SUPPLY

HC Deb 14 March 1946 vol 420 cc1296-391

[5th ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Major Milner in the Chair]

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1946

NUMBER OF LAND FORCES

Resolved:

" That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 2,950,000 all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at Home and Abroad, exclusive of those serving in India on the Indian Establishment, during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1947."

Vote on Account

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £450,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for Army Services which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 51st day of March, 1947."

Mr. J. J. Lawson's Statement

3.40 p.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. J. Lawson)

Five years ago, in circumstances vastly different from those of today, a predecessor of mine in office said: No one can tell what ordeals the Army will have to face … but, whether it is engaged in destroying the enemy here on our own shores or elsewhere, I am certain … that it will give a magnificent account of itself and mightily uphold the glorious traditions of our past ".— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1941; Vol. 369, c. 1070.] The Committee and the country know without any words from me, how magnificently the British Army has lived up to that prophecy. Year by year, my predecessors have had to deal with the war in its various stages. My chief duty today is to deal with the transitional stage from war to peace. But I must say in advance a word about the Burma campaign. The fighting in North Africa and Europe arrested our attention. It filled the newspapers day by day. That these campaigns will take a great place in our history is certain. But I doubt whether the people of this country, even yet, have more than a vague idea of the grim fighting in Burma, and the part it played in our victory and in the war generally. That campaign was obscured by the battles nearer home, by the overwhelming concentration on the fighting in the west and by distance. There is yet a grim, dramatic and heroic story to come about Burma. It will be told in time. I have no doubt whatever that the so-called "Forgotten Army "will live as long as the name of Britain is remembered.

Of the Army generally I want to say this: the quality demanded of an army in battle is steadfastness. Without that, this war could never have been won. But our British Army has displayed another quality not so easily found. That is great self-control when the war is over, and few greater tests can come to men than that. It is sometimes forgotten that, even now, seven months after the war, it is not to a professional Army that we look to provide our garrisons overseas. These men are ordinary members of the public, caught up into the military machine and serving, whether they desire it or not, in every corner of the globe, many in great discomfort, and, I am sorry to say, many still in danger. It is not easy for such men, far from the centre of government, to appreciate the reasons for which they are still held, and why they cannot return to their wives and families. Yet, in spite of that fact, they have displayed a spirit of steadfastness in peace which I can only describe as remarkable, and I am confident that the Committee will share my feeling of pride in the quality of the citizen Army of today.

At the head of this great organisation there has stood, since the end of 1941, the figure of a very great soldier. When Lord Alanbrooke was appointed Chief of the Imperial General Staff, one can well believe that the honour which was bestowed upon him was marred, to some extent, by the disappointment of his lifelong ambition to lead armies in the field.

But the call was a high one, which he could not, and did not, disregard. Through those terrible years of adversity, until the ultimate victory, Lord Alanbrooke has been as a rock of strength. As Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, and as senior officer of the land forces, he has earned the respect and admiration of all classes of the community, and I think I am speaking for every part of this Committee when I say he carries our esteem and good wishes on retiring from his present post.

Before I turn to the general survey of those things in the life of the Army which demand attention, I desire, with the permission of the Committee, to discuss shortly the basis of the financial provision for the Army in the coming year. The sums required are calculated on the average strength for the year, and cover all officers and men of whatever nationality, who are paid and provided for by the War Department. The maximum number will, of course, be found in early April, after which the numbers will steadily run down. I want to draw attention to the fact that the maximum figure includes, in addition to the British troops actually serving, the number of men who will be on release leave on 1st April, that is 680,000; there are also 282,000 troops of the Indian Army serving outside India; 18,000 troops of the Burma Army; 340,000 Colonial troops and 188,000 Poles. The active strength of the British troops at the beginning of April, 1946, will, be of the order of 1,400,000. As announced by the Prime Minister, this figure will run down to 650,000 by the end of the calendar year if our present forecast of military commitments holds good.

The net provision in the Estimate in the financial year is £682 million. Broadly speaking, the pay and allowances and all the services supplied to officers and men, such as food, medical attention, etc., amount to £392 million. Terminal charges, amounting to £170 million, account for no less than a quarter of the total net Estimate. I would draw the Committee's attention to the fact that of this, £152 million represents the cost of release leave, war gratuities and postwar credits payable during the year; and £14 million is included for reinstatement works and compensation provided for under the Compensation Defence Act and for purchase of land under the Requisi- tioned Land and War Works Act. There is an item of some £38 million for what is described as Works Services. This, in itself, appears to be a formidable figure at the time when all our resources for building are required for the civilian public. I therefore want for a moment to examine it in part. By far the greater part of this item, some £26 million is for stations overseas and, of this, one-third is for the hire of buildings and lands, for wages of native labour and for the purchase of stores locally. The rest covers the carry-over of work already in hand, and new services to be undertaken for the Army abroad.

Hon. Members will not need to be reminded of the conditions under which our Forces had to serve at many stations overseas during the war, nor of the state in which we took over Hong Kong, Singapore and other stations in the Far East on their surrender by the Japanese. In war, men may be expected to live under arduous and unpleasant conditions, but it is intolerable to ask them to do so in peace, especially in hot countries far from their homes. Services are already in hand, therefore, in the Middle East, Palestine, Iraq and South-East Asia, to bring living conditions up to a minimum standard, to repair damage by enemy action and looting, and to provide new accommodation where operational and other considerations make this essential. As to the Army at home, let me assure the Committee that nothing we are doing or propose to do in the way of new building or repairs will conflict with the national building programme. On the contrary, much of it is a direct contribution to the country's housing needs. We propose, for instance, to spend some £3,000,000 on such new construction as the first part of a programme of married quarters, on quarters for key civilians, and on adaptations to barracks and depots, to provide accommodation for men and stores exacuated from requisitioned civil buildings and industrial premises. Provision has also been made for the repairs and maintenance of Army property all over the world, on a minimum scale. During the war, it has been impossible to spare men or materials for this purpose, and there are heavy arrears. The rest of the home expenditure covers the wages of plant attendants, boilermen, electricians, etc., at the Army's many installations up and down the country.

The past year has, been largely devoted to returning men to civilian life from which six years of war have torn them. This proved in many ways to be an operation not less difficult than that of building up the Army. For example, movement of troops once the war was over imposed an immense strain on shipping, railways and other forms of transport. It is a striking fact that during 1945 arrangements had to be made for no less than 27,000 special trains in this country for troop movements, that is nearly 40 per cent. more than the number used in 1944. which saw the vast preparations for "D" Day One hundred thousand men a month have passed through our main ports for distant theatres overseas. Movement on the short sea routes and from Europe has also been intense. In one month it reached 600,000. All this, of course, calls for careful planning by experienced staff. The first men left the Army under the release scheme on 18th June. Since that date, 1,455,000 men and 124,000 women have been released from the Army. By the end of June this year, the figures of releases will have risen to 2,033,000 men and 168,000 women. That is something not far off 70 per cent of all the men in the Army last June .and 80 per cent of the women. By the end of this calendar year, the percentages released will have risen to 85 per cent for the men and 94 per cent for the women. Some of my correspondents may be surprised to know that over 20,000 men and women have been released indefinitely on compassionate grounds in the last nine months. In addition, many thousands have been released for limited periods.

This whole organisation involved a manpower commitment at its peak of some 11,000. I think the Committee would like to pay a tribute to the men and women concerned, mainly drawn from A.A. Command, who, by their efficiency, patience and good-humour. contributed so largely to the success with which the machine has been operated. The best tribute of all to the speed and efficiency of their work is undoubtedly the satisfaction which it has given to the men who have been released. Some have felt so grateful about this matter that they have written to me personally, expressing their thanks.

An essential pan of the work of releasing men is carried out in their record offices and pay offices This has imposed a very heavy load on records and pay offices in addition to their normal duties. Apart from the work for those released under the release scheme 400,000 claims have been dealt with for gratuities and post war credits for men discharged before release started: 100,000 more such claims are still awaited. This may make satisfactory reading for the Secretary of State, but I sympathise with those in the later groups who are anxious for us to do better and release them sooner. I realise the strain upon men who have been fighting for years and, in particular, those men who have wives and children. The burdens and pains of war are not always on the surface. Nothing car compensate for the loss of the years when our children give those delightful hours which have a place all by themselves in our memories. That is only part of the price our men have had to pay—but it is a great part. All we can do is to speed the return of such men as much as we can. If our best seems slow, it is not for lack of understanding of the very human problems involved.

I should like at this point to say a word about correspondence. I am well aware of the heavy pressure there has been upon hon. Members through correspondence on Army matters, and I have had my full share, too. I gave a figure a week or two ago. The Committee will be surprised to learn that in one week, just before Christmas, we received as many as 61,000 letters. In many cases complicated investigations in overseas commands were necessary. This, with the pressure of work, has been partly responsible for long delays. I am very conscious that they have been much embarrassed by delay in receiving answers from the War Office. I have, however, carried out a considerable reorganisation in my Department. The effects of that are just beginning to show and, though there are some arrears to wipe out, I am satisfied that the improvement is progressive and permanent.

Within six days of V.J. Day the machine was put in reverse. Eighty per cent of all outstanding orders of war-time stores were cancelled. The stocks in Army hands have been sorted, and as many as possible of those which are useful in civil life have been handed back, usually through the Ministry of Supply. For example, nearly 740,000 blankets, 177,000 watches and 23,000 lorries have been offered to the Disposals Department of that Ministry. This does not include the thousands of lorries which have been transferred to U.N.R.R.A. A special and most important task was presented by the derequisitioning of land and buildings. At the peak period, when millions of British and American soldiers were waiting for the invasion of Europe, 80,000 properties were under requisition. At the beginning of last year, the War Department still held 54,000. The figure is now 14,000. Some of these properties are obviously of more value to the community than others, so we have concentrated on the return, firstly, of small houses and flats, and, secondly, of schools and other such buildings, and by the end of this month well under 1,000 small houses and flats will still be held, I am sorry to say, and less than 50 educational establishments. I might add that nine-tenths of the hotels held by the Army at the beginning of 1945 will have been released by the end of this month, and only 15 of 86 holiday camps held this winter will be kept. In London, there are 5,000 soldiers who are helping the civil authorities in such work as moving coal and stoking at gas works, who have to be housed and for whom accommodation must be held.

One of the questions which I found seriously troubled the men when I visited them in India and S.E.A.C. was Python. Every man was counting the days to the date on which he would be entitled to return home. The disappointment of those who were kept longer was intense. I determined that I would do my utmost to implement the promise that had been made, and to reduce the period as soon as possible, but experience taught me not to announce any reduction until it was certain that it could be put into force without delay. The time for a further step towards the objective of three years has now come. The period in the Far East will be reduced from 3 years 4 months to 3 years 2 months, and in all other overseas theatres, except B.A.O.R., from 4 years to 3 years 9 months. This process will be complete by the end of June. I will make an announcement on the reduction to 3 years in India and S.E.A.C. later on. For the present, I must repeat I do not want to make any firm promise until I feel I am in a position to carry it out.

Another problem was that of our prisoners in the Far East. While they were still prisoners, our difficulties in bringing them succour were immense. The Japanese authorities were always un-co-operative and sometimes hostile. This consequently limited the success of the work done on behalf of the prisoners of war in the Far East while the war lasted, and it will be undoubtedly by their efforts to relieve the suffering of our prisoners held by the Italians and the Germans that the magnificent work of the War Organisation of the British Red Cross and Order of St. John will chiefly be remembered.

Over 37,000 prisoners of the United Kingdom Services and Colonial Local Volunteer Forces, including over 29,000 all ranks of the Army, have now been brought to this country. In addition, considerable numbers of Australian and Canadian ex-prisoners of war were moved direct to their home countries. Immediately after the surrender of the Japanese, relief supplies and personnel were flown to all known camps, and the work of repatriation, for which comprehensive plans had been prepared, was put in hand. This task in the Far East was rendered more difficult by the great distances involved and the widely scattered location of the camps. In this work, the voluntary societies gave magnificent help. In addition to the British Red Cross, I should mention the Women's Voluntary Service of the United Kingdom, and also the Red Cross Societies of the Dominions, India and U.S.A.

Perhaps one of the most difficult, and may be the saddest, sides of this prisoner of war question is the matter of finding missing men. Throughout the war, all the evidence that became available about missing men was carefully sifted in order to determine with some finality what had become of them. When hostilities ended, further special arrangements were made and search parties were sent to the various areas in which there had been fighting and in which prisoners of war had been held by the enemy. This work continues in the Mediterranean areas, in Germany, in Poland and in the Far East. Hon. Members will be able to judge the success of these efforts by the following figures. At the end of June, there were still over 3,000 men listed as missing in the European and African theatres. At the end of February, only 169 were still unaccounted for. As a matter of fact, the previous figure I received was 212. It is now as I say, 169. I fear it is unlikely in many of these cases that any definite news will be heard of those who are still missing.

The health of the returned prisoners of war was on the whole better than had been feared. But it was appreciated that there would be psychological as well as physical difficulties of assimilation to the changed conditions of life in this country. Twenty civil resettlement units have been formed. Already, over 14,000 officers and men have voluntarily attended these centres with most satisfactory results. Although it is too early to discover the long-term effect of a stay in a resettlement unit, the immediate effects have been good. Men undoubtedly appreciate the value of these units. One has only to live in the neighbourhood where men are gathered, in one of these settlements, to know how they are valued. The men respond readily and gratefully to the efforts made on their behalf and leave the units as contented individuals with a new purpose in life. The Ministry of Labour, and also the Red Cross and other voluntary organisations participate fully in the work. These arrangements were a specialised form of the welfare and educational facilities which are available for all troops.

The Army Education Scheme for the release period is now fully in operation in most Commands. This vast experiment in adult education, perhaps the greatest of its kind, caters for the desires and needs of many thousands of men and women by providing general and pre-vocational education in a wide variety of subjects. At home, Commands were able to start implementing it in July of last year, though abroad, particularly in the Far East, there were necessary delays. The apex of the Army Education Scheme has been the formation college. Eight of these colleges have been established during the past year, five in home Commands, one in B.A.O.R., one in M.E.F. and one in C.M.F. India also is starting one to serve British troops in India and S.E.A.C. I have had the privilege of attending two of these formation colleges, and all I can wish is that we may be able to keep what we have got, for the present, in that respect. They provide refresher courses which take a month. They are meant for men and women returning to occupations in civil life which require knowledge and skill that have been lost or forgotten during the years of Army service. Anyone who knows anything about Army service, will appreciate that fact. Anyone who has seen the students gathered together in these formation colleges, will appreciate keenly the effect upon them, in fitting them for their return to civil life. The arrangements have been made in consultation with the Ministry of Labour, and professional bodies and trades unions have given advice, so as to ensure that the courses are suitable for post-war conditions.

In addition, men have taken part in correspondence courses. Well over a quarter of a million applications have been dealt with since the scheme started. There are now over 500 different courses, though I am sorry that as many as 100 of these are suspended owing to the shortage of text books. Young soldiers now being called to the Colours are making an increasing use of the scheme. This seems to me to be an encouraging pointer to the future. In this educational scheme, special attention will be given, as far as conditions will allow to those young men whose education and apprenticeship has been interrupted by their call-up. I am deeply concerned about these young men, and I will do my best to meet their need. I have asked the advisory board of civilian experts to look particularly at this problem.

About A.B.C.A. I need say little. It must by now be familiar in some way or another to most hon. Members of the Committee. But I think the Army is justified in taking it as a compliment to its scheme that the underlying idea has been adopted, not only by the other Services, but by the Dominions and several of our Allies. Moreover, it has recently been decided to set up a Bureau of Current Affairs which will provide the civilian with those facilities which have been available to the soldier for some years. Close liaison exists between the Army and the civil educational authorities. Teams of His Majesty's inspectors have visited troops in the Middle East, Italy and Germany and in this country. They give us expert advice on educational problems and they, in turn, so I understand, benefit from the wide experience of adult education gained by the Army in the field. Needless to say, as long as young men are taken into the Service for a crucial period of their lives, this great experiment of education in the Army must continue. It is my object to build up this system, and make it a permanent part of the Army of the future. The nation cannot afford to shut off such young men from the opportunities for study and mental improvement which they would seek in civil life, which it is their right to have, and which it is the Army's duty to provide, as far as military circumstances permit. One final word on this matter. The Army can be proud of its educational system, and I do not think I can leave this field, without paying a tribute to the work of Mr. P. R. Morris, now Vice-Chancellor of Bristol University, and Mr. W. E. Williams who has taken over the Bureau of Current Affairs for civilians.

Many thousands of men benefit from the Army Education Scheme, but nearly all soldiers benefit from the varied services of Army welfare. I am sorry that time does not allow me to describe them in detail. The business of Army welfare, broadly described, is to replace for the soldier the amenities and varied comforts of life to which he has been accustomed at home. Leave camps, clubs and hostels have been developed to a high standard. Those who have seen some of the countries that have been occupied will agree that, even during the fighting, they have been developed to a high standard. This is largely due to the great, and often thankless, work done by N.A.A.F.I., and the voluntary societies. Army welfare has helped them by the provision of furniture, games and other such things. Forty thousand wireless sets and 19 wireless transmitters have been provided. Twenty-five million books and magazines were despatched last year alone from the Central Services Book Depot. Two hundred thousand Sunday newspapers are flown to overseas Commands every week. For the three weeks before the General Election, national daily newspapers were also flown to men overseas. Fifteen daily and weekly Army newspapers, as well as a number of periodicals, have been published overseas for the troops. Their editors are supplied with the most up-to-date news by the special Force-Reuter service. Distinguished journalists have been employed to edit them.

Although the Army welfare services do not deal with postal arrangements, I think this is a convenient point to mention the importance which I attach to the prompt delivery of letters to and from soldiers overseas. Although the Forces have shrunk considerably, about 7½million items of mail are still being handled weekly. I am sorry it has not been possible to maintain the speed and regularity which was achieved by the service last summer. This is due, partly to winter weather, and partly to the effects of the rapid run down in R.A.F. Transport Command. I realise the importance of this question and I am paying close attention to it. Army welfare has also been charged with dealing with the many personal problems which arise from the separation of men from their families and their businesses, or which are aggravated by this separation. There is an extensive organisation in all commands overseas, where men may talk over their problems and difficulties. A specialised branch of this work is dealt with by legal aid sections. They have dealt, in the last 12 months, with close on 54,000 cases.

By all earlier comparisons, the health of the Army has exceeded all reasonable expectations. As the British troops swept through Germany, liberating prison camps, such as Belsen, where thousands were dying of typhus, I think every hon. Member will remember how much we feared, at that time, the effect of these camps upon the troops, and the possible epidemics that might follow. Yet only 25 of the troops contracted typhus in those circumstances. None died of it. The deaths from disease of all kinds were negligible throughout this campaign. These surely remarkable results have been achieved by the development of improved . methods of maintaining health and preventing disease, by the careful training of the Army in the application of the principles of hygiene and, finally, and by no means least, by the discipline and understanding of the British soldier.

