered my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary. He said he was not quite happy in his mind as to the administration of justice in the Army. That was a very remarkable sentence coming from a right hon. Gentleman who had held the position of Under-Secretary for some years. The only case he gave was an old one about an officer of a Highland Regiment, but I do not know the case to which he referred. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there are many cases every day where 1963 there is considerable doubt about justice in the Army. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire suggested that his doubts were about the justice of courts-martial. I do not believe there is any question in the Army about the justice of courts-martial. I have never heard any question in all my long service about the justice of courts-martial. There are many sources of appeal and revision in the case of courts-martial, and I for one have never heard amongst officers or men any question of any want of justice as regards courts-martial. But there are other questions in military discipline which do not come before courts-martial where officers and men feel that their rights have not been properly respected. In the old days this did not matter so much when you had a small Army, but now the Army is the people.
It is most essential to my mind that there should be some kind of Court of Appeal, something on the lines of the Committee which my hon. Friend has set up to go into this difficulty about junior officers and their rank. You get similar cases to those for which who recently set up a special Committee by Act of Parliament to go into two particular cases. There are questions every day which do not receive the proper attention which I think they ought to receive. A commanding officer will send forward a case to the brigadier, wishing for some fresh decision, or to have a case reopened, and it will be sent back with the remark that it is useless to send this on. If it is sent to the Divisional General the same thing occurs. I think there ought to be some Court of Appeal to which any case can be referred if an officer or man considers he is suffering injustice. I believe it would relieve my hon. Friend of a great deal of work if he could set up such a Court. Its application might be limited, but it would be very useful, and of very great benefit, and I can assure him that there is great feeling in the Army about this question. I do not mean to say that it is injustice of officers over men. I am sure that is not the case. I have pointed out where commanding officers sent on cases and they are told it is useless to forward them. That does not mean to say that those who do not send them on do not recommend them for further consideration, but they think there is 1964 evidently no good in sending them on. That is the kind of case where I think there ought to be some Court of Appeal.
I wish to bring to the notice of my hon. Friend also the question of our prisoners. I know that the prisoners question is not under his control, but the soldier of to-day may be a prisoner of to-morrow, and in. that way I may be in order in referring to the matter. The Central Prisoners of War Committee has been formed entirely at the request of the War Office, and all control has been put in their hands. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central Division (Mr. Hope) told us yesterday, in reply to a question by the hon. Member-for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden), that the-Central Committee were prepared to have a Committee appointed to go into the organisation of that Committee, which, from my own personal knowledge, is in a state of the most hopeless confusion. They started work in November, and they have now had five months to pull themselves together. I have seen within the last few days post cards from our men in Germany who were given an assurance by the Committee that they would receive their bread regularly from 1st December, when the Central Committee started work, stating on those post cards, written up to 10th February, that none had been received. The parcels have been reaching well—I want to give full credit to the Central Committee for chat—but the parcels of food are not sufficient to keep these men alive, and therefore it is essential that the bread should go as well. I believe there is a great deal of confusion in this matter. I do not ask my hon. Friend to answer, as I am very intimate with the whole case; but I would ask him to help and support the hon. Member for Sheffield in giving the Committee which he promised, a small Committee from this House appointed in the most friendly way, since our one idea is to get the Committee into proper working order, because our men are suffering frightfully during the time of getting it into order. I do think that that will meet the case, and the sooner that Committee is appointed the better, because it is essential, if those men are to be kept in decent health, that the bread should be sent properly and in a regular manner. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do what he can to get that Committee appointed—however small it is I shall be very grateful—and I am sure the very large number of people all over the country who have devoted them- 1965 selves entirely to the care of prisoners for the last two years and more, will be thankful if such a Committee is appointed.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI wish to make a few observations as to the instructions which are given to military representatives at the local tribunals. My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough) questioned the legality of the action of the representatives in reopening those cases. I think there can be no doubt that their action is perfectly legal. What we are entitled to know is the general instructions which the War Office issue to those representatives to guide them in reopening exemptions already granted. I hope my hon. Friend will be able to make a statement on that point. There is a further question as to the instructions given to those representatives in regard to the making of appeals. Is it left to the unfettered discretion of the military representative at a tribunal to decide, without any guidance or any control, in what cases he intends to appeal against the decision of the tribunal? I have many examples brought before me by the chairmen of tribunals in which they complain in the bitterest terms of the arbitrary and capricious actions of the military representative. I have been told if a tribunal decides in a certain case to grant exemptions contrary to the wishes of the military representative, that the result will inevitably be that throughout the whole of the sitting there will be an appeal against every case in which the tribunal gives a decision contrary to the wishes of the military representative. I think it is right we should know whether those representatives act simply on their own unfettered discretion without any instructions from the War Office. If their discretion is not unfettered, I think that my hon. Friend should inform the House of what the instructions actually are. It would be better on both of these points that we should have more than a statement from him in this House and that Members should actually be put in possession of the circulars containing those instructions, because it is only by full publication of the instructions upon which these gentlemen act that we can see if the administration of the Act is being carried on in accordance with the Statute.
