HC Deb 04 July 1944 vol 401 cc1116-26

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain McEwen.]

Mr. John Dugdale (West Bromwich)

I want to raise the question of soldiers' leave, including Scottish soldiers. I realise fully the difficulties that the Government are under in this connection, and I appreciate to the full the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House on Thursday. I intend not to indulge in a large number of harrowing statements, and reading out letters from people—and I have had plenty of them from India and from other places abroad—but rather to concentrate on the practical aspect of the case and see if some step can be taken to improve the position as it is to-day. What is the position. I will quote from the statement of the right hon. Genteman of last Thursday. He said: More recently, it has been possible to start bringing home those who had served abroad for between five and six years; the bulk of these have already returned. My right hon. Friend would naturally wish to improve on this. Indeed, a start has already been made with bringing home men with between four and a half and five years' service abroad."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1944; Vol. 401, C. 794.] What does this mean? In short it means that the only people who have so far benefited from the right hon. Gentleman's efforts to bring men home have been regular soldiers, because very few of what I may call the amateur soldiers have served as long as this abroad. By all means let the regular soldiers be brought back, but I would submit that the claim of the amateur soldier is, if anything, higher than that of the regular soldier. The regular soldier knew he was liable to serve abroad as part of his profession, but the amateur soldier is in the Army only for the duration of the war, and he has not quite the same liability. If there is to be any discretion at all, the amateur soldier has, perhaps, a higher priority. Be that as it may, the regular soldier is, in fact, the only soldier who is being brought back to-day, with very few exceptions.

Secondly, what is happening to these men and what sort of position are they in to-day? I would say first that they are undergoing very great emotional strain. I do not want to press that point further, although it is possible to speak at great length about the harrowing circumstances of men thousands of miles away from their families, men who have never seen——

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pym.]

Mr. Dugdale

—many of whom have never seen their children, or seen them only perhaps when they were a few months or a year old. Only those who have children know what it is to miss a child's younger years, when it is growing up, and to know that, when you come back, the child will be almost a stranger to you, let alone what the wife will be. Therefore, the first thing I would say is that they have emotional strain. Secondly, I would submit that many of these troops, particularly those in the i4th Army, are liable to sickness to an extent to which troops at home and in the European theatre are not liable. I was talking recently to somebody who had a letter from her husband in the R.A.M.C. in India. He said that he had met men who had served in West Africa, and who say that the climate in some of the places in which they are serving now in India is worse than the climate in West Africa. I am not competent to say—I have never been to either country—but I would submit that it is worthy of inquiry whether these men are not liable to become ridden with malaria, and to catch other diseases which one can get in those parts of the world. If they remain out for long periods, for, say, four or five years, they may become so full of malaria that they will not only be in an unfortunate position themselves but they may be of little use when it comes to fighting.

So I would ask what is being done, what action can be taken now? The right hon. Gentleman referred to the difficulty of the lack of trained personnel. He instanced the R.A.F. and said the R.A.F. were in a very much easier position than the Army. I quite agree with him, in so far as jungle-trained troops are concerned. Quite obviously you cannot produce enough troops brilliantly trained for the jungle who have previously been sitting at Aldershot or on Salisbury Plain—though I would add in passing that I spoke not long ago to an English officer who had the unique experience of seeing jungle-trained American troops fighting against the Japanese at Guadalcanal and he said, much to my surprise, that the American troops and, indeed, the Australian troops picked up jungle warfare so quickly that they were already better than the Japanese at this kind of fighting, which is supposed to be particularly the province of the Japanese. Agreeing that it is difficult to produce jungle-trained troops quickly, however, what about the other people? The right hon. Gentleman said: … the proportion of older and less fit men is larger in the Army and the hulk of these men must, of necessity, be retained at home and cannot be utilised as replacements overseas."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1944; Vol. 402, c. 795.] Certainly they cannot be used to replace jungle-trained troops, but they can be used to replace large numbers of troops who are to-day serving in comparatively static positions, far away from the war zone, and who do not need any special training there.

