HC Deb 06 February 1948 vol 446 cc2130-42

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

3.55 p.m.

Mr. Keeling (Twickenham)

I want to take advantage of the Motion for the Adjournment to protest with all the vigour I can command against the denial of a campaign star to Anti-Aircraft Command.

During the Recess the Government published a dispatch from Sir Frederick Pile, Commander-in-Chief of that Command, on its operations against the air attacks of the enemy during the war.

From this and from other official reports it appears that anti-aircraft guns shot down no fewer than 822 aircraft and 1,972 flying bombs. Ack-Ack shared the duty of opposing the enemy raids with the Royal Air Force. During the Battle of Britain, and at some other times, the Royal Air Force had the main task, but at other times, and especially during the V-1 period, the major burden was borne, and the major success was attained, by Anti-Aircraft Command.

One would have expected that there would be no differentiation between the two Services. One would have expected no attempt precisely to allocate the share of each in victory, any more than one differentiates between the tanks and infantry who go in to attack and the artillery who prepare the way for them. Yet the Royal Air Force fighter crews received a campaign star, whereas Ack-Ack merely got, in addition to the ordinary War Medal, the Defence Medal, which is given primarily to civilians and to soldiers who are not engaged in operations. We owe an enormous debt to the Royal Air Force, but it is not too much to say that but for Ack-Ack the enemy attacks would have been far more severe and bloody, and it is not too much to say that, but for Ack-Ack, our preparations for invading Europe in 1944 might have been seriously interfered with.

When I put a Question to the Lord President of the Council on 22nd January, he said that to give a Campaign Star to the men of Anti-Aircraft Command would involve giving it also to the Dover Coastal Batteries, to the R.A.F. ground staffs, to the National Fire Service, to the Police and to the Civil Defence Services. I say nothing about the claims of the Dover Coastal Batteries or the Royal Air Force ground staffs, but surely it is an extraordinary proposition to advance that if Ack-Ack were given a Campaign Star, it would have to be given to firemen, policemen and air-raid wardens.

As Mr. Hore-Belisha, who was Secretary of State for War during the first part of the war, said, Ack-Ack actually engaged the enemy in a vital battle of the war. And as Sir Archibald Sinclair, who was Secretary of State for Air during most of the war said, Ack-Ack was an operational Com- mand. Any suggestion to the contrary simply will not bear investigation. Anti-Aircraft Command was, indeed, more continuously operational than any other Command, except perhaps the Royal Air Force Fighter Command. I assert that a civil formation should not rank for a military award, and a military operational formation ought not to be asked to be content with a civilian award. The rôle of Ack-Ack was active and offensive, and the enemy were its target. The rôle of policemen, firemen, and the other civil defence services was merely passive. The Ack-Ack men fought as soldiers and they ought to have soldier's medals. Are hon. Members aware—

It being Four 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. Snow.]

Mr. Keeling

Are hon. Members aware that one day's service in an Ack-Ack unit in France qualified for the France and Germany Campaign Star, and six months' service in an Ack-Ack unit in France qualified for another campaign star, the 1939–45 Star, while five and a half years' service in Ack-Ack Command at home did not qualify for a star at all? Will any hon. Member deny that Ack-Ack troops fought as hard a battle in Great Britain as in any other theatre of war?

The denial of a Campaign Star to Anti-Aircraft Command deprives many soldiers of honest pleasure to which they are surely entitled. I ask the Government to remember that many of these men as Territorials before the war gave up much time for training, at a period when they did not get much encouragement from the party opposite. To refuse the Campaign Star to these men is to discriminate most unfairly against them. They cannot understand why they are excluded. This is a grave injustice which, if persisted in, will have a very discouraging effect on recruiting for the Territorial Anti-Aircraft units. I beg the Government to reconsider the matter.

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Lambert (South Molton)

We are very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) for having raised this matter this afternoon, and for the way he has persistently advocated the claim of Anti-Aircraft Command for the 1939–45 Campaign Star. He has dealt very ably with the claims of the men who served in the last war. I should like to support his argument about recruiting. I am seriously perturbed at the effect that the withholding of this Star from Anti-Aircraft Command will have on the building up of the anti-aircraft defence organisation of this country.

It is universally agreed that it is essential, in the unfortunate event of there being another war, that we should have a strong and efficient anti-aircraft defence in this country. Before the last war the highest priority was given in the Territorial Army to anti-aircraft. Many of the infantry Territorial units were converted against their will to an anti-aircraft role, but they were told it was vital that they should become anti-aircraft and they accepted the fact. They worked hard to bring their units up to strength and to train themselves. At the end of the war some of them, who, because they were key men, had been kept in Anti-Aircraft Command during the whole of the war, were then told that they were not entitled to this Star. They were told that though they had been in an operational command and had engaged the enemy successfully and with vigour, they were not entitled to this Star, purely because they had not been in that particular part of the world, service in which entitled them to the Star.

