HC Deb 06 February 1951 vol 483 cc1654-72

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £20,000,000, he granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Army Services for the year.

SCHEDULE
— Sums not exceeding
Supply Grants Appropriations in Aid
Vote. £ £
1. Pay, &c, of the Army 10,915,000 675,000
2. Reserve Forces, Territorial Army and Cadet Forces Cr. 950,000 —
4. Civilians Cr.3,005,000 —
5. Movements 2,305,000 100,000
7. Stores 12,177,000 3,600,000
8. Works, Buildings and Lands Cr. 1,167,000 250,000
9. Miscellaneous Effective Services Cr. 275,000 275,000
Total, Army (Supplementary) 1950–51 £ 20,000,000 4,900,000
Mr. M. Stewart

The Committee will see on page 6 of the Supplementary Estimate the reckoning, as far as it can be made, of the amounts of this Supplementary Estimate which can be ascribed to particular causes, and it will be apparent that, in round figures, the position is as follows. There is an increased expenditure of about £27 million which can be explained as in part due to the increased numbers in the Army, in part to the increased rates of pay, in part to increased production and in part to the despatch of troops to Korea. Then, there are certain savings totalling £7 million.

To elaborate that a little further, with regard to the four main causes of increases in expenditure, the first is that of numbers, to which I was referring when we were discussing Vote A, and these amount, as is shown in the first item in the table on page 6, in round figures to £3 million. That is the amount by which the Army Estimate is greater because there are more men in the Army. Next, increased rates of pay give us an addition of £8½ million. Increased expenditure on production gives a gross figure of about £16 million, although the net figure is £12½ million.

Let us take the gross figure of £16 million on production, which can be broken up in two ways. In the first place, as to the time at which the expenditure was caused, of that £16 million, £8 million is in respect of increased deliveries of stores ordered in the current financial year. The rate of delivery has been speeded up and we have to pay for them earlier than otherwise would have been the case, and that accounts for £8 million out of the £16 million. Additional production following from the programme announced in July and September last accounts for £5 million out of £16 million, and £1½ million is due to final payment arrangements in respect of stores delivered in 1949–50. The remaining £1½ million is due to increases of prices.

The Committee will note, I think with some gratification, that a substantial part of the sum represents increased stores of various types actually in our possession. Secondly, the figure of £16 million can be broken up according to the type of stores as follows: about £3 million on clothing, about £2 million on general stores, and practically the whole of the remainder on warlike stores.

The fourth reason for increased expenditure was the dispatch of troops to Korea. My hon. Friend who has displayed so much interest in this matter will realise that this is not the time, for the reasons explained by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, to give an estimate of the total cost of the Korean operations. To give an estimate of the whole cost of a particular operation is a thing that is not done. This is simply the cost of despatching the troops to Korea and can be set opposite the figures in Vote 5 on page 4 of the Supplementary Estimates, the conveyance of troops and stores by sea and air instead of by sea.

In that way, the total of £27 million of increased expenditure is made up. Against that, we have to set various items in which our expenditure was less than estimated, of which the largest arises from Vote 4 with regard to civilians. The Committee will see that that decrease is of the order of £3 million, and, in view of the point raised in the earlier debate on the Naval Estimates, I might perhaps mention that all of that, and, indeed, more than all, is due to our employing fewer civilians than we had hoped and intended to employ. The reason for this is due partly to the full employment instanced earlier, and partly to the fact that some of the places where we employ civilians are remote and thinly populated, and therefore it is difficult to get the numbers we want.

There was, in fact, an item of about £700,000 due to increased rates of pay to civilians so that the diminution in numbers accounts for really £3 million on its own account and offsets that £700,000 for increased pay. The other items in which our expenditure is less than estimated are numerous, and no one of them accounts for any large sum. Therefore, we are left at the end of the account with a figure of £20 million by which our expenditure is likely to exceed the original Estimate, and it is that figure for which I ask the approval of the Committee.

Brigadier Head

I do not think that we on this side of the Committee shall have a lot to say on the Supplementary Estimates, although the fact that we shall not deal with them in great detail is not due to any lack of interest in them, but because there are few items with which we can quarrel very strongly. Nor is it due to the fact that we have not a great deal to say about the condition of the Army and of the Services generally at the present time. We think that is better retained for the forthcoming Defence debate.

Nevertheless, I would make a few very brief remarks on the Supplementary Estimates, and the first thing I would like to say, which the Under-Secretary of State did not mention, is that it is rather sad to see that very small economy of about £1 million in Vote 2, which is concerned largely with the Cadet Forces Supplementary Reserves and Territorial Army works and buildings. I am sure that the Under-Secretary would agree that the health of those particular institutions has a very large influence on the future health of the Army as a whole, and that it is not an encouraging sign to see that the funds originally voted for that purpose have not been completely spent owing, I presume, to unsatisfactory recruitment and not sufficient recruits and units being available to take up those funds.

