HC Deb 30 May 1946 vol 423 cc1474-86

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

9.48 p.m.

Major Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)

The subject I bring up tonight is one which I feel comes not unsuitably after we have just agreed to send our first charter of freedom to America. It is a subject, I think, on which there should be no party differences in so far as the defence of our Empire is a non-party matter. There appears to be some lack of liaison between the Departments affecting men who ought to be coming back to this country to be demobilised, and I submit that that is fair game. I wish to call attention to the delay affecting release groups 29 to 31 from East Africa. This story begins, as far as I am concerned, on 12th February when my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) put a written Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. At that time there was some discussion on the matter of delay in Group 27, but that was due to reasons into which I do not propose to enter tonight. In his answer, the Secretary of State for War made a remark which is of great importance. He said: It follows that there is no reason to suppose that the arrival of men in Group 28 or later from East Africa will be delayed beyond the dates laid down for their Groups."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1946; Vol. 419, c. 47.] The next thing in this story is that on 1st May, the " East African Standard " published the following information: Headquarters East Africa Command announces that the next shipping opportunity for personnel proceeding to the United Kingdom for release is not expected to be before early June, arriving in the United Kingdom in the latter half of that month. In consequence, it is regretted that officers of Age and Service Groups 29 and 30 and other ranks of group 30 will not arrive in the United Kingdom until after the dates for release of their groups. In addition, it is possible that officers and other ranks of Age and Service Group 31 may also arrive in the United Kingdom a few days after the period set for the release of their group. Headquarters East Africa Command has made and is continuing to make every effort to obtain earlier shipping and appreciates that this delay will cause disappointment to many but trusts that they will understand that it is due to world wide causes. The fullest use is being made of available air passages to clear personnel now awaiting despatch. That, by itself, sounds quite innocent and perhaps understandable, but, at the same time, troops in East Africa were given to understand that a contingent was going from East Africa to here, for the Victory Parade. I hope that this short Debate will not turn too much on the pros and cons of having a Victory Parade now. That matter was dealt with during an earlier Debate in this House and I hope that it will not come up too much tonight. I submit that this House will be very much more interested to consider whether or not it is right that the release of many men, officers and other ranks, should be delayed in order to get what I imagine is a small contingent home for the Victory Parade.

My contention is that that was an unwise decision, but I have another point to make. I believe that one of the main criticisms to which the Government are open is the lack of liaison among Departments. Having read the newspaper report about shipping, I made an investigation to find ships for the Secretary of State for War. The first I came across was the ss. " Antenor ", which was to bring back the South African contingent for the Victory Parade. In the same paper, the " East African Times," a report appeared saying that the Union Government had decided that the South African contingent should be flown home in 18 Dakotas. Presumably, space on the " Antenor " was not available. I think the South African contingent consists of 213 men and 19 women, and there should therefore have been a considerable space left on the " Antenor."

