ARMY EDUCATION CORPS (TRANSFER REFUSAL) (Hansard, 21 February 1947)

§ Mr. Charles Smith (Colchester)
I am very glad to have the opportunity of drawing the attention of the House to the case of an individual at present serving in the Army who has, as I shall seek to how, been subject to political discrimination in seeking a transfer to the Army Education Corps. I am particularly glad to have the opportunity of drawing this case to the attention of the House because of the number of important principles involved in it. In view of the treatment that the man concerned has had already, I hope that the Secretary of State for War—who I am glad to see is to reply to this Debate—will agree that we might spare him the additional embarrassment of any personal publicity which might arise from the Debate. In addressing Questions to the Secretary of State on this case hitherto I have used the Army number of the individual concerned, which is 14944324. However, I think it would be more convenient—and I hope the Secretary of State will agree—that we should refer to him in this Debate by the initial letter of his surname. I shall, therefore, call him throughout "Private 'S'."
This case is pretty well known to the Secretary of State. It has been the subject of correspondence with his Department since I wrote originally to his predecessor about it as long ago as 23rd October, 1945. The facts of the case are very simple. This man, Private "S," was called up in March, 1945. He is the holder of a first-class honours degree in 1630 modern history, and is a member of the Middle Temple.

§ Mr. Kenneth Lindsay (Combined English Universities)
What age was he when he was called up?

§ Mr. Smith
I should think he was about 26 at the time of his call up. The reason why he was called up rather later than would otherwise have been expected was that during the war he was employed in an aircraft factory, and was deferred by reason of his employment. During the time he was in that factory he was known as an active member of the Communist Party and of the A.E.U. He was, in fact, convener of the shop stewards in the factory in which he was employed for four years. I have in my possession two letters from the general manager of the important aircraft firm which employed him. One is a letter addressed by the general manager to me personally; the other is a letter addressed by the general manager to Private "S" at the time of his call-up. Both these letters pay very high testimony to the broadminded and constructive way in which he led trade union activities in the factory, and to the great assistance which he gave in securing, through the joint production machinery, the fullest possible production for war purposes. The letter addressed to me also refers to the influence and the stimulus of his example among his fellow workers.
Clearly, this was a man whose services, on his call-up into the Army, would be of the very greatest use. On the one hand, he had an exceptionally fine academic record; on the other hand, his trade union activities afforded unmistakable evidence of his capacity for leadership. In June, 1945, he applied for transfer to the Army Education Corps. In August, 1945, he went to No. 5 War Office Selection Board, and demonstrated his fitness for commissioned rank. In September he was accepted by Eastern Command Education Board for transfer to the Army Education Corps. A month later his unit was notified by the War Office that he was not suitable for this transfer. This man has been in the Army for practically two years, and is at present serving with B.O.A.R., with whom he has been for well over a year. His substantive rank at present is that of private; and so far as the War Office are concerned, and so far as my information goes. he is still in the infantry
1631 Those facts were confirmed in November of last year by the Secretary of State in reply to a Question which I put down. Since this man has been in the Army he has, on three separate occasions, been accepted by specialist boards for transfer to the Army Education Corps, and on each occasion he has had his transfer rejected by the War Office. The only additional fact about his personal position, to which I should like to draw attention, is a report which I have of a course he attended at No. 7 Formation College, Rhine Army, in which he is described as: An excellent instructor, both as class teacher and in discussion group leadership. A very good all-round man, with knowledge and experience of administration well above the average. He is classified "A," "Excellent knowledge of his subject"; and, "X," which is "Excellent teaching ability."
As I understand it, there is no dispute whatever as to the facts of this individual case. There is nothing accidental about the treatment which this man has received. In reply to the Question to which I have referred, which was asked in this House on 26th November last year, the Secretary of State corroborated the view which had been taken by his predecessor that this man had been treated quite correctly. He said: It is a matter for the Army Council to decide the corps in which a soldier can best serve.''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1946; Vol. 430, c. 1403–4.] In response to a supplementary question he explained that the Army Council delegated this authority to reject a man who has proved his ability for commissioned rank, and for transfer to a corps other than that in which he is serving already, to certain other officers—numbers, ranks and qualities unspecified. It would appear that in this case the relevant officers, or the relevant Department which is having an influence on this man's military career, is the Security Branch of the War Office, or M.I.5.
This case appears to me—and I trust the Secretary of State will comment upon this—to raise at least three important principles or general questions. First, there is its implication so far as the efficiency of the Army Education Corps is concerned. In a written reply on 10th December, the Secretary of State stated that no figures were available of the 1632 number of cases of men recommended by selection boards who have not been commissioned, nor of those recommended for transfer who have not in fact been transferred, so we do not know how many other men are in the same position as Private "S"; but we do know what the state of affairs is with regard to the need for trained and suitable personnel in the Army Education Corps.
It so happens that there came into my hands, I suppose just about the time that Private "S" was being rejected by the War Office for the third time, a document which was issued by the Education Branch of the Army of the Rhine. That document is marked "Important and urgent." It was a long document, and I need read only the first paragraph: This is the third occasion during the past year on which I have had to appeal to all members of the Army Education Corps in B.A.O.R. to obtain their support in making a determined effort to recruit new officers and other ranks for the Corps, and I do so because the present position is so serious that unless something is done quickly to make good our deficiencies the whole fabric of Army education in B.A.O.R. may break beyond repair. The date of that document was r6th October, 1946, as I said, just about the time at which Private "S" was being rejected for the third time by the War Office for transfer to the Army Education Corps.
The second general principle raised by this case is that of the proper use of our manpower, especially in the Army, at the present time. Is the Secretary of State prepared to state that it is the definite and declared policy that a Communist, or a suspected Communist, may not reach commissioned rank or be transferred to the Army Educational Corps? He may, quite reasonably and properly, say that that is the view of the Army authorities, but he should let us know that that is his view, and should not go on calling up men of this calibre into the Forces and then refusing to use their abilities to the utmost. The Minister of Education was here a few minutes ago and I wish he were here still, because I should like him to say whether he could not use a first-class honours graduate with first-class teaching ability at the present time. If these people are to be taken into the Army, let them be properly used. If the Army will not or cannot use them, let them be left in. civilian life where they can be used.

