HC Deb 22 November 1927 vol 210 cc1575-6

The following Question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. LAWSON:

15. To ask the Secretary of State for War why the Army Vocational Training Centre at Catterick has now been removed to another part of the country; if so, how many men are now in training at the new centre; and the ranks of such men and the conditions now attached to the training?

Mr. LAWSON

There is a, mistake in the first line of the question. It was my intention to ask "whether the Army Vocational Training Centre at Catterick has now been removed," and not "why" it has been removed.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

The Catterick Vocational Training Centre was moved to Chisledon because the facilities for agricultural training at Catterick were not adequate. There were on 1st November approximately 290 men under training at Chisledon of whom some 66 per cent. were privates or lance-corporals. There has been no change in the conditions attached to training as the result of this move.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

Can the Secretary of State for War say how the numbers now in training compare with the numbers before they were moved?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

Approximately, they are the same as before they were moved.

Mr. ATTLEE

Has any additional charge been placed upon the men in attendance?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

Yes, the charge was increased before they left Catterick.

Mr. ATTLEE

Is it not a fact that the men who go there are restricted mostly to non-commissioned officers?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

No, I did not say that. We have not to make this service self-supporting but it must not be made too costly; otherwise, it would restrict the number who could be trained.

Mr. ATTLEE

Is not the point of this training to train those who particularly want employment, and is it not the case that it is far more difficult for the rank and file to get employment as a rule than for those who hold higher rank?

Mr. LAWSON

Has this additional charge been put on since the Army Estimates passed through the House?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

I must have notice of that question.

Forward to