ARMED FORCES (DEMOBILISATION)

HC Deb 08 December 1943 vol 395 cc1075-104

Mr. Turton (Thirsk and Malton)

I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add: But, while welcoming in particular the references to the training and employment of disabled persons and the reinstatement in their civil employment of persons discharged from the Armed Forces, humbly regret that the Gracious Speech does not announce the principles upon which the demobilisation of the Armed Forces at the conclusion of hostilities will be based. I should like to go on where the Minister of Production in winding up the general Debate left off last week. He then used these moving words: The poet said, 'It is a sweet and seemly thing to die for your country.' But, believe me, if you have fought and survived there is nothing more bitter or more unseemly than that you should have to live in poverty and unemployment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1943; col. 322, Vol. 395.] The difficulty of the Armed Forces of the Crown to-day is that they do not yet know what will be the flavour of their future. That, it may be said, is due to the chances of shot and shell, bomb and torpedo, but it is also due to the discretion, taciturnity and evasiveness of Ministers responsible for this branch of policy in the Government. The Dominions have been far more explicit in their plans for demobilisation. Australia has passed the Australian Soldiers' Settlement and Repatriation Act, and in New Zealand they have passed the Services (Settlement and Land Sales) Act, and under that Act already there have been 1,500 applications dealt with and more than £750,000 given by way of assistance. Those are remarkble figures when you think what a small country is involved. But the House should realise that troops fighting together in the same Army with men of the Dominions should receive equal or similar assurance if you want to maintain their morale. Assurances for the future are an essential contribution to morale. The morale of our Fighting Forces has been outstanding. They have fought well knowing that those who have been reserved from fighting through their occupations have received a far higher reward for their services. They have fought side by side with our Allies and with the Dominions who received a better scale of rations, higher pay and more certain assurances for their future. They will continue to fight just as they have done in the past, paying no heed to these differences except for giving occasionally a not unreasonable grouse.

I maintain that the time has now come when it is fair to these men that they should receive from this House and the Government a clear definition of their demobilisation policy. It may be said that the time is a dangerous one to give it and that it would give a feeling of overconfidence and the idea that the war with Germany is nearly over or imminent. I can assure the House that men in the Armed Forces are far less sanguine about that than the Press and people of this country. Those who fight the enemy, confident as they are of final victory, realise that before the war is over they must defeat the enemy army and that that will entail sanguinary battles. For that reason I hope that the Government will not ride off again on a suggestion that the time is not opportune or that there is any danger of over-confidence. In the King's Speech we have been promised two Measures dealing with the re-instatement in civil employment of persons discharged from the Armed Forces and with the training and employment of disabled persons. On the first let me say that I hope it will remove the anomaly whereunder at present volunteers are not covered by the compulsion to reinstate persons which applies to men conscripted under the National Service Act. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give details of that Measure. The other Measure will be debated shortly, so that I will do no more than point out what I feel is present in the mind of every Member, namely, the greater debt that the community owe to the men who have been disabled while serving their country.

On the question of demobilisation the King's Speech is silent. There is not a word. There is no glimmer of a word. There is not even a coruscating phrase. That is a grave condemnation of the King's Speech. Let us go back and see what declarations have been made hitherto by the Government. The clearest of the obscure declarations that His Majesty's Ministers have made was that made by the Minister of Labour at Southport on 3rd September: One principle the Government had accepted was that length of service was the criterion of demobilisation, and they would not submit to what were called 'key men,' certain men and everybody pulling the wires one way or another. Industry would have to adapt itself if it could not get the men it wanted just as it has had to adapt itself during the crisis. Later in September the Minister without Portfolio was asked about that statement and he said that the Government's statement on demobilisation was contained in the declaration of 22nd April and they had not shifted from it. May I read it to the House? The broad principle is age and length of service, but there must be a latitude so that some men may come out before their normal turn, subject always to the proviso that exceptions must not be so numerous that the scheme breaks down."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd April, 1943; col. 1955, Vol. 388.] That may be clear to a Chancery lawyer but as an indication to the men and women who impatiently await an indication of when they are to come out of the Services into industry, it is quite meaningless.

As far as I can see this problem, there are three objects for a demobilisation plan. There is a plan with the object of justice for the individual based on priority for length of service. There is a plan with the object of the interests of family life based on the priorities of age, marriage or children. Finally, there is a plan with the object of economic value to the community with priorities for industrial skill. The declaration made by the Minister without Portfolio appears to me to be an attempt to make a compromise of these three objects and to evade a decision that lies upon the Government which object they will choose and which priorities they are to give. I would like to consider some of these objects and priorities. Some have been included in the Government declaration and some have been included in various proposals that have been put forward by other persons and other bodies. Let me take the second group first. It is the first one in the declaration of the Minister without Portfolio. That is the interests of family life. It is clear that if we give priority to young children we are favouring those men and women who have by the fortune of war not been separated, to the disadvantage of those men and women who have been separated. In fact, we are penalising the men who have borne the heat and burden of the war by fighting overseas. If the idea is the effect on the population problem I am far from convinced that the object will be achieved. The unmarried men in the Services are in that state not through choice but through lack of opportunity. When they get demobilised they will marry and will rear families. Indeed, it may well be that their productivity will be far higher than that of the older married men who have already established families.

Let me come to the question of age. I have failed to understand why the Government intend to give a priority to age. In the post-war world what we will require in civil life will be the young men and women who are eager and able to prepare for and cope with problems of the post-war world. If we demobilise men by age I am sure we shall create a feeling of unfairness in the Armed Forces of the Crown. One of the first things we will do will be to demobilise the men higher in rank, because if we examine most battalions in the field we will find that the older men are those higher in commissioned or non-commissioned ranks and the younger men are in the lower ranks. I cannot believe that that is what will recommend itself to them.