There was another ship, the ss. " Mantola," which has been advertised in the East African papers as likely to sail for the United Kingdom on or about 15th May. I asked a Question of the Minister of Transport about both those ships, and as regards the ss. " Mantola,"I asked him what cargo and classes of passengers the ship carried. He replied that it carried cabin class passengers and a mixed general cargo. When I suggested that this might have some connection with troops in East Africa coming home, he replied that the supplementary question hardly appeared to be connected with the Question. That seemed to me to be pretty unsatisfactory. I then put a Question regarding the ss. " Antenor."I asked the right hon. Gentleman to what use the ss. " Antenor " would now be put, and he replied: The ' Antenor ' was scheduled to embark Victory Parade contingents not only from South Africa but also from East Africa and Aden, and is still carrying out this part of her programme. The space made available in the ' Antenor ' as a result of the decision to send the South African contingent by air has been utilised by the authorities in South and East Africa to embark service personnel awaiting passage to this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th May, 1046; Vol. 422, c. 1475.] Two points arise there. First, it rather seems that the s.s. " Antenor " was bringing the Victory Parade contingent from East Africa as well as from South Africa, and secondly, that having been released by South Africa, it was then sent back to East Africa. I should like to know whether that is the case. I asked a further supplementary question of the Minister of Transport, and I suggested that he should get in touch with the Secretary of State for War. He replied by suggesting that I should put a Question to the Secretary of State for War, which I had already done, and received the answer on which most of the facts are based. The Question I had put was about how many people were delayed, and how many men of the three Services serving overseas would be delayed in transit to the United Kingdom for release as a result of contingents being brought home for the Victory celebrations. In reply, the Financial Secretary said that, so far as he was aware, the only people so affected were just over 600 Army officers and other ranks serving in East Africa; about half of them would be delayed some three weeks beyond their release dates, and the remainder about one week. He very much regretted that the release of these men should have been delayed, but unfortunately it was impossible to make additional transport available without very much more serious repercussions on the repatriation of other Service personnel due for release. There was one further Question which I asked in conjunction with two other hon.. Members, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and the hon. Member" for Kelvingrove (Mr. J. L. Williams), on 21st May. The answer which the Secretary of State for War gave seemed to ignore the fact that he had, on 12th February, promised that there would be no further delays after Group 28. He entirely ignored that and said: It was considered essential that the contingents for the Victory March from East Africa, Aden, Mauritius, Seychelles, St. Helena and High Commission Territories, should reach this country in time to take part in the parade. In order to ensure this, it was necessary to give them priority over other personnel due for repatriation to this country and this unfortunately involved some delay in the release of about 600 men serving in East Africa."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May, 1946; Vol. 423, c. 163.] I should like the Financial Secretary to give me answers to the following questions. When was it known, first of all, that the Victory Parade contingent would be required from East Africa? Secondly, when was the decision made to delay the release of the officers and other ranks from East Africa? Thirdly, when the decision was made to fly the South African contingent home, what steps were taken to make the space in the S.S. " Antenor " available for East African troops? Fourthly, what steps do the Government propose to take in the future to ensure, when they have these consultations about releases, that the Minister of Transport is represented at the conferences, so that it may be certain that the shipping situation, and the air transport situation, too, are kept up to date? I hope that when the Financial Secretary to the War Office replies he will give answers to these questions. I am not trying to make party capital out of this, and I hope hon. Members on the other side of the House too will speak. What I am trying to do is to make certain that there is no lack of liaison which we can prevent in this House, and which, I believe, it is our duty to prevent.

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." —(Mr. Joseph Henderson.)

10.1 p.m.

Mr. Paget (Northampton)

It is not merely in East Africa that troops have been delayed—troops due for repatriation to this country—by reason of contingents travelling for the Victory Parade. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) has said, this is not an occasion to discuss the desirability or otherwise of having a victory parade. That was discussed some time ago on an Adjournment Motion by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor), and on that occasion some of us took the view that what we described as pompous military parades were somewhat out of place when, in a larger sense, what we had fought for had not been achieved, and when there was great suffering throughout the world. The Home Secretary in reply said: This will not be merely a pompous military parade. This is out effort to show our gratitude to the men who have served us so well."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th April, 1946, Vol. 421, c. 2941.] I would ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if this is the way to show gratitude to the men who have served us so well. There are men serving in East Africa, there are men in Ceylon and India due for repatriation, who have looked forward passionately to release, as those of us who have served abroad remember. Their wives and families are as passionately awaiting the return of their loved ones. Is it the way to show our gratitude that these people's hopes should be frustrated in order to have a Victory Parade? I have a letter here from India which says: Three weeks ago we were given our clearance schedules. We were cleared, inoculated and vaccinated, and told to stand by. Just over a week ago our clearance chits were returned, and we were told to resume work. Now a signal has come in to the effect that we are not expected to start until June, and those who came 12 days before us left six weeks ago. Meantime, they are sending Indian troops to England for the sole purpose of participating in the. victory parade. You can imagine how we fee! having been cleared and told to stand by and then to have it all cancelled. I have communicated that to the Financial Secretary to the War Office.