5.0 P.M.
There is the further point, also of great interest and of even greater importance, and that is as to the instructions which are given to these gentlemen in regard to 1966 special industries or what may be called essential industries. We heard a great deal recently, owing to the serious conditions arising in the country as regards food, as to exemptions in agriculture and as to the greater necessity of men in these days being engaged in agriculture than being put into the Army, but agriculture is not the only essential trade. We have been told of the need of ships as even more pressing than the need for the production of food next harvest. Consequently it is obvious that the instructions given to the military representatives should be clear and definite, that no man should be drawn from shipbuilding. A case was brought to my notice only two days ago in which a local tribunal in Scotland withdrew the exemption given to a skilled mechanic working in a shipbuilding yard. I was informed by my correspondent that there was no use taking an appeal, because the chairman of the Appeal Tribunal never exercised judicial discretion, but simply believed that his sole function was to send men to the Army; and, therefore, my correspondent regarded it as waste of time to appeal. The real remedy was to make an appeal to the War Office to have this case reveiwed by the Army Council, as I think they have power to do. Obviously, it is the maddest thing that can possibly be done this time of day to take a skilled mechanic from a shipbuilding yard. That has been actually done at the instance of the military representative before the tribunal. I hope my hon. Friend will be able to give the House the assurance that the clearest instructions have been given that in no such case was a man to be withdrawn from his present occupation to go into the Army. There is the other subject of medical examination which has been referred to. I understand that at Question Time my hon. Friend stated that the War Office proposed to make a new classification. I am not quite clear whether that will improve matters. It is not a question of classification, but a question of examination. No matter how you classify, as long as you examine on present principles I do not think we can have a satisfactory position either from the point of view of the individual or of the Army. I do not wish to quote any large number of cases; certainly the House has had a surfeit of those cases. The hon. Member for Ealing (Mr. Nield) brought the greatest indictment that has been brought against the administration of any Department of the Army, and an indictment which received— 1967 I say this without any disrespect to my hon. Friend—the most perfunctory replies from him. I desire to give one case to my hon. Friend. It is a case in which I have a certificate from one of the most distinguished surgeons in the city of Glasgow, who is a lieutenant-colonel in the R.A.M.C., and who has reported that he has twice operated on the young man in question, once for appendicitis and the other time for gastric ulceration. He says that if the man is sent on foreign service, and has to partake of the ordinary diet, he will be unfit for service. The man is now on Home service, and he is living under reasonable conditions. He is doing useful work. He does not complain, because he is anxious to continue to serve his country. But when one has a certificate from a distinguished surgeon to the effect that foreign service, and diet on such service, will ruin the health of a man, obviously the decisions which is sending that man on foreign service ought not to be upheld.
But this is not merely a matter of remedy in individual cases. These are far too numerous. Hon. Members in all parts of the House have had instances of this kind brought to their attention, and it is obvious, from the very number of cases, that they are due to the system of examining recruits and to the system of re-examination. I do not know what power my hon. Friend has in the matter, but I think he will only be doing his duty if he represents to the military authorities that there is a strong feeling in this House, and an equally strong feeling in the country, that great injustice is being done by a system of medical examination through which individual hardships are being inflicted, and many men are having their heaths ruined without the prospect of any compensation—substantial compensation being granted by the Pension Authorities—and at the same time the resources of the man-power of the country are being wasted in the most reckless and ruinous manner. It is for this reason we desire a change, a revision of the system, and not a revision of classification. We want the issue of fresh instructions in regard to examinations, so that only fit men are passed for general service, and other men are only passed for work which they are able to perform.
§ Major NEWMANThe hon. and gallant Member for Southampton (General 1968 Philipps) told the House how leave was granted to the various units in France and the description he gave was very interesting. He told us it depended on the number of places available in the train and on the steamship accommodation how much leave could be granted, and that the leave was divided among the various divisions and units at the front. He thereby explained something which will give a certain amount of satisfaction to the men serving at the front. These soldiers think that when they have been actually in the trenches and in the fighting line they should have a bigger share of leave given them than is granted to units behind the trenches and at the base which are not actually in the firing line. I have had a great many letters and numerous conversations with men who say that an equal proportion of leave is given to battalions outside the firing line with that which is given to those which have just left the trenches. The hon. and gallant Gentleman for Sunderland (Sir Hamar Greenwood) told us of the case of the Highlanders who did not get leave because they were unwilling to come away from the trenches. But that is an exceptional case, and I repeat that the feeling is now that battalions and units just returned from the trenches ought to have a bigger share of leave assigned to them than is given to units at the base which are not doing any fighting at all. In fact, the authorities at the base, at headquarters in France, ought to keep a certain amount of leave up their sleeves to be given to battalions and units which have done the hard fighting, and if that policy were adopted it would certainly remove a great grievance.