§ Mr. Stokes (Ipswich)
That applies to enormous numbers of people who are not Communists.

§ Mr. Smith
No doubt the hon. Member will have an opportunity of amplifying his views later on if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
The third, and from some points of view the most important, aspect of all this is that concerned with general civil liberty. This House has always very rightly regarded itself as the custodian, the guardian, of the rights of the individual, and particularly the right of the individual to hold what views he chooses, no matter how unpopular those views may happen to be. Freedom of opinion is indispensable, I would submit, in any educational organisation worthy of the name. So the question of freedom of opinion and civil liberty raised by this case is particularly important, since it is the Army Education Corps which is involved.
I do not think there can be any dispute, in view of these facts, that the individual concerned is receiving certain treatment because of his political views. We do not know, we have not been told, what it is that is so feared by the Army authorities if men holding these views are allowed to enter the Army Education Corps. If any individual serving in any part of the Army acts improperly in any way, he is subject to disciplinary action in accordance with a proper legal process, and of course he is subject to that disciplinary action, quite properly, from whatever cause or for whatever reason he may take any improper action. But this is a case of an individual who has done nothing that is wrong or improper, and who has been given no opportunity of stating his case, no opportunity of showing his worthiness to carry out the duties proper to that corps in the Army for which his experience and his abilities seem peculiarly to fit him.
I think the Secretary of State ought to take notice that there is building up quite a volume of evidence, of which this case is only one item, that this branch of the Army—the Security branch—to which I have referred is exercising an influence in matters which seem to be rather beyond its proper sphere. No one would deny the great importance of the Security Branch in the Army. No one would deny the value of the work which it did during the war, but it is most unsatisfactory if 1634 individuals who have views, or individuals—because as a matter of fact there are other cases which bear upon this—who are believed quite wrongly to have particular views, are to be dogged throughout their Army career by the activities of a semi-secret organisation for carrying out petty persecution.
I hope the Secretary of State will respond this afternoon by giving the House an assurance that he will have this case put right, and that he will also ensure that the branch of the Army concerned is confined to its own job and does not allow its activities to become so extended that they go quite beyond their proper sphere.

