HC Deb 16 October 1946 vol 427 cc1018-28

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

10.1 p.m.

Mr. Swingler (Stafford)

I am very glad to have the opportunity tonight to raise the subject of Army education, which I believe to be of vital importance. There is, today, a great deal of concern about the future of the Army, which is failing to get the recruits it requires. Indeed, military conscription is continuing, and may have to continue for much longer than some people think. Some of the present conditions of service in the Army are cause for grave disquiet. Despite the rosy forecasts, which have been given in recent times, of Army life, with prospects of softer beds and additional leave, it is still plain that Colonel Blimp is by no means dead, and that blimpish attitude is still displayed—the attitude of "Their's not to reason why"—by spokesmen of the War Office, even to Members of this House.

If the Army is to be reformed—and I believe it must be if it is to get the recruits it requires—the provision of educational opportunity is fundamental. It is fundamental to efficiency, morale, and the cultivation of a democratic spirit in the Army. When, in 1939, the National Service Bill was before this House, the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Secretary of State for the Colonies moved a new Clause to make it a duty of the Army Council to provide educational and social facilities for persons called up, and to do it in conjunction with the then Board of Education and national organisations interested in adult education. In so doing, he was merely taking up the threads of the work of the Adult Education Committee of the Ministry of Reconstruction in 1919, which arose out of spontaneous and improvised movements of education in the Army in the first world war.

I do not want to bore the House with quotations from the volumes of recommendations of that Committee, on which certain right hon. Members, now on the Front Bench, sat, but simply to say that their conclusion was this: In our opinion it is greatly to be desired that in the standing Army of the future continuation education of a general kind should be a normal part of the training provided. But, after 1919, that was not done. Those recommendations were, in the main, financially "axed." Certain educational provision was made, with the foundation of the Army Educational Board in 1920, but it was meagre and had little or nothing to do with adult education as we now understand it.

So 20 years later, in 1939, the work was started again, not only by what was done by hon. Members of this House on the issue of conscription being presented, but also by spontaneous movements in the universities and national educational organisations in the country. Most Members of this House, who are interested in these developments, are acquainted with the tremendous movement to which that gave rise, with the massive development of educational provisions, of lectures, of classes, of libraries, and musical concerts and other things of that kind, on a very comprehensive scale, in the early years of the war. That led in 1941 to the establishment of the Army Bureau of Current Affairs, to the issue of the publications known as "The British Way and Purpose," and to the foundations of schools, and what came to be known as formation colleges.

Many of these educational movements were, in the beginning, quite spontaneous, improvised, and uncoordinated, but they amounted in sum, at the end of the war, to what has been called the greatest experiment in adult education in the history of this country. Some of that work was, I know, from an educational point of view useless and even farcical. I speak from personal experience, as one who knew it on the educational side at the beginning of the war, and later on as a consumer of education in the ranks and as a commissioned officer in the Royal Tank Regiment. In a great many places there was untrammelled discussion of the issues involved in the war, there was general freedom of expression in an atmosphere of adult education, the soldiers' needs as citizens were seriously considered, and, to a very few, an opportunity was presented of having something which approached university standards and university methods in education. It provided, moreover, for many soldiers a link with civil life, and it gave birth to the release scheme of vocational and general adult education which has, I believe, considerably assisted the comparatively smooth process of demobilisation up to now. Fourteen months have passed since the end of the war, and, just as the Army has been running down in the process of demobilisation, so has the provision of education in the Army also been fast running down. Many of us, on this side of the House at least, are very anxious to know what the War Office is going to do about it. During those 14 months, we have had nothing better from the Secretary of State than vague generalities on this subject, the mention of paper schemes and of paper returns. What about the question of opportunities of technical education for the young men being called up now? We were told that they may have classes for proceeding with their careers and studies, or they may not. So far as my information goes on this matter, they may not. We were told that there were no teachers because of civil needs, but I do not accept that excuse, because, during the war, we had precisely the same kind of situation, or a worse situation, and men were found who could do the job.