Let me pass from that to the question of economic value to the community. At first sight that method will satisfy all the planners' demands. What industry wants in the way of consumers' goods and houses will be provided by taking men out of the Services who are best fitted to supply those wants; but I think we ought to be a little careful. In the last war, after the Montague Committee's Report, the country adopted a scheme based on priority for industrial skill with the object of securing economic value to the community, and that scheme failed. Everybody who went through that period or has read about it will agree that the scheme failed, and the Government should beware of a repetition of that failure. In my view any such scheme would encourage wire pulling in the Army. It would be said that the man who had shouted the loudest, exaggerated the most and been lavish in the employment of influence in high places got demobilised first. I think there must be a plan that will appear just to the serving man, and I am far from being convinced that such a scheme would be of economic value to the community.

In the immediate post-war months the provision of employment will be an easy task, and if we bring out from the Services in that time men who by their service have lost some of the industrial skill they had when they joined, we shall be able to train or re-train them for the employment that is going to constitute their future. Later, when employment is difficult, those men, who will by then have had an even longer period of service, would have no chance of getting employment. If they are kept back until the boom period is over they are going to drift into unemployment just as they did after the last war. I am afraid that the schemes which the President of the Board of Trade spoke of to-day will be of no effect to such a man, because he would not have had the training for employment. If we keep back the man with industrial skill until the boom period is over he will be far better fitted to find employment when conditions are so difficult I put that forward as a view, but the great criterion will be, Is it going to be just to the individual to have this kind of priority based on length of service and length of service alone? "First in, first out" will appeal with a sense of fairness to every serving man and serving woman in the Forces. If at that time there is a wide diversity of experience of overseas fighting, then it may be necessary for the Army, and for the Army alone, to give additional weight to overseas service, but, so far as we can see, when the second front begins the diversity in experience of overseas service will be levelled up and so no such adjustment will be necessary. Let me address this one word of warning to the Government. If they put forward to the House any scheme that is not just they will destroy the morale of the fighting forces far more than would any enemy propaganda or any defeat in battle.

The argument will be used, I think, that after the war with Germany is over large numbers of men will be required for service in the Far East and also for the occupation forces in Germany, and for that reason demobilisation will be only a trickle. Surely, there is an easy answer to that. There are a number of men who have hitherto been reserved because of their skill in munitions production and in essential war services. The Government should mobilise those men, who have been reserved hitherto, into the Armed Forces and enable them to take their place in the occupation forces in enemy territory. I believe that scheme would appeal to the sense of fairness of the whole community. But if the Government are going to do that, they must declare it now. That is a great point. If they are to mobilise the men now reserved they cannot wait until that time comes, or they will get a great deal of dissatisfaction both in industry and in the Services. Such a step would aid the transition from war to peace and would, I think, give a great feeling of satisfaction to everybody, especially to the parents and the wives of those men who have been separated from them for such a long time.

There is one problem I want to touch upon if we are to have what the President of the Board of Trade describes as a two-stage ending of the war. I would point out that there are men who have been stationed in India and on Asiatic stations for many years. Some of those men, both in the Army and in the Navy, took part in the epic struggle of the Libyan campaign. There are men who were besieged in Tobruk for many months. We must not leave these men out there forgotten—reinforced, no doubt, but not relieved; and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary in his reply will give the country and those men a reassurance that they will train those whose service at the end of the war will have been largely confined to the shores of England for the peculiar fighting that is required in the Far East and, as soon as possible, send them out and bring back the men who have been many years in the Far East.

To conclude: Over the whole of this matter the Government have made a fetish of discretion, but discretion without gratitude is meaningless. I have tried as far as I could to avoid exaggeration or sentiment, but anybody who has had the slightest experience on the battlefields of this war whether at home or overseas must have been struck by the wide diversity of comfort and rewards experienced by the men and women who have been sheltered at home and those who have fought and suffered to provide that shelter. I think the time has come when we must show those men who have fought and are fighting that the sacrifices they have made are remembered and will be rewarded.

Major C. S. Taylor (Eastbourne)

I beg to second the Amendment, which was so ably proposed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton).

The House was particularly appreciative of what he had to say in view of his own gallant services in the field. As Parliament was responsible for the conscripting of young men and women into the Services, I think it is obviously the duty of Parliament to provide suitable machinery for demobilisation and resettlement in their peace-time occupations, when the time comes. At the end of the last war, demobilisation plans were well advanced, but none of them had reached any state of finality. Because of that, and because they had not been explained to the Fighting Forces and to the public, the Government were caught napping by the sudden collapse of Germany. The fighting men and the public took the view, which I believe is very widely held to-day, that everyone should be released from war service as soon as possible. The fiasco which followed was the result of a compromise between the public clamour for speed and the half-baked and incomplete plans of the Government for that enormous task.

I do not really remember it, but I am sure many hon. Members must remember the processions that went up and down Whitehall with banners giving advice to the Minister, "Get on with it or get out," referring to demobilisation. It is the desire of hon. Members who are putting forward the Amendment to impress upon the Government that no fiasco must be allowed to follow the collapse of our enemies this time. In the short time that is available now it will not be possible to go very far into details, but there are certain principles which I believe should govern the formulating of any plans which may or may not at the present time be under consideration

To begin with, there must be a Committee, which should consist of representatives from all the three Service Departments and from the Ministry of Labour, and it should be presided over by a highly competent chairman. That Committee should produce a number of demobilisation plans to meet every possible eventuality. A plan could be produced which could be put into operation directly Ger- many collapses, if Germany collapses before Japan, as some people think, or vice versa, and another one should be produced if the collapse is simultaneous. The various planning departments of the War Office from time to time make a number of plans for future strategy. Many of the plans are not used, some remain stillborn, but they are ready and available if they are required, and they are worked out in the greatest detail. Why should we not do the same about demobilisation, that is, have a number of plans available so that they could be put into action to meet any eventuality?

