§ Considered in Committee.
§ [Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]
§ ARMY ESTIMATES, 1923–24.
§ NUMBER OF LAND FORCES.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a number of land forcers, not exceeding 170,800, 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, 1924.
§ Mr. FRANK GRAYThere are two matters to which I desire to refer very briefly. There is a national expenditure to a considerable amount for marriage allowances to the wives and children of lower ranks of the Army. That being so, I expected to find the item and some notes 1936 upon that expenditure in the Army Estimates. I do not find any reference to the expenditure there at all. At the present time there is a marriage allowance varying from is. to 28s. 6d. per week —7s. for a wife without any children and 28s. 6d. for a wife with seven children—and it is proposed, on the basis of the index figure in the present year, to make a reduction whereby the figures will run from a minimum of 7s. up to 26s. a week. That is to say, for the largest families of seven dependent children, there will be a reduction of 2s. 6d. per week and varying reductions will be made for smaller families down to 6d. per week, I believe, in the case of one child. The aggregate reduction is very small indeed because the main reduction relates to families of seven dependent children and there are very few families in that category. The saving to the country is very small but the reduction of the allowance to large families is a matter of very considerable concern to such families, of whom I happen to know several. I do not like to suggest that a saving should be made in the higher rather than the lower ranks, but I hope the Ministry will find a way of making this small saving in some other direction.
The second point I wish to make is of quite a different character. The number of battalions in Northern Ireland is a subject on which I ventured to address a question to the Under-Secretary for War a short time ago, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman informed me that the number of battalions in Northern Ireland at the present time was ten, which was going to be reduced, I think, on 1st April—a somewhat unfortunate date—to five. I should like to think the reduction is being made as a result of the question submitted by me. What I specially desire to bring to the attention of the House, however, is the fact that Sir James Craig, Premier of Northern Ireland—whom I view as an even greater warrior than statesman—stated in the Northern Parliament in regard to this reduction, that he had arranged with the Secretary of State for War that although the number of battalions was being reduced from ten to five, he had persuaded the Government of this country to keep up the same number of barracks, which means we are to defray the additional establishment charges involved in maintaining barracks 1937 for ten battalions, when in fact we only propose to have five battalions in the country. In addition to having apparently pledged ourselves to the expense, we have also quite recently undertaken an entirely new expenditure of £1,500,000 to maintain another force which must be deemed to be a military force—the armed special constables in Northern Ireland. It is in the Civil Estimates of expenditure this year. I raise this point, firstly, because it is an item of expenditure about which we are deeply concerned, but the keeping of an unnecessary military force in Ireland, and particularly the special constabulary, is not only an expense to this country, but a danger which I believe it has been used in the past—and I speak with some knowledge, having been in Ireland at the time —to provoke difficulties with the South. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs laughs because he understands it. What I am going to tell the House will not be news to him. It probably will be to a large number of other members of the Committee. I happened to be present at those very important battles of Pettigo and Belleek, fought, I think, in the summer of last year. There was considerable controversy as to the way in which those battles, which no doubt the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs was associated with and could enlighten me upon, were engineered, but it was the belief, and the firm belief, of those in the South that the special constabulary provoked their men on the frontier in order that an excuse might be provided to bring in the British Army and the British artillery, which I notice is referred to—
§ Mr. GRAYI was dealing with part of the military force, as I know they are taken to be in Ireland.
§ Captain WEDGWOOD BENNI would like to ask one or two questions. It will be remembered that in the autumn of last year considerable military operations took place in the Dardanelles, and I have been expecting that the House would have an opportunity of discussing those events on a Supplementary Estimate for the cost, which was estimated by the late Secretary of State for War at £2,500,000. Where is that Estimate to be found? Is 1938 it included in these Estimates, or last year's, or in a Supplementary Estimate that is yet to come before the close of the present financial year? If it has been dealt with by savings or by the diversion of funds from one account to another, I think it is very improper, because a first class operation of that kind, which was the outcome of an important Cabinet decision, should be presented to the House in some manner which is susceptible of discussion and decision in this House. If we are told that it has been done by savings on the Estimates in the present financial year, I say it is an invasion of the duty of the War Office towards the House of Commons as the controlling financial power.