§ Mr. Chetwynd (Stockton-on-Tees)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. C. Smith) for having raised this important matter, because I conceive it to be one of the highest duties of Members of this House to do their utmost to redress what seems to them to be an obvious injustice. I wish to take part in this Debate, because I have a personal interest in the Army Education Corps, having been connected with it for a number of years during the war. I notice, according to the Army List, that I am still relegated to the unemployed list of the A.E.C., and that seems to me to be another place where the War Office phraseology should be brought up to date, because, at any rate, it cannot be said that being an M.P. has any connection with unemployment. This matter raises a very important principal. There should be no discrimination of any kind, political, religious, or racial, in the selecton of officers and other ranks for any branch of the Army, and such discrimination is all the more undesirable in a modern Army, and in an Army under the Labour Government. I should like to know to what extent this supervision goes, and who exercises it.
It may interest hon. Members to know that in the House there are six Members of the A.E.C., three of them being junior Ministers, and three of them being back benchers. I should like to know if each had a political investigation on transfer into the A.E.C., and if there is a file somewhere which says that we are considered suitable people to be in the A.E.C. Knowing the Members, I do not think anyone would dispute that each had a definite 1635 contribution to make in the A.E.C. during the war, and no one could say that their influence in any way was undesirable. In the case which has been put forward, there seems to be some sort of idea that this person, if transferred to the A.E.C., would have an undesirable influence on the men with whom he came into contact, and I should like to have the view of the Secretary of State for War on that. What are the qualifications for transfer to the A.E.C? A.C.I. 189, 1946, states: 1. Officers and other ranks are still required for the A.E.C.… 2. (a) Officers who wish to be employed with the A.E.C., and other ranks who wish to be considered for emergency commissions in the A.E.C., must have graduated at a British university, or hold a qualification which the Army Council accept in lieu. (b) Other ranks who wish to be transferred to the A.E.C. must:—

(i) have matriculated or qualified for admission to a British university, or

(ii) hold a qualification which the Army Council accept in lieu, or, as an exceptional case,

(iii) be certified by a command education officer as having done outstandingly successful work in the Army under the Army Educational Scheme."

There is no mention of a political test being employed. I consider that the educational test ought to be the only test in transferring people to this important Corps, and there should be none of this victimisation and discrimination shown.

§ Mr. Edward Evans (Lowestoft)
Are not the qualifications of a teacher accepted?

§ Mr. Chetwynd
That is one of the qualifications.

§ Mr. Evans
The hon. Member did not quote it as one of the qualifications.

§ Mr. Chetwynd
I was quoting the A.C.I. There is no need for this exclusion, because no Communist, Conservative—[An HON. MEMBER: "A Fascist?"]—yes, a Fascist—would be able to get his ideas over to the troops. Troops can smell out propaganda, and have a habit of shuffling their feet or coughing, making it impossible for anyone to get across anything that savours of it. No trained teacher or educationist would consider for one moment putting over a piece of political propaganda under the guise of education. He would not put 1636 his finger into the scales and tip the weight down one way or the other.
Let me come to what I consider to be the most important question of all. We have to consider the role of the A.E.C. in the peacetime Army. During the war, the A.E.C. performed a useful function in providing an alternative philosophy to compete with the Nazi philosophy. The Corps did much to inculcate the ideas of democracy, freedom and toleration, but it seems that this man is being kept out of the A.E.C. by a Fascist philosophy which denies all those things we try to teach. The future Army must be a democratic Army, and there must be full scope for education. It is clear that we need all the teachers we can get in the A.E.C., and that we cannot afford to misuse teachers in the Army, when they could perform a useful function in civil life.
When travelling a week ago I got into a carriage where there were six young soldiers returning to Catterick. Surprisingly enough, they were discussing education, and I listened very carefully to what they had to say, because they were talking about a part of the world I knew very well. One said he was employed at the education centre. He said that he had applied months ago for transfer to the A.E.C., and that he had heard nothing about it. As I left the train, I asked him what were his political views. He said he was a Communist, and told me that he had worked for the "Daily Worker." I told him that that might be the reason why he had not heard anything but that, on the other hand, it might not be the reason.
There is a growing suspicion that there is a hidden hand at work, applying tests which are not of an educational nature to those people who are considering transfer to the A.E.C. It is the same attitude of mind which tried to prevent the troops from discussing the Beveridge Report during the war, and which was probably responsible for the recent withdrawal of the Bureau of Current Affairs Pamphlet on the Press. It is an attitude of mind that we have been trying to fight for the last four or five years, the attitude of mind which prevents the troops from discussing politics and getting reasonable access to education. If we want to get the right kind of atmosphere in the postwar Army, and if we are to give the troops the best education they can have, we have to get 1637 rid of this suspicion, and I appeal to my right hon. Friend to give us the truth about this particular case, and say to what extent political discrimination prevails, and that he will do his best to remove its influence,