I will digress for a moment, because, if such a Demobilisation Committee were in existence, the chairman would be a very important member of it, and I am sure there must be a chairman who is strong and sympathetic. He must not be swayed unduly by public opinion or by the Press, and, having had experience in the Armed Forces, he must not be under the thumb of any of the Service Departments. His one aim and object should be to produce plans which would create the minimum of heartburn and unhappiness in the Forces. God forbid that the job should be given to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister without Portfolio, who has had so many of these post-war reconstruction problems thrust upon him. The other day I was reading a description of Napoleon, and I thought it was so apt that I modified it slightly, and I would like to apply it to my right hon. and learned Friend: Grand, gloomy and peculiar, he sits upon the Front Bench, a hermit, wrapped in the solitude of his own originality. The Minister without Portfolio may be the man to implement the proposals of Sir William Beveridge, but the Armed Forces will require a different sort of man to deal with the demobilisation schemes. It is no use the War Office producing a plan of their own. I believe that the War Office must come together with the other two Service Departments in close consultation so that plans can be co-ordinated as a whole. I rather suspect the War Office on this demobilisation question. I rather feel that the War Office when peace comes will be rather like the woman who has too much jewellery. She does not want to let it go although she has no use for it. They will not want to let the men go.

Mr. Bartle Bull (Enfield)

Let the men go, but keep the jewellery.

Major Taylor

If there is any jewellery left in existence. Neither the plans nor the principles which govern them have been made known to the public or to members of the Fighting Forces. I believe that those plans should be given full publicity and should be tied up and co-ordinated. The plan should be known to our Allies, the United States of America, especially as far as the scale on which demobilisation is envisaged if Germany collapses before Japan. I think the reasons should be explained why partial demobilisation is allowed to take place. The Prime Minister has already referred to the suggestion that there may be partial demobilisation. If it is because we shall not require so many men in the Army to fight the Japanese because of the difficulty of getting them over there, let us say so. Let us assure our American Allies that by demobilisation and diverting from the Army to industry, we shall be helping the combined war effort against Japan by increased production of ships, aeroplanes, munitions and so on, which will be vital in that fight. Unless these facts are broadcast widely, together with all the reasons which have influenced the Government's decision, we shall come in for very severe and unfortunate criticism from our Allies, the Empire and from our own countrymen.

Let us make sure that in these plans of demobilisation there is no wire-pulling. There must be suitable machinery to meet the cases of individual hardship among soldiers, sailors and airmen. Demobilisation for the Armed Forces must necessarily be gradual, and it is desirable, because every man who is discharged from the Armed Forces should have an opportunity of finding sustained employment on his return. There must not be wholesale demobilisation all at once, and I hope that the principle will be recognised that preference must be given to members of the Forces who have been engaged on active service in any theatre of war, and particularly to those who have been separated for long periods from their families. I remember early in 1936 mentioning Cadet Corps and conscription, and the horror and indignation which greeted those suggestions from Members of the party opposite. Fortunately we can talk about Cadet Corps and conscription to-day and meet little or no criticism. I firmly believe that conscription for the Armed Forces has to go on and that we shall have to continue the principle of the Cadet Corps. I believe that those two points are relevant to the questions of demobilisation. The Allies will no doubt have to find a considerable force for the occupation of Europe and other countries of the world at the end of the war, and if we continue conscription, a considerable number of men who are called up for service with the colours will, after a short period of training, be available to be sent overseas to do this police work and military occupation.

I would like to support very strongly the suggestion that the Mover made about calling up men who have been engaged, for instance, on Civil Defence or on war production in the factories or stationed in the Armed Forces in this country. Let us call upon them for volunteers to assist in the policing and the occupying of Europe. They can carry a gun as well as a soldier in the Eighth Army, and I see no reason why those men should not be sent overseas for a period, to release some of the fellows that have fought bitterly on the battle grounds. I believe that those volunteers would come forward very readily. I appreciate that it is necessary to keep a large nucleus of seasoned veterans, but the volunteers would enable a number of chaps with long overseas service to get home. We put this suggestion forward, and I hope the Government will look into its merits. I favour a points scheme or some modification of it. I believe—and here I disagree to a certain extent with the mover of the Amendment—that certain key men will be necessary to the re-establishment of our export trade and that a certain number of building operatives will be necessary for the reconstruction of areas like Eastbourne, Hastings and the other defence and evacuation areas. It has been said, I believe by the War Office, that there is not sufficient information available to put the points scheme, or a modification of it, into operation. That is a very weak argument. I believe that the existing regimental institutions and welfare services can get quite sufficient information about the individual soldier to put the points scheme into operation.

Finally I believe demobilisation should be tied up with the conditions of those who are to go on serving in the Forces. We must make arrangements for those people who wish to continue serving in the Forces and who want to make it their career, that their career will be equal in pay and conditions to that of their brothers who have come home and been demobilised and go into industry. I believe that is a most important point. Let me end on a note of warning. Be perfectly certain that the men and women who are now in the Services will expect a demobilisation scheme, ready cut and dried when the great day comes. The troops are all talking about it now. Woe betide any Government or House of Commons that has not got that scheme ready, or neglects these obligations. I hope that we are going to have an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary, but I am afraid that he has not given very much hope to me in private. When he comes to make his public statement I hope it will be something really worth hearing.

Viscount Suirdale (Peterborough)

It is impossible for anyone who has served for a long time in this war not to have strong feelings about the subject of this Amendment. I consider it a great privilege to be allowed to make my maiden speech on this subject. I sincerely hope that the House will appreciate that I have these feelings and will balance them against any errors into which I may fall because of inexperience of the customs of this House. It is a great privilege to be able to follow the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), but he has occasioned me a considerable amount of embarrassment, because I came her with a speech all beautifully mapped out of what I was going to say. He has given rise to an argument. I agree with about 90 per cent. of what he said, but on the question of priorities I am afraid that I do not agree at all.