There is in the War Office today an advisory body which is charged with the function of making recommendations to the Army Council and the Secretary of State about this question. What consultation has there been during the past year with the universities and educational bodies, and what has that advisory board achieved? I received from a man who has sacrificed a great deal in the development of Army education, and who is still concerned with it, a letter like this—and I could quote many other letters which I have received. He writes: I think that the Army has done a splendid job during the war with A.B.C.A. and B.W.P., but what of the new intake? In a certain group"— He mentions it by name— where I believe that educational schemes are fostered with more fervour than elsewhere, there teems to be no planning for those just coming into the Army, the boys who need it most of all. Can you do something about it? I imagined I was doing a good job for the country, and so I was, until recently. At the War Office and high levels there is great interest and keenness, but in units there just is not any education, except on paper and in monthly returns. I hope that the Financial Secretary, who is to reply, and whom we are glad to see on the Front Bench, may be able, 14 months after the end of the war, to offer us something better than the vague generalities that we have had on the subject of Army education up to now from the Secretary of State.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay (Combined English Universities)

I do not want to go over the ground that has been so accurately described by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Swingler), but I remember very vividly the right hon. Gentleman who is now Secretary of State for the Colonies making that speech to which he referred; indeed, I, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, was sitting next to Mr. Hore-Belisha, the former Member for Devonport, when he replied. The reply was jointly from the two Ministries. That was in the early days when conscription was started. Very largely due to the late Adjutant-General, Sir Ronald Adam, and to Sir Philip Morris, as he now is, the Army produced a scheme during the war which has been the admiration of the whole world. The Army drew upon a very remarkable group of men and women from among assistant directors of education—who were wanted at their posts and who had no need to leave—and from a large number of teachers from secondary and other schools. A big organisation was built up. There was also an enormous amount of voluntary work done by people helping with lectures and by technical colleges. Then came the release period, with the E.V.T. scheme and the formation colleges.

But now something quite new has happened. Young men are going into the Army at the ages of 18 and 19—I have seen something of them in the last two months—who, a few years ago, I remember going out with gasmasks and iron rations on trains from the main stations of this city to unknown destinations. These men are the victims of evacuation, wartime education, and overtime in industry when they left school, and it is no disrespect to them that I say that there is a large amount of illiteracy among them at the present time, and also a mental reading age, for a proportion of them, of about 11. What are we doing to meet this? These young men want basic education. They want civic training. I say this with no disrespect to their main job, which is military training to make them efficient as soldiers, sailors and airmen. It is vital that they should have this basic education and civic training, and it is our responsibility to see that they get it, since they are conscripts. At the present time there is not a serjeant in the theatre from which I have just come who has anything above the school certificate. The Army Education Corps has gone back to what it was before the war. They are the old Army schoolmasters, very largely; they are not the people who alone can possibly tackle this new problem.

I ask the Financial Secretary, who is sympathetic on this matter, when the new plan for this brand-new Army is to be produced. Is it intended to retain this vital connection with civilian life, because the Army belongs to the nation—that is not just a phrase? If we separated the Army from the nation no good would result either to the Army or to the nation. We want to be assured that the Advisory Committee presided over by Sir Walter Moberly and the Board under Sir Philip Morris are going to be kept closely in touch and to develop for these young men an absolutely first-class scheme. We have not yet had the details except very vaguely in a statement by the former Secretary of State for War. We should like to know more details about it and to be assured that the men who are to be responsible for this new task really understand their job: there is the greatest opportunity presented to the Army with the group of young men who have now gone into it. I beg the hon. Gentleman to take this matter far more seriously than it has been taken during the last 14 months and I assure him that the majority of hon. Members in this House will support him.

10.16 p.m.