It is abundantly clear that a shocking mistake has been made here. There has been a shocking blunder. We are not blaming the Minister. This is not the sort of decision which is taken at Ministerial level, but if it is brought to the attention of this House the Government should make very clear what they think of this sort of mistake. I would urge the hon. Gentleman, when he comes to reply, to forget about a War Office brief, and answer, as the late Under-Secretary of State for Air used to answer when this sort of blunder happened, and make a frank confession of the blunder to the House. This is a shocking blunder, and it is absolutely outrageous that our gratitude to those who have served this country should be shown by delaying their release in order to make room for people to take part in a parade.

10.6 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)

It is abundantly clear from the facts which have been so very lucidly demonstrated by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), that this is, as the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has just said, a major blunder. It is a blunder which involves delaying the return to their homes of no fewer than 600 men in the Army. The only point to which I desire to draw attention, is that this blunder is not merely the sort of blunder which is perhaps inevitable in any large scale organisation, but a blunder which is the result of a deliberate decision'. My hon and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely has referred to a series of Questions which were put to the Secretary of State for War, and I invite the attention of the House to an answer I received in reply to a supplementary question I asked the Secretary of State for War: Does that answer mean that as a result of a deliberate decision of the War Office the demobilisation of 600 men has been held up in order to facilitate the arrival of contingents for 8th June? MR. LAWSON: Yes, that is so, and I very much regret that the result has been such as it has, but it was not foreseen that it would be the result at that particular time. I have taken steps to see that there is no repetition of this incident in any other part of the world."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May, 1946; Vol. 423, c. 164.] That makes it clear that the. War Office deliberately decided that it was more important to secure adequate representation from certain parts of the world in the Victory Parade, than to secure the prompt repatriation of 600 men. That decision seems to me to be wholly wrong. It means a delay in the return to normal life of 600 men; it means also a delay in the return to normal domestic life to some thousands of people in this country. That decision is wholly misjudged and wholly undesirable. Therefore, I join with the hon. Member for Northampton in asking the Financial Secretary frankly to admit that it was a blunder. I hope that he will not seek to justify it or palliate it in any way. These 600 men, like the rest of the Army, have been told that their release and repatriation would be deferred only on grounds of operational necessity.

Therefore, it seems to me and I am sure it will seem to the House right that these men who have been defrauded of a certain period at home should receive compensation in some form or other from the War Office. I hope that the Financial Secretary will not only express vague and no doubt perfectly genuine regrets, but will also indicate he intends to give these men some tangible compensation.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Driberg (Maldon)

As I think my hon. Friend knows, I did happen a few months ago to run into the Secretary of State for War when he was overseas visiting troops, and I remember very clearly how many questions they plied him with and how he answered them, and that one of the points on which his listeners pressed him most eagerly and most pathetically was the absolute undertaking that men serving in distant theatres overseas should always be brought home in time to be demobilised with their groups within the proper dates. Although that undertaking was not absolute in the sense that there was a total and complete guarantee—it was subject to operational considerations—none the less there was never any hint that it would be violated for some purpose which, after all, however worthy, is purely ceremonial.

It may seem a very small thing to some people that soldiers should be delayed for just a few weeks—because it will not be more than a few weeks—but an hon. Member opposite spoke about the return to ordinary domestic life, and I am sure that the Financial Secretary to the War Office, who, we are glad to know, is a happily married man, knows how, after men have been overseas for three or four years—perhaps all through the jungles of Burma, before going to Africa at all—they literally count the days until their release. After all, precise release dates have been announced. Take the case of men in Group 30, who I think are some of the men concerned. I think I am right in saying that Group 30 should all be out by 15th or 16th June. That is the concluding date of then-release period. If they had got on to the ships and been in this country that is when they would have been released. As it is they are still stuck in Mombasa or Entebbe. I happen to know of one man in Group 30, a company sergeant-major whose wife and family at home in Essex have been preparing a special holiday for a week or two after the date on which he was expected home for demobilisation. They have booked seaside accommodation somewhere. I do not suppose they have booked the railway tickets which, unfortunately, will cost them more now; but they had been looking forward greatly to this holiday on a particular date. All the plans which they had made will have to be cancelled, and we all know how difficult it is to book holiday accommodation anywhere now. The whole thing has been completely messed up and washed out by this decision.