§ Mr. Kenneth Lindsay (Combined English Universities)
The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Charles Smith) has put certain facts before the House. I think that his speech was almost an understatement. It is not for me to prejudge the answer which the Secretary of State for War will give, but if the facts are as stated, then we shall need a good deal of explanation. The issues here are not only those of civil liberty. Heaven knows, that is important enough. But there were two other points raised by my hon. Friend—the efficiency of the Army Education Corps, and the proper use of manpower. If the facts are as stated, and there is a misuse of manpower, then. I think, that my right hon. Friend—especially if there are further cases of the same kind—should give us a satisfactory answer. I have been worried, as he knows perfectly well, and I have put Questions to him for a year, as to when he is to make an announcement about the postwar Army education scheme. I thought that this Government would take an active interest in what was generally recognised during the war as a very remarkable scheme. My evidence is that, at the moment, there is a 25 per cent. deficiency in the Corps of suitable officers and sergeants.
As for the qualifications mentioned by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd), I can assure him that they are not asking for university degrees. I had the privilege of talking to the men in Northern Italy and in Austria last summer and autumn, when I went to almost every unit. I can bear out that our soldiers, in this war, as in the last, have a very clear way of deciding when they are fed up with propaganda, or anything else; they let one know pretty quickly. It is a very important point—and it arises also in regard to the schools in this country—whether we should interfere with political opinion. The rule is to apply the common sense of the situation, whether with regard to text books or active propaganda; and His Majesty's Inspectors usually satisfy both the local authority and the parents.
1638 There is an obligation when children are compelled to go to school to see that there is no active propaganda, because the children are young, and because the position of a teacher is a very powerful one in this respect. But here we are dealing with adults, with soldiers. I cannot understand why my right hon. Friend does not tell us what the scheme is, and take a somewhat more active interest in it. He must know that, at the present time, the degree of illiteracy, due not to the young men themselves, but to the fact that they are the victims of evacuation and wartime arrangements, is quite high. I do not want to give figures, which are very difficult to substantiate, I think he will know that something like 25 per cent would be called retarded
There is a second question It is all very well to talk about the universities being flooded out now, but what is to happen in two or three years' time, especially when the extension which is being encouraged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes place? My evidence is that a lot of these young men, who have had a year or a year and a half in the Army, are not at all certain whether they will go back to the universities in two or three years' time. Their education has been completely muddled for them, and they are thinking of going into other walks of life. We are in a tremendous jam about manpower, particularly in the technical and technological field, and my evidence is that the soldiers and would-be officers—I am speaking now of evidence which 1 obtained in mess after mess when I was in Austria and Northern Italy—are not at all certain that they will go back, either to technical colleges or to universities. They are in a very uncertain mood about the future. In addition to that, there i. the fact that no university degree necessary to go into Army education; The school certificate is enough to get a person in. If that is the situation, it is very serious and it seems to me that my right hon. Friend must take this question more seriously.
There is something further which I would tell him: There are scores of men, who came to me personally, and who would have gone into the Army Education Corps a year and a half ago, if conditions had been more settled and their future had been more secure. They went into the Control Commission in Austria, and a variety of other things, 1639 because as regards education they could not see the shape of things to come. I understand—and my right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—that the size of the Army Education Corps has been scaled down since the war to a point which is rather like the prewar number. If that is so, I cannot see how we shall get the combination of training and education which is required in a two years' conscription period, A two years' conscription period requires a brand new approach, both to Army education and to training. Hon. Members who know more about the present Army than I do, will, I am sure, agree with me that it is just at the time a man is beginning to be a Ireful soldier that he is demobilised, especially if he has become an officer after 15 months' training and is to be demobilised at the end of two years. Therefore, the whole question must be given much closer attention by my right hon. Friend, although I know he has many other urgent jobs on hand.
The facts, as given, are that a particular Private "S" has remained for two years as a private. If it is true that he passed the War Office Selection Board, and has a first-class degree: and if it is true that he has received from employers and trade unions commendation that he is a man capable of leadership, and that he is not simply carrying on paganda in the Army—of which, on the evidence so far, there is no substantiation—then, I say that this looks to me like a misuse of manpower. If my right hon. Friend can satisfy me that these facts are wrong, and that there is a deeper reason for this refusal, I, of course, shall have to think again. But I would like him to address himself, not only to this case, but to the misuse of manpower generally.
I raised in this House, about nine months ago, the question of teachers hanging about in this country—10,000 or 15,000 ex-Servicemen—waiting to go into emergency training colleges. I admit that these colleges have been split up, but on the figures I have now, there are still 7.000. I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will try the use these men for the time being perhaps on short service commissions, which I believe there still are in the Army Education Corps. Otherwise, they are just sitting about, and are a loss to education. Will he say what 1640 consultations he has had, with the Ministry of Education on this point?

