HC Deb 02 August 1951 vol 491 cc1646-61

1.0 p.m.

Mr. Driberg (Maldon)

All of us hope that by the time this House meets again the war in Korea will be over, and that some at least of the troops who are now there will be on their way home. That hope is not, I am afraid, very bright today. According to the latest news from Washington, Mr. Acheson has just issued a statement about the 38th Parallel which seems to be in flat contradiction to an assurance given on behalf of the Government in another place last Tuesday.

However, so long as the war in Korea does go on, presumably the Forces of the United Nations, including British Forces, will remain there, disregarding the gibe of the egregious Dr. Syngman Rhee that they have outstayed their welcome. Indeed, I am of the opinion that, great as is the misery and suffering of the people of Korea themselves, it would be to some extent even greater if there had not been British troops there to act as a restraining factor, with their decency and their kindliness, on some of our less civilised—if I may use the word—Allies.

When troops of different nations are fighting side by side, in close proximity, any disparity in their respective rates of pay becomes more noticeable. Precise assimilation of the pay and allowances of different national forces is probably impossible while those national forces are nationally maintained, for, as everybody knows, the pay that they receive is related roughly to the cost of living and the average civilian rates of pay in their own countries. None the less, this anomaly does become much more sharp, and even flagrant, in a three such as the force of which we are speaking, a United Nations force. Only yesterday it was stated in this House, and not denied by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War in his answer, that the pay of other ranks in the French and the Greek Forces in Korea has now been raised to the American level.

On this ground alone, it seems to me, public opinion here would welcome some action by His Majesty's Government to level up the pay or allowances of our own men in Korea, even if such action involved some risk of that terrible process known to cautious Treasury officials as "opening the door." I think it is perfectly seemly and perfectly legitimate to make a special case of Korea, as things are just now. I have the highest regard for the troops elsewhere—in Malaya, for instance—but one has only to compare the casualty figures in Malaya and in Korea to realise that there is every reason to treat Korea as a special case.

It is now nearly a year since the first British troops arrived in. Korea. Since then they have been fighting there in a climate of unexampled severity. Their gallantry and their restraint have been a shining example amid the appalling squalor, carnage, desolation and demoralisation around them. For almost all that time, whenever Parliament has been in Session a number of hon. Members on both sides of this House have been pressing the War Office on this question of what I may crudely call simply "getting some more money" for the troops in Korea. We have been moved to do so, not only because of the anomaly that I have already mentioned—the disparity between the pay of the different national contingents there—but because of the special circumstances that the first British troops to land in Korea went there from Hong Kong.

As soon as they arrived in Korea their first reward, as it were, for getting into the combat zone and into the fighting line was to find, as it seemed to them, that their pay had actually been cut. Now, we know in this House, because it has been argued out and explained again and again, that it was not actually a cut in pay; but there certainly was a cut in the net total sum paid out to those troops, because once they had left Hong Kong and arrived in Korea they were no longer entitled, under the well-known Treasury and Service Department arrangements, to draw the local overseas allowance, the L.O.A., payable to them in Hong Kong and based on a careful estimate of the extra cost of living in Hong Kong, and the cost of the various goods that troops would normally be buying there themselves.

Of course, the troops in Korea did not understand this Treasury argument; it was never explained to them, and there was, therefore, this rather regrettable slap in the face for them as soon as they got there. I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who is to reply today, does not under-estimate the importance of these psychological considerations.

Now, I need not describe in any elaborate detail the many attempts that hon. Members have made, at Question time and otherwise, to persuade the Secretary of State for War to find some legitimate case for paying this L.O.A. In the last few months these Questions have related chiefly to N.A.A.F.I. prices in Korea. I should think it would be hardly an exaggeration to say that there have been hundreds of Questions in this House about N.A.A.F.I. prices and about L.O.A. in general.

On the question of N.A.A.F.I. prices, the Secretary of State for War, while admitting that some prices are higher in Korea, summed it up by saying that the troops there were better off in some respects and worse off in others. I am rather afraid that that may be an oversimplification, because on Tuesday, in reply to a Question, my right hon. Friend published in HANSARD a comparative table showing N.A.A.F.I. prices in Korea and in Germany, in B.A.O.R.