I did not get up merely to repeat what has already been said or to recriminate about the past, but to ask my hon. Friend if it is not possible, even at this late date, in some way and to some extent to repair the harm that has been done. If it:.s possible, as the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) who raised this matter said, for the Union Government to fly their Victory Parade contingent to this country in a number of Dakotas, is it absolutely impossible for His Majesty's Government to fly these few hundred men, who are going to be delayed two or three weeks in East Africa., to this country? There are a number of Dakotas available around the world nowadays. It should not be absolutely impossible, I think, to fly them here instead of asking them to wait for a leisurely ship which might not leave East Africa within the next few weeks.

10.14 p.m.

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

The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has urged me to assume the white mantle and like one Secretary of State for War on one occasion to " come clean " about it. He also advised me to model my conduct in giving my reply tonight on that estimable colleague of mine, the present Minister of Food. I prefer, if the House will permit me to do so, to state my case in my own way, and if I still fall short of my hon. Friend the Minister of Food, then I am very sorry about it. At any rate, I want to state the facts of the case as I know them, and to present them fairly, if possible, assuring the House that we are not making major blunders; although obviously in such a vast machine as we administer at the War Office, it would be idle to assume that we are 100 per cent, right, and that we can always do the right thing in the right way. The hon. Member for Northampton, in speaking of the particular case raised by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), suggested that this was not an isolated case, but that troops had been. delayed from coming home at their proper time after their proper release date in India. As far as I know, no other case like this has arisen which has delayed troops returning to this country for their proper release dates.

Mr. Paget: The men I mentioned were from India.

Mr. Bellenger

If I may say so, I think my hon. Friend rather exaggerated the position in India. It is true that in the early days of demobilisation shipping was a factor in getting these men away for their release. Up to now we have overcome most of these difficulties, and I think the release scheme generally is working according to schedule. As far as I know, judging by the letters I receive at the War Office from Members of Parliament there are no serious complaints other than this one about men being held up by the avoidable action of the War Office.

Major Legge-Bourke

May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman to ask how can he say that the world shipping situation was satisfactory, and there is no trouble about demobilisation? If that is so why is it that headquarters, East African Command, published a letter such as I read out?

Mr. Bellenger

I do not think I did say that. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is rather twisting my words, but what I said was in reference to a remark made by the hon. Member for Northampton that with the exception of this particular case the shipping position was not holding up men whether they be in India or elsewhere who were due for release, and that generally speaking the officers and men were being brought to this country for demobilisation according to schedule. As far as this case is concerned, I admit that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who raised the matter, and other Members, and particularly those who have been delayed in coming home according to their scheduled date for release, have some cause for complaint. When the matter was first brought to my attention, by reading the cutting which the hon. and gallant Member read to the House tonight, I was seriously concerned about it, because I realised only too well the implications of that delay. Whether the decision to hold the Victory Parade was right or wrong is not the issue tonight. That has been settled. Generally speaking, I think that the Victory Parade will be accepted as an expression of the nation's gratitude to members of the Fighting Forces, and others, for their efforts in bringing the war to a successful conclusion. It was our purpose to get as many contingents from all theatres of war as we possibly could. It was felt that it would be wrong to exclude any of those who had taken part in the war from distant theatres from this Parade if we could possibly get them here. East Africa, which is a Command a little off the beaten track, was also included in the plans drawn up for representation in the Parade.

When my right hon. Friend made his statement to the House on 12th February, he made it in good faith. He made it six days before the date of the Victory Parade had been announced, and long before the details of the march had been prepared. Therefore, I do not think that my right hon. Friend, in making that statement, was doing anything other than making it in good faith. But, as it turned out, it did not quite follow the lines he expressed in his answer.