Before I leave the achievements of the Army in the past and its present duties, to look into the future, I should like to say something of the remarkable work done throughout the war by the A.T.S., the first of the Women's Services. The A.T.S certainly struck the imagination of the world, and they have helped to train the women's forces of France, Holland, Sweden, Norway, Canada and India. At their peak, there were 215,000 of them, a number considerably in excess of the whole Army seven years ago. They carried out a great range of duties in an exemplary manner. By their willing acceptance of work which, until the war, had been thought beyond their powers, they made a real and indeed invaluable contribution to victory. It would be invidious to single out any one branch of their activities for special mention. They have worked as members of A.A. batteries, as skilled telephonists and radio operators, as drivers, as clerks, or as cooks and orderlies. Their work has been marked by a cheerful acceptance of hardship, difficulties and, on occasion, danger, which has won the admiration of all ranks of the Army. I hope that the A.T.S. will remain, in one form or another, a permanent part of His Majesty's Forces, and I know that, if they do, they will continue to render the same outstanding service to the country as they have in the past.

I know hon. Members will expect me to say something about my plans for the future of the Army. The difficulties, of course, of reaching any final plans at this moment were set out during the Debate on the Defence White Paper. There are so many uncertain factors that no Government could be expected to make final decisions now. We do not know, for instance, for how long we shall have to find occupation forces in Germany and Austria. We do not know what our commitments to India may be. We do not know what we shall have to contribute to the world security force. Neither do we know what effect new scientific progress may have upon the future of land forces. This is not the time to come to decisions about the eventual shape of our post war Forces. The tasks which confront our Armed Forces are the tasks of resettlement and pacification — tasks which must be fulfilled to the accompaniment of steady but drastic contraction. But it is clear that our overseas liabilities can only be met in the long run by the recruitment of a professional long-service Army. Hon. Mem- bers have already seen the two White Papers which set out the conditions of service in such an Army. I am also firmly determined to secure the retention of the identity of the bulk, if not of all, first-line Territorial Army units. I could not willingly disregard the immense services performed by the old Territorial Army, and the value to the Fighting Forces of the territorial idea. The Territorial Army and Air Force Associations must continue to bear a heavy responsibility. I know that it is the desire of these associations, and of every member and ex-member of the Territorial Army, to continue to give their services to the country.

Earl Winterton (Horsham)

Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of the Territorials, may I, as the oldest member of a Territorial Association in the House, press respectfully upon him that what we want to know at the earliest moment is what form that Army will take? Will he say a word about the constant representations which have been made by the Territorial Associations to the Department asking that such an announcement should be made?

Mr. Lawson

I have said clearly that it is my intention to recognise the first-line units of the Territorials, and certainly to be guided by the spirit behind the idea of the Territorial Army. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office. who is to speak later in the evening, will be dealing in rather more detail with this, as well as some other matters, but T can assure the Noble Lord that the first-line Territorial Units are safe. I should mention here that the Army Cadet Force is in a most healthy state, and we intend fully to support it in future. We also intend to maintain the regimental system, as far as this is possible. I know there has been some concern about this matter because, during the war, it could not be done, and, personally, I regretted that as much as anyone, because I had noted how great a change there had been in the personnel of some of my own local regiments. In future, in cases where reinforcements cannot be posted regimentally, they will usually be sent to named regiments from the same part of the country.

Much consideration has been given to the provision of officers for the post war Army. There will be a single Army Cadet College, which, I hope, will include the best of the prewar Sandhurst and Woolwich. The general education it will give will, however, be better and wider than that available before the war. There is an absolutely cardinal point that no potential officer should be barred from this College through lack of means. In the White Paper on Defence it was announced: As a general rule, officers for the post war Regular Army will be provided from candidates who have served for a period in the ranks.'' The number of exceptions to this rule will be negligible. I wish to make it quite clear that this statement will be fully implemented. That is the sincere intention of the Army Council, and I need scarcely say I will give this matter my personal attention. Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I hope to see large numbers of young soldiers so equip themselves for their profession that it will one day be the normal thing to find men who were once humble workers in industry occupying the highest positions in the Army. In the British Army are the finest soldiers in the world. There is no reason now why "other ranks "should not supply its finest generals in years to come. I wish to take this opportunity of appealing to those who become officers not to alter their way of living. Simplicity of life will be their strength. Everything will be done to help them in this respect and they must help themselves. If they stand firm on this, they will gain the respect of those with whom they serve. There are those who have risen to some of the highest positions in the Army already who can testify to this. The course at the college will be for 18 months, at the end of which time cadets will be commissioned, and those for the less technical arms will be sent for a short course of some months to the school of their arm before joining their regiments Those for the more technical arms will receive further scientific or engineering instruction, according to the needs of their particular corps.

The decision of His Majesty's Government to maintain the arrangement under which research and development, and provision of Army stores, is the responsibility of a civilian Ministry, and not of the War Office itself, means that we in the War Office must exercise the greatest care and foresight in order that we may be certain that the demands of the users —the soldier in the field —are fully and punctually make, that the war potential is maintained, and that the current equipment of the Army, whether it is in fighting weapons or in clothing and general stores, keeps abreast of scientific ingenuity. With this object in view, I have agreed with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply and Aircraft Production that, from top to bottom of the Ministry, there will be a real and complete integration of the Army and Ministry staff. At all levels, Army officers, suitably qualified, will work in the Ministry machine. At the top, the Military Member of the Army Council responsible for the fighting equipment of the Army, will have a seat on the Supply Council, and it has been agreed that, in the immediate future, the high officer at the Ministry at present responsible for all research and provision on the land munitions side shall be a military officer. If, in the future, there should be a civilian who, in the opinion of myself and my right hon. Friend, is more suited to occupy this post, then a civilian will be appointed, but in that case his immediate junior will be an Army officer.

In all these arrangements, the fundamental necessity is that the Army officers selected for these posts, and for technical staff appointments in the Army itself, must be of a calibre and of a standard of training and technical knowledge, which will fully qualify them for these positions of responsibility. I have, therefore, decided to reorganise, on the most up-to-date lines, the Military College of Science, where post-graduate courses will be held to qualify officers for technical posts, in particular those within the Ministry of Supply. Officers will take this course between the ages of 28 and 32, and, there after, will be available for posting to the positions which I have described. It is part and parcel of this arrangement that the officers so appointed will alternate between these technical posts and ordinary regimental and staff posts in the Army in order that they may not lose touch with the user need.

I have confidence that these arrangements, when fully developed, will have the effect of maintaining and improving the co-operation between the two Ministries which has already reached an advanced stage of development. The Department of the Scientific Adviser to the Army Council will be retained. It will deal rot only with weapons, important as these will always remain. Problems of supply and communication offer an unlimited field of scientific study. But most important of all is the extension of the scientific method to determine how best a soldier can carry out his duties as a fighting man. The scientific study of all these problems will continue, and indeed it must continue if we are to make the most economic use of the limited manpower which will be available to us.

I am sorry that I am not in a position to say anything here about the conditions of service in our post war Army. So vital a question cannot be skimped. My hon. Friend, the Financial Secretary, will deal with it more fully when we move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair early in April. The Government has issued two White Papers outlining their proposals for the pay of officers and men. Whatever my hon. Friends on all sides of the Committee may have to say about some of the details of these proposals, I think they will — at any rate, I hope they will —agree that they are a great improvement on the codes in force in 1939 and that they offer to officers and men a worth-while career. But pay is not everything. I am giving special attention to the conditions under which a soldier has to live. Meanwhile there is one thing I want to make clear. The barrack room is not the ultimate ideal for the soldier of the future. He has been given broad equality of pay with his fellows in industry and he must be given broad equality of conditions when his day's work is over.

Makeshift wartime ramps will be scrapped. As opportunity offers, married quarters of modern type will be built for married officers and men as a part of the national housing programme. The single soldiers living conditions will also be modernised. If we add to good living conditions education and equality of opportunity, this trained and travelled man will challenge for bearing and intelligence the best products of any country in the world. The British soldier has given a great account of himself in these grim years. In war, he has given proof of courage, in peace he has added to that courtesy; perhaps "chivalry" would be the right word. A recent Trades Union Congress delegation after a visit to Austria, ' and Germany wrote: Everything we heard and saw made us proud of the conduct of the British soldier. Such a man not only wins credit for himself, but he brings credit to the country of which he is an honoured citizen.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. Grimston (Westbury)

The Secretary of State has given us an interesting and wide survey, and I should like to thank him for it. First, I wish, from these benches, to join in the tribute which he paid to the British Army— that British Army which, after all the trials, tribulations and reverses of the early years, never lost heart. After a series of campaigns, which will stand second to none in its record, it brought us the final victory. For this, hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, I am sure, wish to thank both the architects of victory and those who, with such valour and devotion, carried out their plans.

Last week we had a Debate on defence, which, if I may say so with respect, became very largely a Debate on demobilisation mixed up with some foreign policy. I do not propose to say very much about that aspect today, except to reiterate that there is a feeling of dissatisfaction in the Army over the rate of demobilisation, compared with that in the other Services, which was very strongly expressed and which has not, I think, been alleviated by the reasons advanced. In the course of the Debate, many suggestions were made from both sides of the House for the acceleration of the demobilisation rate. I very much hope that the Secretary of State will not be content to let matters rest where they are, but will look very carefully into all the suggestions made, and see if it is not possible to approximate the figures, rather nearer to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) thought ought to be reached by March this year. There is another point to which I would refer in passing. It is that made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler). He stressed the need to tell the men who are now being called up how long they will have to serve. I wish to impress that point again upon the Secretary of State, and not least for the reason that I believe that if some announcement is not made, the willing spirit which exists at present will be imperilled. These men want to know where they are. They are perfectly willing to take on service, but they naturally want to know what their liability is to be.

I turn to the future of the Army, and I would say at once that many of the remarks which fell from the right hon. Gentleman concerning the future gave satisfaction, I think, on both sides of the Committee. But I would remind the Committee of some words which occur on page 4 of the White Paper on Defence: It will fall to His Majesty's Government to conclude an agreement under Article 43 of the Charter for the provision of forces, facilities, and assistance, to be on call by the Security Council, and to be at a prescribed state of readiness and in certain general locations. It goes on to say: We feel confident that the contribution of the British Commonwealth and Empire to the maintenance of world security will be worthy of the great cause at stake. There follows a list of commitments, some of which run off, as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned There are, however, others, such as the guarding of our communications and the maintenance of security here and in the Empire, which will always be with us and which, indeed, are part of the greater whole and of which no mention is made, but for which there must be provision, and that is a striking force. With all this in mind, it is obvious that, in the future, we shall have to think in terms of something very much larger than a regular Army of 220,000 odd which existed before the war. I know the difficulties, but I would ask the Secretary of State to bear in mind the necessity for making a statement as soon as possible on the size of the permanent Army and the target at which he is aiming, the size of the Auxiliary Army, in whichever form it will be, and how those forces will be maintained. Whatever the proportions and figures, I am sure that, on all sides of the Committee, we want the Army to attract as large a number as possible of volunteers of the right type. We also want the Army to be a Service which will give to those who have to do their national service in its ranks, a sense of pride in their connection with it. This would certainly have a direct bearing on the case with which it would be possible to create and maintain a voluntary reserve. If a man takes a pride in the Army, he will be more likely to take on willingly the duties necessary for a voluntary reserve.

With that background, I wish to say a few words about the wellbeing, both material and moral, of the Army, and I think it well to do that at a time when its future is to some extent fluid and in the melting pot. On the material side, I wish to refer to the new codes of pay. It has been set out that the object of these new codes is, first, to simplify the pay system. I think they have certainly succeeded in doing that. Secondly, the object is to produce more equality between the Services. The only comment I have to make, is that the equality is somewhat broad. As regards the objects which come next, they differ as between officers and men. In the case of "other ranks, "the object, it has been stated, is to fix rates comparable with civilian wages; in the case of officers, it is to fix suitable remuneration for the profession of arms. I want to say something about those objects. I take first the case of the "other ranks"— to fix rates comparable with civilian wages. Any comparison, as is admitted in the White Paper, is difficult, because one must bear in mind that the basic rates for the soldier are really basic rates, and that is all he can get, but basic rates in civilian life may mean something very different from actual earnings.

I have here one or two figures from the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" which show the increase in average weekly earnings of industrial workers. In the case of all operatives the rise between October, 1938, and July, 1945, is 80 per cent. If we look in the White Paper at the cost to the Exchequer of the new rates for other ranks, as compared with what the cost was in 1938, we find a figure of 69 per cent — call it 70 per cent. I think one should compare those figures. On the one hand, we have Ministry of Labour figures showing an increase in earnings of 80 per cent., and the Army figures will cost the Treasury a 70 per cent increase. That is going a long way towards equating the conditions in the Army in the future, with what civilian conditions are likely to be. It is not on the generous side in carrying out the object to which I referred, but, taking everything into account, I think perhaps it very nearly does it.

In the case of officers, the situation is not the same. The object set out is to fix suitable remuneration for the profession of arms. It will be seen on page 16 of the White Paper that what is considered a suitable remuneration for the profession of arms is a 36 per cent rise on the cost of pay in 1938. I do not think that is enough. This comparison, however — even this 36 per cent — does not include allowances, which before the war were free of Income Tax. Now they are subject to Income Tax, so that if we add that difference, to the figure which I have mentioned, and the comparison in the White Paper is only between pay and marriage allowance — it does not include other allowances — the figure of 36 per cent, is likely to dwindle considerably. Indeed — I think some of my hon. Friends will be elaborating this point later on — I am told that, in the higher ranks, in some cases they may even show a loss on the remuneration which can now be obtained under these new rates as compared with 1938. If that is correct, there is no doubt the Secretary of State will have to think again because these rates will not be sufficiently attractive to get the right type of man into the profession of arms, particularly if he wants to make a career of it and go right to the top. For the moment I leave that question because, as I have said, many of my hon. Friends will, I think, raise detailed points on it. I will leave the Secretary of State with the reflection that gone are the days when it could be said: How happy the soldier who lives on his pay, And spends half a crown out of six pence a day.' I now turn to the question of the recruitment of officers. I quote again from the White Paper, paragraph 9 of which deals with the recruitment of officers. It says that the cadets will attend the Army College as enlisted soldiers. I would like to raise one point on that statement. During his time at the Army College, a cadet may fail to "make the grade," for some reason or other; possibly, he may not be A1medically, which, I think, is required of officers, or possibly he may just fail to attain the requisite educational standards. Will he, then, as an enlisted soldier, have to complete his five years engagement, or whatever it is, in the ranks, or will he go straight out of the Army if he fails to make the grade at the Army College? That is an important point, which must be cleared up, because I can well imagine that there may be desirable candidates, who may say, "We want to be officers, but if we have to spend five years in the ranks should we fail in the course, we prefer to go in for something else." That point should be cleared up.

There is a further sentence, which says: Subject to vacancies and to the needs of the Army as a whole, the preferences expressed by cadets will be studied in deciding to which corps or regiment a cadet will be commissioned There are many people who, for traditional and other reasons, want to go into a certain regiment, and I hope the words used in the White Paper are not merely a pious expression of an intention, but will really be carried out. I go a stage further. I suggest it would be desirable that, where there are known to be vacancies in a certain regiment and when a young man comes along and is acceptable to the regiment, he should be told at the beginning of his course that he will go into that regiment if he passes the course. Let it be remembered that these men will be volunteers and not conscripts, as during the war; and if that is not done, I believe the Army may lose an intake of desirable men who would stay out of the Army rather than go into a regiment not of their choice.

I should be glad if we could be told a little more about how the potential officer and N.C.O. requirements of the Territorial Army are to be met. I interpolate here how pleased I was to hear what the Secretary of State said about the first line of the Territorial Army. I think his statement gives general satisfaction. The White Paper is silent on the point of what I might call the reserve of officers and N.C.O.s who will be required in case of sudden emergency or expansion in time of war. I should like to hear something about that.

I turn now to the question of training areas in this country. As I represent a constituency which has a training area in it, it will be convenient if I use that area as an illustration of the general question. I refer to the Imber training area. I do not want to detain the Committee for very long, but this is an important subject. Some years before the war, the War Office bought a large tract of land in the district, but in those days there was no live training, and what happened was that the village of Imber was occupied, the farms were let, work was pursued in agriculture and the training of troops went on side by side with it. In the course of time, the War Office very much improved this village and built there what I think anyone who has seen them will agree are some of the finest agricultural cottages in the country.

During the war, the American Army wanted an area in which to carry on live training, and the village of Imber was evacuated. I do not think any pledge was given at the time, but certainly there is an impression locally that at meetings which were held at the time a pledge was given that, at the conclusion of hostilities, the inhabitants should go back there. I do not think there was anything in writing, but I have been told there was that impression. So far, the live training is still going on, and the village of Imber remains unoccupied, and the surrounding country very largely unfarmed. The War Office have been pressed very strongly to allow more farming operations to take place on the perimeter, and that has recently been increased. Last week, 1,500 acres more of the perimeter were given up to farming. The fact remains, however, that a large tract of country and the village are left uninhabited and of no use to agriculture.

There is a minor nuisance, and that, of course, is the noise. People do not object to that in war time, but continual explosions and so on in peace time are a considerable nuisance to residents in the surrounding countryside. That nuisance is willingly accepted in time of war, but it is not so willingly accepted in time of peace. I think the question which the Secretary of State has to consider in all these matters is whether, not only because of the present food situation, but having regard to the fact that we shall have to produce as much food as we can in this island for a very long time to come, we can afford to have large tracts of land sterilised as far as agriculture is concerned. The alternative, which has been put before the right hon. Gentleman and which he is considering, is to go abroad somewhere for the live training, either to the Dominions or the Middle East. That alternative has its attractions from several points of view, and among them is the fact that one could get combined training with the Forces of the Dominions, which would be valuable. I hope the Secretary of State will look into the matter very carefully from all these angles — and the effect that the sterilisation of this land to agriculture must have on our present and future circumstances must have a large bearing on his decision.

I do not want it to be thought that what I am saying in any way implies that any hon. Member on these Benches wishes to see anything but good Army training. Our Army has got to have the best training in the world. But in assessing all these things, the position with regard to agriculture and food production in this country must have a pretty high place.

There is a secondary nuisance that I. wish to mention. Besides the areas which are completely sterilised and shut off altogether, there exists what I believe is called Schedule 52A, whereby, although the land is derequisitioned and given back to the owners, the troops exercise over it. That is causing a great nuisance in the area to which I have been referring. There is an area outside the Imber training area which was requisitioned but which has now been given back, except that the troops are allowed to exercise over it. I have had correspondence with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, and I know that strict orders have been issued that gates must not be left open and that nuisances must not be committed, but I am sorry to tell the right hon. Gentleman that it does not appear that those instructions are always very well carried out. There was a protest meeting of farmers the other day, and only this morning I received a letter in which the following sentence occurs: A military vehicle drove straight across a 33 acre field of winter barley in very wet weather, doing a considerable amount of damage. I think the right hon. Gentleman must make serious efforts to see that this sort of thing does not happen, and that, if necessary, he must enjoin very strict penalties where that kind of thing is done, because it is most disheartening to the farmers and utterly wrong from the national point of view. I wish to say a few words on another point in the White Paper, namely, the reference to concentration on research. I welcome very much what the right hon. Gentleman said about research, but I would like to impress upon him the importance of linking research, developments and design in order that the three should go hand in hand. If that is not done, it is possible that what the Army thinks it wants will not be what industry can conveniently produce. It was very much brought home to me during the very short time I was at the Ministry of Supply that in any set-up of the future these three things should be linked together. I hope that the Secretary of State will pay attention to that point. They should not fall into separate compartments. What he said in his speech went some way towards it. The very special point which I want to make is that these three activities should be kept together.