I agree with him entirely when he says that this subject is exercising the minds of the troops very much, and I venture to say that it is also exercising the minds of almost everybody in this country more than almost any other subject. I do not say that without some reason. I have only recently been returned to this House as the result of a by-election. It was very striking that wherever I went, whether it was in the depths of the country, into county villages or county towns, or into the highly industrialised area around Peterborough, people were all asking the same type of question. They were questions like this: "What is going to happen to our boys when they come home?" "What is going to happen to my husband when he comes home?" "Are our boys going to get jobs, or are they going to be let down and given the same sort of rotten deal that they got last time?" I considered that questioning highly significant, because I think it is an indication of what the people of this country are really thinking. This is a very difficult problem particularly because there are so many uncertain factors, but there are two things which are absolutely certain. They are that as soon as the war ends a very high percentage of people in the Services will want to get out right away. They will also all have very good reason why they should be the first to be let out. If that matter is left to general discussion as to what the priority should be, I do not think we should ever get agreement.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton that the Government must take the lead in this matter and must come out and say what is going to happen and give people an opportunity of studying it. The House must have an opportunity of discussing the plan and modifying it in the light of the views of hon. Members, if necessary. We must get people educated up to the idea of what is going to happen. If the Government produce their plan at the very last moment out of a pigeon hole, devised perhaps with the greatest skill by the best brains in the country, I think that would be the best way to create distrust and discontent. They have to come out with that plan, if not now, then as soon as they reasonably can, and if that plan is fair, reasonably flexible and above all easy to understand, they may have a certain amount of support for it and there may be a large amount of unanimity. As far as priorities are concerned, His Majesty's Government have been in considerable doubt. They have advocated "first in, first out," age, and length of service. If the hon. Member had read further the particular passage containing the quotation he made from the right hon. Gentleman the Minister without Portfolio, he would also have noticed that the Minister promised to consider the claims of those who served overseas. He also admitted that His Majesty's Government have not made up their minds. I am not going to criticise the Minister for that, because this is a very complex subject. There are so many and varied claims.

I am inclined to agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Eastbourne (Major C. S. Taylor) about the points scheme. My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment rejected compromise, but the hon. and gallant Member for Eastbourne and myself are in favour of compromise. I think it is not beyond the brains of the people of this country to work out a weighted points scheme that would work. I would favour such claims as marriage, length of service overseas and from those who have served in particularly dangerous jobs, owing to the tremendous strain upon them. I am thinking of people in air crews and submarines, who may find it more difficult to re-adapt themselves to post-war conditions. The hon. Member said that we have a choice between three issues, length of service, family life, and key men. I do not agree with that really, and I would like to suggest that if the points scheme were worked out along the lines which I have indicated, the effect might be that the brunt of it would come upon the unmarried men who had served exclusively in this country or abroad for very short periods. It would be hard luck on them, but somebody is going to be the Cinderella in this business. In fact, it may appeal to the hon. and gallant Member that it would encourage people to get married and might help the birth rate. The hon. Member may say, "How can a man afford to get married on Army pay?" I agree with that, and I hope I shall not be out of Order if I say, "Put up the marriage allowances."

I would like to make a further point about priorities. Whatever scheme may be devised by His Majesty's Government, some people are going to be at the top of the list and others at the bottom. Whatever happens, the people at the bottom are going to be very frightened indeed, terrified lest they will be left out in the cold, that they are going to be the Cinderellas of this post-war period. I think if I were one of them I should be very frightened too. I do think that it is up to His Majesty's Government to produce legislation and assurances first of all to convince them they are not going to be left out after this war. They will have to undergo considerable sacrifice, and I think they are entitled to the most specific promises. I think secondly that the Government should produce legislation to make certain they do not get left out and do get a fair deal when the war ends. I think that the first of these two things is going to be the more difficult task.

My last point is on an entirely different matter which was touched upon by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade at the end of the previous Debate. The question of demobilisation is a part of a much wider picture, part of the general change-over of the economy of this country from war to peace. Industrial workers in this country have been earning, many of them, in the last year or two far more money than they have ever had before. They have had to pay Income Tax, but I think it is fair to say that more money has been coming into many more homes than ever did before. Yet owing to the shortage of consumer goods they have not had anything to spend it upon, and owing to the National Savings Campaign a great deal has gone into national savings of one type or another. The result has been that there has come into existence quite a wide class of industrial worker capitalists, people who may have one, two, three or even four hundred pounds put away. That is going to be very useful to them in the reconstruction period and also very helpful if they want to go into small one-man businesses such as shops.

That is a very good thing, but here I think the men of the Services coming home will be at a disadvantage. They will not have any capital behind them. I defy anyone to save large quantities of money from the amounts paid to them. Let us consider what they are going to get. They will get their post-war credit. If my calculations are right, that amounts to £9 2s. 6d. per year of service. In addition to that they will get their war gratuity. We do not know what it is to be. At the end of the last war the maximum that a private soldier could get was in the region of £30. That is not much. I suggest that in order to offset this obvious inequality and in order to give courage to men in the Services about their future, His Majesty's Government could well consider stepping up that gratuity very substantially indeed. That might give not only confidence but some cash with which they could start readjusting themselves in the new world.

In conclusion, may I impress upon my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service that His Majesty's Government have a moral responsibility to these men, many of whom have undergone considerable hardship without complaint, without proper pay and sometimes with less food than those outside the Services. I think it is up to the Government to see that they get a fair deal when they come back home and that they receive every encouragement and help to try and adjust themselves to the difficult conditions of peace.