The stigma of being non-operational is sticking to anti-aircraft units today. I have talked to brigade and regimental commanders at present in Anti-Aircraft Command and they are very dubious as to their ability to recruit and train people to be efficient in the anti-aircraft role. So far they have been able to recruit the old type of Territorial soldier, the man who served in the Territorial Army before the war, but they are finding it extremely difficult to recruit new men. When they suggest to men that they should join, they have thrown back at them the stigma of being non-operational. They are disturbed also as to what the effect will be on the men drafted to their units under the National Service Act, whom they expect to receive in 1950. How will these men react when told they are going to a unit which is not operational, and which would have made them ineligible for a Campaign Star?

I attach the greatest importance to another aspect of the matter. Anti-aircraft can only be successful if it has a certain number of really efficient first-class Regular soldiers. The Regular soldier today, if he is connected with the anti-aircraft element of the Regular Army, feels that he may be accused of getting a "cushy" job. He realises how the Regular soldier in the last war who was connected with anti-aircraft prejudiced his career. There were many cases of men one knew to have the greatest possible ability whose careers were retarded by being in anti-aircraft. For these reasons, the impossibility of getting new recruits, the effect on men drafted under the National Service Act, and the Regular soldier's unwillingness to join the anti-aircraft element of the Army, I feel it will be impossible to build up an efficient anti-aircraft organisation, and I beg the Under-Secretary of State to change his mind.

4.7 p.m.

Major Haughton (Antrim)

In intervening in this Debate, I am thinking primarily of the effect which withholding the Campaign Star from anti-aircraft units will have on recruiting. The task of anti-aircraft is exactly the same whether at home or abroad. Ack-Ack is an operational command. That, I think, is beyond all argument now. It is an offensive command and should be differentiated from defensive commands. One can say that Ack-Ack played a magnificent part in the defence of Great Britain, without detracting in the very least from our admiration of the gallantry of the civilian organisations which played their part. I would hand the palm for cold-blooded gallantry to the bomb disposal fellows, who had a task which I would have hated to tackle at any time. I wish to support with all the sincerity and conviction I can bring to -bear the plea put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling).

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Macpherson (Romford)

I would like from this side of the House to support this proposition. I agree with every word that has been said about it, especially by the hon. and gallant Member for Antrim (Major Haughton). It should never be forgotten that throughout the whole of the battle areas of the last war none suffered more intensive bombardment than Southern England, especially around this London of ours, and the men who defended that area in Ack-Ack are as entitled to operational honours as any other branch of the Services. I take exception to the reference by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) to the lack of encouragement which he said had been given to Territorial recruitment before the war by the party on this side. The whole of the party on this side this afternoon have had military service. Two of us have had Territorial service. I have had 15 years Territorial service, and I would be glad if the hon. Member would remember that it is not true to speak of the party on this side of the House in that way.

Mr. Keeling

I certainly withdraw the statement as regards the three hon. Members opposite who are now present, but when I made my remark there were a good many others opposite.

Mr. Macpherson

It would have been a bad thing if the Territorial Army before the war had consisted of the supporters of one political party. It consisted of the rank and file of the people of the country, supporters of all parties, including ours. I support the proposition which has been advanced this afternoon, and I hope that the Government will pay regard to it.

4.13 p.m.

Colonel Dower (Penrith and Cockermouth)

I would like to support the case which was stated most admirably by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling). I speak as honorary colonel of an anti-aircraft gunnery regiment, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman who is representing the Government will take note that this is not a small matter to a great many people. Every day and every week various members of the regiment of which I have the honour to be honorary colonel come to see me about this particular matter. They feel that they have been subjected to an injustice. As several hon. Members have already done, I wish to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that if we are to call upon this Command again in the event of an emergency, there will be no enthusiasm of any kind to join it, and every man, however high or however low, will do his utmost to get out of it and into another branch of the Army. If that is not due to the feeling that they were given a very raw deal during the last war, I do not know to what it is due.

If the Government want to get a good Service, they will reopen this matter. It is one which is felt with grave seriousness by each member of the rank and file, who feel that they have been given a shabby deal. The hon. Member for Twickenham has pointed out that what has been said to them is that they are not an operational command. Are the Government really serious in saying that of a command which went into action in the Port of London—and in the next war we shall certainly have the war right here, in our very centre, as we did last time. If they are to be told that they are not an operational command, they will know that they will not be treated as an operational command, and that they will not be treated like other members of the Armed Forces. To say that the National Fire Service, for whom I have the greatest admiration, is really the reason for not giving the Anti-Aircraft Command a military award is sheer nonsense. Whatever the Fire Service as a civil force are entitled to—they may have been treated very badly for all I know—it has nothing to do with the question of whether a Star is given to Ack-ack or not. That is burking the whole issue.

