HC Deb 26 February 1947 vol 433 cc2068-72
46. Captain Marsden

asked the Minister of Defence whether the defence of the Suez Canal is now the sole responsibility of the British Empire.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander)

I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to Article 8 of the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936, under which Britain co-operates with Egypt for the defence of the Canal.

Captain Marsden

Are we to understand that the actual written word of Article 36 still stands, and that because of the conversations of last year our Forces have not been in any way diminished, and are still taking chief responsibility?

Mr. Alexander

The written word still stands.

Mr. King

Is it not a fact that according to the provisions of the Imperial Conference, 1923–26, responsibility for Imperial defence, other than local, rests primarily with this country? Further, is it not a fact that that decision has never been changed, and that it is a burden which this country can no longer carry?

Mr. Alexander

I must rest on the answer I have given, and refer my hon. Friend to Article 8 of the Treaty. engagements, and on the whole I am bound to say that the short service engagement scheme is going very satisfactorily indeed, especially in relation to officers who are either serving now or who have already left the Service and want to come hack.

Brigadier Low

Could the right hon. Gentleman give us the latest figures?

Mr. Bellenger

No, I cannot at the moment give the figures out of my head, but this is a matter which could be usefully pursued by putting a Question down on the Order Paper. If that were done I should be prepared to answer it. I think I have dealt as faithfully as I can and, hope, in as hill detail as I can, with the points that have been raised by various hon. Members tonight. Considering that-we are demobilising something like 700,000 men within this year and the next I do not think one can expect this Army Estimates to be rigidly accurate From what I have seen of previous Estimates and Supplementary Estimates in this House—I have not seen as many as the noble Lord, of course, but I have seen quite a few—and although I am not claiming for one moment that we have estimated as closely as might have been possible, taking it by and large I think we have done our best. I hope the explanation I have given to the Committee this evening will now enable them to let me have the Estimates.

Sir G. Jeffreys

Is the Minister not intending to give an answer to the question concerning the employment of Polish troops and the suggestion that they might be embodied in a foreign legion?

Mr. Beltenger

I have answered the question about creating a foreign legion. It is against the policy of His Majesty's Government to do so, but I think I can say to the hon. and gallant Gentleman and, in fact, to the whole Committee, that the Polish troops who were brought here came only because they had served the Allied cause and fought so valiantly during the war against, in the main, Fascism and Nazism. I think I can say that we are rehabilitating them, either by getting them back to Poland—and I only wish that those who are willing could go back a little quicker, but the delay is not all on this side—or, in the case of those who do not want to go back, by establishing them in some civilian occupation where they can lift up their heads, look every man in the face, earn an, honest living and live the rest of their days in peace.

8.15 p.m.

Major Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)

The right hon. Gentleman has just mentioned the matter of the Poles, and I should like to begin by saying a few words about them. There seems to me to be considerable confusion in the Minister's mind as to the difference between policy and fact, and one now begins to understand much more clearly, "Let us Face the Future." But that is perhaps a little outside this discussion. What I did ask, and what we have not yet had cleared up, is why that original decision was taken to presume that so many Poles were to be able to get back to Poland. We do not know why that decision was ever taken. It was obviously a wrong decision and it appears that there is no possible ground for ever having made the supposition that very many Poles would get back. In view of what has happened today there seems less likelihood than ever.

I do ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind in connection with this matter that however much money we spend on the Polish land forces, whether or not those forces are legally right, the fact remains that we owe them a debt which I hope the right hon. Gentleman intends to repay. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) today raised the matter of their legality and I was a little surprised to hear the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) state during Question time that the fact that they were illegal has now been definitely established. One now knows who it was who established it. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne is, of course, entitled to his own opinion, and we had better leave it at that.

I want now to turn from the question of the Poles to the other parts of the Estimate. First, with regard to the point originally raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) concerning railway stores. When he came to reply the Minister said that those stores came under the general heading of "Movement," and referred only to matters connected with the movement of troops. I should like to ask him whether he would confirm that that is really so. The increase is £718,000 and I am wondering how railway stores can actually be covered under the matter of movement. Is it a question of the vast pool of railway engines and that sort of W.D railway engine of which, I understand, there is a great surplus in the country lying about doing nothing? Whether it is that type of store or a question of maintaining offices and that kind of thing in railway stations is another matter, and if the Financial Secretary speaks again perhaps he would clarify the point.

There is also a matter concerned with Vote 13 upon which I should like to ask a question. So many people have chosen a gratuity in lieu of retired pay that an increase of £1,300,000 is shown in the Estimate. I do not know whether we could be given some enlightenment as to why it is that gratuities have been chosen in so many cases, but it does raise the whole matter of the Reserve and I imagine that it might not be in Order to discuss that too deeply tonight. We should, however, bear in mind the whole time the number of people who are going straight out of the Reserve and everything else, and those who are still liable to recall. We have no indication from this Vote as to how many those would be. There is still one very important question which the right hon. Gentleman did not answer, and had he allowed my hon. and gallant Friend to interrupt him it might have saved the Committee a little time. I think it was a very important point as to whether any of the other Allied Powers had had any part in this business of special vouchers.

Mr. Bellenger

I can answer that point. They have incurred their own losses, which are not part of ours, and they presumably have made their own arrangements.

Major Legge-Bourke

I am grateful for that information. I was wondering whether perhaps all the special vouchers which are circulating and are supposedly printed by our authorities were, in fact, the only ones, or whether there were some others resembling ours which had been printed elsewhere. I think it is just possible that that might have happened. I was hoping that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would answer that point and that if the printer has been traced some slight representation might be made—if it has not been made already—to the offending Power. I understand that there is a little doubt over that matter, and I hope that it will soon be cleared up and that whatever is established will be announced to the country.

Earlier the Minister interrupted my right hon. Friend on the matter of demobilisation leave, and I wonder whether he would consider telling the Committee how great a proportion of those concerned did not take this leave and, if they did not, in how many cases this was as the result of their own choice and in how many cases they were not here to take it? In other words, how many came home after their due date for release? I think it was quite a number, and there were certainly some from East Africa, if the right hon. Gentleman remembers.

Mr. Bellenger

I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is confusing disembarkation leave and demobilisation leave. Demobilisation leave arises when a man leaves the Services and goes back into civilian life.

Major Legge-Bourke

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that correction, but the fact remains that he said it depended upon whether or not they took demobilisation leave, from which it appears that certain men were refusing to take demobilisation leave. Another point to which I wish to refer is the matter of bounties, which was touched upon by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Blackpool (Brigadier Low). My hon. and gallant Friend referred to the last figures which the right hon. Gentleman has given, and I hope that, before the end of the Debate, the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us the latest news. I understand that, since the power cut, there has been a considerable increase in the number of men coming back. I remember that very early in this Parliament, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour said that the one thing he did not want the Army to become was a home for the unemployed. I do not want to get out of Order on this matter. The increase in regard to bounties is an original increase in the shape of £1 million, and I take it that the £1 million is sufficiently much in excess of the figures before the power cut was made to enable a pretty good influx as a result of the bounty. I hope, however, that the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind all the time that if we simply allow the Army to become a second best to civilian employment, the Army, the country, and the world will