§ Brigadier Low (Blackpool, North)
I would agree at once with what the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) has said about the importance of the Army education scheme and of the Secretary of State announcing, as soon as possible, the War Office's postwar policy in that respect. The hon. Member and I made a tour of Austria during last autumn, and we saw there the difficulties which the Army was experiencing in carrying out the intentions of the War Office, and, I may add, the intentions of all officers, both senior and junior, throughout the Army. It is an extremely difficult problem. Let me say, too, that I agree with the hon. Member for the English Universities that these facts were presented to us in a most excellently clear fashion. I am sure that the House will congratulate the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. C. Smith) upon the way in which they 'were presented. We shall, of course, have to wait until the Secretary of State for War has given his answer on the facts.
It is worth remembering that, though the hon. Gentleman who opened this Debate can give us full evidence, it never lies within the power of the Military Intelligence Branch of the War Office and throughout the Army to give any evidence at all. That is the difficulty in such cases. One hon. Member said that security was exercising far too much influence throughout the Army, and there was a ripple of Hear, hear's," from the benches opposite, including the second bench Perhaps, when he comes to reply the right hon. Gentleman will give us his views on this matter because—
The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. John Freeman): Perhaps the hon. Member on the second bench will reply.

§ Brigadier Low
I did not know that the noble Lord the Member for Paisley (Viscount Corvedale) was going to reply. However, I hope that whoever replies will give some indication of what are his views on this matter. Of whatever else one may accuse the Secretary of State for War, I do not think that anybody in any part of the House would accuse him of underestimating the importance of civil liberty 1641 as far as it concerns the Army. I do not always agree with the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman, but I do trust him in that respect, and I shall be only too glad to accept his verdict on this matter.
This private apparently remained in the Army for two years without any promotion. That sort of thing does not happen without good reason. A good soldier will rise to be a lance-corporal, a corporal or a sergeant if he has the characteristics of leadership that are acceptable to the Army. I believe that hon. Members opposite and on this side of the House will probably accept the fact that no amount of security interference will interfere with promotion, at any rate to lance-corporal or corporal, in the early stages of a soldier's life. I think that that is worth pointing out. I hope that this House is not going to accept as a general rule that only a man who has first class honours is suitable for commissioned rank in the A.E.C. In presenting his case, the hon. Member for Colchester rather suggested that that was so. Reference has been made to propaganda in teaching. I have no experience as a teacher, but I have, of course, experience in being taught. I have no experience as a propagandist, but I have experience in being "propaganded." I have always understood that good propaganda was never easy to see. The propaganda to which the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) referred was obviously not good propaganda if the soldiers scraped their chairs and moved their feet about. I do not believe that hon. Members of this House should be so simple minded.
The hon. Member for the Combined English Universities drew a distinction between the responsibilities of the Government in teaching young children, and the responsibilities of the War Office in arranging for the education of grown men. I think I am right in saying that he drew such a distinction. He then went on to say that half the difficulties at the moment are due to the degree of illiteracy or retarded education. I believe that, at the present time, the responsibilities of the War Office are just as great as those of the Board of Education in teaching young children.
I have only two more points to make in what, I am afraid, are rather sketchy remarks. However, they must be sketchy 1642 until we hear the right hon. Gentleman's reply. The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees, with his experience in education, referred to his endeavours and those of all his colleagues throughout the war to inculcate into the British troops the idea of democracy. I hope that the Army Education Corps will continue to do that, but, from what I have seen of the two hon. Gentlemen who represent the Communist Party in this House I think that if they were drafted into the Army Education Corps they would be asked to do things with which they totally disagree, and, quite apart from the question of security, it would not add to the efficiency of the Corps for such tasks to be carried out by rabid and ardent Communists. I believe that it is of great advantage to the country as a whole that cases such as this should be raised by hon. Members on the Adjournment. Though one may disagree with the hon. Member who opened this Debate, I am sure that I and my hon. Friends on this side of the House—

An Hon. Member
All four of them.

§ Brigadier Low
—would be the last to disagree with him for having raised this particular case.