I hope that the hon. Gentlemen who are taking note of this Debate will not say that this matter is finished and done with, because it will not only be very much in the minds of all those who are now training in Anti-Aircraft Command and those who are refusing to come into it, but also will very adversely affect their efficiency, their prestige, their confidence in themselves and their desire to be in a Ack-ack Command in the event of another crisis arising, when the country looks to them for its defence.

4.15 p.m.

Sir William Darling (Edinburgh, South)

I wish to take part in this Debate, if only to assure the Government that everyone in the House is agreed in this particular appeal. Hon. Members have referred to their own experience in Ack-Ack Command. I speak as a Civil Defence Commissioner, and one who does not expect, or deserve, the Campaign Star. There is all the difference between the active fighting man and a person who is engaged in passive resistance. The Civil Defence workers suffered the consequence of enemy action, but the Ack-Ack people struck an active blow against the enemy. I cannot understand the logic that gives the Campaign Star to an airman who flies 500 feet above the anti-aircraft battery, but denies it to the man or woman in the Ack-Ack battery who sends a shell 5,000 feet in the air. Both of them are actively engaged in striking at the enemy.

The distinction in this matter is perfectly clear. I agree with the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling), who pointed that out to the Lord President of the Council. The Lord President shows less than his usual acuteness when he says there is no such distinction. I cannot imagine that air raid wardens or firemen would make a similar claim. They were engaged on passive operations. I have friends who served in the Suez Canal zone who are quite proud that they achieved this Campaign Star. They would be the first to admit that the comforts and circumstances of the Suez Canal zone were indeed idyllic, as compared with the horrors and terrors of the experiences of those engaged in the Ack-Ack defence of the County of London. I feel that this impressive unanimity, complete on the Government side of the House and on this side, except for one hon. Gentleman who has yet to speak, will cause the Government to make this concession.

4.18 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Michael Stewart)

I have been impressed, and no one can fail to be impressed, with the feeling and eloquence with which hon. Members on both sides of the House have put this case. One point, to which I would refer, seemed to be a little outside the Debate. The hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) expressed apprehension as to the feelings of Regular soldiers who might find themselves in an Ack-Ack Command. He said that they felt that their career in the Service was being retarded. I would submit that if there is apprehension of that kind it is caused by something deeper than the particular topic we are discussing. When he mentioned that, he was raising something that lies outside the main question.

Mr. Lambert

The Financial Secretary, nevertheless, will admit that it is a fact that Regular soldiers are very chary of getting on to an Anti-Aircraft site.

Mr. Stewart

I am not admitting that. I am merely saying that the suggestion cannot be produced as if it were entirely evidence in support of the claim advanced in this Debate. No one would wish to say that the great services rendered by the men in Ack-Ack Command ought not to be most fully recognised by the gratitude of the nation. Those services are not unrecognised at present. Men in this Command qualify for the Defence Medal and for the War Medal. The issue, therefore, that is put before us in this Debate is whether they should also be made eligible for a third award of a Campaign Star. One hon. Member opposite particularly mentioned the 1939–1945 Star. I take it that that really is the issue before us. Can that claim be conceded in the case of men in the Ack-Ack Command, without being conceded also to a considerable number of other groups of persons, and without further renewing a number of claims for particular decorations which have been made from time to time in the four or five years during which this topic has been discussed? The hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Colonel Dower) said in effect that he was pressing this claim but that it might be that some other group like the National Fire Service also had a claim.

Colonel Dower

I said that this was a military award. What the National Fire Service may be, and no doubt are, entitled to, is a different matter.

Mr. Stewart

That is exactly the contention which I must challenge. The view I advance is that the whole question of awards, both to civil and military personnel, must be considered as one question. If we grant this Campaign Star—which would be a third award to men of the Ack-Ack Command in addition to the two for which they are already eligible—we increase the gap between them and other groups of persons. Inevitably, that would rouse again a whole series of claims which have been discussed and regretfully set aside in the past.

This is not a new matter. I was sorry that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) introduced any suggestion of party into the discussion. This matter was first raised and pronounced upon in this House by no less a person than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) when he was Prime Minister. This very issue was discussed and regretfully set aside by him. He pointed out, among other things, that whereas much had been said of the actual operational work—"striking a blow against the enemy," was the phrase used by the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling)—if we consider not only those who fire the guns, but those in searchlight and predictor services, it is not practicable to distinguish between them. Those who render other services might be called passive just as readily as Members of the National Fire Service who are called passive.