I want to refer again to a subject which I raised on the Committee stage of this Vote—the question of the summary dismissal of temporary officers. We had a long Debate on the Vote, on the position in Mesopotamia, and it was only at a late hour that I had an opportunity of raising the point, and I was unable to get more than a short but courteous answer from the Under-Secretary for War to my complaint. I am sure he himself feels he cannot allow this matter to remain where he left it on that occasion. I am speaking of the way in which temporary officers are peremptorily dismissed on the ipse dixit of the brigadier without any appeal to a higher authority. Although their cases are eventually gone into by three members of the Army Council, they have 1969 no opportunity of making themselves heard once the brigadier has disposed of the matter. The Under-Secretary for War told me:
I would like to assure the hon. Member that a temporary officer in the New Army has every single right that is enjoyed by an officer of the Regular Army, and he cannot be dismissed in the summary way suggested by the hon. and gallant Member. I can assure him that before an officer is dismissed a report has to come from the colonel to the brigadier, then from the brigadier to the divisional officer, and so on to the Commander-in-Chief in France. If he appeals—I speak with knowledge of this particular case—it comes before the Army Council. No officer can be turned out of the British Army in the summary way suggested. He can only be dismissed or asked to resign when his case has been considered and decided against him by the members of the Army CouncilThat sounds all right. But it is obvious that although the case goes from one officer to a superior officer, and then up to the Commander-in-Chief, and finally to the Army Council, the officer incriminated has no chance of making his case heard by any of the superior authorities after the hearing by the brigadier. If the brigadier makes his recommendation to the higher authority, to the officer commanding the division, and so on, up to the War Office itself, and if the additional original recommendation is not sent to the higher authorities as well, injustice is apt to be done to the officer himself. In this particular case what happened was this: The officer in question was sent for by his brigadier, who explained to him he was going to recommend that he should be sent back from the front, and that he should be given an instructorship at home. The officer, perhaps rather foolishly, did not put up a very strong defence, as he possibly might have done, but he rather let the matter slide, thinking that, although he was going to be moved from the front, which was bad enough, he was not going to be dismissed the Service, and he would have an opportunity of doing useful work at home, and might perchance get back to the front again. But, unfortunately, the recommendation of the brigadier was not sent to the higher authorities. All that was known by them was that in the brigadier's opinion the officer was not fit for the command of troops at the front. They knew nothing about the recommendation that he should be given an instructor-ship at the base or in England, and consequently that recommendation was totally ignored. If the officer had known that that would be the case he would probably have made a much more vigorous fight in his own defence than he actually did. I 1970 explained that case to the hon. Gentleman, and I said at the time I had many other cases which I could give him.I should like to mention one now to the House. It is another very typical case, and in some ways rather more interesting, because it deals not with one of the officers who joined the Army at the outbreak of the War as privates and rose to be temporary officers who had never had a commission before; but the case I want to put before the House is that of an officer who, as a matter of fact, was, when the War broke out, forty-six years old. He had already served in the Ashanti Campaign in 1896 and in the South African War, and he retired in 1902 with the rank of captain. Having got his certificate at Hythe, he was a thoroughly efficient officer. When the War broke out, like a great many others, he rejoined as a "dug-out," and he was appointed second in command of a battalion of the West Kent Regiment some few months after the War broke out. I had better read to the House his own words describing what occurred:
One day whilst in the orderly room I mentioned that I urgently wanted to go up to London but was overdrawn at Messrs. Cox and Co.'s. The adjutant offered to lend me £5, which I accepted, and which I repaid a little over a month afterward. In some way unknown the colonel heard of this and reported me to the brigadier, who, after censuring me, told me he would recommend my losing the second in command, but that I should remain as second major of the battalion. A week later I received a copy of a confidential letter sent by my brigadier to the War Office recommending that unless a position in a garrison or labour battalion could be found for me I should be asked to relinquish my commission on the ground of inefficiency. On the 2nd July I appeared in the "Gazette" as having done so. I asked for a court of inquiry, but was refused. I also sent a petition to the Secretary for War which met the same fate. So on the 16th September, 1916, I enlisted in the Queen's Regiment, and, in November last, was sent as a sergeant to the 2nd Battalion of that regiment in France and recommended in the firing line on the 17th January for a temporary commission and sent home.That man certainly made good. Whether his sentence was just or unjust, he made good later on. He goes on to say:I am now ordered, although fully qualified (having passed as a company commander), to attend an O.T.C. at. Oxford on the 9th instant, which seems not only waste of time, but also waste of Government money.I wrote to him—he is the son of a late major-general of the British Army—and asked him definitely was he given a chance of appeal, and he answered thus:In my petition to the Military Secretary I asked that I might be granted either a court-martial or a court of inquiry, but was refused. I was not requested by the War Office or any other military authority to send in any defence.I put this to the Under-Secretary and to the War Office, that you cannot as a matter of fact, if a man is a sergeant, 1971 degrade that man to the rank of corporal or private without a court-martial, and surely what is right for a non-commissioned officer ought to be right for a commissioned officer. I listened the other day, on the same Vote in Committee, to the case of Sergeant Perrett, which was brought up by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto). Sergeant Perrett, under adverse circumstances, when in charge of his detachment at Gibraltar, got drunk, was court-martialled, and condemned to be reduced to the rank of private. That is a severe punishment, I admit, but at any rate this non-commissioned officer had his court-martial and was able to put up the best defence he could; but here we have commissioned officers, guilty of far less grave offences than that of being drunk when in command of a detachment of troops on active service, who are given very little chance of appeal beyond the original interview with their brigadier, and who then, after a short while, find themselves gazetted out of the Army, and to a certain extent, of course, disgraced for the whole of their lives.I have had another case given to me of an officer in Egypt who was reported on adversely by his captain. The captain was aged twenty-two and was younger than himself, yet that officer was sent home without appeal to England and deprived of his commission. I do say that sort of thing ought not to be. Either the officer should have a full right of court-martial or court of inquiry at the front there and then, or if that is not possible there should be some court of appeal in this country. I know that in many cases it would not be possible for a court of inquiry at the front. For instance, with our Army on the Somme advancing every day, a divisional officer or a brigadier or a colonel might not have the time to convene a court, but if it cannot be done there, let the officer be sent home and let there be some court of appeal, either permanent or summoned for the occasion, at home, to which his case could be brought and where all the essential evidence could be produced. Unless you do that you are bound to get something in the nature of the secret dossiers, which we heard so much about in the time of the Dreyfus case, sent up to the War Office, where we have the Army Council as a sort of Star Chamber, giving 1972 their decisions without giving the luckless accused person any right of making his case known at all.