Mr. John Dugdale (West Bromwich)

It is my pleasant duty to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member on a most admirable speech, a speech which showed the confidence of one who quite evidently knew what he was talking about. In fact, so confident was he that I had to ask the hon. Member sitting in front of me, Was he previously a Member of this House? I really thought he had been a Member before and had lost his seat and had now returned, and I am sure we shall have the pleasure of hearing from him on many occasions.

I intend to be very brief indeed, as I know there are other Members who wish to speak. I think the speech of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) showed the need there is for a discussion of this subject before concrete plans can be framed, and in fact, I find myself in the somewhat irregular position of being in general support of the Secretary of State for War, which is not a position I very often occupy. I do so because I think his scheme of age plus length of service seems to me with one or two modifications which I propose to suggest to combine simplicity with justice. That is what is wanted. The only two suggestions I have to make are—and they have been made before by many other people—first of all that marriage should be included. I disagree here most strongly with the Mover of the Amendment. I feel that a man who has been married, who has a home to go back to, has a right to demobilisation before the man who has yet to make his home. After all, those of us who have young children know what it must be like for men to go out and serve abroad, maybe for many years, and never to see those children growing up. I think they should come back before the men who by luck or circumstances do not happen to have married.

I come to the second point. I feel most strongly that more account should be taken of where a man was serving. I think age plus length of service alone is not enough. I understand it is possible through a wonderful organism which I had the honour of seeing when I visited the War Office with other hon. Members for many complicated matters to be worked out which could not be worked out by any person, certainly not by the Secretary of State for War or any other Member here. I understand it is possible to weight certain considerations and I would suggest that we might weight length of service abroad as two years against one year's length of service at home. In other words I mean that if a man has served abroad for one year it should count the same as a man who has served at home for two years. I hope it will be possible for something along those lines to be introduced. It is all very well to say that every man suffers hardship by going into the Forces. If I might take my own constituency as an example I know it is a great hardship for a man in West Bromwich to go to Cornwall or, with due respect to my Scottish friends to the North of Scotland, but he does at least have an opportunity of getting back maybe every three months in theory or even every six months in practice whereas a man who is abroad has no such opportunity. I am not thinking only of the men serving in the front line but the men now in Persia, West Africa, the Faroe Islands and all sorts of strange places. I think these men have a right to be demobilised before those men who have been luckly enough to be stationed at home.

Those are the only two points I want to make. I hope that marriage and length of service abroad will be brought into the scheme, and with that qualification I hope the Government will go ahead with their scheme of age plus length of service and bring it in at the earliest possible moment so that our troops may know where they are.

Lady Apsley (Bristol, Central)

It is with a sense of great humility that I take part in this Debate, for I know so many hon. Members wish to speak, and those of us who have the privilege granted by you, Sir, do so with the responsibility of speaking what is in the mind of 6,000,000 or 7,000,000 of His Majesty's subjects in uniform who are to-day, by reason of the exigencies of service, denied themselves to say what they feel at the present time. I support most sincerely what the hon. and gallant Members who have already spoken have said with regard to demobilisation, and I think that I only differ in this way, that I have somewhat more confidence in the capacity of the Government to deal with what will undoubtedly be the difficult post-war period. For this reason: We are all of us so close to the happenings after the last war that I am quite sure the common sense of all parties will unite in preventing it happening this time. Secondly, I also appreciate that there are so many prominent members of His Majesty's Government who are themselves ex-Service men and will not have forgotten the difficulties of their comrades in arms.

So I would pass on quickly to what I believe to be points of view which have not already been mentioned on the part of men and women in the Services. The first is with regard to demobilisation, and here I agree with what the hon. and gallant Member for Peterborough (Viscount Suirdale) said with regard to the necessity for some type of Advisory Council consisting of high officers and representatives of various Service Departments concerned to settle priorities. I believe that the Chairman should be ex-Service. I welcome very much what has been said with regard to the points scheme. Having been one of the members of the original Committee, I think it would interest the House to know that the points scheme was first suggested by General Sir John Brown, who was Inspector-General of the Territorial Army before the war and is now a distinguished member of the National Executive Committee of the British Legion. The great thing about this points scheme is that it is fair, it is simple, and it is understandable. I think it definitely would prevent the troubles of 1919 which have already been referred to, with regard to the demobilisation first of all of key men. I do feel that to-day that, under the conditions of modern technique and modern instruction, in the majority of industries it is fairly easy to make skilled men and women.

Next—if I may digress into a little detail, which I believe to be of utmost importance with regard to the employment of the ex-Service community after the war—it is that the present discharge documents of the m[...] women from the Services do not clearly show the standard of skill and responsibility which has been a tained in the Services. I would suggest to Service Ministers concerned that they should look into that point and see that the discharge documents are engrossed by some competent officer with the type of skill which the individual has attained in terms understandable by prospective civilian employers. For example, an Auxiliary in the A.T.S. sent on a R.E.M.E. course passed out with 97 per cent. marks and it will not be shown on her discharge document that she is a superlative light engineer. Only three men have attained over 90 per cent., 70 per cent. being the average pass. It is obvious that demobilisation cannot be accomplished for everybody even on the fairest type of points scheme and certainly not on some absurd arbitrary slogan. For instance, there is bound to be a shortage of shipping, certainly in the case of men in the Far East, and "length of service" would remove all the best experienced men—officers and N.C.Os. In those cases I suggest that the Service personnel concerned receive some type of compensation if they cannot be demobilised in their due turn, something in the way of deferred War Savings credit. This I believe would keep up the magnificent morale of our Fighting Forces at the present time.

Secondly, I would say in support of what hon. and gallant Members who have already spoken have said that there were disastrous repercussions after the last war over the sort of inferiority complex between the men who had fought and the men who did not risk their lives, which was well put by Shakespeare: And gentlemen of England now abed will think themselves accurs'd they were not there, And hold their manhood cheap when any speak who fought with us upon St. Crispin's Day. This is very strongly brought up to date in Lord Elton's book, "St. George or the Dragon," especially in the chapter on "The Assault to Morale."