§ The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Bellenger)
Let me say at the outset of my remarks that I entirely agree with the tributes that have been paid from both sides of the House to the moderate and cogent way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. C. Smith) introduced this subject this afternoon. Before I deal with the specific points that he raised, and the one raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd), I would like to dispose of the points raised by the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) because he raised a far wider issue, that of the future of the Army Education Corps. He rather inferred that I, personally, and His Majesty's Government were taking less interest in something which ought to excite great activity, particularly under a scheme of national service. If I can, I want to disabuse his mind of any doubts he may have as to either the Army Council's or my own interest in this very important matter.
I have had more than one meeting recently of the Army Council specially to 1643 deal with the subject of the education of the Regular recruit to the Army and of the national service man, because I believe that it is not only my duty to make soldiers of these young men, but also to see that, after they have served for a period in the Army and then go back to civil life, they go back better citizens than when they came in. I believe that there is a depreciation of standards in many of these young men due to a variety of circumstances. This was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities. In saying that, I do not include only what I would call the academic education which the Army will give these young men, and which in fact it is at present giving them, although, I admit, not to the same extent as during the war, for reasons which I think will be obvious to the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities. If I may put it this way, I include also training in moral character so that when they go back, more fully grown as men than when they came in at the early age of, say, 18, they will then be ready to play their part as civilians in domestic and social life, and generally far better equipped than when they joined the Army.
I hope that very soon it will be possible for me to announce fully the plans which the Army Council have for the education of our soldiers in the future. It will be possible for me to go much more fully into that in the speech on the Estimates which I shall be making very shortly. I think the House will agree that today I had better deal more specifically with the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. In answer to the question which has been put to me as to whether the Army Education Corps is accepting candidates for short service commissions, especially from among that large body of men who are waiting to take up a civilian educational career but who cannot do so at the moment for reasons of which we are all aware, I should like to say that we have announced very widely in the Army that we are prepared to offer such commissions to suitable candidates who are willing to volunteer. This applies both to men who are still serving in the Forces and to those who have already been demobilised

§ Mr. K. Lindsay
Could the Minister give any indication as to the response?

§ Mr. Bellenger
I cannot say offhand what response we have had to this appeal, but for the hon. Gentleman's information perhaps I should tell him that we offer a gratuity of £337, £450 or £562 to an officer who completes a period in the Army Education Corps of three, four or five years respectively on the active list. If they wish to continue after that short service period these officers may volunteer for a Regular Commission and suitable candidates will be considered. I think I have shown—I hope to the satisfaction of the hon. Gentleman—that we are doing our best to attract some of the persons to whom he referred in his speech.
Let me turn now to the main subject of this Debate, which is the question of Private "S," as he was described by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester May I deal with the principle lying behind this case? My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees rather suggested that in the Army we discriminate politically against individuals in the form of employment that we give them. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester went on to say—quite frankly I thought—that this Private "S." was an active Communist and that for that reason we discriminated against him when he applied to join the Army Education Corps.
It is a very strange principle that my hon. Friend is putting to the House. It is true that he emphasised one particular political view—that of the Communist—but there are others which, if I may so put it, are as dangerous as, and indeed more dangerous than, the Communist political point of view. I am certain in my own mind that there are still a number of individuals who hold Fascist views of a very virulent type. I am equally certain that there are individuals serving in the Army who, if we did not take precautions, would by devious methods propagate views that no hon. Gentleman in this House could support—not even my hon. Friend who spoke so eloquently and ably this afternoon on behalf of his Private "S," who happens to hold Communist views. On the principle of selection I deem it my duty to see that in recruiting for the Army Education Corps the candidates we accept should not only have adequate training but should also 1645 be suitable to teach the soldiers in the form we wish.

§ Mr. Bing (Hornchurch)
rose—

§ Mr. Bellenger
Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to finish. I would put that form in these words, "the British way and purpose," which is a phrase well known to those who were members of the Army Education Corps. That is the fundamental basis of our teaching of civics and current affairs, and let me be quite frank in saying that the teaching of civics and current affairs is to form part of our compulsory education service in the postwar Army.

§ Mr. Bing
I think the House ought to be quite clear about this most important principle. Is my right hon. Friend now suggesting that it is the policy of the War Office that Communists ought not to be members of the Army Education Corps?

§ Mr Bellenger
No, I did not say anything of the kind. What I was attempting to indicate was that the form of education we intend to give the troops must conform to a certain pattern which I explained, in general terms, as being "the British way and purpose," and which I hope all hon. Members accept as being our democratic conception of life. I am only saying that in cases where candidates hold views diametrically opposed to that I should not hesitate to prevent their joining the Army Education Corps.

§ Mr. Bing
rose—

§ Mr. Bellenger
If he so desires my hon. Friend can pursue this subject in a speech, but I should like to develop this in my own way, if I may. I come now to the particular case cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester in support of his argument that we should have no discrimination whatever and should take into the Army Education Corps anyone who applied for admission, subject to one test only—what he called "the academic test."