I have been talking about the material requirements of the Army. Now I want to speak about the requirements of moral, one of those imponderables which the politician ignores at his peril. In this country, tradition plays a very large part in our affairs. We see it in this House. I could not help noticing a short time ago that the Party opposite have suspended their standing orders as a result of which hon. Members opposite may now, I believe, vote how they please without incurring pains and penalties.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Bellenger)

Incitements to mutiny.

Mr. Grimston

It seems to be a concession to tradition inasmuch as I am sure that the Patronage Secretary does not want to see his men wandering about in any old Lobby. He thinks he can rely, in future, upon tradition to keep: the majority where he wants it to be. The same thing happens in other walks of life, and very much so in the Army. If the regimental tradition to which the Minister has referred, particularly on a territorial basis, is broken down, the British Army would lose something which has made the British soldier the finest fighting man in the world. I was very glad to hear the remarks which the Minister made on that subject. Mr. George Bernard Shaw once wrote that the British soldier could stand up against anything except the British War Office. I do not want to be unkind to the War Office, but many of us have felt during the war that not enough effort was made to post men to their own county regiments although it is recognised that there were many difficulties during the war, with the requirements of technical corps much larger than they used to be. I would remind the Committee of two articles written by Lord Wavell in August of last year. They were entitled "The good Soldier." I commend those articles to hon. Members. At the present moment I propose to read a short extract only. Lord Wavell said: Although a high state of moral might attach itself for a time to a large formation, such as for instance the Light Division in the Peninsula or the Eighth Army in Africa, it depends, in the British Army at least, mainly on the regimental system … it has seemed to me that during the war some of our high military authorities have forgotten or ignored this fact, and cur regimental system has been broken up and disregarded too often, many times quite unnecessarily. I very much hope that what the Secretary of State said today means that much more attention will be paid in the War Office in the future to keeping regiments together and to maintaining the regimental tradition. I cannot put that point strongly enough.

I have other points I should like to raise, but there will be another opportunity quite shortly. Therefore I leave them for the moment. We have in the past been prone to treat the Army rather as the Cinderella of the Services. In spite of that, whenever the Army has been called upon, it has never let us down. It has always risen to the occasion. Let us see that, in the future, it shall hold its rightful place in our attention and in our affection.

5.5. p.m.

Mr. Rogers (Kensington, North)

I rise, with diffidence and at long last, to address this Assembly for the first time. I shall confine my very brief maiden effort to an attempt to break down this great subject of the Army Estimates to a very small level. I want to break it down, in the few minutes I have, to the private, the unpaid acting-corporal, and the corporal. I have thought that discussions in the House of Commons on Army matters very rarely took the right point of view of the men in the lower ranks. I was very pleased however to hear the Secretary of State for War introduce the Army Estimates today. I noticed his outline of the future of the Army, giving great promise for all those who believe that there has been a great deal wrong in the administration of the Army in the past, especially as affecting the lower ranks. I want to make some reference to my own experience in the Army during the war and to the experience of hundreds of men, who, like myself were called up, at the time when the nation needed us most, to play our part in the Armed Forces. We had to make a complete change in our mode of living, and in our general attitude towards many problems which faced us.

When I went into the Army I was prepared, diffident and anxious as I was about the future, and wondering whether I should come out of it alive, to do my best in the strange new occupation which I had undertaken. I was absolutely amazed and astounded at the response I received from the Army. All the good spirit was knocked out of me in very quick time, when, one miserable morning in April, we arrived at the depot in Yorkshire. We were met by a tall sergeant, who had been an inspector of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals before the war. After we had walked up and down from the village hall, which was in a disused chapel, to the quartermaster's stores and the orderly room, a distance of some 12 miles, a number of the men collapsing under the weight of their kit bags and uniforms, the sergeant gathered us round him. In friendly fashion he said: '' Some of you may have held good positions until you joined the Army, but whatever you were before the war, let me tell you you are rubbish here." The word was not "rubbish." It is difficult to discuss Army matters without falling into Army terms. I think all men with Army service will understand exactly the word that was used. I felt pretty shocked. I thought that was not the way to treat men who were being dragged, somewhat reluctantly in many cases, from their civilian lives. I have never quite agreed with the expression "join the Army." It hardly describes the emotion which some of us felt when called up. I felt that it was not the way to treat such men.

My suspicions were confirmed as the days wore on and the weary nights followed each other in miserable succession. I was appalled, all the time I underwent training in the Army, at the stupidity and the lack of understanding with which N.C.O.s and officers handled the men in their charge. I could give this Committee, as could no doubt any man who was in the Army, instances of stupid brutality which I have myself witnessed, of officers and N.C.O.s bullying men in order to get something done, but having precisely the opposite effect.

How many of us who have been in the Services, have not been given the responsibility of finding fatigues for men to do? We would discover Private So-and-so round the back of the cookhouse with a broom; every time an N.C.O. came along he was busy, but as soon as the N.C.O.'s back was turned Private So-and-so would lean up against the cookhouse wall to have a smoke. It is only because of the methods that have been adopted of controlling men during the war. There has been set up an enormous amount of friction, which has resulted in the reduction of the man-hour output of the average soldier.

I remember one commanding officer at an establishment in Lincolnshire who put this notice on the orderly room notice board: The playing of musical instruments in parade hours is forbidden. ' Musical instrument ' includes whistling and singing. Three days later, five sergeants were put on a charge for whistling while they were going about their duties. The same officer, a full colonel, put his dog on seven days C.B. with bread and water, for misbehaving itself. That man was a colonel in the British Army. On another occasion, an adjutant at one battalion where I was stationed called the N.C.Os. into his office and said, "N.C.Os., I am very disappointed with the way you are handling the men. I am not getting enough men to punish. If you bring 50 men before me every morning I shall be happy." Speaking to one N.C.O. he said: "You have been an N.C.O. for nine months. During that period you have not brought one single man before me for punishment." I could instance dozens of cases like that. A regimental sergeant major was up against one of the men, and he and the adjutant concocted a plot. The man was ordered to appear before the adjutant and the adjutant said, "Take your hat off. Throw it on the floor." They then put the man on a charge for being improperly dressed in the presence of the officer. From that day that man went from bad to worse. He had period of detention after period of detention, until his life became one long tragedy of misspent intelligence, because of the stupidity and sadistic tendencies of some of the people who had charge of men in the Forces.

I well remember at an operators training battalion in Yorkshire, a squad of men were passing out as radio operators. Because of the necessity of producing radio operators with the minimum of delay, in view of the great shortage in that class of tradesman at that time, they were urged to pass their examinations in the shortest possible time. Glowing promises of leave were offered to them if they did their best, and got through their examinations in the minimum possible time. Those men finished their examinations in record time; 100 per cent passed. What happened? Immediately, the regimental sergeant major put the whole lot on to scrubbing the floor of a disused woollen mill, which had not been scrubbed for anything from 50 to 100 years. The regimental sergeant major went round later and accused the N.C.O. in charge of not driving the men fast enough. They were not getting on fast enough with the scrubbing of the floor.

That may be small stuff, but it is the life of the common soldier in camp. It is the kind of thing the men experience from morning till night, from the time reveille sounds, and an unsympathetic corporal or sergeant pokes him in the ribs and tells him to get up, till last post, when all men are expected to be in bed. Unless the Secretary of State for War devises a system which will prevent all this sadistic bullying of men, this stupid lack of comprehension of the ordinary man's rights as a citizen, we shall not get the best out of our Army. There are many reasons why men will not stay in the Army. There are many reasons why men will not join the Army. This is one of the reasons: the soldier in the lower ranks cannot retain his self-respect. I lost a great deal of my self-respect when I was in the Army, and, heaven knows, with my training as a politician I was pretty familiar with the way to get round the rules of the Army. As things are, it is impossible for the man in the lower ranks to retain the self-respect to which he is entitled as a citizen of the British Empire.

The difference between the man and the officer is the difference between dirty blankets and clean sheets which are changed by someone else. It is the difference between a canteen with chairs and beer, and a mess with tablecloths and whisky. The men have tin mugs and tin plates, and march along the street in squads, looking like criminals, to a not very clean dining room in many cases. Of course, I am talking about barrack conditions, not conditions in the field, about which one cannot legislate. There is a vast difference in those conditions, which I agree are exceptional. Men coming from decent homes, whether they were working class, middle class, or upper class, in the economic sense, were treated like slaves in the Army. Whereas, those who were officers received a measure of treatment and a measure of comfort which set them apart from the rest of the men to a much greater extent than was necessary. That caused jealousy and hatred amongst the lower ranks.

I believe the trouble is in the question of the choice of personnel. I think the Secretary of State for War and all those concerned with him will have to devise a means whereby superior types of N.C.Os., warrant officers and officers can be chosen. The N.C.O. who gets men to obey him merely by saying, "Do this or else—" the warrant officer who adopts the same method, and the officer in command who is not concerned with the welfare of his men, are types which ought to be got rid of at the earliest possible moment. Part of the trouble is a relic from the attitude which the whole nation took towards the Army in the years between the wars. We did not attract a good type to the Army, consequently men who were lance-corporals and corporals when the war began, who subsequently became warrant officers and officers during the war, were not necessarily the best types of men. It is extremely important that the question of the selection of the right types of men for N.C.Os. is dealt with very comprehensively by those concerned.

I hope (the Secretary of State for War is going to abolish the unpaid local ranks. What more pathetic object is there in the whole of the British Army than the unpaid acting lance-corporal? I do hope that the Secretary of State for War is going to abolish at least the unpaid acting post. The poor wretch is dragged from the ranks and forced to take charge over men with whom formerly he had close contact, without any pay, without any real responsibility, and with certainly no sympathy from those over whom he is supposed to exert authority. Without going into details, or the reasons for abolishing these unpaid ranks, I hope the Secretary of State has made up his mind that that sweated labour part of the British Army shall be abolished. It is said that we must have some opportunity of finding out whether men are suitable persons to hold disciplinary posts in the Army. I suggest that a probationary period of three months would determine whether a man is suitable to be an N.C.O. or not.

One other thing I would like to mention from my own experience during the war. I found that a number of commanding officers were very good at ignoring Army Council instructions when they referred to the welfare of the men. In my view Army Council instructions speaking in general terms of the condition of the men, ought to be compulsory and not obligatory. While I agree that it may be essential, in some respects, to leave certain aspects of Army Council instructions to the responsibility of the commanding officer, I think those Army Council instructions which deal with the welfare of the men ought to be compulsory, and it should not be possible for a commanding officer to ignore them in the way that that was done during the war.

Another thing which varies very considerably, is the food of the men in the Army. It is very often found that there are one or more cooks in the men's mess, different cooks for the sergeant's mess, and for the officer's mess, varying of course in degree of skill. Why should the private or the lance-corporal eat inferior food, as compared with the officers? Why should it be less well cooked or less carefully prepared merely because it is for privates and corporals and not for officers? All the food in the Army should be prepared in one cookhouse, and then if there was anything wrong with it, the cooks would very soon hear from the officers, and the privates would benefit. As a Socialist I was very badly impressed by the manifest class differences which existed in the Army during the war. We had in the Army, relics of feudalism and of the 19th century attitude to the common soldier. Although the civilian has advanced in dignity and status, the soldier in the Army remains where he was in the 19th century. I hope the Secretary of State for War will pay the very closest attention to the welfare of the P.B.I.

5.22 p.m.

General Sir George Jeffreys (Petersfield)

It falls to my duty to congratulate the hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Rogers) on his maiden speech. I feel sure that I can at least safely do so on the ground that he has surmounted a fence which always looms very large in the eyes of the new Member about to make his maiden speech. As regards his experiences in the Army, I will not attempt to follow him, except to say that I fear he has been very unlucky in his experiences. [HON. Members: "No."] That possibly is bad luck, and may be due to the fact, which I think is sometimes insufficiently recognised, that when men are swept into the Army in large numbers, and new officers and new non-commissioned officers have to be made with very little experience, the results are not always as satisfactory as they are in old-established units where good systems prevail, and where I do not hesitate to say that the officers and non-commissioned officers are efficient and know how to look after their men in every sense of the word.

I listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State with very great interest, and some of his statements engendered in me, as an old soldier, very considerable pride. I regret, however, that he was not able to tell us something more of the shape and organisation of the future post war Army. Not only in his speech, but all through the war, we have been told too little about the Army. We are certainly now told too little about its units and formations, and about their location, and too little about what its numbers, shape and organisation are to be in the future. Surely, there is still too much secrecy. Too many communications emanate from the right hon. Gentleman's Department and its branches which are marked "Secret" all over for no apparent reason. I myself have recently received quite a number of communications marked "Secret," informing me that certain Territorial units were being placed in what is being called a state of suspended animation. It is very necessary information, but why secret? Who is going to be hurt by being told that these Territorial units, having played their part in the war, are now being placed in a state of suspended animation? That is only an example. Many things come out marked "Secret"; perhaps it is a habit which cer- tain officers and others in the War Office and Commands have got into. We ought to be told a great deal more, and it is a great pity we were not told more during the war.

One thing is certain, and that is that for the tasks of occupation, resettlement and pacification referred to by the Secretary of State there must be required a large number of men. No scientific advance, no new weapons — not even the atomic bomb — can alter that fact, and it is certain, too, that those men must be trained, disciplined and organised. Surely, it is obvious that strong forces will be required for a number of years, not only for occupation duties and to fulfil our obligations under the United Nations organisation, but also to support and secure respect for our foreign policy generally, for not even friendly Powers respect a policy which has no backing of armed strength. I would remind the Committee that the failure of the League of Nations was definitely contributed to by the failure of this country to maintain sufficient forces to implement our responsibilities under the Covenant. It is an old, but none the less very true, proverb that if we want peace we must prepare for war.

The Prime Minister estimated that by December, 1946, our Army would have been reduced in numbers to 650,000, but we were not told how it would be raised, organised or distributed, nor whether it would be sufficient to carry out our responsibilities. As no indication was given of the shape and strength of our post war Army, I will venture to make some suggestions as briefly as I can. I suggest that the Army should be in three main parts, first, the Regular Army providing the striking force, the occupation forces and overseas garrisons, and for the purpose of implementing our obligations under the United Nations organisation. The second part should be a compulsorily enlisted militia, and I suggest that the militia battalions which still exist in the Army List — and that is sometimes forgotten — and the equivalent militia units of R.A., R.E. and Departmental Corps, should be revived for training and holding these militia men. The necessary senior officers and instructors would be provided by the Regular Army and the personnel would be available for drafting. The third part should be an auxiliary Army to provide reserve divisions and fixed and air defences.

I was very glad to hear from the Secretary of State that the identity of the first line Territorial Army units is to be preserved. I am sure that is sound, and will be well received in the counties and districts from which the units are recruited. I am glad to think that the old Territorial formations, with, no doubt, some necessary modifications, will be preserved. I suggest that men who, for educational, vocational or other good reasons, desire to do so should be allowed, after their initial three months training, to join the auxiliary Army, consisting of Territorial units under Territorial Army conditions but, and I emphasise the "but," with increased training liability, — the old number of drills was definitely insufficient — and with higher efficiency requirements. I do not think that is too much to ask, after the experience of the war, as an alternative to continuous compulsory service. Staffs and senior officers and instructors, and staffs of schools of instruction, would, of course, have to be provided by the Regular Army. Then there is the question of reserves, and a very important question, too. No armies can be regarded as complete for war without efficient and sufficient reserves. There will be, of course, the Regular Army reserve under the conditions laid down in the White Paper recently published. There will be, I presume, a militia reserve. I hope so. Are all the war service soldiers who have been trained in this war, whatever their age, being allowed to go without any effort to form a reserve from amongst them, either compulsorily or voluntarily? Is any inducement being held out to them to volunteer for service in the reserve?

I was very glad to hear the tribute paid by the Secretary of State to the A.T.S. and to hear it was to remain a permanent part of the Army of the future. When the Secretary of State referred to it as "permanent" I wondered if he was remembering that A.T.S. means Auxiliary Territorial Service. I was wondering if he remembered that the original A.T.S. — as he justly claimed, the oldest of the three Service women's organisations — was raised under the aegis of the Territorial Associations as a Territorial Women's Service. I wonder, too, whether the Army and the country are sufficiently grateful to those ladies and territorial associations who raised those original Territorial Army companies of A.T.S. in peacetime before the war, raised them from nothing, raised them with little experience and, in very many cases, made them into excellent and efficient companies on which the new, very large and highly efficient A.T.S. was based. I think they deserve a word of thanks from the country; I do not think they ever got such a word of thanks.

I was very glad to hear that the regimental system is to be maintained. Modifications, I agree, may be necessary, but certainly not its abolition, which has sometimes been talked of or hinted at. The regimental system is part of the tradition of the British Army, and the Army is very largely built upon tradition, and to scrap that tradition would be a mortal blow to the Army and it would be a blow to county and local traditions as well. During the war there was a system of cross posting and the policy of pool reinforcements by which men were just regarded as "bodies." I think that was the expression used in the Adjutant-General's Department — so many "bodies." They were drafted to replace casualties regardless of regiments, counties or other connections. That system was carried to extremes in this last war, and particularly, if my information is correct, in North Africa. A very distinguished and experienced officer told me that a result of those conditions was that men were often cut off from everything with which they were connected. They went out belonging to a certain regiment, with all their connections with that regiment, and with all the connections with their families through that regiment. They were very often cut off not only from their regiment, but also from their mails, their comforts and their families owing to being suddenly posted to some regiment which did not know them and which they did not know, and in which they lost touch with their original regiment and so with their original addresses. I believe it caused a very great deal of unnecessary discomfort and hardship to the men concerned. It may have saved a certain amount of trouble to the staff of the Adjutant-General's Department, but it certainly did a great deal of damage to sentiment and tradition.

Colonel Wigg (Dudley)

Do I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that the primary training centres were introduced solely to save the Adjutant-General's Department trouble?

Sir G. Jeffreys

I did not mention the primary training centres. I was talking about the system of pooled reinforcements by which casualties and gaps of any kind in units in the field are replaced from a pool of reinforcements. I pass on to. say a word about the new rates of pay and allowances for other ranks. It will take far too long to criticise them in detail. On the face of it, I agree with the Secretary of State, they certainly are not unsatisfactory. I should personally have liked to see warrant officers and non-commissioned officers paid higher in proportion to other ranks, because I believe that the good ones, not the ones the hon. Member for North Kensington knew, are worth much more in proportion. I hope that the award of Stars for proficiency will be made after very strict tests and that the qualifications required will be high ones and not like the old proficiency pay with which we old soldiers are acquainted, which practically was a payment for not being obviously inefficient. I would like to ask what will be the qualifications. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will give his attention to the question of the grant of married quarters, the number of which, I was glad to hear, is to be increased. Are soldiers to be granted these in addition to marriage allowance or will they be charged for them? With marriage allowance for men of 21 and upwards, the numbers may perhaps be very large. Will any assistance in travelling be given to their wives and families, especially in the case of units going abroad? Some hon. Members may have seen troopships starting for abroad in the past with a row of weeping women on the quay who were losing their husbands for, perhaps, four or five years. I do not think that that is a good sight for anybody, or one likely to do the Army any good. I hope that at least that matter is being taken into consideration.