If I may add a few words with regard to special problems of the million women in the Forces, for whom we have a very great responsibility, as in addition to the magnificent service given by the men in the field they too have won the war for us. Three questions are exercising their minds at the present time. Firstly the possibility of their return home as quickly as possible when the war is over, particularly those who have husbands or children or aged dependants. This I believe concerns some 65 per cent. of women in the Forces. Secondly, I think that some 35 per cent., consisting of some of the finest women in the Services, have a directly opposite interest, which is that they are so happy in the W.R.N.S., the A.T.S. and the W.A.A.F.S. that they would like to make service with the armed forces a profession and would like to know whether this is to be made possible for them after the war, with acceptable pay and pension rights.

The third question refers to a small but important section of the Service women. It is that they would like to know whether when they come out of the Forces they will be able to carry on the skill which they have learned while in the Services. Will the trade unions accept them? Will they be able to get equal pay for equal work? Will they be able to have seniority in the teaching profession for their years of service? Will there be possibilities for emigration for them within the Empire? These I submit are some of the questions agitating the minds of both men and women in the Forces to-day. I appeal that they be given due consideration, because not only do we owe them much but in the Services they train to give, not to get, and we in the post-war period shall have great need of such noble and efficient givers.

Mr. Bartle Bull (Enfield)

I should like to join with my hon. Friend opposite in the tribute he paid to the Noble Lord on his maiden speech, which I think we all listened to with great pleasure. My hon. Friend did not mention this particular point. Provided that the Noble Lord has nothing to do with the old school tie, whatever that may mean—and I have never really understood what it does mean—I think there is a chance in life for the Noble Lord. With regard to this Amendment, I would like to say I entirely agree with the terms of it, and I very much enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member who moved it. As I say, I thoroughly agree with the terms of it. But I do think this is an extremely bad time for us in Britain to be talking about demobilisation in any form whatever. In the United States, at the moment, they are calling up more and more men, and if we spend a day, or even a half-day, in this House discussing demobilisation we should remember that the Americans do not look at it that way as far as they are concerned. Therefore, I do not think we are doing good by discussing demobilisation at the present time and in calling attention to this subject. But since we are discussing it, I think any announcement by the Government on demobilisation—and I am not aware that there has been one so far—should coincide with an assurance by the Government that all young men who have not yet seen any service, will have an opportunity of taking the places of those who have seen service.

I put this proposal forward for several reasons. One is that some of these young men will not feel very happy about it in the future, when the war is over, if they have not had a chance to do any soldiering. Therefore, I say give a change to the younger men to press themselves forward. There are plenty of skilled workmen here at home and it is difficult to release them in order that they may go into the Army, even though they may be young and fit. My hon. Friends opposite know, however, that there are many skilled workmen—with families—men between 35 and 40, still in the Army. They are just as skilled as the men at home. Why should they not be brought back to take the places of younger men who, apparently, are vitally necessary for the continuation of the war effort? When I was learning with my platoon how to dig, we had a miner in that platoon, and I admired the way in which he dug his trench and squared it neatly with so little effort, while I was perspiring heavily with my share of the work. I asked him, "How do you do it?" and he said, "If you will insist on getting the pick, away round by your heels"—he put it in another way—and then he finished by saying, "If you just lift the pick up to your shoulder, the Lord will bring it down," As soon as I learned that principle, I began to find that I could dig as well as any man of my years. There are many such men in the Army, miners and all sorts of men, and there are no better soldiers in the world than British miners and no better disciplined troops.

I mention that only to show that there are many well skilled men in the Army who should be released in order to give a chance to some younger men, who, I know, would like to get into the Army. As I say, this is the wrong time to discuss demobilisation. I do not regard the war as having yet been won. At least, the last time I saw the German troops they did not look to me as if they were beaten, though they may be different lately. But I think, instead of discussing demobilisation, it would be better to assure the troops about what will happen to them when they are demobilised and to give them an incentive, by having the pay of all junior officers, N.C.O.s and men immediately increased and better allowances given to wives and dependants. I regard it as vitally important that there should be an acknowledgment fairly soon on the part of this House that the dependants of those who are disabled by the war and the dependants of those who are killed, shall be a first charge on the nation.

As I see it the duty of a Member of Parliament or of any public man is not merely to do what he is told by the popular voice of his constituents. It is a little more than that. If your constituents elect you, surely they trust you just a little bit, and it is up to you to give a lead from time to time. Could we not be honest about this question? Does not everyone of us know that there cannot be any immediate wholesale demobilisation on the conclusion of hostilities. Let us own up to it. Do we not all know that? I certainly do and in my opinion what the soldier would like to know is that when he comes home, he will not be any worse treated than the people who have remained in this country. I agree with the suggestion that the oldest men, the married men—the most married men if you like—should be released first and I think everyone who has done long service, particularly overseas service, should have preferential treatment and should be guaranteed a job if he is able and willing and fit to take it.

Mr. Lewis Jones (Swansea, West)

As I understand the Minister is anxious to reply soon, I shall not go into all the matters with which I had intended to deal and thus the best speech which I have ever prepared will be taken away in my pocket. I wish to refer briefly, however, to the question of the reinstatement of Service men, in which, as one who is associated with industry, I am particularly interested. The House is aware that in the 1939 National Service Act there is a Section which makes it obligatory on employers to reinstate men from the Armed Forces in their employment on the termination of the war, under conditions not less favourable than those which would have applied to those men had they remained in civilian employment. In the 1941 National Service Act that Section was amended. As a result of new powers obtained by the Minister, he was enabled to direct into Civil Defence Services, certain personnel, in certain age groups, and the Act was amended to make it obligatory on employers to reinstate even those people who had gone into Civil Defence Services. But there was a remarkable omission. The man who had volunteered for the Armed Services had no right, by law, to expect reinstatement. I know from personal experience that there are many employers who had a decided desire to reinstate the volunteer at the earliest possible moment, in fact a prejudice in favour of the volunteer, but the fact that this statutory obligation has been placed on employers to reinstate compulsorily enlisted or directed workers, takes away from the employer the voluntary right to reinstate the volunteer.