I asked the Under-Secretary, on the occasion of being in Committee, to look into the case of the quartermasters in the Army, and I asked why it was that a quartermaster was not able to get beyond the ordinary rank of captain, that he could never command his battalion, could not aspire to staff rank, and could not even be second-in-command of his battalion. In the old Regular Army I could understand it, because there the quarter-master was a man who nearly always had risen from the ranks, and therefore, if he got to be honorary captain, he had done pretty well for himself; but now that men are rising from the ranks every day in their hundreds, I think this idea should no longer prevail. As a matter of fact, a great many quartermasters would make splendid seconds-in-command, because, before being quartermasters in the New Army they were probably sergeant-majors in the old Army, and they thoroughly know the ins and outs of military life. I therefore suggest that because a man is a quartermaster there is no reason why he should so remain for evermore, and I would ask the Under-Secretary to give me some remarks on that point when he replies.
§ Sir RYLAND ADKINSI am quite sure the last speaker will not think me discourteous if I do not follow him on the points which he has raised, although I know how important they are; but I rise for the purpose of calling very briefly the attention of the Under-Secretary of State and of the House to two or three practical points which arise in the conduct of tribunals. In the first place, I congratulate the War Office on having correlated its desires with those of other Government Departments to a much greater extent than was the case some months ago. At last we know, when we are dealing with agricultural cases, that the War Office and the Board of Agriculture are apparently in agreement, and I hope the War Office will not be weary of well doing in that direction. I agree with a previous speaker, that it is very desirable that the War Office should know thoroughly its own mind, and make that known to its representatives, as to what other occupations are considered absolutely essential, so that the tribunals when they are dealing with these matters may know 1973 that the representative of the War Office is speaking after consultation and with knowledge of the views of other Government Departments. There has been a great advance, but I think there is room for still more. I hope the War Office will consider very carefully that they may lose time and men rather than gain them if they instruct their representatives to appeal from local to Appeal Tribunals when the exemption period given by the local tribunal is only a very short one. There were cases of some hundreds of men the other day in the Midlands who were only given three weeks or a month. Orders came to appeal, and those men were actually kept out of the Army a fortnight longer than they need have been because of the delay thus involved. That may occur occasionally by oversight, I quite understand; but it is a matter which requires some instructions from the War Office to their local representatives.
The third point I want to mention is this: It is a very great help to Appeal Tribunals when not only the War Office representative for the Appeal Tribunal is present, but when the military representatives from the local tribunals in that area are also present. It is very important that the Appeal Tribunals should know, not only what a local tribunal has done, but what was the case presented to it by the military representative, and wherever these gentlemen can be persuaded to attend the Appeal Tribunals in support of the cases put before the local tribunals, it would be of great assistance to just and proper conclusions being come to by the Appeal Tribunals. It would also have a good effect upon local opinion, because when a local tribunal may perhaps have refused exemptions because of their local knowledge and when the persons have afterwards been given exemptions by the Appeal Tribunals, acting merely on the evidence placed before them, it leads of course to considerable friction, and the more closely these two tribunals can be linked up by the presence in the higher one of the military representative, who himself knew what took place in the first instance, the fairer it would be to all concerned.