I pass now to the question of speed of travel. We were told that the difficulty was one of shortage of ships; we are now told that the difficulty is one of shortage of personnel. I would like to put this point, which may seem a comparatively small one, but which may be important to many. I have a letter here from an officer serving in the Middle East who says: I would like to stress in regard to the Army that if troops are involved operationally in any way whatever leave on returning home is never given one moment's thought, but that if they are employed on non-operational work they cannot see why leave could not be granted at set periods. A British soldier cannot understand why he should be brought away from his unit or infantry battalion, away from his comrades, following his customary duty, to serve at an infantry base depot, awaiting three months for passage. If the difficulty is not one of transport I suggest that this period of two or three months at the base camp, awaiting departure, might conceivably be shortened.

I come now to the more important question, a question which demands a certain frankness but one on which I think we must be frank. We are to-day sharing the burden of the war with our American Allies and we intend to share it to the full. We have said, the Prime Minister and other Ministers have said—and I do not think for a moment that the Americans expect anything else at all; of course, we shall do nothing of the kind—that we shall continue the war to the end. But should we bear more than our share? American troops go back on leave after far shorter periods overseas than our troops. I ask whether it is not possible to say to the American people, "We are determined to bear our share, but at the same time are you not willing for us to shorten our period of service abroad for our troops down to something more like your level, even if it means that we have less serving abroad and even if it means more Americans must serve abroad?" If this were put to the American people—and they are a very fair people—they would understand that there is a case to be made out for shortening our period of service, even at the cost of a reduction of our troops——

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North)

What is the American length of service abroad?

Mr. Dugdale

I understand that Americans are entitled to go home after two years' service, although I stand to be corrected.

Sir C. Headlam

The hon. Member is not certain?

Mr. Dugdale

What I have said can be borne out by the Financial Secretary, who can correct me if I am wrong. But, certainly, the period is considerably shorter than the four or five years' service which our troops have to do. I know that the Americans have been in the war for years—no one need tell me that—but the question is what they are entitled to when their times comes for leave——

Mr. Bartle Bull (Enfield)

Does the hon. Member think that fuller discussion on his present line will help materially the relations between Britain and America? Has he considered that?

Mr. Dugdale

I personally do not think that the Americans like too much "soft pedalling." I do not think they appreciate what is called English understatement. They like people to be frank and say what they think. I do not suggest that we should enter into an open fight with the American Government over this, but I think the Americans like plain speaking and speak plainly themselves and would not object a bit to a discussion on these lines.

I see the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Eastbourne (Major Taylor) in his place. I hope he will refer to the point that he raised of a guaranteed period of home service for all men when they come back. These men realise the difficulty. They know perfectly well that we are engaged in a struggle in which people have to make untold sacrifices, and they are willing to make them, but I think the position would be eased if my hon. Friend could make some statement that, when the European war comes to an end, the position will be reviewed. I do not suggest that he should state that every soldier in the Far East should be brought back and replaced by others, but there might be a statement that when the European war comes to an end the situation will be reviewed and the leave position considerably eased. It may be obvious to us here but it may not be obvious to some of these men, many of whom feel that they have been forgotten. I am referring not so much to the men fighting in the jungle in Burma. When they are fighting they do not think so much about it. I am referring to the men whom I can only describe as policemen in the forgotten countries—in Abyssinia, Palestine, Transjordania and Persia, scattered all over the world, not engaged in operational duties, who feel this long deprivation of home leave and feel that they are sometimes forgotten by us at home.

I bring this matter forward in no spirit of antagonism to the War Office or to the Secretary of State. I do not think that he is happy about this. Of course he would like to bring them back if he could. But I feel that, the more this can be discussed in Parliament, the more these people will realise that we know what, they are suffering, and the trials that they are undergoing. And it is our duty to show them that, in spite of what they may feel, they are not forgotten men.