In that table there are 45 items, of which 29 are more expensive in Korea than in Germany, and only five are more expensive in Germany than in Korea. Now it is true that the five which are more expensive in Germany than in Korea include the single item which is, I suppose, the most popular of all—cigarettes. But the difference there is only ld.; cigarettes cost 11d. for 20 in Korea as compared with 1s. for 20 in Germany.

On the other hand, there is a whole range of items which cost substantially more to the troops in Korea. Condensed milk costs Is. 4d. in Germany and Is. 6d. in Korea; equipment cleaner, which they have got to have, costs 5d. in Germany and 6d. in Korea; a shaving brush costs 4s. 9d. in Germany and 5s. 4d. in Korea; a 3 oz. tablet of "Life-buoy" soap costs 4½d. in Germany as against 9d. for a 4 oz. tablet in Korea.

Surely N.A.A.F.I. can devise some way of levelling out these prices so that those who are in the worst discomfort and the greatest danger do not have to pay the most for these simple articles of everyday use? Even if we can understand the explanation of it, which was also given yesterday by my right hon. Friend, the very fact that it is so is surely repugnant to our feelings.

The main point about the N.A.A.F.I. prices, however, is the bearing they have on the possibility of granting a local overseas allowance for the troops in Korea. That allowance, when paid to men serving in the tropics, takes cognisance of all sorts of things which, I agree, the troops in Korea do not need and cannot get. The list placed by my right hon. Friend in the Library showed, for instance, that it took cognisance of such articles as white dinner-jackets, cummerbunds, and golf-club fees. Obviously the troops in Korea do not need those and cannot get them. Therefore, on that basis, I admit, there is no case for the full L.O.A., equivalent to that paid in Hong Kong or Singapore or some other more civilised place.

It has been said again and again, however, that although there is not much for the troops in Korea to spend their money on, they can spend it at N.A.A.F.I. on the goods listed in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Would it not be possible, therefore, to grant them a modest L.O.A. simply to cover these somewhat inflated N.A.A.F.I. prices? In connection with that, I want also to ask my hon Friend two further questions.

What is the L.O.A. in Germany, in the B.A.O.R., if any? How much of it is based on N.A.A.F.I. prices and what the troops are considered on an average to spend on these goods? Surely the troops in Korea are entitled to an L.O.A. at least equivalent to that sum? If it be objected that it would be so small as not to be worth giving, I suggest that as, in equity, it would have to made retrospective, then at least the accumulation would surely provide a welcome little windfall.

I also want to ask my hon. Friend if he can clear up the question of the£5 bonus which was announced in the Press a few weeks ago but for some reason not announced in this House. It was not quite clear from some of the reports what was the nature of this bonus and whether it applied to all reservists or only to reserists serving in Korea. I have not said anything about special campaign pay or allowance or danger money because, on the whole, it is accepted by both sides of the House that to introduce that at this stage would probably be an undesirable reversal of what has become accepted policy in the Army since the new pay code was introduced after the war.

There is one other point not related to pay about which I want to ask my hon. Friend. What are the prospects for these men, as and when they are withdrawn from Korea, or relieved, of getting somewhat earlier home posting or home leave, after all they have been through, than they would otherwise have?

I hope sincerely that my hon. Friend can tell us today that L.O.A. is still being examined and that some way can be found of applying it to Korea. I presume, finally, that any concession which my hon. Friend can make will apply, with appropriate variations, to the other services, although he answers only for the Army. I would mention particularly the case of 41 Independent Commando, Royal Marines, which was fighting far inland side by side with the Army during that heroic and ghastly retreat last winter.

I know that my hon. Friend and the Secretary of State are themselves sympathetic with our efforts to get something out of them. We know they are bound by all sorts of precedents and inhibited by difficulties with the Treasury. We appreciate the fact that they took the step of sending a special signal to the British Commander on the spot to ask him if he could put up a case for an L.O.A. for Korea. We only regret that he did not feel able to do so. No doubt he tried as hard as he could. I am asking today that my hon. Friend and the Secretary of State and their advisers shall try again and go on trying, till they get some more money for these troops.