One final question. Why is marriage at 21 to be allowed for other ranks, but not until 25 for officers? As regards pay and allowances and retired pay of officers, I regret that these could not have been published earlier, for already, unless I am misinformed, as was the case after the first world war, a good many potentially excellent officers— in fact, proved officers — have been lost to the Army because they could not wait any longer for the conditions to be published. Generally speaking, the rates seem satisfactory and are, undoubtedly, an improvement on those of 1939; but I would ask some questions. Is it proposed to provide more married officers' quarters? I hope it is, for it was difficult enough for a married officer moving to a new station in 1939, and before, to find suitable accommodation at a rent he could afford. It will be more difficult now because of the shortage of houses. I would add a point which is sometimes forgotten, that that applies to London where there are practically no officers' quarters, as well as to other parts of the Kingdom.

Then as to service towards retired pay, why is it to count only from the age of 21? Most officers in normal times join at about 19 and I think a great many officers in this war who served before they were 21 will not be able under these provisions to count those years of service on active service, very often distinguished and gallant service, for retired pay. I would ask a question which has been asked also by my hon. Friend the Member for West-bury (Mr. Grimston), as to candidates for commissions who have to go through the ranks. On what terms will they have to enter the ranks? Will they enter for five and seven years or will there be any special entry for them?

I must say a word about the rates of retired pay. They represent a definite improvement on the old rates, but they also serve to accentuate the grievance of the officers who retired under the 1919 Warrant, which provided that the basic rates should rise or fall up to 20 per cent., according to the rise or fall in the cost of living. So long as the cost of living fell the rates fell with it but when it began to rise the rates were stabilised at 9½ percent. below the basic rate. If this scale had been allowed to operate there would be little difference in the middle ranks between the retired pay they would have got under that scale and the scheme which is now promised I suggest that at least the basic rates of 1919 should be restored. It is stated that consideration is being given to the position of retired officers who have given full time service in the Armed Forces during the war I hope that they will be allowed to count their years of mobilised service towards some increase in retired pay. Then, what will be the posi- tion of pensioned other ranks. Take, for instance, the case of a sergeant-major who has been commissioned during the war. I know of at least one of such cases where the man has risen to the rank of lieutenant-colonel. In that case the man has to go back to his warrant officer pension and he will get no improvement. I can only say, in conclusion, that I trust that in the future the Army will not be skimped as it was in the past and that everything necessary for efficiency will be done and that never again shall we sec what we have seen in the last two wars the British Regular Army offered up as a burnt sacrifice, because of the nation's unprepared-ness for war.

5.42 p.m.

Mrs. Ayrton Gould (Hendon, North)

I wish to deal with a matter, which I feel to be of vital importance, arising out of the new scheme the Minister has introduced in connection with pay for the Armed Services. The question I wish to raise concerns marriage allowances for the wives of officers. In general the new scheme is excellent, but in one instance we are sticking to the bad old traditions, and I find this very difficult to understand. Why is the War Minister sticking to the bad old tradition where officers' wives are not entitled to receive directly their marriage allowances? The Minister spoke very rightly about our great pride in a citizen Army, and we all echo that view. We have a tremendous pride in the magnificent job of work which has been done by our serving men, and I am sure that a magnificent job will be done by them in the future, but we also take great pride in what our women have done during the war, and no less in the burden borne, proportionate to their numbers by officers' wives, who have had under great difficulties to look after the families.

In most cases, of course, the officers have stood up magnificently to their responsibilities, and there has been no difficulty about where and how the marriage allowances have been paid. Even if every officer did the right thing, I still think it unfair that the wives should not be entitled to receive their marriage allowance direct in the same way as the wives of other ranks. I cannot understand why there should be this differentiation in treatment between an officers' wife and the wife of an "other rank," unless the idea is that an officer is always an officer and a gentleman. Unfortunately, officers are not always gentlemen. In my view, the large majority of both officers and Service men are; in a fundamental sense, gentlemen, so I do not know why there should be this distinction between "other ranks" and officers.

It seems to me a frightful insult to other ranks, and to suggest that they cannot be trusted to give their wives their marriage allowances, but that when they are promoted to be officers they can be trusted to do it. That is the only reason I can imagine for this differentiation. It is difficult to imagine that a pip or gold braid will make a man a gentleman. The minority who have not been willing to face up to their responsibilities when they were in the ranks, will not face up to them when they become officers. In the case of an other rank, the matter is taken out of his hands and the wife has a right to draw her marriage allowance directly from the post office, but the moment her husband becomes an officer it depends entirely upon the officer whether or not the wife receives her allowance, unless the wife is prepared to take the matter to court, and even then she does not get her rights, because she is not entitled to obtain the whole of her allowance, as I will show. Under the new scheme, the taxpayer is going to pay £ 228 for an officer over 25 of the rank of major and above, and £ 365 for the higher ranks by way of marriage allowance. These amounts will be paid by the taxpayer annually, but the wives will not necessarily have the money. The White Paper says: The full rate of marriage allowance will be payable on marriage and will continue throughout the married life, whether there are children or not. So wives will be entitled to what, in aggregate, will be a large sum of money, paid purely as marriage allowances irrespective of the pay the officers receive for their rank. When I first read this White Paper, I was appalled to see that there was no change in the old scheme of payment, and I immediately put down a Question. One of the daily papers gave publicity to my Question, and as a result I have had letters from officers' wives in all parts of the country, telling me what sort of treatment they have had.

Naturally, I have had letters only from a comparatively small number of officers' wives who have been badly treated by their husbands. I quote two of these letters to the Committee. The first is from a man who had just received a commission. He had been in the Army throughout the war, and, as he pointed out in his letter to his wife, he had worked very hard to obtain his commission. He told her: "Thank goodness I have got my commission and I am shut of you for good. I will see you "— I will not tell the Committee what he said then, except that it is a very long way off—" before you ever get a penny out of me." As the wife points out, that inevitably means a broken marriage.

My second letter comes from the wife of a major with three children. Her husband is a major, and he refuses to pay more than £ 3 a week, which is' what he paid her when he was an N.C.O. She points out in her letter that her rent is 22s. 6d. a week, which leaves her £ 1 17s. 6d. a week for herself and three children. Obviously, she cannot maintain herself and three children on that amount, and so she has to go out to work. She went to the Army welfare officer, who told her that since her husband was paying her £ 3 a week, there was nothing she could do by way of redress. I would point out to the Minister that everything that the Government— which we are very proud of on this side of the Committee— are doing is by way of obtaining security for the whole mass of the people, and in particular for the protection of family life. In the National Insurance Bill everything possible is being done to enable mothers to stay at home to look after their children. Here we are introducing a new scheme for the democratisation of the Army, which I very much welcome, but far from doing anything to protect family life, it keeps up the old tradition which is forcing the married woman with young children to go out to work, because she has no right to the marriage allowance which is being paid by the taxpayer for her benefit. I hope that the Government will stick to a principle in which we all believe, and for which we fought the Election— the protection of family life.

Another matter with which I wish to deal particularly is that of pensions. If an officer has not maintained his wife for six months, and he is killed or dies, she cannot obtain a pension. That seemed to me so extraordinary that when I first heard of it, I checked it up with the Ministry of Pensions, and I found that it is quite true. I understand that one of the difficulties about getting the system changed and giving the wife of an officer this elementary right— which, I believe, every other category of married women entitled to allowances has— is that rumour says that the senior Service is very much against it. One hears that a sailor has a wife in every port— and that I suppose is the reason. I can only suggest to the senior Service that it would simplify matters a great deal —

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite (Holderness)

The hon. Lady has just launched a most devastating accusation against the Navy. Would she give the Committee some examples to bear out her statement?

The Temporary Chairman (Dr. Haden Guest)

I do not think that is a matter for explanation to the Committee. The hon. Lady put it in such a pleasant way that no one could take exception to it.

Mrs. Gould

It would simplify matters a great deal if the legal wife of an officer automatically obtained her marriage allowance every week, just as other ranks do. I urge the Government to see that the wives of officers in all the Services have this elementary moral right, which should be made a legal right— the kind of right which the Government stands for and for which the Labour movement has worked so hard to obtain. I am perfectly certain, now this matter has been brought forward, that sooner or later the Services will have to give way, as other classes have done, so that the wives may obtain this measure of justice. Now that the Government are launching this fine new scheme for the democratisation of the Services this, I suggest, is the moment to inaugurate a fine new tradition of giving justice and right to the married woman.

5.55 P.m.

Lord John Hope (Midlothian and Peebles, Northern)

I do not wish to follow other speakers into the administrative details which have already been so ably dealt with on both sides of the Committee. I wish to deal more generally with the psychological side of the Army-It is undoubtedly true that throughout history the regular soldier has in peace time always been unpopular in this country. The hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble), speaking in the Debate on the Navy Estimates, quoted a verse which he attributed to the time of Queen Anne, to show the traditional ingratitude of the nation towards its Navy. He quoted these two lines: God and our sailors we adore, When dangers threaten; not before. I was in courtesy bound to discuss this matter with the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea, who, I am afraid, is unable to be "on deck" this afternoon.

The Temporary Chairman

May I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing the Army Estimates?

Lord John Hope

I am much obliged. But I was going to say that, while not in any way wishing to be discourteous to the senior Service, I must express my strong suspicion that the hon. Member did filch a verse that originally applied to the Army. That was the verse of a gentleman called Mr. Thomas Jordan, much earlier than Queen Anne, and he wrote this: Our God and soldier we alike adore, Just at the brink of rain, not before; The danger passed, both are alike requited, God is forgotten, and out soldier Slighted. I feel that, just and fair though the Navy's grievance may be in this matter, the Committee ought to see it in its true perspective. The reason for this traditional unpopularity of the soldier, however sound historically it may be, has, I suggest, ceased to exist. The Army of today, and I include whatever trained reserves there may be, is not something apart from, and outside, the rest of the community. It is an integral part of the community. This must be admitted to be so when one reflects that today there are many thousands of citizens who at one time or another have had to be part of the Army. If that fact is faced, I believe that the dread of compulsory military service, so sincerely felt in some quarters, loses much of its force. If I may, I will return to that aspect of the question in a few moments.

Meanwhile, I wish to touch very briefly upon the influence of modern scientific development on the necessity for an Army. I disagree with those who hold that the increasing speed of modern communications tends to make the soldier superfluous. It is all guesswork. None of us knows what the future will hold. As far as the defence of this country is concerned, I should have thought that the reverse of that statement was the case if this country were to be attacked in the future it is pretty clear that one of the early phases would be the descent of thousands of airborne troops into the country. There is no question of there being any time in that sort of an emergency to start training a citizen Army from scratch. It could not be done. That fact alone shows that the more citizens there are who understand minor tactics and fieldcraft the more quickly would there be effective opposition to such an airborne invasion. We remember early in this war how the increase in armour persuaded many able and thoughtful men that the day of the infantry was done. I merely want to say, without going into further detail, that I hope we shall take to heart the lesson that was learned by that misplaced prophecy.

I turn now to the question of incentive to join the Army. Some things in the past have been wrong. It is perfectly easy, to suit a case, to pick examples of inefficient commanders and inefficient non-commissioned officers, but so long as humanity exists at all so long will its weaknesses exist. There is no single system, political or otherwise, which you cannot crab in terms of the inefficient part of its human element. But I do not think that it is doing a service to the community simply to pick out examples of the bad to the exclusion of what is good. As I say, things have not always been right. I shall in a moment or two criticise one part where I think improvement should be shown in the future. As far as the financial incentive is concerned, I am not going into detail on the question of pay. That has been dealt with and no doubt will be dealt with in great detail later in the Debate. I just wish to register my disappointment at finding that there is apparently no financial incentive to the officer to increase his proficiency. We should encourage the young officer to go on courses and do well by offering him a financial benefit based on success, as opposed purely to rank.

Now a word about technical incentive. Here I think we are up against a paradox. We are trying to teach a man to be proficient in an art which the man himself hopes and, indeed, all of us, hope with all sincerity will never have to come to its ultimate expression. There is not a soldier who does not hope that. The technical incentive is thereby much reduced. What we must do is to make good as well as we can the lack of that essential stimulus. That stimulus is less lacking in the Navy and the Air Force. After all, in the Navy a sailor is in his ship, and in the Air Force an airman is in his aeroplane. Those are the machines in which in their full panoply men go to war— if they have to go. That is a very different thing to lying on the wet ground waving a yellow flag and pretending one is an anti-tank gun. I hope if this thing is going to be done at all it will be done properly.

Just a word about training. Here the keynote must, undoubtedly, be cooperation with other arms. The sense of that new development was stressed very much, and I think rightly so, in the Defence Debate, and it is relevant to repeat it here. That is where a great gap was seen at the beginning of this war. There is nothing so pathetic as trying to work in an atmosphere of what I might call Service isolationism. In early days, we all saw, the mutual distrust of one Service for the other. It was expressed in various ways, very often in a friendly fashion, but it was there. Each thought that the other was either old fashioned, or so completely "green" in some way or other, as scarcely to merit any co-operation at all. But that feeling of isolationism vanished very rapidly. Speaking for myself, and, I believe, for many others, it was one of the most inspiring experiences of the war to see the disappearance of this mutual mistrust, the dissipation of the shadows, and the growing friendship and mutual confidence. I would like to say a word or two about minor tactics, and to offer a criticism. At the beginning of the war, although the majority of the officers in command in the Army, especially in junior command, were second to none in their devotion to duty, I believe that there was not as high a standard of minor tactics and field craft as there should have been. I hope very much that there will be main- tained the improvement which came extremely quickly with the advent of battle drill, and various other stimuli, such as Field Marshal Montgomery.

With regard to the effect of military service on the character of the man who comes under it, the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) in a recent Debate said: What, in the end, is the result of training our young fellows to kill Germans and Italians? Young men are trained to kill foreigners, and when they come home they often kill their own neighbours. That is one of the results of this military business." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1946; Vol. .420, c. 99.] I have no doubt that the hon. Member was sincere when he said that, but I believe it to be a profound mistake. One is not entitled without previous consultation, to speak for anyone but himself, but for my part. Since I came back from taking a small part in the- war, and helping to finish it off, I have not felt the slightest desire to do violence to any man, not even to the hon. .Member for Westhoughton. I believe that the very reverse is the case. A man has only to go through, as many of us did before the war, the rigorous discomforts of training in English weather to hope and pray that never will he be called upon to take part in the serious business. Let a man get really wet for three days and nights, and the gilt is very quickly off the gingerbread. I do not, therefore believe there is anything in the argument that military service makes a man eager to kill and to hate.

Another speech in that Debate, by the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning), contained an interesting suggestion. The hon. Lady suggested that the soldier would far rather listen to a blackbird whistling than to a sergeant-major's bark —

Mr. Kirkwood (Dumbarton Burghs)

Is that not true?

Lord John Hope

That is perfectly true. If the hon. Member had allowed me to develop my argument, he would have seen that he had no need to ask me that question. I was about to tell the Committee that the suggestion which the hon. Lady made at that time was one which touched a chord in my heart. If the Committee will forgive a personal note, I used to find, in a certain beach head in Italy, that if I got;he chance at a suitable time, and in a reasonably safe place, it was delightful to listen to the song of the nightingales. It was a wholly welcome relief from the other sadder and more sombre sounds of the day. Whether the Secretary of State feels that anything can be done in the propaganda line by inviting men to join the Army on the slogans "Blanco and bird song, "or" Blackcaps as well as redcaps," I do not know, but I commend the suggestion to him.

The last point I want to make relates to the question of officers. We heard a moving appeal from the right hon. Gentleman to officers of the future to stick to simplicity. As one who spent a certain amount of time, early in the war, in instructing at an O.C.T.U., I could not agree more. I did my best, and I know other instructors in similar jobs did their best, to persuade young men, about to become officers, to believe that the sphere in which they were entering was one primarily of increased responsibility, and not of increased privilege. I have no objection at all to an increase of privilege so long as it is commensurate with the responsibility which is carried. The junior officer, particularly, bears an immense weight of responsibility in battle, to which there is no parallel whatsoever in the realms of responsibility. Let us, by all means, keep the system we have now started of finding the best leaders we can, never mind where they come from, or what their education or birth has been, or what is their economic situation. Let us give them all a chance, let us find the best, and let them lead. But then let us give them all the help, support and honour that is due to the leader, for he is indeed the man who bears the heaviest load.

How long this business of having Armed Forces will be necessary I do not know; none of us can tell. But I think the answer is simply, if somewhat sadly, this. It will be necessary to have an Army so long as men throughout the world have failed to realise that the only objective worth attaining is the truth. Until that day arrives those who feel this deeply will recognise that they need a shield whereby to protect the liberty of expression and the freedom of opinion through which alone the truth can be safely and fairly sought. I believe that it is no dishonour, no disgrace, and no "badge of slavery" for any man to do his share in guarding this freedom in his own day and generation.

6.21 p.m.

Captain Chetwynd (Stockton-on-Tees)

I am glad to have the opportunity of taking part in this Debate. First, I wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for War, on the most sincere and simple faith he put into his words. I believe that, if we are to get the right kind of Army in the future, the more of that simplicity and sincerity we can infuse into all ranks at all stages the better, and the happier the Army will be. I am also particularly glad that the right hon. Gentleman stressed the value of education in the wartime Army. No matter how much the troops want to be educated, no matter how great their thirst for knowledge, unless the' receive the fullest support and encouragement from the top they are wasting much of their time. I should like the example of the Secretary of State to permeate every rank in the Army, so that we may obtain the best value from this education scheme.

I have had a little to do, both in the ranks and as an officer, with its working in wartime. I was present at its birth, or shortly after, and it was a most awkward and unwanted child. It has taken two or three years of careful attention by a very devoted body of people to nurse it through its growing pains into its present lusty youth. It has, I think, played a large part in the success of our Forces in the past few years, but in my view it has not had sufficient publicity or encouragement today. It had a definite role to play in 1940 and 1941, when we were faced with the prospect of having a large Army within these shores for a long time with only the distant hope that we would again invade and attack the Continent. We had then to face a long period of boredom, and I think that the Army Council were right in taking a courageous stand, by giving their full support to a policy of large scale education in wartime.

Owing to the war, civilian education was very difficult, and lapsed considerably. In order to understand the magnitude of the Army Council's decision, we have to compare the wartime Army Education Scheme with what went before. When we think that a modern army, hard pressed on all sides, and having to fight for its very existence and for that of all the people in this country, could be given a large scale education plan in wartime, it is a significant feature of the progress which the Army has made in this century. As I see it, the task was to combat boredom, to prevent that "browned-off" feeling which saps the vitality of any body of men under arms, and to increase the efficiency of the soldier by keeping his mind sharp and alert. Above all— and I think this is the fundamental thing which shows the wisdom of the Army Council and all those responsible— we had to oppose something to the German mentality and love of Nazism for the sake of force. We had to give our men in the Army a positive belief. It was not sufficient just to say that they were to fight against something, against Germany, against Fascism. We had, perhaps, to give them faith that this country, with its democracy, its belief in freedom of speech, religion, and the Press, and all those other rights that have been gained through the years, was something worth while which would enable them to overcome the great German military machine. I believe we succeeded in that.