Colonel Clarke (East Grinstead)

I happen to have first-hand information on this subject. I returned not long ago from the Middle East having gone out with a unit that went out about three years ago, and had at that time done two years and nine months abroad. There are certain people in the world to whom others come when in trouble—doctors, padres, and commanding officers—who sometimes see and hear a good deal more than other people about the troubles of the soldier or the civilian. I have listened to a great many tragic stories that have been associated with the long periods that men serve abroad, and are expected to serve abroad. Five years to the soldier really seems almost an infinity. He cannot see the end of it. The same thing applies to his belongings at home. That often produces a sense of irresponsibility, and the result is seen in two ways. There are cases of unfaithfulness at home, and there are cases where the man abroad goes astray, and you get an increase in venereal. It is no good blinking the fact. If the period was shorter, they would feel that it was worth while trying to keep faith, and you would have less of these things. Since I have come back I have been doing the work of the Families Association for my regiment. This morning I had a Letter from Sicily and in one battery there are five cases of divorce pending. Beyond that there are a great many cases in which the men have promised to forgive their wives and make things up. I do not say that all these unhappy married circumstances could be helped if the period were shorter, but I believe that a great many of them could be. While I know from my own experience of the difficulties of getting men home, I hope everything will be done to try and shorten the period. If it is not feasible to do it immediately, I hope that some extension of compassionate leave might be made. At present compassionate leave is only allowed for a very limited range of causes, and some of the things I have mentioned are not among them. These broken marriages will go on a long time after the war, and if they can be avoided it will make a lot of difference not only to the men's lives afterwards, but to everybody concerned. I apologise for speaking so long, but I felt that unless I said something in this Debate I should not be keeping faith with a great many men who have given me their confidences and who, I feel, should be made vocal if possible.

Major Nield (Chester)

In a very few sentences I wish to add my appeal for a careful consideration of the position in regard to the period of service overseas. It is a very human problem from two points of view. In the first place, one knows from experience that men who have been separated from their wives and families for years feel that they are forgotten. In the second place, there is a resentment against the inequalities existing in the three Services. I would mention but three places. The Middle East is now far from any theatre of operations. So far as India and the South-East Asia Command are concerned, I hope the Government will bear in mind the difficult and trying climatic conditions in which the men have to be and to fight. One must be constructive in these matters, for I know full well that my right hon. Friend appreciates the difficulties of the situation. The suggestion I venture to make is that the question of exchanges should be closely considered. The Secretary of State for War has informed the House that he is doing his best in this direction, but with the opening of the Mediterranean and improved conditions generally I hope he will be able to effect further exchanges in the near future.

Mr. Glenvil Hall (Colne Valley)

I would like to say how much I agree with what has been said by other hon. Members in this Debate. Like them, I have had a number of letters from constituents in the Middle East, some of them very pathetic. It is difficult to explain to them, at that distance, just why they cannot be treated as well as men in the R.A.F. and the Navy. It is obvious that they follow the Debates in this House, for one of them sent me a reply of the Secretary of State for Air in which he said he had to look alter his personnel. The assumption in the letter was that the War Office have not the same regard for the men under their care. The suggestion I would like to make is that men in the East and Far East should be given the facts. They should be told that it is difficult to bring them home, and that the wish is there but that events are against as much being done as otherwise would be. If they could be assured that at the earliest possible moment they would be brought back they would feel that some period was being put to their stay out there Although difficulties may be insurmountable at the moment, as soon as the armistice comes they should have the assurance that they will be brought back before those who have not been out there so long or who are young and who have perhaps not such a desire as the older and married men to return to their families.

Major C. S. Taylor (Eastbourne)

I agree with all that has been said in this Debate. The time remaining is very short, so there is only one point which I must make. It is to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether there is any guaranteed minimum period of home service for these men, even if they have been overseas for five years, which they can get after that five years overseas? Some hon. Members know of cases of men who have been brought back after a period of five years overseas, who have been given a fortnight's or three weeks' home service in this country—[An HON. MEMBER: "Leave"]—Yes, or leave, and then they have been sent off overseas again. That is the whole crux of the matter. If we say that men must be overseas for five years before they can come back for home service or home leave, and after a fortnight they are to be sent overseas again, that will destroy the whole principle of reducing their service to four or three years, or whatever it may be.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson)

I am sure that my hon. Friend who raised this matter will appreciate that I can add very little to the statement that was made on another occasion by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I will try to deal with all the points that have been raised by my hon. and gallant Friend and other speakers if I have time, but in any case I will see that they are taken note of by the War Office. In fairness to the War Office I should say that the qualifying period, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, has been brought down to its present figure of five years from seven years. So far as my advisers know there is no maximum period of foreign service for those serving with the American Army, but I am not in a position to be dogmatic about it.