My last point is that I hope the War Office are watching very carefully the proceedings of the Director of National Service in regard to the question of substitution. The other day at the Appeal Tribunal of which I am a member we had case after case of men who, on the face of it, might well be ordered to go into the 1974 Army, but in whose cases substitutes were obviously desirable. The Regulation which I understand is in existence now, by which persons between the ages of eighteen and sixty-one cannot be freshly engaged by employers in certain specified trades, is very embarrassing to a tribunal when they are trying to decide who ought to go into the Army and when a person ought to go into the Army, and while I am aware that this is a Regulation for which the War Office is not responsible, but the Director of National Service, I would point out that it is in the interests of the Army and should be one of the cares of the War Office to see that no other Government Department embarrasses the free choice of substitutes in cases where a qualified tribunal holds that the applicant ought to go into the Army and that a condition of his going there should be that a proper substitute is found. In the case of tradesmen, a man who is managing or controlling or perhaps owning a business himself, it is only fair that there should be a free choice of a substitute, at any rate, to the approval of the tribunal. I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to take a note of that matter, and to see that the influence of the War Office is exercised in the direction of giving the tribunals a free hand in this matter and not having their power to make substitution a condition fettered by the Regulation of any Government Department whatever.
§ Mr. KINGThe Under-Secretary knows the subject that I am going to bring to his attention. I refer to the position of the 30th Middlesex Regiment. This regiment was enlisted by Lord Kitchener many months ago and is composed practically entirely of men who were alien enemies, but have become naturalised or sons of alien enemy parentage or other men of German nationality and association whom, though loyal to our cause, it was undesirable to place among British soldiers. When this body was formed a separate: battalion they had the verbal assurance of Lord Kitchener that they should be kept for work at home, for labour work preferably, but that in no case should they be sent out of this country. This battalion consists very largely of men who think in German more than in English, and I am told that their conversation is largely carried on in German. They all have German names, they sing together German songs, and though I believe they are loyal 1975 subjects of the King and of our cause, undoubtedly they have strong German associations. A few weeks ago they were asked to volunteer to go to France. The fact that they were asked to volunteer was, I think, an insult in view of the promise. It was a breach of the pledge, in spirit, to ask them to volunteer. Naturally, very few volunteered. They were then told that they had to go, and, in fact, a double company of 500 men of this battalion has been sent abroad.
They went abroad under protest. I am informed that one of the non-commissioned officers who protested to the officer in command was deprived of his stripes for expressing, which I think he did quite respectfully, the protest of the men against this action. They were told that they would be sent to Rouen, and that they were to be set on labour work exclusively. When they arrived in France they were formed into a labour battalion, and were immediately supplied with helmets. They have been sent, I understand, to within a very short distance of the firing line. This, I consider, is a double breach of the pledge, and very cruel and undesirable. Undoubtedly, according to German law, many of these men are still German subjects, and if they were taken prisoners, as they might well be, there would be very little prospect for them of anything else but being shot after a court-martial. This fact is well known, and has been expounded in the Press, and a great deal of sympathy is being expressed for these men in quarters which are of an ultra-patriotic character. Moreover, there is a feeling of some annoyance and even of apprehension, and this may be gathered from the fact that, I understand, the chairman of the Liverpool tribunal has written a letter of protest to the War Office in connection with this matter. When, some months ago, this battalion was serving at Home, they were stationed at Folkestone. The local feeling grew that it was undesirable for a battalion of alien enemy association to be so near to the front as Folkestone. In response to a local protest, these men were withdrawn from Folkestone, and sent inland.
I myself consider, in view of these facts, that quite an unnecessary breach of an honourable undertaking, quite reasonably given and accepted in the best spirit by the men concerned, that they should not be sent abroad, has occurred. I have asked 1976 two questions on the subject, and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn has also questioned the Front Bench. We have practically received no answer at all except that inquiries are being made. In matters of this sort it is not a matter for spending time in inquiring backwards and forwards, and taking up a week or two. It is a matter in which action ought to be taken at once. To judge of the merits of the case it should be remembered that the feeling to which I have alluded is shared, not only by men of my particular political character and by men like the hon. Member for Blackburn, whose advanced tendencies are well known, but that ultra-patriotic members have also taken part in this inquiry. In view of this question coming up I have received quite a number of letters, some anonymous—perhaps, naturally so—others, I think, from the men in France. I have also received several letters from parents. One lady, evidently in a very good position, has written to me. She is an English woman, the wife of a German, therefore an English lady who has become by her marriage a German citizen. She has a son born in England, and she is, therefore, the mother of an English subject serving in the British Army. She writes that she
had an interview with the Director-General of Recruiting at the end of last year. She received the verbal assurance that her son, and those men similarly placed with him, should not be sent out to the front.I hope a more satisfactory explanation than has yet been given will be given by the Under-Secretary. If these men cannot be brought back from France, which is, perhaps, a good deal to ask, I trust they may withdrawn, as far as possible, from the firing line. May I also press for an assurance that no more of this battalion, or any other men of any other company or battalion similarly situated, or similarly enlisted, shall be sent abroad, but shall be kept at home for Home defence?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONPerhaps the House will allow me to reply at once to the various points which have been raised in the course of the Debate. I must thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset for his courtesy in giving me notice that he was going to raise this particular point. The point he raised is one which has been put to me on more than one occasion by the hon. Member himself and by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden). I under- 1977 stand that the charge of my hon. Friend against the War Office is that it has again broken a very distinct pledge.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI am coming to that point. My hon. Friend admits that it was not a written pledge. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] My hon. Friend says that a verbal pledge was given by the late Lord Kitchener.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI have made inquiries into this particular point. I find that this battalion was formed on 10th June of last year. Lord Kitchener had then been dead for some days.