During those years the Army Education Corps, and untold unit instructors and civilian lecturers, expended considerable time and effort. Sometimes it was wasted. As I know myself we ran into commanding officers who, although educated themselves, wanted to deny their men the privileges and benefits of education. We also met with complete ignorance. I well remember going to a heavy Ack-ack site to try to sell education— and it was a case of selling it in those days. I was met by the commanding officer, and on the mention of the magic word "A.B.C.A." he asked," Isn't that the rival of Joe Lyons in London? "Those days have gone. A. B.C. A. and all the other machinery of Army education have now become an indispensable part of life in the Army. If we are to get rid of that feeling of a distinction between the officer and the man expressed by the hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Rogers), we must try to make the man fit into the Army scheme. If we wish to make the officer recognise in his man a fellow human being then we need some of this education, and a continuation of the contact that was gained during the war from A.B.C.A. discussions— not always very good discussions— on every conceivable topic between the regimental officer and his squad. These gave something definite— a unity which was in- valuable in the hard days of fighting on the Continent. I believe that most sincerely.

Conditions have changed, and, instead of having to fight hard for a place for education in Army life during the transition stage from war to peace, increased priority has been given to the Army Education Scheme during recent months, Here, again, I am most encouraged by my right hon. Friend's statement. We have not had to concentrate so much on the question of moral although that is still important when there are large bodies of men with very little to do and the prospect of release is rather remote. The scheme fulfils a useful function by keeping these men happy and contented. That, however, is not the most important factor to my mind.

We are a civilian Army. We did not want to fight but when we were in the Forces I think everyone decided that while he was there, for better or worse, it was his duty to make the best of it and bring the war to an end as soon as possible. We owe those men and women a debt for the five or six years they have wasted from their normal development, and I am pleased to say that this wartime education scheme is developing rapidly in this interim period. Its importance is recognised now, I think, by all commanding officers, and this six to eight hours' education a week, embracing all topics, so that the illiterate and the university graduate can each find a place in that scheme, is doing an invaluable job in brushing up the men, as it is called, for "Civvy Street."

I want to put to the Secretary of State a few points upon the working of this scheme. I know that, in this country, the formation colleges are well established. I know they are doing a good job of work for the top 5 or 10 per cent. who are capable of profiting from them, but I am not quite so happy about the position of the near-illiterate or half-educated man, who probably does not want to be educated in any case, and has to be compelled to attend these classes. What is he getting out of it? In the early days when we were preparing this scheme, we took a cross-section of these people and we found, roughly, that 20 per cent. Of the men wanted education, another 40 per cent. Were quite willing to be exposed to education, and the rest of them were either hostile or apathetic. What progress have we made in getting into that broad section of people who are in need of some basic education? The man who wanted to be educated would have got his education in any case without this scheme.

I would also like to know exactly how the scheme is getting on in Germany, because I believe there are some difficulties in the provision of textbooks, libraries, buildings and equip merit. I would also like to know a little more about India because, from what I gather, a large percentage of the Army Educational Corps has been sent to India within the last year or so, and from the letters I have been receiving, they seem to be occupied mainly in learning the language themselves and then teaching the native troops our language. I would like a little more assurance that they are getting on with what I conceive to be the basic purpose of education, that is, to make the people think, and to make them more conscious of their social responsibilities.

As to the future of the Army, we have great lessons to learn from this wartime experiment. 1 would not like to go back to those days of the Army first class, second class, and third class certificate examinations, when the set textbooks were "The Life of the Duke of Wellington," which consisted of —

Sir William Darling (Edinburgh, South)

Is there anything better?

Captain Chetwynd

— about 400 pages of closely written script, or the great dates in the history of this country, or map reading, or whatever it was. We have built up a positive scheme of liberal education in the Army in these last years and I would like to be sure that the Forces preliminary examination will be the basis and the aiming point of our postwar educational scheme.

We have been harassed, in our mail, by the parents of those boys who are likely to be called up now for duty in the Forces. We have been told that their education is being interrupted, and that when they come out of the Forces at the age of 21 or 22 they will not feel like continuing with their studies. I would not like to pull any strings to defer any one of those people from service in the Army because I think we have an overriding duty to those men who have been in for five or six years. However, we can reassure the parents of those boys that it they enter the Army now, they are not in the days of the charge of the Light Brigade, when it was their duty only to obey and not to ask questions. They have before them a better scheme of advanced education, both technical and cultural, in the Army than they can get outside at present. I said at the beginning of my speech that it took a lot of pressure from the top to get this going, and the confidence that was put in the value of Army education at a time when it looked as if we were to have four or five more years of war has been amply justified by the results.

I have one suggestion to make about the future organisation of our Forces. Scattered all over the world we have serving side by side regular soldiers whose time has not expired or who have taken on for a further period, volunteers who have taken on for a further period, and large bodies of men who, with a little encouragement will take on again They arc serving side by side with men who are in the process of release, and there can be no cohesion in the Forces if we maintain that system. I believe we have to get on with our permanent reorganisation of the Army on a peacetime basis. It is essential. Those figures must be known, the personnel must be known. Cannot we begin a process now of drawing them all in to one central place— Germany, the Middle East, or wherever it is— training and equipping as many armoured divisions, and so on, as those people will fill, and making that the basis of our permanent Army? We could train them up to perfection, so that, when we begin to develop, when our plans are decided for or against conscription, we shall have a trained body of officers and N.C.Os. who can rapidly expand the new citizen Army into a perfect fighting force. If we do that, if we have that permanent body, it will act as an example to all other forms of organisation, and we can make that our contribution, a great contribution, to the United Nations Organisation. I would like to know if His Majesty's Government are proceeding on those lines.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. Basil Nield (City of Chester)

The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, in his most helpful speech opening this Debate, referred to the very difficult problem of release, and it is to that subject that I desire to address myself this evening. It seems to be generally agreed by all hon. Members, and the right hon. Gentleman himself said so, that it is our duty to seek to speed up release from the Armed Forces as much as possible, bearing in mind, of course, our present commitments and requirements. No doubt the reasons for that general desire are that those who have served so long are entitled to be returned to civil life as rapidly as possible, and also that our labour force must be built up for the purpose of industrial recovery. In order to set in motion any means of speeding up release, certain basic decisions quite clearly must be reached. The level at which our Armed Forces are to be maintained must be decided upon. Final conditions of pay and allowances and pensions must be determined and, of course, a decision must be come to as to the continuance of compulsory service. It seems to me quite plain that compulsory service must be continued. I say that because I feel it must be so in all fairness to those who have served for so long, and with such determination in the last years. Although compulsory service must, I feel, be continued, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we must also do our best to encourage the volunteer. If I may touch a personal note, for three years I have sought to have set up by those in authority a scheme whereby volunteers could be called for to do the policing and occupying of overseas areas, after the war, in order to relieve those who have served abroad for so long. I know there is now a scheme for volunteering, and I hope it will be encouraged by the publication of improved conditions.

There is a point I would like considered" in connection with the call-up of 18-year olds. I have met with it in my own constituency. There is need to be selective in the order in which we call men up at this age. I have in mind the factory where there may be a small number of quite young technicians who have been reserved throughout the war, or part of the war, and are, in effect, feeding a larger body of workers, it may be with work of national importance in matters of reconstruction. If those men are taken away before being replaced by technically qualified men out of the Forces, great harm may be done. I have found instances where production has been delayed in that way. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look into it and see that replacements are made, wherever humanly possible, with men of the necessary qualifications before those in key positions are removed. I know it is easy to say that releases should be speeded up. It is not always so easy to say how that can be done. One does not seek to avoid these difficulties, and I therefore wish to put two suggestions be fore the right hon. Gentleman for his consideration. The first suggestion is in regard to transport. The defence to a charge of delay, which is constantly advanced, is that of shortage of ship ping —

Mr. Blackburn (Birmingham, King's Norton)

Not now.

Mr. Nield

— and lack of transport. The hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn), without rising to interrupt, indicates a negative. But the right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate blamed shortage of shipping for failing to bring these men from overseas. Whether for good or bad, hon. Members' correspondence indicates that soldiers overseas do not accept that reason. I know the difficulties, and the right hon. Gentleman knows them better than I do. Are we using all our shipping to the best advantage? Are we using naval vessels for the purpose of repatriation as best we can? We are told by the First Lord of the Admiralty from time to time that aircraft carriers and certain other warships are doing this work. But I feel that the men overseas would be greatly encouraged if they had the facts and the figures as to the exact use of civilian shipping and naval vessels for this purpose.

Mr. Blackburn

Will the hon. and learned Member allow me? It has been stated by the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Labour, that transport ceased some time ago to be the limiting factor in demobilisation, and the troops have been told that. I would like to support the hon. and learned Member. I hope a very clear statement will be made on the matter, because troops will be extremely surprised at any suggestion that transport is the limiting factor.

Mr. Nield

I welcome the interruption, because it is a matter which obviously must be cleared up. But the right hon. Gentleman in opening the Debate rather asked for this point to be made. If the correspondence of the hon. Member for King's Norton is anything like mine, troops overseas who write to him still think that shipping is the excuse and that it is not valid. The feeling, no doubt, is "Ships were available for us to go out and fight the battle; now we have won it, surely they should be available to bring us home." One knows also that the view has been expressed that priority should be given to, for example in S.E.A.C., men rather than to G.I. brides.

My other suggestion is not a novel one, but one to which I hope consideration may be given. That is the widening of releases under Class B. We know that men are being released for purposes of the building trade and students and, perhaps, professional men who have to face a long period of training. But such releases are coupled with considerable disadvantages. I am wondering whether some revision of the position under Class B and, possibly, under Class C, could be made by the Minister of Labour. Finally, hon. Members' correspondence must disclose to them that in many quarters complaint is made of idleness among the Forces and of the men having nothing to do. That is a soul destroying situation. The men are reasonably contented if they have training or tasks to perform. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is doing his utmost to seek out those pockets where that defect appears and to do away with it if that is humanly possible. These suggestions seek to assist the right hon. Gentleman in his difficult task in conjunction with the Minister of Labour in seeking what we all desire— the speedy release of men who have done their job, and done it so well.

6.49 p.m.

Lieutenant William Griffiths (Manchester, Moss Side)

In rising to address this Assembly for the first time, may I ask for the tolerance and consideration that I have observed is traditionally accorded to new Members? I venture to intervene in this Debate because it was my fortune during the war to serve in the Army for three and a half years as a private soldier, and for a considerably less time as a very junior officer. During my experiences I had British Army officers under observation and came to certain conclusions about them. I was very interested in what my right hon. Friend had to say about the training of officers for the future Army. My recollection goes back to the early years of the war, when the chief qualification for becoming even a junior officer in the Army was that one should have had the right 'social background, and have been to the right school. There was an idea abroad in those quarters that had the power to grant these commissions that that difficult thing to define, leadership, was the exclusive possession of the ex-public schoolboy. I remember some of my colleagues who, early in the war, felt themselves called upon to assume the responsibility of leadership, and were asked such questions as, "What school did you go to?" "What games do you play?" The absurd position was reached where some people may have been accepted for training as officers on the basis of the superior snob appeal of playing rugger rather than soccer. Many people have since passed similar observations. It was, therefore, with great pleasure that I heard my right hon. Friend say today that a spell in the ranks — I hope a considerable spell— will be insisted upon for all future officers for our Army of the future.

With the development, in the later stages of the war, of the War Office Selection Board, there was an improvement in the method of selecting officer material. It had its limitations, many of us had lots of fun at its expense, but it seemed to me a real attempt to assess character. It had its deficiencies but was a step forward. I regret that I must record my opinion that this material so selected was often not used to the best advantage at the 0.C.T.Us. that were provided. Here I would put in a plea that the Minister will consider the type of material his Department employs in the staffing of O.C.T.Us. I remember that the O.C.T.U. I attended was staffed by a lot of really good chaps, but many of them were convalescent officers recovering from injuries; some of them were "displaced persons," the sort of people who thought they had to retain their temporary rank until they got another appointment. Although many of them were excellent soldiers and good fellows, all too often, they lacked the qualifications necessary for a teacher. There is a great difference between the man who is a first-rate soldier and the man who is a good teacher, so I hope that whatever the future of British Army O.C.T.Us. may be, my right hon. Friend will bear in mind the need to consider above all, in the staffing of these 0.C.T.Us., the qualifications of the staff as teachers.

I cannot leave this point without telling a story of my own platoon officer at O.C.T.U., who gave a very adverse report at the end of one month on a cadet whom most of us believed was excellent material. He gave a report in which he said that he was sadly lacking in regimental qualities. This cadet, a Very earnest fellow, was very put out, and ventured to approach the platoon officer with a view to elucidating what he meant by "lacking in regimental qualities." He was told by this man, who had the responsibility for this squad, that he did not look the part. So this cadet turned to the platoon officer and said, "Is there anything in my work, or behaviour, or in anything I have done at the O.C.T.U. that leads you to that conclusion? "The reply was, '' No, there is nothing special, but, you know, you do not walk about correctly. You just do not look the part"

I suggest, with great respect, and realising all the difficulties of wartime and the limitations imposed upon the people who choose the staffs, that we should, above all, bear in mind the need for having good teachers in these very responsible positions. These very important positions must, in the future, be filled by men who certainly have ability and intelligence, and they must be men of integrity. These qualities are not confined to any one class. On the contrary, the war has demonstrated up to the hilt that these qualities are to be found among people of all classes of the British people. My belief in respect to selecting officer material is in the retention of that type of Selection Board which will have no special or primary regard to a man's social background, but to the record he has from his other rank service in the Army, and secondly, as I have perhaps over-emphasised, for the staffing of O.C.T.U.s by people who are what I call teachers.

I turn to something quite different, a question which has exercised my mind, and no doubt the minds of many other hon. Members, that of the non-payment of dependants' allowances to dependants of soldiers who are serving detention. By the present system, great hardship is inflicted on the families of soldiers who are in detention by the withholding of the Army family allowances. It may be that some of the recent disturbances at Northallerton and Aldershot are to be accounted for by this withholding of allowances to families of soldiers sentenced to detention. It is humiliating for the wife of a soldier, through no fault of her own, but through his misdemeanour, to have to apply to the local authority for public assistance, and to be exposed among her neighbours as one who has to apply for charity. This is surely gross injustice?

It may be that the objection will be made that, if a civilian commits a crime and is sentenced to imprisonment, his wife and children certainly suffer economic hardship as a result. I suggest that the two cases cannot be put on the same level, because many of the soldiers are in detention today as a result of committing a misdemeanour under the heavy pressure of abnormal circumstances. I wish to bring out that point because I do not think that the soldier can be put on the same level as one who commits a civilian crime. I would ask my right hon. Friend and the Government to give some consideration to this type of case, and to remove from innocent women and children, who are dependants of soldiers who have admittedly done wrong the stigma of having to apply to the local authority for what they all too often mistakenly believe is charity.

7.0 p.m.

Colonel Ponsonby (Sevenoaks)

It is not a mere formula, if I say how much the Committee enjoyed the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Moss Side (Lieutenant W. Griffiths). He spoke with ease and comfort, with a sense of humour and also of description. We shall be very glad, I am sure, to hear him again in the future. The Army Estimates do not provide opportunities for what the late Speaker called "the cut and thrust of Debate," but they do provide opportunities for Members on all sides of the Committee to contribute from their experience. We have plenty of evidence today from Members on the other side of the Committee, and from a. battalion of lieut.-colonels on this side, all anxious to con- . tribute something of their experience for the benefit of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister. I would in the course of a few minutes mention three particular subjects; first training, then the Territorial Army, and, finally, the cadets.

As regards training, it is perfectly obvious that in the future the young soldier will have to be trained as in the past in elementary stages, with regard to physical training, esprit de corps, discipline and so on, and also in the ordinary early stages of field training. When we come to big exercises, however, I am perfectly certain that we must alter all the plans and methods of the past. In the Debate on the Defence White Paper, I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) talked about training schemes in the Empire. I wish the Minister would have a few words with people who have fought in Africa and Abyssinia. Especially perhaps he should confer with that great general, Sir William Platt. I am sure he would learn from him the advantage of training in the great spaces, particularly in Africa. In these modern days we have to forget all the lessons of the past. The development of mechanisation and co-operation between the arms, make it essential that we should have huge spaces in which to operate. What is the good of playing any more with Salisbury Plain, the South Downs, Yorkshire, and so on? We must look, in the future, for a range not of twenty or thirty miles but of 500 miles.

I have wandered about a little in the middle of Africa. I suggest that a wonderful training ground would be from the North end of Lake Nyasa right across Tanganyika, which includes mountains and forests, jungle and desert. There is every kind of what I believe is called terrain in which manœ uvres could take place. The population for many hundreds of miles might be, perhaps, two or three to the square mile, so one does not have the bother of dealing with claims for damage or anything of that sort. Of course, in addition to all that, it is possible there to have realistic battles, with all the problems of supply properly worked out. I am certain that it would be worth looking into. Before I leave that subject, I would like to pay a tribute to the Army for the wonderful change that took place in the early days of the war. I was in a position to see the state of the Army after Dunkirk. I saw it develop. I saw the whole thing alter under our eyes in the next two years. I am perfectly certain when history comes to be written, that the work done by Lord Wavell and General Lindsell, in Egypt, in altering all the old methods of training and fighting, will be a lesson to those who study these matters in the future.

As regards the Territorial Army, I speak with a little mite of knowledge, having been for many years connected with it and with a Territorial association. I have looked up what the position was in 1939. I find from Vote A of the 1939 Estimates that the Regular Forces amounted to 185,700 men, and the Territorial reserves were 144,000 men. The Territorials were only 40,000 less than the Regulars. That is an absolute fleabite compared with what we find in Vote A at the present time. The figure for the Regular Forces is now 2,950,000 men. I would like to emphasise the fact that all the Territorials in those days were volunteers. They were volunteers in the period which I know so well, because I passed through it, when the whole system was dead, and when Territorials were not looked up to in the way that they are at present. What was the reason? The reason was that all through that period between the wars, we had these men who based their voluntary system on tradition, and on the fact, brought out by the Secretary of State for War, that they were attached to the county in which they were born, or in which they lived.

I would like to give a thumbnail sketch of what has been the tradition of one Territorial regiment. It was formed away back in the time of the Napoleonic wars, as the Fencibles. The regiment was carried on mainly by the private endeavour of officers and men all through the 19th century. A contingent went to the South African war and the tradition carried on into the first world war, the regiment fighting in Gallipoli, Egypt, Palestine, and France. They were yeomanry and then turned into infantry. Between the wars they became an artillery regiment. In 1939 they were fully trained and equipped. A few days after the outbreak of war they went to France. They came away at Dunkirk and St. Valery. Subsequently they went to Iraq, Libya, El Alamein, Palestine, the Middle East, and, finally, ended up in Italy. What I want to emphasise is that all that time they stuck together, so much so that for the Python scheme there were still 14 officers and 230 men together who had started from the beginning of the war. During that time they had a wonderful reputation for smartness, discipline and for fighting. Above all— I am sorry that the hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Rogers) is not here— they were a very happy family.

The reason for that was, as I have said, the tradition of the regiment and the fact that they were all drawn from a particular county. I perhaps ought not to mention it, but I am proud of the regiment myself because I am their honorary colonel. I only refer to that case because there are so many others of these county regiments in exactly the same position, some of them with a longer tradition than my own regiment, but they have come through, and now, as the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) said, they are in suspense. We are very glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is going to keep the first-line Territorial regiments, but here are a large number of officers and men with that great tradition and they are ready to come back to lend a hand in forming the new regiments, whatever they are. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, if it is possible, not to delay, but to make use of all this wonderful material, with this very strong feeling, before the officers and men get scattered.