I am delighted that the Minister, through the King's Speech, has under-taken to introduce this Session another amending Bill to deal with this subject and to ensure that volunteers in the Armed Forces are at any rate to receive the same statutory right to reinstatement in their employment as others. There are one or two other matters in connection with this Measure which I hope the Minister will bear in mind. One is the laying down of conditions which will define more clearly what is meant by the 1939 and 1941 Acts as to the practical possibility of the reinstatement of certain people because there is going to be serious difficulty. I know of industrial undertakings where, normally, the personnel employed would be 500 or 600, but since the outbreak of the war I discover on the pay books of these firms 1,200 or 1,300 people. Perhaps six people have been employed where there was only one before and when those people come back from the war, obviously there will only be one job among six people and only one of the six can get it. I hope that when the Minister drafts his Bill, he will introduce a principle which is quite common in industry, by agreement between employers and trade unions, that the seniority rule shall apply when the question of reinstatement arises. I do not wish to intervene further between the House and the Minister.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. McCorquodale)

I hope the House will not think it impertinent of me if I suggest that we have had in this short Debate some excellent and thoughtful speeches. It has been specially notable for two maiden speeches. The first one was on the previous Amendment, by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Lionel Berry) which I, unfortunately, missed and now we have had one from the Noble Lord the Member for Peterborough (Lord Suirdale). I am sure the House will agree with me when I say how much we appreciated that speech and how cordially we congratulate the Noble Lord on it. I can promise him that his remarks will be studied with great interest by those responsible for these matters, and we hope to hear him often contributing to our debates.

The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) who introduced this subject in a very well-reasoned and well-thought out speech mentioned our Disablement Bill and Reinstatement Bill. The Disablement Bill will be introduced this week and we hope that the Reinstatement Bill will be introduced when we come back after the Recess. It would be improper for me to disclose beforehand what the Reinstatement Bill will contain, but I have every reason to hope that it will satisfy the aspirations of the hon. Member and will also cover the matters referred to by the hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Lewis Jones) who so kindly gave way to me. I was also pleased that the Noble Lady the Member for Central Bristol (Lady Apsley) took part in this Debate not only because of the matter which she addressed to the House, important as that was, but also because she reminded us that demobilisation is not an exclusively male problem, and that there are hundreds of thousands of girls in the Services to whom demobilisation plans will equally apply.

The Debate therefore has been well worth while and seemed to follow most naturally on the informative speech of the President of the Board of Trade on the previous Amendment. Nevertheless, I am sure no hon. Member will expect me to unfold in detail the Government's demobilisation plans. The subject is, of course, of absorbing interest—and I use the word "absorbing" deliberately and would emphasise it—not only to us but to the troops in the field who are now engaged upon or who are training and are shortly to be engaged upon tremendous military encounters. We must always bear this fact in mind when choosing the right moment for full disclosure of and debates on our plans for demobilisation. Nevertheless, I think I should give an assurance that our plans are very far advanced. It is true that some important final decisions remain to be taken, but we are well prepared to deal with the adjustments that may be necessary, for example in the event of a sudden, unexpected collapse of Germany. There is no question of our being caught unprepared but let there be no misapprehension. We are all determined to prosecute the war with Japan with all our might.

The Amendment regrets that the Gracious Speech does not announce the principles on which demobilisation of the Armed Forces at the conclusion of hostilities will be based. The authors of these words possibly overlook the essential difficulty which we have to face, in that the war may end in Europe while continuing in other parts of the world for a considerable time. The Prime Minister has made it clear that if this happens we shall throw against Japan all the resources we have available. It will be readily appreciated that in such a case a number of important and complex considerations arise which would not arise if all hostilities finished at the same time, as they did after the last war. The Government have had to re-examine their plans for demobilisation in order to take full account of this possibility. The study of our plans for a two-stage demobilisation has been proceeding for some time, but is not yet concluded. I welcome the speeches which have been made to-day, and the House may be sure that the points which have been made by hon. Members will receive the closest attention of the Government. The Amendment refers to demobilisation. As the hon. Member who moved the Amendment reminded the House, there have been statements made to the House on the subject, notably on 22nd April by the Minister without Portfolio, who has done so much work in connection with this matter, and on 6th July by the Secretary of State for War.

It might be worth while for me briefly to recapitulate and comment on the principles which appear to me to be vital for the success of any plan of demobilisation in whatever circumstances hostilities may end. In the first place, it is obvious that demobilisation depends on military considerations, which must override all other claims. We have to keep a skilled and well-balanced Army. Secondly, the scheme must be accepted as fair. Such success as we have had at the Ministry of Labour in the mobilisation of our country for war purposes has been due very largely to the fact that we have emphasised on every occasion that we must act fairly. Indeed, the public have shown hundreds of times that they will endure and support the hardest policies if they are convinced that everybody is treated fairly. The same principle must be paramount in demobilisation if we are to avoid the troubles of 1919 and much industrial upheaval later on, for there is no doubt that much of the industrial unrest of the early 'twenties had its origin in the discontent and the bitterness which was engendered by the injustices of demobilisation last time. We cannot afford such injustices after this war. One of the most essential needs of our reconstruction will be peace in industry. Therefore, I suggest that, subject to the overriding military requirements—for there are bound to be men who cannot be spared when their turn would otherwise come, because of their specialist or military qualifications—the scheme must be fair, and must be accepted as fair by the men in the Forces, and, most particularly, by their wives and families. It would be possible, no doubt, to work out a highly scientific scheme of demobilisation, designed solely to meet industrial needs, but we could do that only by ignoring these principles of fair treatment as between man and man. The feelings of men who have served long terms in the Forces cannot be ignored—and His Majesty's Government do not propose to ignore them.