Colonel Wigg (Dudley)

I am sure everyone inside and outside this House, who has at heart the interests of the Army and of those who serve in it, will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Swingler) for having raised this issue tonight. He quotes in support of his case statements made in this House by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies, but I want to call additional witnesses in the persons of the right hon. Gentlemen the Foreign Secretary and the Lord Privy Seal. They were members of the Committee which made a very comprehensive report at the end of the last war. One of their main recommendations then was that if education in the Army was to be anything really worth while, both from the point of view of the Service and of the individual, it must have connection with the educational world outside. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, by the early twenties the painter was cut and education in the Army had no contact either with the universities or with the Board of Education.

It is very regrettable indeed that a Labour Government has taken precisely the same steps that were taken at the end of the last war because if there is one pledge which the party sitting on these benches has to fulfil it is to democratise the Army and give those who serve in the ranks the opportunity of equipping themselves for the task of earning a living and the task of citizenship. It is very clear that little or nothing has been done. Indeed I would say that at the present time 90 per cent. of the resources of the Army Educational Corps are devoted not to providing education for British Forces but to teaching English to General Anders' Army. It may be essential that that task should be undertaken but I say that it is a shame and a crime against the young men who are called to give two of the formative years of their lives to the service of their country that they should be denied educational opportunities because of the calls of the Poles. I hope, therefore, that when the Financial Secretary replies he will give us a great deal more encouragement than we were given by the statement made by the Secretary of State for War yesterday.

10.19 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. John Freeman)

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Swingler) has stated his case with great clarity and he has been considerably reinforced by the senior Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dudley (Colonel Wigg), both of whom are recognised experts in this field. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, in opening this Debate, referred to the presence of Colonel Blimp at the War Office. I hope to satisfy the House that that gentleman is no longer present at the War Office. At any rate I have not yet encountered him, and if it is judged that he is still there, at least I hope it will be agreed that he has passed through a course of rejuvenation since he used to be caricatured before the war.

There are two problems here. One is the question of what is happening at this moment to keep the educational scheme going while the release scheme is running. The other is the far more important problem of what the permanent system of education which we are to build up in the postwar Army is to be. I do not want to waste too much of the time of the House on the first point. The difficulties at the moment are enormous. Manpower is running out of the Services like sand out of an hourglass, and what, in spite of the difficulties, may have been comparatively easy in wartime when the Services were gorged with manpower, including many people with high technical qualifications in education, has become a matter of great difficulty at the present moment. We are doing the best we possibly can to carry on the educational scheme in present circumstances. Unit education and correspondence courses are being maintained as effectively as possible. We have at the moment six formation colleges still operating. I should like to assure hon. Gentlemen who have spoken that we are doing the very best we can over this short but immensely difficult period, when the old machine is running out and before the new machine has really got going, to prevent the standard falling at any rate to an irreparably low level.

What is much more important is what we propose to do in the future. It is fully accepted by my right hon. Friend, and indeed by the Government as a whole, that education for the future is an absolutely integral part of Army life. There is no question of going back on that pledge which has been freely given: "No Army, no education; no education, no Army." The Army and education will go on together. That, in itself, should be a considerable inducement to recruits. We are all worried how to get voluntary recruitment at the moment. We are all thinking what the advantages of the voluntary recruit are over the conscripted one. I am going to suggest to the House that at least one advantage will be the opportunity to make use of what I hope will be a great and unparalleled scheme of adult education.

In working out the scheme there are three stages. First, the scheme has to be planned in the War Office That is the period which we are accustomed to hear described in this House as the period of doing nothing. That is a bad description. I was taught in the Army that time spent in reconnaissance and in making plans was not time wasted. I do indeed believe that to be true. [HON. MEMBERS: "Seldom wasted."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite who have had experience once or twice of ineffectual planning would prefer me to say, "Seldom." Broadly speaking, the principle which I have stated is good. In the second stage, when the framework of the plan has been drafted, steps are taken to make it administratively practicable. The third stage is that of definitely carrying it out.