Sir W. Darling

No fireman ever killed a German.

Mr. Stewart

I was surprised—

Sir W. Darling

No air-raid warden ever killed a German.

Mr. Stewart

Yes. But it is not on that basis solely that these honours and awards were granted. I ask the House to consider how wide a door would be opened if this claim were conceded. What are the other groups who would feel that they had a claim also to this Campaign Star? There are those who, like Ack-Ack Command, already possess the Defence Medal and the War Medal. Among them we find, in the Royal Navy, those who were engaged on valuable and important duties which kept them ashore—

Mr. Keeling

They were not operational. That is the point.

Mr. Stewart

Further, there are those who were engaged on bomb and mine disposal in the Royal Navy.

Mr. Keeling

They were not operational.

Mr. Stewart

I am aware of that, but I would point out that if this claim were granted to Ack-Ack Command, the others would have as strong a sense of grievance as has been expressed by any hon. Member opposite on behalf of Ack-Ack Command this afternoon. Indeed, a claim has already been advanced on behalf of men in the Royal Navy engaged in mine and bomb disposal work that there should be some special decoration to represent that fact. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I note that hon. Members say "Hear, hear." That illustrates the point which I was making that once we reopen one aspect of this matter in regard to claims for awards we reopen the whole question. An hon. Member asks, "Why not?" That shows where we are being led.

We are now being asked not merely to consider this particular claim but inevitably, by the logic of the matter, to reopen the whole question. That is something which at this stage it would not be either wise or dignified to do. It cannot be done either at this or at a later stage because the matter has been studied and very carefully considered during the tenure of office of more than one Government, and that is the reason why I say it is neither wise nor dignified to reopen the whole question now. There were men in the Army who were engaged in home defence or in instructional duties and there were men in the Royal Air Force who were engaged in non-aircrew duties; these groups at present have the defence medal and the war medal and in that position they resemble Anti-Aircraft Command. If this campaign star were granted to Anti-Aircraft Command, it would involve inevitably these other groups, that is to say a total of something about one million persons.

If I may refer to those who at present are eligible for the Defence Medal, it has been said that these men were not in the Armed Forces and that they are not, therefore, to be considered side by side with Anti Aircraft Command. The point I want to make is that there was one group, the Home Guard, some of whom did part-time service side by side with Anti-Aircraft Command. It has been represented with just as much eloquence as we have heard this afternoon that these men, too, should have qualified for the War Medal. I do not see how you can make a distinction between Anti-Aircraft Command and those men in the Home Guard who served part-time with Anti-Aircraft Command. If we grant the claim made this afternoon the claim of the Home Guard for the War Medal must inevitably he revised.

There are, too, the men in the Fire Service, in the Police and in Civil Defence units. It was with these in mind that the right hon. Member for Woodford regretfully set aside the claim that has been brought up again this afternoon. Indeed, there are very considerable sections of the population who, if they did not kill a German—for which, apparently, the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) has such enthusiasm—were engaged in saving the lives of people in this country, and of maintaining the economic structure and fighting power of this country; and it is very doubtful whether you cannot maintain that they, too, made a very valuable contribution towards the killing of Germans.

There are men who worked on the railways and in the gasworks, where there were at times very ugly and perilous incidents. Men of that sort at present have no decorations at all. If we give a third award to Anti-Aircraft Command the question must inevitably arise as to whether we ought not to give these men a decoration as well. I am sorry to weary the House with this long list of persons to whom the doors are being opened. There are also the men in the Forces who did not actually serve overseas. May I quote what the right hon. Member for Woodford said in the House in arguing against the extension which has been suggested this afternoon? It would become so common as to be very nearly universal. I am sure the soldier, sailor and the airman returning from prolonged active service abroad and wearing the Africa or the 1939–43 Star would feel bewil- dered when he saw all around him 12 million mostly adult, males who had not left the island but who had got the same ribbon, too."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd March, 1944; Vol 398, col. 879.] There will be these groups of men in the Forces who will raise the question as to whether, if this added distinction is to be given to Anti-Aircraft Command, there ought not to be an added distinction for them.

Let me say in conclusion that the real assessment of the work of the men in Anti-Aircraft Command is measured by the gratitude and judgment of the nation, by the respect they receive from their fellow citizens and in the judgment of history. The task before this House, and before successive Governments was to try to convert an intangible thing and to put it in some measurable form. That meant an attempt to draw up regulations for clasps, awards and medals which might involve 20 million claims. It is not reasonable, therefore, at this stage, to re-open the whole matter. It is impossible to grant this request without re-opening it and it is for that reason that we take this decision and not through any disregard for the high and honoured services rendered.

The Question having been proposed at Four o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Four o'Clock.