Clause 3.—(APPLICATION OF ARMY ACT AND AIR FORCE ACT TO THE FEDERATION OF MALAYA.) (Hansard, 5 April 1951)

§ The Chairman
I am sorry, but I have not been able to select the Amendment.

§ Mr. Emrys Hughes
I had gathered that, Major Milner.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

§ The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Michael Stewart)
The Committee may wish me to say a few words about the effect of the Clause. It is to secure that reference in the Army Act to a colony shall be construed as including reference to the Federation of Malaya. The significance of the term "colony" for the purposes of the Army Act has been extended by other legislation but not so extended as to include the Federation of Malaya, which is a federation composed partly of protected States and partly of British settlements.
The effect of the extension is that forces raised in Malaya under local legislation can be brought under the Army Act just as can forces raised in the Colony under colonial legislation. I think the Committee will agree that it is entirely proper and reasonable to make that extension. Subsections (3) and (4) of the proposed new Section 187AB of the Army Act simply make consequential extensions of the phrases "His Majesty's Force" and "Service in His Majesty's Forces," and subsection (2) of the Clause makes the corresponding alteration in the Air Force Act.

§ Air Commodore Harvey (Macclesfield)
Will the hon. Gentleman explain what has been happening up to now? How have they managed in the meantime? Why has this just been discovered?

§ Mr. Stewart
This does not apply to any locally enlisted forces but to forces raised under local legislation, and so far these have not existed. The native forces which have existed in Malaya so far have been locally enlisted and not raised under local legislation.

§ Mr. Emrys Hughes
We cannot accept the Clause without further assurances and further explanation. I gather that the Clause is to deal not with Service personnel who go from this country to Malaya but to forces raised in Malaya. I do not want personnel recruited in Malaya to be treated in the same way as soldiers sent from this country to Malaya. 389 We have heard so many cases in this House about young soldiers from this country with insufficient training being sent into action that we should certainly not agree to the raising of forces in Malaya in which soldiers under 19 years of age would be liable to be sent into difficult jungle warfare with insufficient training. I do not want young soldiers unfortunate enough to have been born in Malaya to be treated in the same way as soldiers sent from Scotland.

§ Mr. Stewart
I am not sure how far this is relevant to the purpose of the Clause, but what my hon. Friend has said obliges me to say that there is no evidence whatever for the suggestion which he has made that young men have been sent into action in Malaya with insufficient training. The facts do not bear that out. My hon. Friend is not justified in suggesting it.

§ Air Commodore Harvey
As this subject has been raised—I did not think it was in order, but now I presume that it is—I should like to point out that I entirely disagree with what the hon. Gentleman has just said. He will recall that only three or four weeks ago five men of the Worcestershire Regiment were killed. Two of them were from my constituency, and one was just 19 and the other was still 18. Although the Secretary of State said the other day that these young men did not go into action until they had had a month's local training in Malaya, two of those young soldiers went into the jungle on operations with only two weeks' training. On this occasion I am in entire agreement with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), and I believe that the House is deeply concerned about the age of these young men and the amount of training given to them. I have been balloting for about seven weeks in the hope of raising this matter on the Adjournment.

§ Mr. Bellenger (Bassetlaw)
On a point of order, Major Milner. Is this discussion in order? It is about British troops. Does not the Clause apply only to native enlisted men?

§ Air Commodore Harvey
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's point. I was about to say that the House is just as much concerned whether the men fighting on our behalf are young soldiers sent from this country, Malays or British Chinese. 390 While the local boys may have a better chance as they are more acclimatised to local conditions, we should have assurances on this point. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not merely skate over the problem and dismiss the subject, because the Committee and the whole of the country are gravely concerned about it. The hon. Gentleman will not get away with it merely by making a few remarks and hoping that that will be the end of it.

§ The Chairman
Again, I have to say that this is a question of administration.

§ Air Commodore Harvey
It may be administration, Major Milner, but it affects the local call up of young recruits in Malaya itself, and I should have thought—

§ The Chairman
Those are really questions for Supply. All the Bill and the Clause do is to apply certain provisions of the Army Acts to the Federation of Malaya. Whether the troops are the troops raised there or our troops in Malaya, I am not quite sure. Nevertheless, the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question is certainly one of administration.

§ Mr. Harold Macmillan (Bromley)
I should not have intervened on this Clause if this question had not arisen. You have allowed a certain amount of debate and a statement from the Undersecretary, Major Milner, and, although I agree with you that it would be unwise on this occasion to continue the debate at any length, I hope you will allow me just to repeat on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends the line that we have-always taken about both troops raised at home and the troops that are now to be raised in Malaya. We believe that there should be a minimum of a month's local service before they are allowed to go into action. If we could get that assurance it would be helpful to all hon. Members who are interested in this matter.

§ Mr. Driberg (Maldon)
May I ask my hon. Friend a question before we pass this? Will the Clause apply to the Gurkhas now serving in Malaya?

§ Mr. Stewart
No, it is not as wide as that. It will not apply to those forces in Malaya, nor does it apply to all Malayan forces It applies only to forces raised under Malayan legislation. It is 391 rather narrower than some hon. Members have supposed.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), will not wish me to go very far into this topic. I intervened only because it seemed to me right that the statement made by my hon. Friend should not be allowed to pass unchallenged. All the evidence we have shows that these young men have given extremely good account of themselves—that is pertinent—and that their training is not at fault. It is true that there was the tragic episode mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey). Inevitably there are casualties in these operations which, on any showing, we must regard as very tragic indeed, but there is no evidence to suggest that the casualties which have occurred, tragic as they are, have happened because the men were insufficiently trained and were unable to give a proper account of themselves.
My right hon. Friend and I are always anxious to see if any further steps are needed and can be taken to put it beyond any shadow of doubt that these men are properly trained, but it is our right and proper duty to these men to indicate that there is really no ground at all for supposing that we are sending men into battle improperly trained and that the casualties, which must occur as part of the tragic course of war, are not due to their not being properly trained for the emergencies which they have to meet.

§ Air Commodore Harvey
The Undersecretary has contradicted himself. When he replied to one of his hon. Friends he said that a minimum of a month's training was given. Now he has referred to the tragic case of the five men of the Worcestershire Regiment. Are we to understand that all soldiers should have a minimum of a month's training before going into action? In the case I cited the training happened to be of only two weeks' duration. The Committee would like a categorical assurance on this point.

§ The Chairman
Having regard to what the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) said, to which the Minister has replied, I have really allowed too much latitude; and I do not think that I can now permit a debate dealing 392 with points purely of administration to continue on the Clause.

§ Mr. A. R. W. Low (Blackpool, North)
I am still not quite clear why the Clause is necessary, because the existing definition Section in the Army Act says: The expression "colony" means any part of His Majesty's dominions exclusive of the United Kingdom, and of any Dominion, and includes any British protectorate. Why is that definition Section, which really is very wide and would seem to include Malaya, now taken not to include the Federation of Malaya? After all, all that the Clause appears to do is to say in subsection (2): References in this Act to a colony shall be construed as including references to the Federation of Malaya. From the definition I have quoted, I should have thought that the Army Act already included the Federation of Malaya under the definition of "colony" in the definition Section. Will the hon. Gentleman please explain this?

§ Mr. Stewart
It is possible that the hon. Member may be right. What we have to face is that in the Federation of Malaya we have something that is sui generis, and we cannot be certain that the definitions already in the Army Act do in fact cover it. What we have done now is to put the matter beyond doubt and to make it possible for forces to be raised under Malayan legislation and for the Army Act to be applied to them.