I suggest one other matter for consideration when these new formations arc created. In the old days, a Territorial regiment had a regular adjutant and quartermaster. Now, owing to the changes through which we are passing, there would have to be a regular technical officer and a mechanical transport officer. It is absolutely essential, in these formations, that the rest of the officers should still be Territorial officers, apart from these few regulars whom I have mentioned. I remember the period between the wars, when the Territorial Army was neglected, and I beg of the right hon. Gentleman not to let that happen again, but to treat the Territorial Army seriously and equip it properly.

As regards the cadets, who are also mentioned in the White Paper, it is to be hoped that they will form part of the structure in the future, and I hope that, if he has not done so already, the right hon. Gentleman will take an opportunity of thanking all the old men, who, throughout this war, have been acting as officers to these cadet battalions. They contributed a great deal, not only to the fighting forces, but also to the boys themselves, and many of us know cases of these battalions, which were formed, of boys who were efficient, interested and proud of the battalion. Naturally, the old men are tired, and the younger men have not yet come out of the Army, and, after all, they have to attend to their personal affairs. Therefore, there is a lag at the present moment. The right hon. Gentleman may tell me that he is doing his best, and I quite agree, but what the War Office is doing now is rather to provide a palliative. They have suggested that the Territorial associations should appoint assistant administrative instructors, civilians paid by the cadet committee and given rank as N.C.Os. in the cadet force, but the grant is too small, and the result is, that these assistant administrative instructors have to look after, in my own county, six or more cadet battalions. A county is not like a town, and if people have to travel about from place to place, it is impossible for them to do their job properly. I shall, perhaps, be told that regular units have been asked to help. They have indeed taken these cadets under their wing and have got on very well, but, of course, the regular units are now diminishing in number and are travelling about, and this plan is not as good as it looks.

What is wanted, first, is a definite pronouncement placing the Army Cadet Corps on a firm basis, incorporated with the other auxiliary forces, and with a permanent staff instructor for each unit— a man who will put his whole heart and soul into the business and make a success of it. The officers, in a great many cases, have had to put their hands in their pockets quite deeply, and I hope that, in future, the War Office will be able to make sufficient grants to these units to enable them to be successful without too much call on the pockets of the officers. We want guidance, help and sympathy from above and, if we have leadership, I am perfectly certain that a great work will be done in training boys to be of service to their country.

7.17 p.m.

Captain Peart (Workington)

I should like, first, to express sincere appreciation of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister, who, I think, charmed the Committee by his presentation of the Estimates, and" I compliment him. I know that his Department has had numerous brickbats thrown at it from various parts of the House on other occasions, and there may be justification at times for criticism, but I think that today the right hon. Gentleman has gained the support of all sides of the Committee for the views which he has put forward. I would like to offer a point of criticism which was voiced by one hon. Member opposite on the question of allowances for officers. I cannot see why we should still have a differentiation on family allowances. If a family allowance is given to other ranks, at the age of 21, why should a young subaltern have to wait until he is 25. I hope the Minister is not going to put a premium on sterility. If Army subalterns wish to enter matrimony they should be encouraged to do so. I hope the Minister will reconsider the position of junior officers.

I think we can agree that the British Army, despite its faults, is perhaps the best army in the world, and I, as a serving soldier in this war, am very proud that I have been a member of an honourable regiment, the Royal Regiment of Artillery. I am quite certain the regiment has lived up to the best traditions of the British Army and of its motto— Ubique quo faset gloria ducunt— Everywhere that right and glory leads. It will continue to do so in the future. I hope that the British Army under the leadership and guidance of my right hon. Friend will not be a forgotten Service. We must never again neglect the defences of this country and the British Army. I hope that in his programme for the future my right hon. Friend will attract the very best of the nation into this most important service. This war has proved that the younger generation is not decadent. It has contributed to all Services. I am certain that, if given the opportunity in the planning of the postwar world, many young men will be prepared to serve long periods in the Army as an honourable profession.

Before the war, the Army had many faults. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Kensington (Mr. Rogers) that there was too great a gap between the officers and the men. That, I feel, will be removed in the Army of the future. I know from my own experience as a soldier in the ranks that some of the conditions at the beginning of the war were deplorable. But there has been a great revolution in the Army. There has been a great change in the technique of training, of education, and of welfare. We are now moving in the right direction towards the ideal of a democratic Army. Previously the Army was not sufficiently of the nation. That is not just a criticism of hon. Members, like myself, who have Socialist views.

In an excellent article by Brigadier Brunskill in the "Army Quarterly" of January last dealing with the recruitment of officers for the regular Army, that point of view was continually stressed. Before the war, 95 percent. of the officers in the British Army were drawn from a small section of the community. I consider that that was detrimental to the nation's interest. Boys left school at the age of 18 and then migrated to the military colleges of Sandhurst and Woolwich. There was another small section from the ranks who obtained the few vacancies at the two military colleges I have mentioned. Again, a number obtained commissions direct from the universities, having obtained their Certificate "B". Then there was that very small section who sought service in the ranks and who, after 20 years of honourable service, eventually obtained commissions as quartermasters. I hope that that state of affairs will never again exist in our Army.

In the autumn of 1939, an attempt was made to make the Army more democratic. Unfortunately, the reforms merely scratched the surface; they did not go down to the root of the problem. I welcome the statement by the Minister that everybody must now serve some months in the ranks. It is better for the officer and, in the end, better for the Army and the men. I would warn the Minister that, whilst his intentions may be good, it is possible for commanding officers in training regiments to abuse his instructions. For example, in a training regiment, in which I did my service at the beginning of the war, there were men in the ranks officially serving a period of three months, but it was merely a nominal period. Men were picked out because of their educational background— their public school background. They were given stripes, made acting unpaid lance-bombardiers and then, at the end of three months' training, they went before an O.C.T.U. Board and were given commissions. Similar abuses existed in the promotion of junior officers to senior positions. I hope such abuses will not enter into our present regulations.

I remember being in an orderly room and hearing a discussion between two staff officers who were picking men for a certain position. I remember how they asked from what school the individuals who applied for the posts came. That fact was taken into account. That is something which has got to go, and I hope my right hon. Friend will see that it does go. I recognise that some of our public schools in the past did provide excellent leaders. That was their task, but now that we have a new educational system which is going to widen opportunities for all sections of the community, now we shall have a broader democratic educational system, and I hope it will reflect itself in Army organisation. A new educational system should help to bring about a better type of officer. We have to remove all elements of snobbery and pretentiousness. After all, the new tasks of the British Army will call for a new type of officer. The Army will have to occupy territories for a long period of time in many parts of the world and we shall have to make our contribution to some international police force. Our obligations in a new postwar world will call for a new type of officer. The officer who only thought of polo playing and pig sticking is now no more.

We want to think in terms of providing an officer class which will attract men with a knowledge of economics and an understanding of the social life of our community. We do not want to have any Curragh mutineers in the British Army of the future. We want an army of the people which will be loyal to the Government. I am certain that if my right hon. Friend will provide in his new policy the means to give us this new democratic spirit, that will be in the interest of the nation. In the past, the regular Army was regarded as an institution in which the bad boy sought escape, or where the unemployed man found a job, or unfortunately where the dull sons of the well-to-do obtained positions of importance. We want to make it a career open to all, regardless of family backing and regardless of private means.

The Army of the future must attract the scientist, the technician, the engineer and the administrator. The old conception that an officer should be educated, or badly educated, in the classical school, armed with an accent and a swagger cane, is, I hope, now as dead as the dodo. We have in the Services, as my right hon. Friend has stressed, the greatest experiment in adult education this nation has ever known. I remember how, in 1941, many commanding officers regarded A.B.C.A. as an intruder. I recognise there was good reason for that hostility. It interfered with the type of training that we had at that period. Moreover, very often a young junior regimental officer was not particularly equipped to study topics and accept responsibility for unit education. That has now been changed. A.B.C.A. has certainly been a first rate success. There has been a change from the old idea that a soldier must not think for himself. There has been a change from the idea that A.B.C.A. was a safety valve to prevent the "barrack room lawyer" affecting the rest of the company or battery.

I hope this revolution in our Army educational system will be continued. The soldier is a citizen. He has responsibilities of citizenship, and he must not be isolated from the rest of the community. I have always accepted the view that a good citizen makes a good soldier, and invariably one will find in one's unit that a soldier who takes an intelligent interest in the affairs of his country and in civics is invariably a good soldier from the purely military point of view. I trust this new policy will be pursued, and that we shall have a new relationship between men and officers based on respect and comradeship. Let us hope that the Army will play an increasingly important part in the future of our country and of the British Commonwealth of nations, and in its policing duties and its work of helping backward countries to gain their independence, and their place in world affairs.

7.33 P.m.

Mr. Martin Lindsay (Solihull)

My contribution to this Debate will be very short, but I returned yesterday from a visit to the Army in Germany and I cannot resist this opportunity of paying a tribute to the soldier for the work he is doing there. The Control Commission has a few highly placed experts from this country, but nearly all the senior posts, amounting to some thousands, are held by soldiers, and the soldiers in Military Government are doing an amazing job in running industry, education, agriculture, police, health services and so forth in that country, and getting them on their feet again. I only regret that considerations of space in the newspapers make it impossible at present for this very fine story to be told. I also formed a very strong impression that the whole of the rest of the Army is coming very well out of its test of occupation. I have never seen soldiers looking smarter, and I was assured by all the commanders with whom I stayed that the behaviour of the men in Germany is exemplary. It would seem as if the British soldier, whether he comes from the Welsh coal mines, the towns or fields of England, or the glens or straths of Scotland, has some inherent natural dignity which makes him particularly suited to the peculiar task of being a member of an Army of Occupation, which the younger nations have not, at any rate to the same extent.

What impressed me more than anything else in my visit was the irksomeness of the nature of occupation duties. Nearly all the formations which are not concerned in administration or maintenance are far away in the country, doing guard duties the whole time at dumps, internment camps and so forth, and they live in hutted camps or very unattractive small villages. The towns of Germany today are themselves very unattractive, and, as many hon. Members know, the country which comprises most of the British Zone in Germany is a flat plain which stretches all the way from Holland to Poland. But in future the British Zone in Germany will be classed as a home station. That is to say, a young man who is making up his mind to take up the Army as a regular career is faced with the prospect of doing half his service in India or some place like that, and the other half, instead of spending it in the British Isles as hitherto, he will have to spend in what seems to me to be a very unattractive job in a very unattractive country. What will be the effect on recruitment to the Army? We will have young men sent out by conscription to Germany for a year or 18 months. At the end of that time they will be asked, "What about taking it on for seven years?", or "What about applying for a regular commission?'' The young men will say, "Not likely."

This problem of recruiting officers and men for a long period to make the Army their career, is the greatest problem with which the Army will be faced in the near future. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is nothing in these new pay codes to attract them. The right hon. Gentleman, in opening this Debate, referred to the pay codes for the other ranks as giving a broad equality with industry, but, surely, it is obvious that, if a man is to be forced to spend his life in countries like India and Germany instead of at home and in his family circle, he will have to be given more than a broad equality with industry as an inducement to take up the Army as a career. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman— no doubt he knows it full well— that these pay codes for the other ranks, which have been out since 1st December, have received practically no response from the other ranks in the Army. As for the officers' pay codes, it does, in fact, bring an increase of about 30 per cent. in the net rates as compared with what they were before the war, but I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the ordinary cost of living has gone up by the same amount, so relatively the officer is no better off than he was in 1939. In fact, in many cases, and particularly in the case of married officers, they are worse off than they were in 1939 in that their allowances are now being taxed for the first time. I was assured by many commanders whose judgment I trust that there will be a very large number of resignations and retirements of officers in the Regular Army as soon as they are allowed to do so, because they are disappointed with the prospects, not only financially, but of spending most of the remainder of their service, so far as they can see, in Germany.

I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that nothing is more important today than to make Germany an attractive station to the men of the British Army, if he wants them to take on for regular service, and that we cannot have a conscripted Army of any kind without long-term regular officers, warrant officers, N.C.Os., and men. The Service chiefs in Germany are doing their best to make the service in Germany attractive, but they are being frustrated by the Treasury, which domin- ates the War Office. I will give a few examples to the Committee. Officers and men in the British Army of the Rhine have been allowed to come back to England on leave three times a year, but the proposal now is that in future they shall be allowed to come back only twice. There will be leave every six months instead of every four months. That is an example of the stranglehold which the Treasury are endeavouring to get upon the Service. Another example is the use of recreational transport. Hitherto, in the British Army of the Rhine, one has been able to take transport anywhere for purposes of recreation, whether it be individual officers, or for taking a football team to play in a match against another unit. I am assured that the proposal is that in future it shall be limited to 25 miles, 12 miles out and 12 miles back, which is quite useless in view of the tremendous distances in Germany.

A further example is that nearly all units in Germany today are using German civilians, male and female, in the cookhouses, as waiters and waitresses, and so forth, and I am assured that this very likely will have to cease, because the argument of the Treasury is that this will come out of reparations, and that if the practice continues there will be less reparations for the final share-out. Again, on the question of families, the Service chiefs in Germany have been going to great pains to make arrangements for families to come out to Germany. They have been getting furniture manufactured, stores of equipment, and so on. They have now realised that they have no authority for any of this, and it is questionable what is to happen, because it has been realised by the Treasury that this will mean a net loss of £ 600,000 in the first year which will have to come out of sterling. It must be realised that if Germany is to be regarded as a home station, it must be put on a special footing, whereas the argument that is being made by the War Office to H.Q., B.A.O.R., is that if privileges are granted to B.A.O R., it will affect all the other overseas stations.

I am loath to criticise the right hon. Gentleman who so amiably occupies the position of Secretary of State, but I am astonished that he has not visited the Army in Germany. He has been Secretary of State for eight months. True, he has been to the Far East, but that was a long time ago. I know the Financial Secretary has been to Germany, but as it was put to me by a very high ranking officer, the Financial Secretary darted out and darted back again. I am astonished that the Secretary of State has not been able to spare the time for only a three hours journey to Germany to discuss with H.Q., B.A.O.R., all these problems of how Germany is to be made attractive for the long-term Service man, in order to attract him into the Army, because if we do not tackle this problem realistically and with imagination, and solve it, there will be no Regular Army in the future.

7.45 P.m.

Major Vernon (Dulwich)

According to the traditions of the House of Commons, for which I have great respect, in hon. Member making his maiden speech is expected to be non-controversial. As this is my second speech, I have the privilege of being contentious— not that I enjoy disagreeing with people, for I would much prefer they all agreed with me; but having listened to the speeches today, I am afraid there will be some differences of opinion.

I want to give two warnings, one to the Government, and the other to the people who are contemplating joining the long-term Army. To the Government I would say, "Beware of making the Army too attractive." To the people who are contemplating joining the Army, I would say, "Look before you leap." The reasons are these. If the Army is too attractive, it means that people will join the Army who could give better service to the community if they were working in civilian occupations. I will give an example. On the very day on which the new conditions of pay were published, I was travelling in a tube train with several soldiers, back from Africa, who were going on to the North of England for their first home leave for three years. I started talking with them. They had read in the evening newspapers a glowing account of what conditions were to be in the Army in the future. I said, "Are you going back to the mines when you get to Durham?" They replied, "No fear; we have had enough of roughing it— we are going to stay in the Army." That may be very well for the Army, but, as we all know coal is the foundation of our industrial prosperity and of our hopes of economic advancement in the future.

Then, with regard to officers, very many young men went into the Army almost straight from schools. At the period of their lives when they learn most rapidly and easily, they acquired a knowledge of the arts of war, and in the intense experience of battle they developed rapidly. Many of them were promoted and they acquired the confidence, the authority, and the ability to do very responsible work. With the coming of peace they have to fit themselves, or to be fitted, into the civilian system, and there is no doubt that many of them will have to accept positions of much less authority and to learn a new job again from the beginning. That is a rather trying experience. I know that it is, because I went through it myself after the last war. There is the temptation for these young men to refuse to face these difficulties and the hardship and strain of another period of training, and to take the easier course of a stable existence, with much less worry, anxiety and uncertainty, by staying in the Army. I think this is bad for the civilian side of our national life. It seems to me that the great task of the Government in this period is to fit a third of the working population into new jobs. That can be done efficiently only if everyone gets the job for which he is most appropriate. If our bright lads who obtained skill and initiative in the Army are to stay in the Army, instead of tackling new jobs in industry and in civil life, it will be so much the worse for the nation.

I have noticed in the speeches made by hon. Members opposite, and by some hon. Members on this side, and certainly in the White Papers that have been issued, that at the back of many people's minds there is the idea that we have before us a long period of more or less stability, that we can look forward to 10 years or 20 years' service in the Army. I see that there are fixed half pay rates for field-marshals 20, 30 and 40 years ahead. That is an assumption of a stability which cannot possibly occur, for, whatever happens, the Army that far ahead will not have the remotest resemblance to the Army of the present day. Even the figures for rates of pay will be affected, because nobody knows what prices will be. The value of money will have varied. Whatever it is, it may be very remote from what it is at the present time. I do not blame anyone for that possibility. Obviously, somebody had to get these things down in writing and to give some sort of indication of what is intended at the present moment.

What will happen? There are two courses. In this period of intensive stability the Army will either go down or up. Which way it goes will depend upon whether the United Nations organisation succeeds or not. If the United Nations organisation succeeds, and the great nations of the world decide never to fight each other, what are the big armies going to fight? War takes place when both sides think they will win; otherwise, the weaker one generally gives way. The armies are designed and shaped, and plans are made according to the campaign which is in the people's minds. There is a definite enemy in a definite place, whether the place be tropical, mountainous or swampy. Weapons are arranged for particular campaigns.

If the big nations are not to fight each other, who will be left to be fought against? A certain amount of occupation has to be done at present, and troubles are occurring in various parts of the world. Apart from that, there are wild troops in the mountains of China and other parts of the world who do not come under any rule at all. They will be the only people actively disturbing the peace. To keep them in order will need an international police force, to which we shall have to contribute. Armies will approximate more and more to police functions. Our contribution to the Armed Forces of the United Nations organisation will become a sort of overseas contingent of the home police. That is one direction in which the Army may develop. If the Army does not go that way, it will go the other way. If we are to have war, we shall have to prepare for it. We shall have to get scientific inventions worked into the Army system, and the people in the Army will have to be fitted to their weapons as a working concern. There again, conditions are bound to be absolutely unlike what they have been in the past. Our Army, even at the present time in its drill, contains relics of the Napoleonic tradition of the big battalions. Old traditions die very slowly indeed in the Army. If armies are to be designed to fight each other, they will change as rapidly as their weapons change. Weapons are changing very rapidly.

Yesterday, at the Royal Aeronautical Society, we had a whole day's conference on gas turbines. It is clear that in the branch of engineering enormous changes are to happen very soon. That will be the case throughout. We are sure to have the ultra high explosive in use, jet propelled aircraft and jet propelled explosive rockets of one sort or another, and there will be miracles of radiolocation and the radio direction of missiles. All these things are coming in. If we are to have a full sized war, the Army of the future has to be fitted to those inventions. The personnel of the Army will include bespectacled professors as well as unskilled labourers, and a large number of people to do the transportation. We can imagine that to be a picture of the way in which the Army will develop. It is the picture as I see it. I feel this notion of stability and of continuity in the Army to be utterly wrong.