Major Legge-Bourke

The date was announced six days after the statement made by the Minister, but surely the Cabinet had been discussing the matter. Surely it was in the wind.

Mr. Bellenger

I am not in possession of Cabinet secrets, but I should imagine that this matter would have come before members of the Cabinet in various ways. When my right hon. Friend gave his answer he was not aware of the details of the plans for gathering various contingents from overseas for the Parade. When he made his statement he made it believing that no groups of men due for release after Group 28 would be delayed. As it turned out, a certain number were delayed. I must admit that the decision was a War Office decision, and that in that respect it might perhaps have been a little bit different if all the implications had been realised at the time. Whether other shipping could have been laid on— and I do not think it could—I feel it might have been possible to cut down the contingent itself. Actually, the figures of those who will be delayed are not as bad as has been stated tonight. The figure is not 600, but a smaller number—no officers, and 227 other ranks.

That is bad enough, I admit, for those who have had their release date delayed, but their delay will not be as long as was at first anticipated. I am informed that it will be approximately four to 12 days in the case of officers, and nine days in the case of other ranks. I know that even nine days or four to 12 days are very considerable in the lives and expectations of those who have borne the burden of war overseas and want to get out and back to their families as soon as ever possible. I must, therefore, apologise for the fact that these numbers—fewer than the 600 mentioned—have been delayed for this period although it is not as long as the men out there thought it might have been.

Mr. Boyd Carpenter

Are these figures of delay in addition to the loss of their disembarkation leave?

Mr. Bellenger

No, I do not think so. I imagine that when these officers and men come home they will have their 56 days plus overseas service leave.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

But the Financial Secretary is well aware, I am sure, that personnel returning to this country prior to the date of demobilisation are entitled to disembarkation leave whereas, on the other hand, if their date of repatriation is subsequent to the date when they are due for demobilisation they lose that leave.

Mr. Bellenger

I am not at all sure that the hon. Gentleman has stated the position quite accurately. Subject to correction I believe that those coming home for release do not get disembarkation leave in addition to release leave; but if I am wrong in that respect I will do my best to see that these men get their full entitlement of leave, whenever they come home.

I think I have indicated clearly that although the War Office has made no major blunder such as hon. Gentlemen have suggested, the fact remains that by a decision of the War Office to give priority to the Victory Parade contingent from East Africa delay has occurred in the release of a certain number of officers and men for a certain period. The question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) was whether we could not do as South Africa has done and place some Dakotas at the disposal of these East African personnel. I do not think that is possible although I am quite prepared to look into the question with my colleague at the Air Ministry. What actually happened when the South African Government placed, I think, 18 Dakotas at the disposal of their contingent was that it did certainly create a number of vacant places on the ss. "Antenor" which were filled by personnel—also due for release or passage home for other reasons—waiting in South Africa for a ship. To that extent I am afraid South Africa benefited over East Africa.

I do not think it is necessary, to use a classic phrase, to go into a long rigmarole about this matter. The fact remains that by a decision of the War Office a certain amount of hardship has been caused for a certain number of men. I regret this very much indeed and in so far as this is a lesson for the future I can assure hon Gentlemen in all parts of the House that if these or similar matters are ever brought to my attention I will do my best to see that such a thing does not happen again. I am glad to say that it has not happened so far as I am aware in any other overseas centre.

Major Legge-Bourke

What about liaison between the Ministries?

Mr. Bellenger

It was not a question of liaison between the War Office and the Ministry of Transport. Ships do not run from East Africa like trains in England. There is only a limited amount of transport for the limited personnel that we know are due to come home on certain dates, and I am afraid it was impossible to put any other ship at the disposal of East Africa because there was no other ship in that neighbourhood to permit these 300-odd officers and men to come home in time.

Major Legge-Bourke

Who sailed in the ss. "Mantola"?

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-Seven Minutes past Ten o'Clock.