1.16 p.m.

Brigadier Clarke (Portsmouth, West)

I rise chiefly to support nearly everything said by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg). Since the Korean war started, both sides of the House have been fighting in an effort to get a fair deal for our soldiers there. I think both sides will agree that they have not so far had a square deal over the question of allowances. No one would expect that a fighting soldier should receive more than a soldier not fighting, but one should not expect to see him out of pocket or not being able to save as much as his fellow soldiers in Germany, Hong Kong or elsewhere.

There was the curious anomaly of a brigade being sent from Hong Kong to live in far less favourable conditions in fox holes and being told that there were no entertainments, no golf clubs, no night clubs, no cinemas and that therefore they were having a cheap life and did not need any money. It seems absolutely wrong to me to whisk a man out of Hong Kong, where he has a reasonable life, to risk his life on behalf of his country in Korea and then to tell him that, because living there is cheap, he does not need what he would have needed in Hong Kong and therefore will not get an overseas allowance.

We have pressed this on the Secretary of State for War for many months without any change. I have also pressed the point that these soldiers in Korea will go on leave in Japan where the cost of living has been forced up by the Americans, whose sergeants get the equivalent of what a British lieutenant-colonel receives. Naturally if they want a night out in Japan, they have to pay through the nose. A man needs a rest sooner or later and, if he can save up during the time he is fighting, surely no one in this country would begrudge him the good time he might have in Japan if he had any money to have a good time on.

Not only are allowances cut on leaving Hong Kong, but the soldiers have expenses which otherwise they would not have. Many have relatives in England, in my own constituency; I myself was in the Gloucester Regiment for 15 years and I have a large correspondence with officers and men fighting in Korea now. These soldiers have mothers in this country who wish to send them airmail letters and newspapers and parcels containing all the things a mother wants to send her boy. If she wants to send a cake to one of these lads living in a foxhole in Korea, it takes a large sum out of her pocket, and a soldier would probably like to send his mother some money so that she can send some of the luxuries which they are denied out there. What chance has he got on his basic rate of pay and no overseas allowances?

The whole thing must be looked at in a different way. If a war were started on a desert island no doubt the Treasury would say to the Secretary of State for War, "These chaps are not getting much on which to spend their money. They are living on a sandy waste, and therefore we are going to cut their pay." That is taking the thing to an absurd degree, but there is no limitation to which the Treasury will not descend if they think they can get money back from a soldier, sailor or airman. That is my experience.

One example comes to mind. When I first went to North Africa we got 300 francs to the pound. Then the Treasury tried to do a deal with the French about buying British coal. The French would not pay 300 francs to the pound, stating that the proper rate of exchange was 200 francs to the pound for the coal. The Treasury decided to let the franc drop to 200 to the pound, and a circu- lar was sent to each officer telling him to impress on the soldiers that they were better off with 200 francs to the pound than they had been with 300.

I found it difficult to tell my men that they were better off after their pay had been cut by one-third. Certainly it never convinced me, because every time I went into a restaurant things cost me one-third more. It was rather like the argument used by some hon. Gentlemen opposite about devaluation, that it was not going to cost us anything at all. That sort of nonsense has gone on too long. If we devalue the pound it costs something more. If I pursue that subject, how ever. I shall be called to order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew)

On the Adjournment anything is in order so long as the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not suggest the introduction of legislation.

Brigadier Clarke

On this subject I am not likely to suggest that.

I have had many complaints about the cost of airmail letters, parcels and papers to the troops not only in Korea but in Cyprus and other places. The parents at home have got to pay, and if the troops are to get these amenities they have to recompense their mothers, who in many cases are poor people. Indeed, we are all poor people at home today. If the soldier wants these things, he must send money home. We must take that into consideration when assessing his cost of living.