§ Mr. SNOWDENThat does not invalidate a pledge.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONThe battalion was formed on 10th June. Lord Kitchener was, unfortunately, drowned several days before.
§ Mr. KINGWill the hon. Gentleman really assert that Lord Kitchener did not authorise and did not know of the impending enlistment and formation of this battalion?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI am told, on the very best authority, that Lord Kitchener never gave any such pledge before his death. My hon. Friend says that these men volunteered for service. What are the facts? These men did not volunteer for service. They were conscripts in the ordinary sense of the term. In regard to sending these men abroad, my hon. Friend admits that they are not being sent into the fighting line. That is so. I can here and now give a pledge on that point, and I trust that my hon. Friend will believe that I shall, so far as possible, see that it is kept. These young fellows undoubtedly will not be sent into the firing line: I feel it would not be fair in view of the particular circumstances which surrounded the formation of that battalion. But to say that they are not to be used as labour battalions abroad is, I think, asking too much. These men are able-bodied men. My hon. Friend knows perfectly well that they are quite competent as units for labour battalions, and for many of the customary duties devolving upon such battalions. To ask the War Office to keep these men from doing good, honest, strenuous work behind the lines, 1978 as I have already said, would be asking far too much of the War Office, and I cannot promise that. It is true, I believe, that two companies of the battalion have gone abroad. Others may go. I cannot give the guarantee which my hon. Friend asks, but I will engage to see to it that they will not be used for purposes other than that for which the two companies have already been used—that is to say labour work behind the lines.
§ Mr. KINGWill the hon. Gentleman, give an assurance that they will not be served out with steel helmets, which means that they will be kept at the front?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONMany men even though they are outside the range of the guns are far from not being anxious to have steel helmets, and I should not preclude them if they desire to have helmets. In regard to the rest of the Debate there were two points made. First of all there was the question of leave, and, secondly, the question of a fresh classification. I think I am right in saying that these were the only two points which were raised in the main debate.
§ Mr. PRINGLEAnd the instructions to the military representatives.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONThat is a very small point, but I am coming to it. I have been fortunate in the course of the Debate to have had the assistance of: three hon. and gallant Friends who have been at the front, and who know the difficulties which commanding officers, and particularly the Commander-in-Chief, have in regard to this question of leave; I need not tell the House that the commanding officers at the front, and particularly the Commander-in-Chief himself, have always shown that they are most anxious that the men, particularly those who have been in the fighting line, should get as much leave as possible. I know that at the present moment my Noble Friend the Secretary of State is in negotiation once again with the Commander-in-Chief to see whether it will be at all possible to facilitate the leave for troops who have been for some time at the front. There is one point, however, which has been constantly overlooked. There are so many things which must be taken into consideration. There is the particular question of transport. There is the question of getting the men not only to the base in France, but getting them across the Channel. I do not think I am giving 1979 away any information to the enemy when I say that I know that from day to day men have been kept at the base in France without having the opportunity to cross to this country.
I will, however, promise this: that I will repeat so far as I can the expressions of anxiety which have been given utterance to by my hon. Friends here to the Secretary of State, and I am perfectly certain that whatever can be done will be done to give these men, and particularly those who have been at the front for some time, as much leave as can be given consistent with military exigencies. In regard to subsidiary points, I do not blame my hon. Friend for coming back again to the question of draft leave. I made a statement in the House of the policy of the War Office at the beginning of the War. That is to give leave to any individual soldier, or to any draft soldier, who is going in the near future to any of the theatres of war. That has been the policy, and is the policy, but occasions do unfortunately arise in which the War Office gets a request for a certain type of men or a certain type of battalion to be sent at once to a particular theatre of war. It happens that a transport is available within twenty-four or forty-eight hours. If that battalion does not take the opportunity of going by that transport so as to be placed in its proper position at the theatre of war, it delays its embarkation for probably a fortnight. I can, however, again give my hon. Friends a promise that the present policy will be continued as far as it is possible, and so far as allowable by military exigencies, and in future I trust that each individual soldier will get his draft leave before he is sent abroad.