It is the intention of the Government to reduce this period of five years, when it can be managed. Already a certain number of men who have served between four-and-a-half and five years overseas have been returned. Unfortunately, the position will get more rather than less difficult, because we shall shortly have to take into account the very large number of men who have been sent overseas after the outbreak of the war. Nevertheless, it is hoped that all officers and men who qualify up to the end of October, 1944, will be returned as soon as they finish their five years, unless, of course, they have volunteered to remain overseas.

Reference has been made to the disparity between the period of overseas service with the Royal Air Force as against that of the Army, but hon. Members must take into consideration that the factor which makes the position much easier in the Royal Air Force is that the proportion of the Army serving overseas is very much larger than the proportion of the Royal Air Force stationed abroad. To bring the Army immediately to the same footing as the Royal Air Force it would be necessary to send so large a number of officers and men back to this country as to be quite impracticable for operational reasons. To lengthen the Royal Air Force tour of duty, in order to achieve parity, would not enable the Army tour of duty to be reduced, so my submission is that it would do no good to anybody.

It is the intention to maintain at least the five year period and to reduce it, if it is at all practicable to do so. From the evidence available, it appears that most men want to have some firm information upon which they can make their personal arrangements, and would probably prefer a definite five years to an uncertain chance of returning after a slightly shorter period.

It is appreciated that great importance is attached by serving soldiers to the maintenance of equality between the various overseas stations. Every effort is being made to achieve this, but temporary variations as between different overseas Commands are unavoidable. It must be remembered that every available man in the Army has to be used to reinforce the troops engaged in active operations abroad. This must be the first priority, and is essential if we are to bring about an early ending of the war. This means there are fewer troops available for exchange schemes.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Major Taylor) raised the question of the period that a returned soldier is allowed to remain in this country before he is sent abroad again. The position is that at the present time the period is three months. It was six months but it has been reduced to three months. It is the intention if possible that the reduction should only apply to personnel being sent to North West Europe. Moreover, such personnel are placed at the bottom of the roster for overseas duty, and therefore do not go overseas until other personnel with longer home service have done so. This means they have a reasonable expectation of being at home longer than three months. I do not agree with my hon. Friend—I appreciate his point—when he refers to the fact that the great majority of the soldiers who have been returned from overseas are Regulars. I do not think we ought to make any invidious distinction between the Regular and non-Regular. In any event we are operating on the basis of length of service abroad. We cannot work the scheme if we are going to make differentiations. It might interest the House to know that the total number of all ranks who have been returned to the United Kingdom under this exchange scheme since it started last autumn is 26,000. Of this total about 11,000 have come from India, 14,000 from the Mediterranean—Italy, North Africa and the Middle East—and the balance from other overseas stations.

Mr. J. J. Lawson (Chester-le-Street)

Most of them are back again.

Mr. Henderson

No. This is entirely apart from the return of formations. These are individuals returned on the basis of length of service overseas. It does not include returns for operational reasons. May I say, in conclusion, that this problem obviously gives considerable concern to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, and everyone who is connected with the problem is only too anxious to reduce the period of overseas duty. While I cannot give an assurance that at the end of the war in Europe the position will be reviewed I can go perhaps even better than that and say that at the present time and hereafter the position will be constantly reviewed, it will be reviewed the whole time, and in so far as it is possible for us to reduce the terms of overseas service more than we have done in the last few months, when we have reduced it, as I have said, from seven years to five years, we shall be only too glad to do so. I am afraid that is as far as I can go. Time will not permit me to deal with the other points, except the only other point that the special case where men were retained in a base camp for three months, was due to the absence of shipping facilities at the time. I very much doubt if that applies at the present date.

It being the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.