Here I would return to the point I made a little earlier, about the duty of Governments in these days to fit everybody to the job for which he is most suited. Civilian jobs come before military jobs. I say that because I feel in my bones that the United Nations Organisation will succeed, and that the Army will go downhill in numbers, although not in popular respect. That is the sort of future to which I look forward.

7.55 P.m.

Mr. Michael Astor (Surrey, Eastern)

It must be one of the main considerations of this Committee to make sure that the large sum of money which is to be spent on the Army, as indicated in this White Paper, will reap as large a dividend as possible in the direction of national defence. I see no specific mention in the White Paper of the Polish troops now under British command. I imagine that the details include the cost of keeping those troops. In the absence of any Government statement of policy about the Poles we can regard the expense as temporary and as in no way increasing our Army might in the future. I would make a strong appeal to the Government to treat seriously a suggestion that was made from this side of the Committee earlier about the formation of a British Foreign Legion which would absorb a large number of first-class Polish troops. In the near future the Government will find the greatest difficulty in obtaining sufficient men and officers for our regular peacetime Armies. Furthermore, whatever may be the measure of conscription that is introduced— I sincerely hope we shall have conscription— we shall have the greatest difficulty in policing Germany, the Middle East and India.

For some time to come we shall have in the Polish Army a large reserve of men who, by virtue of their unfortunate circumstances, will be only too glad to have the security of livelihood which we can provide for them in this way. The question of giving British nationality to the Poles is, I appreciate, beyond the scope of this Debate, but I feel most strongly that they should have British citizenship. I would urge that the Government should reply on this point. Will the Government reply also in the near future to the suggestion about a British Foreign Legion? General Anders is in London at the moment. Will the Government look at it from the point of view of expediency and of our manpower requirements? There is a serious shortage of manpower in the country at the present time, having its repercussions on industry and production. There is another point of view which may perhaps be even more important, and that is the very considerable debt of honour we owe to these gallant Allies.

7.59 p.m.

Mr. Rees-Williams (Croydon, South)

Probably never before in the history of this House has this type of Debate taken place after a great war. On all sides, hon. Members are intent upon improving the Army and maintaining its efficiency. There is, however, an air of unreality to me about all these Defence Debates, because the Private Member has not the knowledge of what the new weapons of war mean, and therefore we are forced back on details. There are three certainties to which we can cling, however. The first is that never again in any European war— God forbid there should be another— will this country be an adequate base for operations. Secondly, there will never again be a time factor allowing us to train our reserves shielded by the Royal Navy and the Regular Army. Thirdly, we shall have to garrison Germany for at least 25 years. Those three factors must be taken into account, and I have no doubt are being taken into account, by my right hon.

Friend the Secretary of State for War. This brings me to the inevitable conclusion that conscription is a sad necessity. I say "a sad necessity" because I do not think that conscription in itself is a good thing. It is a necessity, and a sad one, which we will have to face.

I now come to a few minor points, minor, that is, in comparison with the ones I have mentioned. The first is with regard to the choice of officers. We must have a more democratic selection of officers. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman says, and whatever the Army Council say, the choice of officers remains in the selection boards. Having sat on one of these boards I do know that it is most important that the personnel of the boards should be carefully selected. The most important people in the Army from this point of view are lieut.-colonels, either sitting as presidents of the boards or acting as commanding officers. Whatever mandates come down from above, the actual application will depend on the men on the spot. Therefore, my right hon. Friend has got to persuade these people, the lieut.-colonels and the commanding officers, to carry out his wishes.

Mr. Bellenger

I want to be quite clear. My hon. Friend is dealing with the selection of senior officers and not with the War Office selection boards for junior officers?

Mr. Rees-Williams

I would say both. I would say it applies to both the War Office selection boards for O.C.T.U., and later on to the promotion of junior officers to more senior ranks. The next point I have to make is with regard to pay and allowances. I feel that the pay and allowances code is an adequate one. The old anomalies of corps and staff pay have gone. Nevertheless with regard to family allowances, I cannot see why it is assumed by my right hon. Friend that a major's wife eats 2s. 6d. worth of food a day less than a lieut.-colonel's wife, or that the shoes of a major's child wear out less quickly than those of a lieut.-colonel's child. Having been successively a major and a lieut. -colonel I can assure him that the economies of domestic life were even more harsh when I was a major than when I was a lieut. colonel. The entertainment allowance seems to me to be hardly generous enough. With the aid of the Catering Committee I have worked out the amount, and it will allow a commanding officer to provide one round of drinks per day to a small number of guests, provided they do not choose expensive drinks. Whatever we may say about income I would remind the Committee of Mr. Micawber's dictum with regard to the ratio of expenditure to income: 19s. 6d. a day expenditure, in-come 20s. — happiness; the other way about— misery. My right hon. Friend must see that commanding officers do not encourage extravagance in messes and in the social life of their units, because, whatever income they are given, if the expenditure is more than the income they receive there is going to be unhappiness.

Finally, may I say a word with regard to the Royal Artillery Depot at Woolwich, a subject on which I got an answer from the Financial Secretary only this week which was more humorous than helpful? This depot is a perfect scandal. If any troops whatever were in that depot it would be a scandal, but when the Royal Regiment, the right of the line and the pride of the British Army, is in that depot it is adding insult to injury. It is time the Royal Regiment was properly housed. It is time it was housed in one of our new and more up-to-date camps. I thank my right hon. Friend for his excellent presentation of the Estimates, and I hope that in the future the British Army will have as great and as glorious a career as it has always had in the past.

8.5 p.m.

Major Hugh Fraser (Stone)

It is with great interest that I have listened to this evening's Debate, and with great pleasure that I have succeeded in capturing your eye, Mr. Beaumont. I want to speak on a fairly controversial subject, one which has not been mentioned tonight, namely, a special branch of the Army, the airborne forces, in which I took part during the war. The troops who are airborne are, so to speak, neither fish, flesh nor fowl, and come under the Air Ministry for transport and the War Office for control. I bring it forward tonight for two reasons. First, I believe these forces are typical of the specialist forces, the special type of force which is bound to grow and bound to be required more and more. Secondly, there is the advantage which this type of force possesses. I know this is a controversial matter, because in the past the whole question of the airborne troops has been, at moments, opposed by the air staffs, in so far as those airborne troops took up, in their carriage and portage, space which might otherwise have been devoted to bombing or fighter aircraft.

I regret that this should be a controversial matter. There is a quite considerable danger that these forces might be forgotten, in rather the same manner as that in which the question of the tank was almost forgotten by the War Office between 1918 and 1940. The tank was a controversial question, and for that reason it tended to be shelved. I believe it was not until 1940 that the first real genuine improvements were made in tank technique and production since 1918 and 1926. This is an age of tremendous aeronautical advance, as the spokesman of His Majesty's Government stated the day before yesterday. The question of airborne forces therefore is one of very considerable importance. I suggest there are here various matters which need serious and careful consideration by His Majesty's Government. The promise made today with regard to the research department, should be fully and carefully investigated. It is most important that some of the £ 28 million which is to be devoted annually to research by the Ministry of Supply should be spent on the investigation of and improvement in airborne technique, because undoubtedly here there is enormous scope for development.

The air carrying capacity of our aircraft— if I might go a little outside the terms of reference of this Debate— should be considered by the Ministry of Aircraft Production. The question of carrying troops, the speed and the mobility which air movement possesses, should be studied by the Ministry of Aircraft Production when they put forward their suggestions for the building of aircraft or improving the construction of civilian aircraft. Much though I dislike the nationalisation of civil aviation, that is a point and an advantage which is well worth bearing in mind. In the past our airborne troops have been much in contact with and have trained the troops of Belgium and France and Holland in their airborne technique.

We have worked in conjunction with the Americans who, at this very moment, are developing tremendous new instruments for the transport of troops, for re-supply and for the heavier weapons so essential to the successful carrying out of airborne operations. I suggest that in the same way as the Under-Secretary of State for Air the day before yesterday announced an agreement for continuing work with the French air force, we should continually investigate how the technique of airborne forces can be developed in conjunction with our American Allies, and with the French, Belgians and Dutch. These, if we stand unaided, will be extremely expensive things to do.

The future of the regular Army, I believe, lies in the specialised skill of a highly technical type of man, with efficient officers having technical troops under their command, and that brings me to the question of what the Government intend to do as regards the future of the Army as a whole. I think the Government have been obsessed-with the idea of demobilisation to the point of excluding the building up, and the production to this House, of the plan which must run concurrently with demobilisation— the plan for a new regular force. That plan has not been produced, and it is a most serious criticism to make of the Government that they have been so much on the defensive about demobilisation— their supporters have been so much on the offensive about it— that they themselves have been sitting on the fence as regards what I believe to be the main object of an army, namely, to defend the country. We have heard a great deal tonight about the development of educational corps and democracy within the Army, and I believe that is all to the good, but the chief object of an army is to defend and fight, and to do so by attack.

I sincerely hope that the few rambling remarks I have made tonight about the development of airborne forces will be heeded. I hope full use will be made of the advantages gained by our Allies' experiments in support and supply by air, the use of rocket projectiles to carry out re-supply, the question of the free drop and deceleration by the use of rockets, the question of carrying larger bodies of troops, and all those problems because of which a great many airborne operations during the war were not quite the success they might have been. I hope all those things will be studied, and that the next time these Estimates come forward it will be possible to submit not only a successful demobilisation scheme fully carried out but a constructive plan for the building up of a new model Army. That is what we need, a new model army to face the new dangers that might lie before us and the new techniques and new strains which will be put upon us. I hope that next time the Government make a statement on defence, it will be a real one.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. William Wells (Walsall)

I have precisely two minutes in which to make one very short point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State today has a tremendous opportunity, an opportunity which I think no Secretary of State has ever had before, and which, almost certainly, no Secretary of State will ever have again, to remove from the Army the kind of stigma that is attached to it of being the Cinderella of the Services. I myself shall never forget one summer, coming through the glories of the Cotswolds and the beauties of Oxford to the drabness of Tidworth and its barracks and the feeling of utter depression at the idea that I had to spend merely a few weeks in that horrible environment. The Secretary of State cannot take advantage of this opportunity, unless he infuses the Department which he controls with an entirely new spirit, and a new approach. There is an old saying that fish stinks at the head, and one of the great difficulties in the way of the War Office has been that, in contrast with the Admiralty, which has always succeeded in taking a lordly tone with the Treasury, the War Office has gone humbly, cap in hand, to ask as a favour what it should have demanded as a right. I hope this situation may never recur, and that the War Office will in future claim its full status of equality with the other Service Departments.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. Eden (Warwick and Leamington)

I think the Secretary of State and the Financial Secretary have every reason to be gratified, if not satisfied, with the welcome which has been accorded to this Vote and to the Government's declarations today. Rarely in my experience have I heard Government proposals of this nature being so generally well received, and as I listened to the Debate I wondered exactly how I was to fulfil the primary duty of a Member of the Opposition, which is to oppose. However, I thought that there were just one or two things which I could find, in order that the Government should not feel that all was so well that no great effort was needed from them.

First of all, I should like to extend a welcome where I can. This Debate has covered almost every aspect of Army life, and I am sorry that some hon. and gallant Gentlemen in all parts of the Committee have not been able, in spite of your extreme ingenuity, Mr. Chairman, to catch your eye. There is, I understand, to be another opportunity very soon on the Army Estimates, and perhaps those who were not so fortunate today will be fortunate on that occasion. I was glad to hear what the Secretary of State had to say about the men who are now fulfilling Army duties under what are— and some of us have experience of them ourselves— conditions of great tediousness and strain. Before this Debate concludes I think this Committee ought to send a collective message of understanding to the men in the armies of occupation, and I hope that when he comes to reply the Financial Secretary will tell us that he will be good enough to send such a message, not from any Party but on behalf of the House of Commons as a whole, to tell them that we understand the tedium of their task, that they are engaged in a trying ordeal, and that we who, after all, are the elected representatives of the nation are grateful to them for the spirit and the manner in which they are fulfilling that task.

There was something else in what the right hon. Gentleman said that I wanted to welcome. I was glad to hear him say that he proposed to retain the regimental system. I think that all of us, in all parts of the Committee, are convinced that there is no substitute for that system, and despite all the mechanisation and other complexities of modern military life, which will no doubt increase and multiply, it should not pass the ingenuity of man— certainly not the ingenuity of a great institution like the War Office— to combine the need for mechanised and scientific development with all that is best in our regimental system. I was also glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that the Army would continue to be organised on a territorial basis. I am convinced that that also is a wise decision. I have had a suspicion from time to time that the War Office finds that basis slightly irritating. I do not blame them. It is obviously simpler from the point of view of the Adjutant-General's Department if all men can be equally available for all units at all times; but I was glad to hear, despite that temptation, what the right hon. Gentleman said today about the territorial basis of the organisation of cur Army. I am sure that, despite the extra labour that it involves for the War Office and in other respects, that policy should be adhered to, because the gain in the sense of territorial unity and local patriotism far surpasses the extra labour which is involved.

The third observation I wish to make in approval of what came from the Government is in respect to the conditions of life in the Army and, in particular, in respect to accommodation. The Secretary of State for War, if I heard his words aright, said he hoped to work towards equality of conditions between the Army and civil life. If he succeeds in doing that, he will do something which none of his predecessors has ever heretofore been able to do. We wish him all possible success in his efforts, and he will receive full support from us. But he will be under no delusion as to the difficulties. An hon. Member below the Gangway— I think it was the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams) — complained about the conditions in which the Royal Regiment was housed. I think most of us could think of other regiments, perhaps not quite so famous, but almost as famous as the Royal Regiment, which are no better housed; and, indeed, that is a universal problem.

We understand— it would be foolish not to understand— that in improving these conditions, as happened between the two wars, the War Office comes into competition not only with the other Services, but with the civil requirements of the nation. When the Army is in truth a section of the nation, doing a task for the nation, it is not unreasonable to ask that it should have a proportion of the effort which the nation is devoting to rehousing its people made available to it, in order that reasonable living conditions may be obtained by our soldiers when they are serving in the Army. We ask no more than that, but when the Secretary of State for War has occasional arguments with his colleagues on the question of obtaining facilities for accommodation in the Army— improvement to barracks and so forth— the Committee will feel that he will be justified in saying, "Here is a section of the people, of the nation, engaged in a national task at the request of Parliament, and it is entitled to a share of the amenities which are being made available to the population as a whole." The Army asks for no more than that to which, in my judgment, it is fully entitled.

Let me turn to another aspect of what the right hon. Gentleman said. In his absence I have been covering him with bouquets. I must now turn to one or two questions I have to put. He spoke to us about scientific research, and I should have liked to hear a little more about that. I do not ask for it tonight, but I think that when we have the Estimates it would be of great value if the House could be told something more. So long as this nation has to have an army at all, it is essential that our Army should be the best equipped and the best led that the ingenuity and the resources of our nation can contrive. That is the minimum to which the Army is entitled from us. We are all conscious that, in seeing how far that idea is to be realised, we have to take account of scientific development. By that I do not mean only new weapons, I mean the development of old weapons, of communications and so forth, by scientific research. I hope that when the Estimates come before us the right hon. Gentleman or one of his colleagues from the War Office, will give us an account of what is being done in that sphere.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) earlier this afternoon expressed the hope that never again would the Regular Army be sacrificed while the nation was making ready. I understand and share his sentiments to the full, but I do not think he need worry about that, because I do not think it would be of any avail for that to happen again; for, under conditions as they are today, there would be no time for the nation to make ready while the Regular Army was being sacrificed. If we face the world situation as it is today we must realise that whatever Army we have— with auxiliaries, of course— its core must be a trained, professional Army. It must be the very best that we can create. The men must have the best conditions and be ready for any emergency with which they may be called upon to deal, otherwise, we had better not pretend to have an Army at all. The right hon. Gentleman said it was not possible to decide now precisely what form the Army will take. I understand that, but again I say that when the Estimates are brought forward I hope we can be shown a little more of what is in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman and of what is in the mind of the Army Council in this respect.

I want in the few minutes that remain to me to make one or two references to campaigns which have not been very fully referred to. After all, this is the first discussion we have had on the Army since VJ-Day, and there are one or two things about it that I should like to say. Full tribute has been paid, and justly paid, in the last month since D-Day to the achievements of the Allied Armies since the landings in Northern France and to their sweep through Northern France and to their final thrust through Germany; but less has been said— I think, perhaps, too little has been said— of the concluding stages of the campaign in Italy. And yet this was, indeed, remarkable and, I think, deserving of the highest tribute this Committee can pay. I should imagine that, seldom if ever in the history of any army, have there been contingents from so many nationalities, races, and creeds, as made up the force that Field-Marshal Alexander led to victory. To weld such an army into a victorious unit, at a time when inevitable and constant calls were being made on that army for other theatres, required the highest" gifts not only of leadership, but, let me add, of diplomacy. I am sure that every soldier under Field-Marshal Alexander's command, whatever his nationality, would agree that his commander brilliantly expressed those very gifts.

Let me add what is often forgotten. The campaign in Italy was fought by our troops under conditions of extreme physical discomfort. I do not care with how many posters our Italian friends may cover our hoardings in the years to come, they will not easily persuade the British people to encounter "sunny 'Italy" in winter time. I would say that that campaign in its last stages was an outstand- ing example of what can be achieved with comparatively limited resources by brave and determined men under inspired leadership.

One word about another campaign, that in Burma, which, as the right hon. Gentleman so rightly said today, was remarkable for many things but, above all, remarkable for what the hon. Member for North Midlothian (Lord John Hope) referred to, the intimate integration of the Army and the Royal Air Force. In that campaign natural obstacles of the most formidable nature had to be overcome. Our forces had to fight, not only the Japanese, but the jungle and the monsoon as well. They were able to do that only by resorting to new methods of cooperation between the Services, especially in the field of supply. A distinguished commander of the Royal Air Force said to me a few months ago, that while it might be true that in the North African campaign the Army had made its brilliant advance under the wings of the Royal Air Force, it was certainly true that in Burma they had made their advance on the wings of the R.A.F. I think that that is true, and I do not think there is a soldier in the campaign who would deny it. I hope, both in respect of that campaign and of the Italian campaign, as well as of the great battles of the West, that the War Office, under my right hon. Friend's guidance, will choose good men to write the pictures of these campaigns, and to write them soon, and in simple language, so that people can read them and understand what their men have done.

Reference was made earlier today to Lord Alanbrooke. Having sat with him for four years or more on the Defence Committee, I must add my tribute to the service which he rendered to this country — utterly selfless service. I have never met a man who could so part himself from his own natural ambitions— and who would have been C.I.G.S. at that time and not wished to command one of out great Armies in the field? He worked indefatigably, and with complete singleness of purpose, to make the British Army a mighty striking weapon for victory. Out debt to him is very great indeed. There is one other soldier I would mention, because his name is rarely mentioned in considering our war effort, and I know Lord Alanbrooke would be the first to wish him mentioned and that is his pre- decessor, Field-Marshal Sir John Dill. I must put on record my conviction that the services which he rendered at that time after Dunkirk to the Army, and, indeed, to the Allied cause, were outstanding. Later, his appointment to Washington was a happy stroke of genius, and the resulting friendship between him and General Marshall proved of value to the Allied cause to an extent which only historians of the future will be able to register. Together, he and General Marshall, that man who was so modest as well as being one of the most daring and successful of our architects of victory, rendered a service which is second to few in the records of this war. The last time I saw Sir John Dill was in Quebec, when he was obviously a very sick man. I think that he was happy then, as we are proud now, in the knowledge that the work he and General Marshall had done had speeded our victory.