The second point I want to put is this. On page 30 of the Estimates we have a charge of £1,888,000 for the Army on the Rhine. This charge is, on page 5, lumped together with other charges under Head I, and the other charges under Heads I-VII make £61,000,000 odd. On page 202, against this expense, there is a set-back of certain contributions and appropriations-in-aid, and hon. Members will there find that there are receipts in connection with the Army of Occupation on the Rhine estimated for the forthcoming financial year to be £1,250,000. Is this a real sum? Is it really expected that we will receive £1,250,000 towards the cost of these Estimates from, I presume, the Reparation Fund? I think it is an extremely optimistic view to take, but if we are not going to get the money these Estimates are not what they pretend to be, and they are Estimates, not for £52,000,000, but Estimates which in this particular must be increase by £1,250,000. What reason have we to suppose that we could get a million and a quarter from the German government? Will it come direct from Germany or from the Reparation Commission? Large additional charges it is expected will fall on the Reparation Commission for the Ruhr Occupation. On the other hand the German Exchequer is drying up because the Germans have ceased to pay. Thirdly, the Americans here put in a claim for about £50,000,000 for the cost of their army, and this must be defrayed, if from anywhere, from this dwindling or perhaps non-existent Reparation Commission Fund. Is it reasonable—will the Financial Secretary tell us 1—to say that this item of one and a. quarter 1939 millions will be a contribution in aid out of the 55 or 56—I am told it is 52 millions! Shall we be faced afterwards with a Supply Estimate?
§ Mr. BUCHANANAn hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite shows a very rosy picture of a very rosy future upon which I desire to make a few remarks. I do not know how soon the future he has pictured is coming to pass, but it is anticipated that it will be in the course of a few years. I hope when it comes that the war will not, as before, be confined to the young, but will include the older men—the bishops, the clerics, the rich people and others. My memory goes back to the right hon. Gentleman who preceded me in the representation of my constituency (Mr. G. N. Barnes), a very able and a very sincere man. In 1915 he came into the division, and said that he had given up his former beliefs in internationalism, and that the country was now at a very dangerous stage, our resources had to be pooled, so that we might fight the Germans. I remember well the sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman, the single-mindedness; and—if I may say so—he was correct in that.
§ Mr. HOHLEROn a point of Order. Are these- remarks relevant to the question before us?
§ Mr. BUCHANANI like these wonderful points of Order. Certain people can talk for an hour, and not be pulled up. To me the points of Order are entertaining, and what leads up to them. However, I must come to the point: That is, that all this criticism was suppressed because we thought the country was engaged in the last War. It was the end of militarism both at home and abroad. Yet I find hero in these Estimates the Government patting itself on the back that these Estimates are absolutely less than twice what they were in 1914! And this is the end of militarism! With these large Estimates, you must remember that we have still in the country a large number of men who are capable soldiers, and who, because of their past training, could to-morrow be turned into very useful 1940 soldiers. So that while the Government are priding themselves on the fact that the Estimates are only twice what they were in 1914 we should still remember the material we have in case of another outbreak of war. Not only is our army being used and all this expense incurred for future military purposes, but this Estimate is being asked for to cover such purposes as the arrest of men in this country for deportation to Ireland.
§ Mr. STEPHENIs it not in order to discuss the action of the competent military authority who ordered the deportation of these men?
§ Mr. BUCHANANAt a time when you are cutting down expenditure in every other direction you find that our military needs are costing the country a very large sum of money. I smile sometimes when I hear the Members of the right wing of the Liberal party preaching economy, seeing that they belonged to the most expensive Government that this country has ever known. The present Government was elected on economy and I hope they will practice it; and nothing affords the Government a better opportunity for economising than the military services which are no use to defend the homes of the poor people of Glasgow who have no work to do. My contention is that these Estimates are still too high, and I hope the Government will utilise their time and their capabilities—especially those of young and vigorous members of the Government like the Under-Secretary of State for War who is a very capable member of the Government—in the direction of seeing that this Estimate is decreased, and I trust that if there be another war. the Government will so arrange things that both the bishops and Members of Parliament take part in it, and do not shirk it.
Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESSThe last phrase of the hon. Member who has just sat down seems to indicate that he does not share the view of so many of his colleagues that war is a thing of the past. The hon. Member spoke about future wars, and that to me seems rather to be 1941 an answer to his argument that the Army contributes nothing to our material well-being. if we had not possessed an army during the late war not only should we not have had any national well-being now, but we should not have had any national being at all. As I find myself to some extent in agreement with the hon. Member, I will not follow his speech into its other subjects, on which, perhaps, I might not find myself so much in sympathy with him.
§ Mr. SHINWELLSay a word about the bishops!
Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESSI want to try, answer some of the many points of criticism that have been advanced against the Estimates, but the Debate has ranged over so many different topics that I am afraid that, even without answering such interruptions, my remarks must be something like an omnibus. To begin with, the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) asked why no Supplementary. Estimate had been laid for expenditure on the Dardanelles. It is quite true that last Session it was stated that the House would have an opportunity of discussing this matter, and I think my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will bear me out that there has been ample opportunity, even without any special Estimate being laid from the military point of view. We have had many discussions on foreign affairs, anti it was really only from that point of view that there was any ground for laying a Supplementary Estimate. There was no question of virement whatever. The money had been provided under various heads. The most considerable item was that of sea transport, and there was a margin for that under Head 6. Supplies were not much more costly in the Near East than elsewhere, and there was a margin for them under Head 1. The accommodation for troops, which was chiefly in tents and hutments, was covered by Head 5, and the financial purists could make out no case of virement against the War Office.
§ Captain BENNCan the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what was the grand total? The House of Commons exercises control over expenditure. It is no use our talking about it without the amounts, because expenditure is our line of control.
Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESSWhen the hon. and gallant Member asks what was the grand total for this expedition, I should like to know a little more definitely what he includes—whether he includes troops already out there, troops that came from Egypt, troops that came from this country, and so on. There would be no impossibility in getting the figure, if he would give me notice. If he will put a. question down, I will do my best to try and get an answer, but I am sorry that I cannot at the moment separate out the costs which he would think it necessary to include under the rather indeterminate description of the cost of this expedition.
§ Captain BENNThe late Secretary of State for War announced during the Election that he knew the amount, and named the figure.
§ Mr. NEIL MACLEANCan the House debate and control expenditure when all that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is going to give us is a reply to a question?
Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESSThe expenditure on these troops can be controlled under the various sub-heads.
§ Mr. MACLEANThat is not what we want. We want an Estimate.
Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESSI have not been told exactly what is to be included. The House will debate this again on Report, and if the hon. and gallant Gentlemen will let me know exactly what he wants included in the figure, I will do my best to get it for him.
Then the hon. and gallant Member asked whether there was any prospect of our getting the £1,250,000 which was to be received in aid of our Army expenditure from the Germans. I think there is a very good prospect. The arrangement last spring was that we should get £2,000,000, but it was subject to reconsideration, and I believe £1,250,000. was a very conservative estimate. We have already certain assets in this direction. The question of paying the troops in marks has an important bearing on the payment towards the cost of our Army because we requisition those marks in Germany and they are set off against the payment due from Germany towards the cost of the Army of occupation, and I understand probably £500,000 of this sum is in sight from that 1943 one source alone. Anyhow, I think this sum of £1,250,000 should in the ordinary course be increased.
We have had a good many criticisms as to the constitution of the Army Council and it has been suggested that changes should be made in the personnel and in their functions. The drafting of constitutions and schemes of organisation is an unfailing source of joy to people of a theoretical turn of mind, but if the House feels anxious on the subject I would remind them of the organisation of the British Government. The admirable report of Lord Haldane's Committee on the machinery of government shows how haphazard has been our organisation, but in spite of that it seems to work quite as well as the Government of any other country. But Army organisation has not grown up like that. It has been deliberately adopted after careful enquiry by the Esher Committee, and I am sure the view of the majority of the House would be that it has stood the test of war remarkably well. The trouble is that these theoretical schemes are apt sometimes to ignore the human load-line, You may abolish the Master-General of Ordnance and obtain by that means a more symmetrical scheme and transfer the Director of Fortifications and Works to the Department of the Quartermaster-General from that of the Master-General of Ordnance, but is it realised that if you were to do so you would give to the Quartermaster-General the responsibility for controlling about four-fifths of Army expenditure outside the Vote for pay and non-effective services? I believe you would overload and very much hamper the efficiency of the Quartermaster-General's Department. In the same way the suggested transference of functions to the General Staff might prove to be piling too much responsibility on the Chief of the Imperial General Staff.
Another suggestion which has been made is that the Army Council should include the Director-General of the Territorial army. The hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brig.-General Clifton Brown) suggested that, and the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lt.-Colonel Fremantle) wished to see the Director-General of the Royal Army Medical Service upon the Army Council. My answer is that members of the. Army 1944 Council have never sat as representing particular groups or kinds of soldiers. They sit as representing groups of functions. It is true that there are instances in our War Office organisation which seem to support the opposite principle, such as' the Director of Supply and Transport and the Director of Equipment and Ordnance Stores who are each of them virtually commandants of certain corps and administer the personnel. I think there is a certain case, as has been suggested this afternoon, for transferring the control of all personnel to the Adjutant-General. It is in accordance with the principle I have mentioned that the Army Council should be organised, not to represent men but functions. If you adopt this view we should surely discourage the separation of the Army into water-tight departments. If we are going to give representation to the Territorial Army and the Royal Army Medical Corps we shall have the same claim made for the Royal Engineers.
§ Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLEMay I point out that is just the actual mistake that is constantly being made and contended against. The desire and recommendation of the Committee, in 1902, and, again, of Lord Esher, when he wrote to the "Times," was that the Director-General of the Royal Army Medical Corps should be on the Army Council, to represent the Health Services which function throughout the Army. Those who serve in the Army, like the Under-Secretary, know perfectly well that the Director-General is responsible for the whole of the Health Services in all quarters of the Army Administration.
Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESSI quite realise that a good many people, as the hon. and gallant Member says, hold the contrary view, but I suggest that all these matters can best be considered by such a Committee as that of Lord Weir, which is going into the whole of the Establishment, and the organisation which controls it. My own feeling on the Territorial Army—for which I have a special responsibility in the War Office—is that we ought to do all we can to break down the division between it and the Regular Army. We have got to keep our County Associations and the valuable factor of local interest. Consistently with that, however, we should try to assimilate it 1945 with the Regular Army as much as we can, and to make it a real Second Line.
Complaints have been made that the Army Council do not sit sufficiently often, and I think hon. Members must imagine that the Army Council takes up its time, or should take up its time, in making plans and conducting War. As a matter of fact, that is the function of the General Staff. The Army Council is really more in the nature of art administrative board. Several hon. Members have suggested that we should have a new Esher Committee set up. I do not think that really is necessary. One hon. and gallant Member mentioned the admirable work which is being done by Lord Weir, and he suggested in his speech that he was the type of man who should look into Army organisation. I do not think we could do better than leave this task in the hands of this Committee, and we take it that Lord Weir will be helped by two colleagues, one possessed of long experience of Imperial Defence problems, and the other with an exceptional knowledge of work and organisation in the War Office.
The hon. Member for Greenock (Sir F. Collins) drew attention to the fact that the number of the War Office staff had increased. I gave the figures, showing that the cost has decreased. The explanation, which ha will find, if he looks at the other side of the paper, is that in the year in which the comparison is made there were a large number of officers who are now borne on a different Vote and also that we now employ on the staffs of the Commands more non-commissioned officers and less officers. I think that is a sound change and one justifiable in the interests of economy, Another figure for which the hon. and gallant Member has asked is in connection with the Dardanelles expedition. I am told that the total cost of the Dardanelles is £1,750,000 and that that is met on the normal Vote of Supply.
§ Captain W. BENNThat is to say, the Estimates presented by the War Office to Parliament last year were £1,750,000 in excess of what was necessary.
Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESSThe system of estimating for the public services 15 1946 months ahead invariably and inevitably involves a safe figure. I think it is a better way to make these savings than to estimate too low and have to come to the House of Commons continually for supplementary Estimates, The hon. and gallant Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir R. Hutchison) asked about the reduction of establishments in India. That question is still under consideration. So far we have agreed to the reduction of infantry battalions out there which will bring about a saving of 5,000 men. The question of the reduction of cavalry and artillery is still under consideration. We cannot agree to the reduction suggested in the Indian government in the number of units, but we are discussing possible savings by cutting down establishments. It must be remembered that the British regiments in India are all part of our reserve-making machinery. Their reduction must delay the building up of our reserves, and also has a serious effect upon our power of mobilisation. If we agree to the Indian government making excessive decreases, it must mean eventually further cost being thrown on our Budget for making up reserves in other ways.
The hon. Member for Oxford {Mr. F. Gray) asked about battalions in the North of Ireland. He complained that five battalions had been left in Ireland. I do not think that is an unreasonable number, in view of the fact that Ulster is raising four battalions. As she makes this contribution to the British army it is not surprising that the British flag should be shown over there. No additional cost is thrown upon the Building Vote through leaving the troops in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Preston (Lieut.-Col. Hodge) asked about the Record Offices and complained that a lieutenant-colonel was in command. The Record Offices are an important part of our military organisation, and mobilisation depends in a very great degree upon their efficiency. The hon. Member for Epping (Brigadier-General Colvin), and also the hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Gates) raised the question of cadets. The Army Council has decided to withhold the grants formerly made to cadet corps with the very greatest reluctance. They fully recognise the excellent work which this move 1947 ment for training boys in habits of discipline, strength and self-control has done, but, unfortunately, the military value of this movement is only indirect. The cadet force is more in the nature of a welfare movement than a military organisation. In view of the very great risk which we are taking by the reductions that have already taken place in our establishment, the Army Council do not feel justified in continuing this expenditure, which was equivalent to the reduction of a battery of Royal Field Artillery. The hon. Member for Loughborough (Brigadier-General spears) compared our expenditure on our staffs with that expended in France. All these military missions are being carefully watched, and are being kept down as much as possible; but we have signed Treaties with our Allies, and must take our share in enforcing the conditions. If I may venture the opinion, I would say that the hon. and gallant Member's comparisons of our staff with the French Staff are somewhat illusory. Many functions are performed by the Staff of the British Army which in France are carried out by officers not classified under the heading of staff. I do not know whether he included the Corps d' Intendance. I am advised that the officers classified as staff are only half of the total numbers employed in carrying out the duties corresponding to the duties of our staff officers.