We are making reasonably good progress in stage one of this plan. I wish to give the House an idea of what is being done. It is intended that the permanent scheme of education in the Army shall come under four heads. First of all, there is what we call universal community education. That means, roughly, the extension of secondary education, which will be taken by every soldier and will include the general coverage of subjects like current affairs, English, mathematics, history, geography, and so on. That will be done in King's time and the supervision of it will be in the hands of the Army Educational Corps. Secondly, there will be voluntary individual education, which, as its name suggests, will be done largely in the soldier's spare time. It will enable him to follow any particular pursuits that he desires or is qualified for, and it will include of course the formation college, which has come to stay.

Thirdly, we have resettlement education for the regular soldier who, before he goes out into civilian life, must be given the best possible chance of finding suitable employment. As to whether that will be done in his working hours or not, I prefer not to commit myself at this moment because it is still undecided whether it should be done while he is in the Army or immediately after he has come out. Whichever way that goes, it is an integral part of the scheme. Fourthly, there is the education of' illiterates and semi-literates.

Earl Winterton (Horsham)

Would the Financial Secretary say whether the negotiations are still in progress with the trade unions to enable men who have been given technical training which would fit them to become highly skilled workmen to be immediately accepted as members of the union?

Mr. Freeman

That is hardly a question for me to answer here. If the noble Lord would care to put a Question down, either I or one of the Ministers from the Ministry of Labour would answer him. I could not answer without notice.

Earl Winterton

But is it not the responsibility of the War Office? I understand the scheme is in operation under the War Office.

Mr. Freeman

Since we are debating at the present moment Army education, the noble Lord is entitled to ask his question, but, with great respect, it would be wasting the time of the House if I attempted to answer without an accurate answer in my head. I say again that if he will put down a Question he shall have a perfectly fair answer. The hon. Member for the Combined English Universities talked about a high proportion of illiteracy in the Army. In fact the proportion is one per cent. at the moment. It is perfectly true that there is a higher percentage of men whom we call semi-literate—not illiterates—who are only partly literate. These two categories will be catered for under the last head—

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay

I was not trying to misrepresent. I merely sought to get the figure.

Mr. Freeman

The figure is one per cent. Having planned the outline, the scheme must be made administratively practical. It appears to us that the scheme should be fully drafted in a matter of months from now—by the end of this year, let us say. Thereafter come the real difficulties of tackling the priorities of both manpower and material in making it work. The House will not expect the Army to have the highest priorities in these affairs at the moment. We have to take our turn with the innumerable other needs which the country has in both manpower and materials, but we shall do the best within the priorities which are allotted to us to see that the educational scheme is not left behind.

Lastly, the question of making the scheme actually work when it has been planned and has been possible is something we cannot discuss at the moment. I would only say this in regard to the Army Educational Corps, which was criticised to some extent by one of the hon. Members. We have recently made it possible to take a limited number—300—short-term commissions into the Army Educational Corps, which is only a start and without prejudice to the final establishment of that Corps. We received about 1,500 applications for those 300 posts from very highly qualified people indeed, and we do not regard that as being unsatisfactory as far as it goes.

In the two minutes now available to me may I 'say to my hon. Friends, that perhaps they will accept that I have acquired my present status of gamekeeper sufficiently recently to be allowed to address them as old poacher comrades of not many days ago. I do not apologise unduly nor do I admit any undue delay. This scheme is infinitely bigger in its ramifications than most people not connected with it would imagine. If we take hasty decisions and patch it up now, it will not come into effect as we intend it should. We have every intention of planning this scheme really carefully and introducing it when we are certain that it can and will work. We are phasing the present Army education scheme in such a way that it gradually modifies itself to the outlines of the new scheme as they become firm. I hope it will be accepted that we are planning this carefully. I suggest that if some hon. Member cares to raise the subject again in four or five months' time it will be possible to report very substantial progress in that period. In the meantime, I ask the House to believe that we have the subject very much at heart at the War Office. Hon. Members must not believe there has been undue delay, but must accept it that planning is done behind closed doors to begin with and that when we produce results they will be regarded as good.

It being Half past Ten o'Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.