§ Mr. C. Smith
I made no such statement at all.

§ Mr. Bellenger
I am sorry. I took a note at the time but in error I appear to have attributed the remarks to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester when in fact they were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees. What my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton- 1646 on-Tees said was that the academic qualification should be the supreme test, but I do not think we could apply that principle. I could give a whole series of illustrations to show that if an individual is biased in a certain way—religiously, perhaps, or materially—it might do considerable damage. Speaking as the father of children myself, my view is that the whole essence of education is that knowledge should be imparted in an impartial fashion without any strong views either way.
I am not suggesting for a moment that this individual is likely to do anything but teach in an impartial fashion. Indeed, I believe he has been teaching English in Germany. I would, however, draw the attention of the House to the fact that the argument advanced by my hon. Friends is that merely because he is an individual with high academic qualifications he is thereby suitable for the Army Education Corps. Let me refer to the experience of this Private "S" during the war. I am not denying the facts put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester that Private "S" has good academic qualifications, although I am perhaps not fully qualified to judge because I have not the same qualifications. One would have thought that Private "S" would have utilised those academic qualifications during the war in teaching, but he did nothing of the sort. He was a skilled and trained engineer. We have corning into the Army at the present moment many young men who have been trained in engineering. I cannot find jobs for all of them in their own particular trades, although I utilise as many of them as I can in their trade. Therefore I am bound to put some of them into branches of the Service where their particular qualifications are not specially used. For four or five years Private "S" was a skilled aircraft worker. Then he came into the Army, and it is said that he should he put into the Army Education Corps—

§ Mr. C. Smith
Clearly, the point is that three separate selection boards—Army education selection boards—and a War Office selection board examined his application. It is not a question of what I say or what he says about his abilities, but what these specialised bodies have said about them.

§ Mr. Bellenger
No, Sir. That only goes to prove how carefully we try to sift and 1647 examine these individuals. What happened when he went before the selection board? He applied for three branches of the service. He asked for the Royal Army Service Corps, or the Machine Guns, or the Army Education Corps—

§ Mr. Smith
Is it not a fact that every candidate for a commission puts down three choices? Is that not part of the normal proforma?

§ Mr. Bellenger
That is precisely what I am saying. The fact remains that the candidate who signifies his choice in a certain order naturally chooses the branches which he thinks he would like to enter, but it is not always possible for us to put him in the branch of his choice and he is not always suitable.

§ Mr. Chetwynd
rose—

§ Mr. Bellenger
My hon. Friends know that I am generally willing to give way, but it will destroy my argument if 1 am continually interrupted. I want to dispose, if 1 can, of the suggestion that we misused this individual by not accepting him in the Army Education Corps. What I say is—and I am not going to speak much longer about the subject—is that he may not have been used as fully during some of his service as he might have been. Having looked into the matter very carefully as the result of my hon. Friend's representations, I think that somebody who is a skilled engineer, as Private "S" was—his service was deferred for some time for him to work in engineering shops—and has such academic qualifications, ought to be used in a more suitable manner than he has been used so far. 1 shall make it my duty to see whether it is not possible to use Private "S" in a different capacity to that in which he is being used at the moment. I have looked into his age group number. He is only a temporary soldier—a National Service soldier—and it cannot be many months before he is demobilised. Therefore, I have to use him during the time he is in the Army to the best possible purpose for the Army. I have to use him for the Army—he is there for the Army—and we are in general crying out for skilled men—

§ Brigadier Low
Would the right hon. Gentleman look into this question? When did it first become known to the Army that Private "S" had first-class 1648 honours? I believe the right hon. Gentleman will find that it would not be known to the Army until Private "S" applied for his commission. Is there not something wrong with that situation?

§ Mr. Bellenger
That information ought to be known by the Army very early in the recruit's career because of the long questionnaire that recruits have to complete. This discloses any special qualifications they have. It cannot be very many months now before Private "S" is demobilised. In view of the plans we have for the future of the Army Education Corps, candidates for that Corps are to undergo a very severe and even long training. It might be a real waste of manpower if I attempted to train Private "S" for that Corps now. He would have to go through a course of at least three months' educational training before we could accept him for the Corps. My best plan would be to look into his engineering qualifications, as it seems that he has high skill in that respect, and use them for the rest of his Army service—

§ Mr. K. Lindsay
Although the right hon. Gentleman has admitted quite frankly that this is a misuse of manpower, he has not attempted to answer the question about civil liberties. Is he not going to answer it?

§ Mr. Bellenger
I do not know quite how my hon. Friend means me—

§ Mr. Lindsay
Was there discrimination?