Now the second important point was the point as to new classification. It is true that some of my hon. Friends, like my two hon. Friends who have spoken, attach a very great deal of importance to the classification in which a recruit is placed, and I have no doubt there is a good deal in their contention that that classification may be at times haphazard. As I have pointed out, we have asked our medical examiners in a very short time to examine no fewer than 1,500,000 men. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle) said my reply to the Debate, in which the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) and the hon. 1980 and learned Member for Ealing (Mr. Nield) took part, was rather general. Any reply of that sort to a speech which produces specific instances of which I have no knowledge cannot be otherwise than a generalised statement of the policy, and that generalised statement of the policy I have attempted to give with fairness, I trust. I pointed out then that the accuracy of the examinations of the Royal Army Medical Corps and the various medical corps was an astonishing fact. I said in the course of supplementary replies to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn this afternoon, that it is the intention of the War Office—whether it will be carried into effect or no—to alter the classification. At present we have Class A, Class B, and Class C, and the various sub-classes in each of those categories. I understand that the proposal is now in favour at the War Office to alter the categories to two distinct ones—Class A and Class B. Class A will very likely be the class fit for general service, and Class B those riot fit for general service. At the present time, I confess we have sent men of C 1 and C 2, who are supposed to be men to be utilised for labour at home, to France, but I must say this on my own behalf, and on behalf of the War Office, that I understand that in each individual case a medical re-examination has taken place, and I understand that the medical authorities gave it as their opinion that the climatic conditions are in no way better or in no way worse here than in Northern France. I do not understand that, so far, any man in class C 1 or class C 2 has been sent to any theatre of war except Northern France. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has heard of any case, but my information is that the only theatre of war to which we have sent men of those categories is Northern France.
Let me take the House back to the very beginning of this Debate. My right hon. Friend and late colleague the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Tennant) strongly impressed upon me the desirability of seeing to it that no skilled mechanics from the Army Service Corps should be used in the firing line or front line trenches. To any appeal which is made to me by my right hon. Friend I am always perfectly ready to listen. I know from past experience of his work at the War Office how much he has the interests of the Army and of the country at heart. I shall certainly place his representation before the proper 1981 quarter, but I am afraid I must point out to him—I am sorry he is not in his place—that the War Office has a tremendous difficulty in regard to this. It of course sees that after the War it will be foolish not to have skilled men, but at the same time its first and primary duty is to see that the country is well represented and well defended in the front line trenches. Strong representations have been made to us having the effect of withdrawing from the Army Service Corps many thousands of men and placing them in the Infantry. Representations have been made to us that we should use those men who are physically fit in the Army Service Corps for the more strenuous life of the trenches, and I do not think we can neglect that policy. I think it is our duty to get these able men out of those non-combatant services and put them into the front line trenches or the firing line, and we are enabled now by the use of women, and by the use of men who are over military age, and who are comparatively weak in strength, to release many, many thousands of these men for the purpose. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract took the view which I have just taken—the view which, I understand, is largely taken in the country and especially among military officers, that we should continue that policy and withdraw those men from the Army Service Corps so far as we can. He drew attention to the fact that it was a cruelty that men of the Infantry should be made to serve at a very low rate of pay while the men of the Army Service Corps were receiving sometimes 5s. and 6s. a day. He did not quite state the facts. Since the passing of the Military Service Acts, and even before then, there were many instances where Army Service Corps men only got the same pay as Infantry men, but at one time we were driven to advertise for skilled mechanics, and for certain purposes men who enlisted during that period received 5s. or 6s. a day. But to assert it as a general principle that all those men are receiving that large amount of pay is not in accordance with the fact.
§ Mr. PRINGLEHave they been getting it since the Military Service Acts?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONNo; and I pointed that out to my hon. Friend at the time. The next point is that which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), who hoped that the War Office would remember the 1982 pledge, as he called it, though I do not remember it as a pledge, that other industries would be considered before the Army.
§ Mr. HOGGEI did not say that. I was referring to what the Leader of the House said with regard to instructions which had been given by the War Cabinet to the War Office.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI was present when my right hon. Friend made that speech, and my recollection is that what he did say was that the Cabinet regarded food production as being in many ways more important than providing men for the Army.
§ Major GODFREY COLLINSI will give the exact words used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer:
This has been made quite clear both to the War Office and to the Board of Agriculture, that in this particular case the Cabinet regard the production of food as even more important than the sending of additional men into the Army."—[OFFICAL REPORT, 16th March, 1917, col. 1463.]
§ Mr. MACPHERSONThat is practically what I said. There is no question about the other industries. My right hon. Friend was dealing in the main—in fact, wholly—with the industry of agriculture. I am only referring to what my right hon. Friend said, and I am sure the House will allow me to correct what the hon. Member for East Edinburgh said.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI can assure my hon. Friend that what my right hon. Friend did say is what the War Cabinet thinks at the present moment. My hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh asked me whether that is what the War Office is doing. We are not only not taking men whom the tribunals released, but we have been sending back regularly skilled men, and helping agriculture so far as we possibly can. Not only have we done that, but we are now asking, as I pointed out in an answer to-day, our military representatives to co-operate with the agricultural committees in the various districts.