§ Brigadier-General SPEARSI only included purely staff officers.
§ 12 M.
Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESSThe hon. Member for Limehouse (Major Attlee) referred to promotion from the ranks. Last year we started at Sandhurst a class for non-commissioned officials to be trained as officers. I agree with what the hon. Member for Limehouse said as to the necessity for democratising our army. The conditions at Sandhurst are that these non-commissioned officers enter before the age of 24, and they must have obtained previously a first class education certificate. The conditions In will be made rather higher when the scheme is developed. These men obtain a free outfit and messing, and the pay of their rank, all of which, except. 2s. per day, is treated as .deferred pay. I think that the 1948 hon. Member has no foundation for any suggestion that there is any jealousy, on the part of officers in the Army, of these men who rise from the ranks by merit and ability. The commanding officer wants to find efficiency and advances the men who are capable of bearing responsibility. It is necessary to bring in these men young because if you promote non-commissioned officers when they are older they are always handicapped in competition for promotion. You may push selected men on by accelerated promotion for exceptional merit, but that is suitable only in the case of very brilliant men; and unless these non-commissioned officers, who come in at a later age than is proposed, are strikingly above the average, you cannot pick them out, and you get them very much handicapped, and that is a very natural cause of discontent. The hon. Member said that we ought to do away with all armies and all wars. With that sentiment I agree with certain modifications, because I think that in our case the Army is mainly for defence, and we must accept his advice in the opposite order to see that all danger from war is done away with before we weaken our Army, and lessen the security of our Empire.
§ Mr. PETOThere is one matter to which I wish to refer. It was indicated to me by the Deputy Chairman (Captain Fitzroy) as being a matter that would be more appropriate on the following Vote, but I think that for the convenience of the House, since we have listened to the very extensive recapitulation of the Under-Secretary of State for War, and there has been no reference to the question of service pensions to revert to it now. We have been congratulating ourselves on saving £10,000,000 on the Army, but if we look at page 204 of the summary of Estimates we find that over £1,000,000 is accounted for by a reduction in retired pay. I think that it was in September, 1919, that. an army order was issued offering modified pensions for 14 years of continuous service with the Colours, and I have had brought to my knowledge the case of several men who have had, say, twelve years, and in one case more service, with the Colours; over 11 years abroad with every medal and distinction possible. They went into the 1949 Reserve three or four years before the outbreak of the War. They rejoined from the Reserve and served 4½ years giving them a total war service of over 20 years, including their four years in the Reserve. We gave modified pensions because it was in the general national interest to reduce our Army, but there is nothing for them. It does not seem to me to be satisfactory to save £1,000,000 on service pensions and retired pay and yet to treat unfairly the men who came to serve their country voluntarily through the Reserve, and who have a longer service, although broken by four years in reserve when they were always liable to be called up, and that they should have nothing. It suited the pocket of the taxpayer to offer these modified service pensions, only to get rid of men who would otherwise be an additional drain on the Exchequer.
I appeal to the Under-Secretary to consider these cases. We are all glad to see £10,000,000 saved on the Army, but let us at least deal fairly with the men who served the country well during the War. They have not all got disability pensions. I have here a letter from the War Office, written on behalf of the Under-Secretary. It refers to the case of a soldier who was mobilised from the Army Reserve for War and was demobilised with less than 18 years' service. I am told that he is not eligible for a service pension unless he has been awarded a permanent pension for disablement by the Ministry of Pensions, It comes to this—that a. man is not eligible for a service pension unless he has another pension; that if he does not happen to have a disability pension, all his years of service, including service in the War, are lost, and he is not entitled to a service pension. I do not think that that is right. I feel bound, even at this late hour, to call attention to this very grave injustice to a very limited body of men who have given magnificent service in every part of the globe.