As a third principle, the scheme must be as simple as possible. That sounds like a platitude, and possibly it is, but it is often forgotten. It is a principle we should bear closely in mind when considering the so-called points scheme which has been advocated in some quarters in this House to-day, and elsewhere. If we could ignore all administrative problems we might be able to draw up a scheme on paper which would take account of a wide variety of considerations such as hon. Members have suggested to-day, and by putting them against each other determine which individuals should be demobilised first. Whether this would be fair to individuals is a nice question: at any rate, it would lead to endless arguments as to what weight should be given to this consideration and to that. There is no doubt that the work of endeavouring to operate such a scheme—and this is of fundamental importance—will fall upon the officer commanding in a unit, who will have to group his men in the order in which they should be demobilised. Therefore, our scheme should not be one which may lead to the commanding officer having to refer back questions because he cannot settle them on the spot. In such a case the commanding officer's position would be intolerable, and the scheme would not work in practice. Many hon. Members may have had experience, as I have been privileged to have for a short time in this war, of the duties of an adjutant. They will appreciate the need for simplicity in a demobilisation scheme. In the Army the man's Army Book No. 64 is his vital document. It is on the information in that book that the commanding officer has to work.

I would sum up the position by saying that the two practical requirements are, first, that the Service authorities, having been given an order by the Cabinet to demobolise so many thousands of men, should be able to translate that order into instructions to units which will result in that number of men, and no more and no fewer, being released; and, secondly, that when the instructions are received by the units there should be no difficulty in carrying them out. Those criteria, I suggest, should be applied to any consideration of a points scheme. Another fundamental and simple principle, obvious I think to everybody, is that the scheme must not promise more than can be performed. We cannot put ourselves into the position of promising the soldier, sailor or airman something and then not carrying out our promise. This is in effect a corollary to what I have been saying about the simplicity of administration. Just as we cannot ignore the position of the officer in the field, we cannot ignore other difficult factors which impose limits on what we can do. There are many things we would like to do if we had unlimited shipping at our disposal, or if we were prepared to take risks which could not be justified on military grounds, but we have to be realistic, and to shun undertakings which we shall not be able to carry out.

Apart from the order of demobilisation, to which most Members have addressed themselves, there is the question of the rate of release. The principle here is that the rate must be governed solely by operational requirements and not by the availability of civilian employment, as has been suggested in some quarters outside. At first sight, one may be attracted by the idea of attempting to regulate the rate of discharge from the Armed Forces according to the state of the labour market, but here again one must never lose sight of the natural feelings of the individuals concerned, nor of the repercussions on morale in the Forces if men and women were retained when there was no longer any need for them in the Forces. We have really no right whatever to keep in the Forces anyone for whom there is no military requirement. But if we accept this as the correct principle—and I think we must—then the responsibility for the speedy and satisfactory resettle-of demobilised Service men lies, fair and square, on our shoulders. The Government fully recognise and accept this, I would assure the hon. Member for Peterborough. We are firmly resolved so far as it is in our power to do so, to see that ex-Service men and women shall not find themselves faced, as one of the first consequences of the return to civilian life, with the need for applying for unemployment benefit or assistance. We want the first visit of the men to the employment exchange to be to get a job and not to draw a dole.

I have endeavoured to outline, very briefly, the necessary basic principles as they appear to me, of a satisfactory demobilisation scheme.

Mr. Holdsworth (Bradford, South)

While I agree with what my hon. Friend has just said, will it not be essential that allowance must be made for key workers in order that employers may be able to give the work that he has just suggested?

Mr. McCorquodale

I do not want to be drawn into details. There is a scheme, as my hon. Friend knows, for the withdrawal of key men from the Forces where the need is shown to be essential, and even while we are engaged in the war many people have come out in such individual cases. There is no reason why that should not come up for consideration. I do not want to go into details of that sort now. The Government have already announced, as the hon. Member reminded us, that age, plus length of service, should be the framework within which their plans are being worked out. I submit that age and length of service are factors which the public will recognise as fair and proper considerations to be taken into account in working out demobilisation schemes. We cannot let all the young men out and leave all the old men in, as was rather suggested by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton. We have to consider the needs of the Army, which will require some young men, and, would it be fair to keep all the fathers in the Forces while allowing all their sons out?

Mr. Turton

Surely, first in, first out would enable a lot of old people to come out.

Mr. McCorquodale

By and large, the younger men went into the Army first, and I suggest that the Government plan of age and length of service is the best framework. At any rate, there could be no charge of injustice or log-rolling about a principle of that sort. Furthermore, these are factors which can easily be calculated and checked by the Commanding Officers in the field. And finally, they are simple and modest, and do not promise more than can be carried out in practice. The detailed application of these principles, in the light of possible developments, in the war situation, has been the subject of close study, and the plans are well advanced.

Major C. S. Taylor

Who is in charge of them?

Mr. McCorquodale

The Government as a whole; they are now before the War Cabinet.

Major Taylor

The War Cabinet Committee.

Mr. McCorquodale

My hon. and gallant Friend can call it the War Cabinet Committee. I would repeat that in due course and when the time is considered opportune—and I would emphasise that—the Government will make an announcement of their full plans, and I have no doubt that if the House so desires it, opportunity will be given for full discussion and debate. I am told that I ought to bring my remarks to an end so that the whole Debate on the humble Address can be properly concluded.

Mr. Turton

With that object in view, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth: Most Gracious Sovereign, We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.