We have heard the argument from the Secretary of State for War that the local commander has been told that if he can put up a case for a local overseas allowance, it would be granted. I should like to be told what are the conditions under which a local commander can put up this demand and who is to judge the merits of the case. If it were something like this, "We are not going to send you any N.A.A.F.I. and, therefore, as the chaps have not got anything on which to spend their money you cannot possibly say that they are having a more expensive time," then, of course, the commander cannot say it is more expensive for his troops. But he must take into consideration the fact that they have to send money home if they are going to get letters, parcels, papers and various comforts.

They may also want to buy a few presents to send home to their girl friends or presents for their parents. Those are all material things, and the soldier looks forward to the day when he can go to a Japanese leave centre when he is on leave and buy, say, a white elephant and send it home. He has always to remember, if he picks up a white elephant, ivory or otherwise that he does not want his parents to pay a large import duty on that white elephant when it arrives in England. I could go on for hours on this subject, but I want to hear what the Under-Secretary is going to say about the subject of our men in Korea.

1.25 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas (Cardiff, West)

In view of the limited time left for the debate, I promise to be very brief and to address only two questions to my hon. Friend. Like other hon. Members, I have received correspondence from some of these lads in Korea, and one letter tells me that the British soldier there is the only trooper not in receipt of some kind of allowance. Perhaps my hon. Friend would reassure me on that point, and tell me if it is true or not. My constituent points out that the only means of purchasing personal requirements is through N.A.A.F.I. and N.A.A.F.I. prices in Korea are on a par with or above the price in other parts of the country. Secondly, will my hon. Friend give us an assurance that equipment for the winter—we trust it may not be needed—is adequate to meet the requirements of these soldiers.

Mr. Awbery (Bristol, Central)

Will the Minister deal particularly with the postage? I have quite a number of complaints about the postage on newspapers. Many of our young men live in towns where the weekly newspaper carries the news of the town, and they want to know what is happening. But when it comes to sending a newspaper to Korea, it is a pretty expensive job for a mother. Perhaps the Minister could give some consideration to the ordinary postage, the postage on parcels and the postage on newspapers and see whether something can be done either to reduce the price or to allow parents to send them free of charge.

1.27 p.m.

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

It is most appropriate that my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) should have been the Member to raise this particular subject. I think he is the only one of us who has been to Korea and has talked about this problem to Ole soldiers there.

This is a problem which has concerned my right hon. Friend for some time past and, in fact, has concerned all of us at the War Office. We all have been anxious to see if anything could be done. Our failure to do anything about local overseas allowance or special campaign pay does not in any way derogate from our appreciation of the splendid achievements of our soldiers in Korea. The British soldier in Korea has proved himself to be the best trained and the most skilful fighter in the world today. He has earned the admiration of our allies and the respect of the enemy.

Exploits like those of the Gloucesters have illumined the pages of our military history and have amazed the whole world. No Englishman could fail to read with pride the remarkable article in the "New Yorker" of 26th May this year called "No one but the Gloucesters" by E. J. Kahn. It is a tribute to all those qualities of courage, calmness and endurance for which the British army is famous. But although the feat of the Gloucesters was magnificent, it was no different in kind from the sacrifices, bravery and superb military skill displayed by all the other British troops in Korea. Indeed, Mr. Kahn awards the same high praise to the other units of the 29th Brigade involved in the same action.

All these soldiers belong to a great army and all are prepared to do their duty in similar fashion. But in a great army there are traditions and precedents which cannot lightly be broken. We have our rules and we stick to them, and that is one of the reasons the discipline of the British Army is so good. That brings me straight up against the objections to the various proposals which have been made for giving more money to soldiers, sailors and airmen in the Korean campaign.

Let me take the local overseas allowance first. It is paid only where the general cost of living is higher than it is in the United Kingdom. It is not a normal element of pay. It is an extra allowance paid because the general cost of living is higher locally than that of the United Kingdom. That is why it is paid in Hong Kong and in many other parts of the world. In Korea, the general cost of living is not as high as it is in the United Kingdom. It is true that some N.A.A.F.I. prices are individually higher than in this country, but some of the most important N.A.A.F.I. prices are far lower than in this country. Take a packet of 20 cigarettes for 11d., or 2 oz. of tobacco at prices ranging from 1s. 7d. to 3s. They represent an appreciable reduction on any prices which are paid today in this country.