§ Major COLLINSWill my hon. Friend permit me to interrupt him with regard to the point he has just made in connection with the instructions which have been sent out by the War Office? May I ask him whether those instructions go far enough to carry out the promise given to this 1983 House that the production of food was more important than sending additional men into the Army? Are those instructions strong enough to get the military representatives all over the country to carry out the policy agreed to by the Cabinet?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI think they are, and I believe in nearly every case the military representatives are loyally carrying out the instructions. I have come across a great many men interested, not only in the Army, but in agriculture, and they tell me that the military representatives are obeying those instructions now in every way possible. I would like my hon. Friend who has taken an interest in this subject to give me any specific instance of a case where any instruction of ours has hampered that policy of the Cabinet. He knows very well we are not now calling up B1 or C1 men from agriculture at the present moment. The next point he raised was in connection with Class W Reserve. I do not know whether I have made the confession before in the House, but my Noble Friend has made the confession in another place that there was a good deal of difference as to what were the functions of Class W and those of Class P. Class P is quite different from Class W, but unfortunately for the men of Class W and Class P they were mixed up. I am happy to say, however, that now we are doing everything possible to differentiate between those two classes. Class P are men practically disabled and who are entitled to get some means of subsistence from the State. Class W, on the other hand, are men who might not have been physically unfit, and might not have been physically disabled, but who were sent back from the Reserve into civil employment, the War Office having a sort of lien on their service—that is to say, that if their civil employment at any time came to an end, or the country at any time was in great need of men, those men could be called up. In a great many cases there was a considerable amount of hardship, and I am glad to be able to tell the House that we propose to give all men transferred to Class W Reserve at least a week's pay and separation allowance. That will give them some time to get civil employment. The Ministry of Pensions, as I think my hon. Friend stated, will deal with any primâ facie case of hardship by a grant not exceeding 14s. a week until the 1984 question is settled; and we are also instructing all men of Class W Reserve to send particulars of their cases to the nearest hospital, I believe, so that we can differentiate and give assistance if needed.
§ Mr. HOGGEI think what my hon. Friend is doing is all to the good, but I want to know whether any progress had been made in the direction of getting Class W men out of Class P.
§ 6.0 P.M.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI hope we are making progress, although I cannot say at present, because I did not inquire. With regard to what has been said about the condition of camps, Mr. Deputy-Speaker pointed out that it was not quite in order, but perhaps I may say that if my hon. Friend has any particular case of the bad condition of any camp in the country, I shall be very happy to have inquiries made. The hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Wood) has already placed before me certain considerations, and I know the ease to which he has referred. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Islington, I may say that it is quite within our power to review any exemptions under the Military Service Act. I do not think there are many more points which I can deal with at the present, time, except the point raised by the hon. Member for Enfield (Major Newman), who again raised the question of the administration of justice in the Army. Fortunately for me a very distinguished general who is an hon. Member of this House got up to speak a few moments before my hon. and gallant Friend, and I hope what he said satisfied the hon. and gallant Member when he stated that he was pleased with the administration of justice in the Army, and that nothing could be fairer than a trial by a court martial.
§ Major NEWMANPrecisely so, but you: cannot get trials by courts-martial.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI went thoroughly into this case, and I may say that we do not propose to call up this officer, as we are perfectly entitled to do under the Military Service Act. We are proposing, and I hope we shall be successful in our attempt, to get him some suitable work in a labour battalion, or somewhere else where his services would be useful. I have also been asked whether we could not use quartermasters as second in command of battalions. May I point out that the 1985 quartermaster is really a non-combatant who looks after the economy of the battalion, and very often afterwards he becomes an honorary lieutenant or a captain; but he never gets beyond that rank. That is not the fault of the War Office, but the fault of the quartermaster himself, because very often he is better off as quartermaster than he would be as the second in command. It should be borne in mind that after being quartermaster for a great many years his hand has lost its cunning for second in command, because he has been devoting himself mainly to questions of economy, and not to questions of militarism or warlike operations. Unless my hon. and gallant Friend can produce specific cases where quartermasters make a strong and definite appeal for the position of second in command, I am afraid I cannot pledge myself to continue my investigations further. With regard to the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middleton (Sir Ryland Adkins), I think I am right in saying that the questions he raised rather referred to the work of the Director-General of National Service.
§ Sir R. ADKINSThere is the point about substitution, and perhaps my hon. Friend will be able to say that the War Office will make representations on the subject.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI will see that the hon. and learned Member's representations are placed before the proper authority. I do not think there is any other point which I have missed, and I hope the Committee will now come to a decision.
§ Mr. R. McNEILLI am very sorry that I have not had an opportunity of saying something before my hon. Friend replied.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONThere is another Vote.
§ Mr. McNEILLMy hon. Friend knows the subject to which I desire to draw attention, and if there is another Vote I will not pursue it now. I would like, however, to ask whether the subject of the two inquiries which have been held by the War Office will be in order on any other Vote than this Vote. I admit that it would be inconvenient for me to refer to this subject now, as there is no representative of the War Office present who is in a position to reply.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean)I should think that subject could be raised on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
§ Mr. R. McNEILLThen I will give notice to raise the question on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI am much obliged to the hon. Member.
§ Resolution agreed to.
§ Third Resolution (Pay, etc., of the Army) agreed to.
§
Ordered, That the Resolution which upon the 27th day of February last was reported from the Committee of Supply, and which was then agreed to by the House, be now read:—
That 400,000 Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918.
§ Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide, during twelve months, for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army; and that Mr. Macpherson, Sir Edward Carson, Dr. Macnamara, and Mr. Forster, do prepare and bring it in.