Before I close, I should like to make reference to the Territorial Army. I was glad to hear what my right hon. Friend had to say on this subject. Before the war, many thousands of men in this country gave all their spare time to serve in the Territorial Army. Today is the first Debate after victory solely concerned with the Army, and I think that we should recall that service with heartfelt gratitude. Also, we recall the large number of young men who joined up as volunteers when the Territorial Army was doubled. I am not saying for the moment whether that was a wise or unwise decision— there are many points of view on that— but the quality of these young men who responded is something which has never been exceeded in the history of our country.

Let me conclude with these words. It is inevitable that tonight— all through this Debate I felt it, and I am sure hon. Members in all parts of the Committee have felt it— our minds are preoccupied by events in the international field. We all hoped that this Debate could have taken place in a smoother international setting. I confess that, nine months ago, I never thought the setting could have been such as it is tonight. As this Debate proceeded, I think there has been, in the mind of each one of us, a sense of disappointment, indeed of sorrow, that the friendship and understanding between the Allies, sought and fostered by all in the hour of trial, should now be so gravely menaced. We all pray that this phase will not endure, and that the millions of dead, from all the Allied lands, will yet see realised the ideals for which they fought and died, in a world where people may live together, in amity, in freedom and at peace. I came across a quotation yesterday from a speech, I think, of Mr. Gladstone, in which he used these words: The true test of a man, the true test of class, the true test of a people, is power. It is when power comes into their hands that the real trial comes. I hope and this House of Commons hopes that the Allied Nations, who now have that power, will prove worthy of their trust.

8.38 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Bellenger)

The wonderful passage with which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) ended his speech will certainly find an echo from these benches. Although tonight we are discussing Army Estimates, nevertheless, the old proverb that "prevention is better than cure" still prevails. We certainly agree wholeheartedly with the right hon. Gentleman's, hope that the forces which we are bound to organise to prevent danger coming to this country, will never have to be utilised as they have been utilised twice within our generation. My right hon. Friend who is unable to reply to this Debate will wish me, I am sure, to say a word of gratitude and thanks to my right hon. Friend and to hon. Members in all parts of the Committee, for the generous tributes which they have paid to him for his speech introducing the Estimates. He hopes and, I think, we must all hope, that, whatever our differences may be over other matters, in this matter the recruitment of our postwar Forces is a subject for all of us of all parties, because it is something which is truly representative of the nation.

I can well understand the curiosity displayed by the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) when he asked for less secrecy in the Army Estimates. He probably remembers that, more than once during the war, I, too, urged the then Secretary of State for War to tell us more about the postwar Forces which I thought, and many others thought, we should have been getting ready. It is not long since this war ended and during that short space of time we have done our best at the War Office to make plans, some of which had been laid before we arrived, for this new Army which we want to be truly representative of the nation and of which the nation and, indeed, the world can be proud. Although I am not able now to give as much information as hon. Members may desire, I hope there will be another opportunity in a month's time. I shall do my best, however, to answer some of the questions and suggestions which have been put to my right hon. Friend and myself tonight.

Let me first reply to the very welcome suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington. He asked my right hon. Friend whether he would send a message to our Armies of Occupation overseas from all parties and Members in this House, expressing our appreciation of the services they are performing and the duties they are undertaking so patiently and efficiently. I am glad to say to the right hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend will be only too happy to do so. Indeed, my right hon. Friend hopes to take the opportunity very soon of broadcasting to the nation and to our troops overseas. From my knowledge of the effect of my right hon. Friend's visit to S.E.A.C., I think that I can say with confidence that the broadcast and the message which he will give to the troops will be welcomed.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington, among other matters, made reference to the regimental system as the backbone of our Army. The right hon. Gentleman and I have served in two wars and my right hon. Friend served in the first Great War. We served as regimental officers and also in the ranks— at least I did— and I also served for a short time as a staff officer. I think I can say with confidence that, although in the future it may occasionally be necessary owing to events over which we have no control to modify the regimental system, as we had to do during the war, we propose to recruit the new Army and the auxiliary Forces, whatever they may be, so far as we possibly can, on a territorial and regimental basis. We who have served in the Army know the meaning of regimental tradition.

But I do not want the Committee to be under any illusion. It was not our set purpose during the war that regimental postings in North Africa, for example, should be held in abeyance and reinforcements made irrespective of regiments. It was due to the impact of events, and force of circumstances. With the long passage around the Cape in order to reinforce our troops in North Africa and Egypt, it was not possible for us to keep sufficient numbers on a regimental basis to reinforce the regiments. It was found necessary, in order to keep our front line units up to strength, to modify to a certain extent the regimental system. I would like to disabuse the mind of the right hon. Gentleman that the War Office design to cut across the regimental tradition, because it is easier for administrative purposes. Recently I made a few remarks on an Adjournment Debate, and I can assure hon. Members that those remarks caused considerable discussion not only in "The Times" but also in the War Office.

In 1914, I enlisted in the Royal Regiment of Artillery, to which the hon. and gallant Member for South Croydon (Lieut-Colonel Rees-Williams) referred tonight as "right of the line," and in 1939, when I received a temporary commission, I rejoined that regiment. I can say with experience of both regimental and staff duties, that, on the whole, I prefer regimental duties. I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington has paid tribute to our Armies who fought so valiantly and victoriously in the Italian and Burmese campaigns. I can assure him that the histories of those campaigns have been recorded and are being compiled at the present time by eminent historians. We hope, in due course, to issue those histories in a form which will have a popular appeal, and which will certainly appeal to all those who fought in those campaigns.

Colonel Ponsonby

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us if it will be possible to include a history of the Abyssinian conflict?

Mr. Bellenger

By coincidence, my Noble Friend the Member for Paisley (Viscount Corvedale), who acts as my Parliamentary Private Secretary, and who took part in that campaign, reminded me that very little tribute had, so far, been paid to those who fought in it. I think that it was two divisions against 16 Italian divisions and they overcame them with, shall I say, comparative ease although not without some considerable hardship. I hope that a reference to that campaign will be included in the official history.

Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have made reference to the Territorial Army. I wish I could give full information on the part the Territorial Army units will play in our postwar Forces, but I am not yet in a position to do so. A decision has not yet been reached, not because His Majesty's Government are not endeavouring to reach one, but because of certain circumstances, such as the question of how long conscription is to last. Nevertheless, I can assure the Committee that the Territorial Army units will play an important role in the auxiliary Forces of the postwar Army. It may interest hon. Members to have a few figures. In mid-1939 the Territorial Army, after its duplication, numbered some 400,000 and consisted of 24 infantry divisions, six anti-aircraft divisions, part of a cavalry division and various coast defence and administrative units. The efficiency which the Territorial Army maintained not only enabled it to man the anti-aircraft defences in this country before the outbreak of war, and to take the place of the Regular Army in home defence, but also enabled complete Territorial Army divisions to be sent to the Expeditionary Forces in France in 1939 and 1940, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite knows, because for a period he was Secretary of State at the War Office. During the war, the Territorial Army was embodied in the Army as a whole, and the spirit of service initiated in those early days remained with' all Territorial Army units throughout the war. The Territorial Army Associations will continue to have an important part to play in the postwar Army. Although their duties and composition may need revision, it is very far from our thoughts or intentions to sacrifice or disregard the fine traditions and patriotic record of the Territorial Army.

May I turn to the speech made by the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston)? He rather took the Government to task for not accelerating demobilisation, in order to fit in with certain ideas that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wood- ford (Mr. Churchill) had expressed to this House as to the size that our forces should reach by, I think, the middle of this year. Although obviously one cannot disregard remarks made by the right hon. Member for Woodfordc— indeed the whole world is paying attention to some of his latest remarks— nevertheless His Majesty's Government have more up to date information than had the right hon. Member for Woodford, when he made those remarks in this House some months ago. In view of all the circumstances, of which we must take cognizance, the speed with which we are demobilising the Army by the end of this year will satisfy, I think, not only relations at home, but the Army itself. It is not possible at this moment to translate the global figures into group numbers. We know only too well that individual soldiers are more concerned with group numbers for release than they are with global figures. Unless something unforeseen should happen, which God forbid, we hope by the end of this year that most of the troubles of the Army and also of hon. Members of Parliament who are receiving many complaints from the Army at the present moment, will be over.

The hon. Gentleman asked for a large number of volunteers for our postwar Army. In that respect we shall need the help of hon. Members in all quarters of this Committee if we are to recruit the Regular Army. So far, recruiting has not been brisk, but it is hoped shortly to engage in a recruiting drive, and we .believe that the new terms and conditions of service which we have announced for other ranks as well as officers, will result in a satisfactory response. It is not only the duty of the Government to see that we recruit a volunteer force for the Regular Army, but the duty lies with His Majesty's Opposition, too and we hope we shall have their assistance in this respect.

The hon. Member referred to officers' rates of pay as did other hon. Members. I have no time to go into the details of all those points, but I will study the issues which have been raised in this Debate and I hope it will be possible for me, when we move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair a month hence, to be able to give some detailed replies. Tonight I am endeavouring to give as much information as I can to those hon. Members who spoke. The hon. Member for Westbury asked what would be the position of those cadets who enlisted in the Regular Army before they entered the Army college. What would happen to them if after ending their training at the Army college they were considered through no fault of their own unsuitable for a commission. In that event they would be given a free discharge, but, of course, they may be liable to national service under the National Service Acts, if such are in operation in those days.

The hon. Gentleman having a personal interest, as he told us, in the Imber training ground, asked for a little elucidation on what would happen there. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War has been dealing with the matter, and I understand from him that there is a likelihood that this area, which is War Department property, may have to revert to War Department uses. This may mean that those who had, after all, only precarious tenancies before the war, may not be able to return to their cottages. I have not gone into this matter thoroughly myself, but that is the opinion I gleaned from my Noble Friend. All I can say in that respect is that, anything said by the hon. Gentleman will be brought to the attention of my Noble Friend, who is intimately concerned with this matter.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Petersfield stressed the gratitude due by this nation to those pioneers who, before the war, helped to raise the A.T.S. We at the War Office know and appreciate the value of those who led the A.T.S. and the A.T.S. themselves in those now seemingly far-off days, and I think the greatest reward that they can have is the knowledge that we hope, as intimated by the Minister today, to continue the A.T.S. as a part — perhaps a very small but nevertheless a very vital part— of the Regular Army in the future.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked me a series of questions and among others, Why did the War Office mark so many of their papers "Secret"? The same thought has often crossed my mind, and, having read some of the papers, I really wondered why they should be marked "Secret." Indeed, there is a whole range of secrecy at the War Office from "top" secrets, some of which I have not read, down to the ordinary confidential type. But I have no doubt that those at the War Office, who read speeches of Members of Parliament, will take notice of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said. He asked further, as did another hon. and gallant Member, why in the case of other ranks a marriage allowance is granted from the age of 21 and in the case of officers from 25. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will have noticed in the White Paper that there is some reference to those officers who have married under the age of 25 and some provision is being made for them although it has not been explicitly defined in the White Paper.

The hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Rogers), in a maiden speech, I fear was a little troubled with what he alleges to be the difference between the cooking for the officers and the cooking for the men. Having served in the Forces he would know that the officers get rations no different from those of the men. I am not going to say that the officers do not supplement their rations sometimes, as, indeed, they are fully entitled to do, but, so far as any radical difference between the food of the men and the food of the officers is concerned, we at the War Office do not want any great disparity. Indeed, we are taking every step, and making every effort, to see that officers are provided with the same type of cooks as other ranks, although, for various reasons, it may not be possible always to cook officers' rations with the other ranks rations. Sometimes, when they are in the line, they eat from the same cookhouse, but when they are behind the lines, and the officers are separated from the other ranks in different buildings, I think it is justifiable that officers should have their own cookhouse, just as Members have different kitchens for themselves when they feed at home.

My hon. Friend also mentioned something about Army Council instructions. I have often read such instructions, even in the days when it was not possible for a Member to get them put into the Library. If we knew of a particular A.C.I., about which we thought we might make a little trouble for the Secretary of State for War, we could ask for it and get it, but often we did not know what that A.C.I. was, until one of our constituents referred to it in a letter. But since those days A.C.Is. containing information of interest to the troops are specially published on unit notice boards in the form of bulletins. I and other Members have seen some of these A.C.I.'s, which give information which it is necessary for the troops to know. Many of these instructions are most boring, and are of no interest to the troops, and it is not necessary that we should waste paper by publishing them. Others, however, are of interest to the troops, and are now, as I say published on unit notice boards.

The hon. Member for North Midlothian (Lord John Hope) referred to the training and selection of leaders. I do not propose to go into that question tonight, because it would be more suitable for the Debate which we propose to have a month hence. Nevertheless, I would remind him, as, I think, he must know, that the General Staff of the War Office are very much concerned with the training of the new Army. All sorts of new weapons and new ideas are appearing on the horizon, and we are recruiting fresh minds at the War Office. The whole Army Council is changing. The nation has started, with a complete change in the political direction of the War Office, and we are going on now, with the selection of new military leaders. They will be men who have experienced the value of up-to-date training methods in the field. No one can say that Field-Marshal Lord Montgomery, the new Chief of the Imperial General Staff, is not a man with a clear and fresh mind, a man with up-to-date knowledge of training methods.

The hon. Member quoted something which was said in the recent Defence Debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies). To a certain extent I agree with him. Military training does not inculcate, in the minds of those who are trained, a desire to kill. It certainly does not induce them to hate even their foes, although sometimes the training is such that they are "pepped up '' before it comes to going over the top. All those who experienced Christmas, 1914, when the enemy and ourselves came out of the trenches and fraternised, will know that there is no hatred between front-line troops. They are only too glad to finish the war and get back to their -peaceful avocations, as most of them do if allowed.

The hon. Member for North Hendon (Mrs. Ayrton Gould) raised a matter which is very near to my heart, namely, the question of paying officers' marriage allowances to the wives. During the war, when I was a private Member, I brought this question prominently to the notice not only of the War Office but of the other two Service Departments. I do not think I am betraying a secret when I say that, although we might have done a lot with the War Office, even in those days, we could not get beyond the Admiralty. This question really applies only to those difficult marriages to which my hon. Friend referred tonight. The majority of officers make proper provision for their wives, and get on with them very satisfactorily, so that the wives do not wish to draw the allowance direct. Nevertheless, I give the hon. Member the assurance that the Minister and Ic— both of us family men, myself very much so I am afraid— are concerned with the protection of family life.

The hon. and gallant Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Captain Chetwynd) paid a tribute to Army education and asked what the soldier was getting out of it. He is getting quite a lot and will, I hope, get more when we recruit those young men, as they will be in the main, into our postwar Army. In that respect I may say that we are not working a plan entirely of our own at the War Office, but are utilising the assistance of the Ministry of Education and those engaged in civilian education outside. Speaking with considerable knowledgec— I have had close acquaintance with Army matters now for some considerable time, although not always in such a responsible position as I now occupy— I can say that the Army education scheme has done more than hon. Members may imagine to keep the Army as satisfied and contented as possible in these very difficult days of demobilisation. The hon. and gallant Gentleman also asked what was the position of education in the B.A.O.R. I can tell him that about 70 per cent. of the B.A.O.R. take part in the educational courses which are offered to them by the Army.

The hon. and learned Member for Chester (Mr. Nield) dealt with the question of release, but I think he based his arguments on a false premise. I do not think my right hon. Friend gave shortage of shipping as a reason for the release scheme being less rapid than many would like. I think that if the hon. and learned Gentleman will read the report of my right hon. Friend's remarks on that subject tomorrow, he will see that the Secretary of State does not today allege that shipping is the main governing factor in the speed of release. Of course it does play a certain part in the same way that it does in civilian industry in getting our exports overseas. But there is no getting away from the fact that, by the end of the year, 94 per cent. of the A.T.S. and, I think, 85 per cent. Of the Army will be demobilised.

I did not hear the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Moss Side (Lieut. W. Griffiths) but my right hon. Friend has told me that it was very good. The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to the selection of officers both at "Wosbies" as they are called— War Office selection boards— and O.C.T.Us. Those who have had some knowledge of, and acquaintance with, War Office selection boards and O.C.T.U.s will know that they have done their duty very well during this war. After all, they have provided us with the majority of officers who fought this war and won this war. What better testimony could be given to their efforts?

He referred to a question which has often cropped up, the very sad question of the withholding of the marriage allowance from the wives of those men who are undergoing detention. I cannot give him a detailed reply tonight. However, from my general knowledge of this subject, I think I am right in saying that the marriage allowance is not stopped until the man has been in detention for more than 28 days, but I say that subject to checking it. There is, however, this to be said about it: the numbers of those in detention are very small indeed, fortunately, compared with the large numbers we have in the Army. If a man so misconducts himself in civil life then his employer certainly does not pay any marriage allowance to the wife, and I do not think we can be asked in the Army, even though we are his employers, to continue the marriage allowance and the allotment of the man when the man's own pay has been stopped.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Sevenoaks (Colonel Ponsonby) referred to the advantages of utilising certain parts of Africa for training our troops rather than taking up space on Salisbury Plain. I, in the first great war, served part of my training on Salisbury Plain and, speaking with that experience, I should think that the majority of troops would certainly prefer to serve a portion of their training period in some of those pleasant parts, because there are some very pleasant parts in Africa, rather than serve their training period at Bulford and other places like that on Salisbury Plain. However, that is a matter which is receiving attention and will be part of the postwar training plans.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Solihull (Mr. Lindsay) referred to what he described as the irksomeness of service in the Army of Occupation, guarding dumps, and said that it was not conducive to recruiting. I can understand that. A lot of those duties are certainly monotonous, but I hope that as we run down our Army of Occupation overseas, and as conditions improve there, they may find it a little bit more pleasant.

I have no time to refer to many other speeches made by hon. Gentlemen tonight and which were, on the whole, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington said, complimentary to my right hon. Friend in particular and to the Government in general. However, both my right hon. Friend and I — and indeed all the War Office— are concerned to build a regular Army in the future on the best possible foundation. We have already laid some of those foundation stones in the White Papers dealing with the officers' and other ranks' rates of pay, but, as my right hon. Friend said, there is a great deal more to be done in connection with conditions of service, length of service, training and after service prospects. All these are being planned at the present time. It may not be possible for us to get 100 per cent. perfection, but we are determined that, in future, there shall be no possible chance of hon. Members saying that the Army is the Cinderella of the Services and that the soldier is only wanted when the war is on. We are going to make good citizen soldiers.

Question put. and agreed to.

Resolved: '' That a sum, not exceeding £ 450,000,000 be granted to His Majesty on account, for or towards defraying the charges for Army Services which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947.

ARMY SUPPLEMENTARAY ESTIMATE, 1945

Resolved:

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £ 10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray ' the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Army Services for the year."

Schedule
	Sums not exceeding
Supply Grants	Appropriations in Aid
Vote.	£	£
1. Pay, &c, of the Army	10	250,000,000

Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.