My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon suggested that there could be perhaps some balancing up between Germany and Korea. I am not sure that there could be a ready balancing up, even if N.A.A.F.I. were prepared to do that. The increased prices of N.A.A.F.I. goods in Korea are due to the very long journey that is involved. It has never been the practice of N.A.A.F.I. to subsidise one part of the world at the expense of another. I am not sure that one could make it very popular in Germany by saying that the prices of certain articles had to go up because we wanted to make them cheaper for soldiers in another part of the world.

The local overseas allowance is not merely a matter of comparing N.A.A.F.I. prices. The whole background has to be taken into consideration. There are simply not the facilities in Korea for spending money that there are in this country or in Hong Kong. That is one of the very reasons why service in Korea is particularly hard. There are no cinemas, or cafés, or entertainments of a Western kind. It is not merely a question of no golf clubs to join; there are not the entertainments to which the soldier is accustomed.

Mr. Driberg

Would my hon. Friend deal with the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke), about leave in Japan?

Mr. Wyatt

Perhaps when I conclude this passage I could say where leave in Japan comes in. I was asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke), about the conditions made to General Robertson. We invited him to submit a claim for a local overseas allowance. The War Office merely sent him the material that is sent to any commander in the world who makes a similar application. The question he had to answer was whether the local cost of living was higher than it is in the United Kingdom, and in order to help him to arrive at a conclusion he had a list of a range of items which might conceivably be necessary to be bought by any soldier or officer, wherever they may happen to be stationed. It is an aide mémoire. It is not a condition precedent, but is in order to assist the officer to arrive at his conclusion.

General Robertson was simply not able to make a case for a local overseas allowance, with the best will in the world. He wanted to, and we wanted him to, but it was not possible. The British soldier spends less in Korea than he does anywhere else and it would be going against the whole principle of the local overseas allowance to grant an allowance for that theatre.

So far as Japan is concerned, we have made arrangements for various leave camps and hotels for officers and other ranks where the prices are held down to a reasonably moderate level. It is true to say that there are very few soldiers who have been serving in Korea for any length of time who have not a credit. Some of them may have had a debit before they went to Korea, but they all have a credit now. I think that the hon. and gallant Member will agree with me.

It is perhaps irksome for the soldier to find that other soldiers are paid more, particularly if he happens to belong to the same group of Allies. The difference may appear unfair or unreasonable. I do not know that every soldier in Korea gets something in addition to his ordinary pay, but I think it is quite true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), says, that a good many of them do. Nevertheless, we cannot depart from our rule simply because other people are doing that. It would be to provide a precedent which would lead us into great difficulties in the future. We might find demand being made, with the argument: "You once gave a local oversea allowance in Korea, where it was not justified. Why do you not give it for somewhere else where it is also not justified?" We cannot do that.

I come to the point about newspapers. I am not quite clear what it is, because we have very favourable rates of air posting for almost every article that is sent to Korea by relations of soldiers serving there; but if someone wishes to send a bundle of newspapers by air to Korea, perhaps they are not taking the wisest course. We get an ample supply of newspapers out to the Service men there through our own channels quite speedily.

Mr. Awbery

I referred to local newspapers.

Mr. Wyatt

I cannot remember all the details now. I know that many answers have been given in this House showing that there are ways by which things can go in an open parcel at comparatively cheap rates.

I should like to deal with the difficult question of special campaign pay. The idea at first sight is a very attractive one, but I am afraid that it is one which we cannot accept. The implication is that a soldier is to be paid extra for risking his life when he is called upon to fight. Regrettable though it may be, to fight is the principal reason for which the Army exists. We cannot pay men extra because they are called upon to fulfil their function, that is, their principal function. It was never done in the last war, and to do it now would be to set a precedent for any future engagements or if we were, unfortunately, involved in another worldwide war.

It would also bring up very sharply the position of troops in Malaya. They, too, risk their lives. They might well feel, if special campaign pay were allowed in Korea, that they should get special campaign pay. It is sometimes suggested that Income Tax concessions should be made, but again this would be against the whole principle of the British Army pay code and the Services' pay code as a whole. Soldiers are paid on the assumption that they may be called upon to serve anywhere in the world and that they will pay Income Tax wherever they are and whatever the circumstances.