§ Mr. Bellenger
If the hon. Member means political discrimination or victimisation, then I think I have answered that point. As far as civil liberties are concerned, that has not the same relevance—

§ Mr. Chetwynd
Would the right hon. Gentleman object in principle to this man having a commission in the Royal Engineers, or does the objection to a commission only apply to the Army Education Corps?

§ Mr. Bellenger
I do not know that I have any objection at all to his having a commission. All I say is that I want to use him in the best possible way—

§ Mr. C. Smith
If my right hon. Friend is satisfied that this man has expressed a strong preference for the Army Education Corps, would he be prepared to commission him in that Corps?

§ Mr. Bellenger
No, Sir. We endeavour to give candidates a chance of going into the branch of the Service for which they express preference, but the Army is so short of manpower at the present moment, that we are often having to transfer against their choice to other regiments men with a strong county and territorial affinity because we must fill the commissioned ranks of the Army where vacancies occur.

§ Mr. Pritt (Hammersmith, North)
The right hon. Gentleman has said quite positively that it is not the intention or the policy of his Department to appoint to the Army Education Corps people whose political views—to put it vet), bluntly—they do not like. I think that is a fair description of what he said. I call that political discrimination, though other people may take a different view. I want to say first that I find that very undesirable. It sounds plausible, but it is a very dangerous weapon indeed. Secondly, it is very interesting from this point of view. I have taken up several hundred cases with the War Office during the last seven years of political discrimination of this kind. I hold in respect of each one of those cases a letter from one or another Secretary of State positively denying that the War Office ever exercises any political discrimination at all, and generally resorting to the most ingenious explanations of each separate case. At any rate I must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman that he, at any rate, is not a liar; all the others were.

§ Mr. Bing (Hornchurch)
My right hon. Friend suggested that I should not intervene during his speech, as I had hoped to do, to clarify it, but should address the House later. I accept that, and will do so now. I think that there is nobody, on the Benches on this side of the House at any rate, who is not profoundly dissatisfied with what they have heard. The only charitable thing I can say about the speech of the right hon. Gentleman is that in parts it was so unclear that perhaps it did not mean what we thought it did. It is undoubtedly true that there are continual cases of petty victimisation of individuals, and hon. Members on this side of the House may well see in the Estimates, or on some other occasion, an opportunity of dealing with this matter. May I deal with one case which has come to my own 1650 notice? It is not that of a Communist but that of a crypto-Communist.

§ Mr. Bellenger
What is a crypto-Communist?

§ Mr. Bing
I was just about to explain. He had done something which clearly distinguished him as a crypto-Communist. He was a director of a publishing firm and he published a book by my right hon. Friend.

§ Brigadier Low
In that case he deserved promotion.

§ Mr. Bing
He hoped that when he went into the Army this youthful folly would be forgotten. He passed through the usual stages mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. C. Smith) and put his name forward to go into the Education Corps. He did not seek a commission but he needed to become a sergeant if he was to have sufficient authority for taking the classes which it was his duty to take. I wrote the usual letter and got an exactly similar reply to that received by my hon. Friend. It seems that there is some type of duplicating machine which is now almost fully employed in turning out identical letters to hon. Members on these subjects.
What was I told? That the Army must decide who was suitable to be a sergeant, and who was not, and this man was unsuitable. What actually happened was that his unit thought he had such high qualifications that they appointed him a sergeant to a vacancy which they had on their own establishment. At the time I received the letter saying that he was unsuitable to hold non-commissioned rank, and that the Army must judge as to who was to be held suitable to hold non-commissioned rank and who was not, this over-ambitious director of a publishing firm was not only made a sergeant hut a sergeant enjoying trade pay. When I communicated with him again, he said, "Please do not raise this matter again because if it were discovered that I had been promoted, I might, through your efforts, be demoted."
That does not seem to me to be satisfactory. I do not want to go into the whole issue at this stage, but it is one which has interested me for a considerable period because I myself have been victimised in exactly the same way for a long period of time. However, I hope to deal 1651 with the matter on the Estimates, and then I may be able to answer the questions of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite as to when you do and when you do not, get promotion. However, we cannot go into that now, and all I want to do is to express the profound dissatisfaction which is felt on this side of the House. I think I am speaking for myself and my hon. Friends when I say that I do not feel the Minister has investigated this case properly, or, indeed, at all. Nor has he looked into other cases of a similar nature. I ought to add that we on this side of the House are determined that we will have in Departments Ministers who are capable of carrying out such investigations.