I am afraid that so far I have given a rather blank wall of negatives, but I should like to correct the impression that we have done nothing at all about the men in Korea. It would be wrong to assume that we have done nothing to recognise the peculiar burden which is borne by them. In the first place—this answers my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon—every Reservist who has been called up because of the Korean emergency, wherever he has been posted, will be given a gratuity of£5. Of course, that does not apply exclusively to Reservists in Korea, but it means that any Reservist who has been sent to Korea will get that£5.

Secondly, we have arranged recently that every man who has served in the Korean campaign shall get, in addition to normal foreign service leave, one day's special leave for every month of service in Korea. I do not think that that is generally known as yet in this country. Thirdly, it has been laid down that no soldier shall serve for more than 18 months in Korea and that in most cases when he has completed that period of 18 months in Korea he will be brought home to the United Kingdom. It may not always be possible, where a whole unit has been taken out of the Korean theatre and has to complete a tour of overseas duty, but we hope that in the great majority of cases this will be possible.

Despite these concessions we at the War Office feel that the nature of the Korean war is such that we ought to continue our examination of the problem. Here is a full-scale war fought under conditions of appalling hardship, and, as well as sending serving Regular soldiers there, we have had to call back Reservists to the Colours and we have had to call upon National Service men. As I said earlier, all these have done a magnificent job and the War Office do not need to be reminded that they deserve everything that can be done for them.

The troops in Malaya are also doing a first-rate job, but I do not think anyone would suggest that the background against which they operate, the length of time they have to serve in the front line or the severity of the climate are such as to put them in the same category as the soldiers in Korea. One is a whole-time war; the other is in the nature of a police operation.

As I have said, the problem of giving some further recognition to British Service men of all three Services in Korea has been constantly examined from many angles with the object of seeing whether anything can be done within the principles of the Services' pay code. The examination of this problem is continuing and it is possible that before the House reassembles we shall be able to announce something further which would not have the objections of either local overseas allowance or special campaign pay, but I do not make any promises.

Mr. Awbery

I should just like to raise the question of postage again. The postage on an ordinary newspaper to a soldier in Korea is 7½d. If a mother sends a letter, a newspaper and a parcel each week to her son in Korea, it will be very expensive for her. I agree that national newspapers are sent out there for the men to read, but the morale of a man is maintained not only by the national newspapers but by the news which he gets from his own home town. The weekly newspaper contains all the local information which he requires and he reads it and is satisfied. If the postage for an ordinary newspaper could be revised, it might help considerably.

Mr. Wyatt

I am not certain of the exact position, but I will make inquiries and write to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Julius Silverman (Birmingham, Erdington)

Why should not all mails to Korea be free? Will my hon. Friend make representations in the right quarter for this to be done?

Brigadier Clarke

Constituents of mine are paying 5s. or 6s. to post newspapers to their sons or husbands in Korea and the Middle East. That is a very large sum of money. If it is not necessary perhaps the hon. Gentleman will arrange publicity to tell the men that they can get all the papers locally.

I am told that there is no guarantee that newspapers go by air even if air mail rates are paid. I have had proof of this and have written to the Postmaster-General about it. The Under-Secretary of State for War ought, on behalf of the troops, to urge upon those responsible that if air mail rates are paid, the postal packets should go by air mail or else people ought to be told that air mail cannot be used and they should be charged a lower rate. People are really being swindled if they pay air mail rates and the packages go by ordinary second class mail. I have evidence of that sort of thing.

Mr. Wyatt

The general rule is that if air mail rates are paid, the postal packets go by air, but I believe there have been one or two instances of their being held up at Hong Kong.

Mr. Driberg

Will my hon. Friend consider an alternative proposal, which is that, with the national newspapers which are sent out officially, he should include at any rate a selection of some of the principal provincial newspapers—from Birmingham, Portsmouth, Essex and so on?

Mr. Wyatt

That is an interesting point which was just beginning to occur to me. I will look into it to see if it is possible.