I would also like to comment, very briefly, on the question of the employment of civilians. We have in the Army, particularly, a very serious shortage of trained manpower, notably among the Regular element. At the same time, we have an immense number of men doing clerical duties in such places as pay offices and other base depots. Furthermore, there are many soldiers doing jobs in barracks which might well be done by civilians. The tragedy is, as the Under-Secretary of State has stated, that the Government are unable to recruit sufficient civilians to meet the demand.

I hope I am not going out of order, but I would like to give the Under-Secretary a gratuitous piece of advice. It is that I believe the War Office still maintains an unnecessarily stubborn view towards ex-soldiers who, after 21 years' service, still like the sound of the bugle and would like to take jobs as civilians but are not taken on because they are considered to be too old. I should like to see ex-soldiers from the Quartermaster's stores and many similar ex-soldiers given these jobs. I have many letters from men who would like to be in the Army, who like the sound of the bugle and who would like to fill these jobs. Old soldiers, I agree, sometimes die, but old soldiers would be useful for this purpose. Much use could be made of them and it would be a great asset to the men themselves.

I should also like to comment shortly on another increase—that on movements. This increase is largely due to moving troops to Korea, but it is a substantial increase of over £2 million. and I would point out that the Movements Vote, which amounts to something over £24 million, is the penalty of having a short-service Army with commitments overseas to which short-service men have to be sent. It is an astonishingly expensive thing not only in money but in manpower. If the Under-Secretary would like to volunteer the information we would like to hear what is the number of men in the Army in the pipe-line, going from A to B at any one moment. I have an idea that the figure would make hon. Members' hair stand on end when they realised the expenditure in manpower.

An increase of £1½ million on production was due to increases in prices. I do not know whether the Under-Secretary can be a little more specific and say over what particular stores and quantity of expenditure that £1½ million lay. It would be of considerable interest to know whether the £1½ million lies over the whole expenditure, or the proportion over which it lies, because it would be some indication of the problem that will confront us in the future. It would give an indication of the point beyond which a rise in prices is going to off-set the money now required for production. That would be of interest to many hon. Members in considering the wider aspect.

As I said at the start, I think most of us on this side of the Committee will welcome the reason for this added expenditure because it is a sign we are getting more men in the Army. It is dreadful that not more of them are volunteers and that large numbers are Regulars who have been forced to remain in the Army, or are National Service men whose term of service has been extended by six months. Nevertheless, it is a sign of increasing strength and, on the whole, I do not think the Government will find any strong opposition to the Supplementary Estimate on this side of the Committee.

9.15 p.m.

Major Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)

I should like to congratulate the Under-Secretary on his very clear explanation of these Supplementary Estimates, which I hope will be borne in mind by the Admiralty next time the Navy Estimates come up for discussion. I should also like to endorse what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) said with regard to the employment of ex-Service men in certain jobs. We are all, no doubt, moved by the tragic letters we receive from former officers and men who have served in the Armed Forces and who are prepared to continue doing something useful in the Army.

May I raise two small points? First, I hope that the reduction in the lodging allowance and London allowance does not mean that there has been a reduction in the rate but merely that there is a reduction in the number of men involved, because certainly the London expenses have always been higher than anywhere else in the country and overseas. I hope we shall have an assurance on that matter. I notice in Vote 1, J that local overseas allowances have increased considerably. Could the Under-Secretary say whether that is a result of an improvement in the arrangements made for such areas as Hong Kong and North Africa? There have been troubles in both those places; they have been brought to the attention of the House from time to time, and I hope now that every one is satisfied in both those theatres as in others.

I wish to turn to Vote 7, C—medical stores. I see that there is an increase of £133,000. We have been made aware since the Korean campaign began that there has been a severe shortage of medical stores. I should like to know whether this increase of £133,000 is entirely in order to meet that shortage, whether that shortage has now been adequately met and there is likely to be no continuing shortage in future.

In conclusion, I wish to make reference to Vote 8 relating to construction and maintenance services on which there is an increase of £873,000. Could the Under-Secretary tell us whether that represents an increase of married quarters? I hope the programme has been met. I do not think hon. Members would begrudge voting an extra amount if it means that the married quarters for the Forces are getting more in tune with the needs.

Mr. Wyatt (Birmingham, Aston)

I should like to defend the increase in Vote 5 relating to movements, which was attacked by the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head). The increase is about £2 million and, as I understand, this is entirely due to the Korean campaign which necessitated the unexpectedly large movement of troops to that area. The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton seemed to imply that had some other policy been adopted this increase in Vote 5 would not have been necessary. What is the other policy that he wants to adopt? The Committee should be clear on this point, because the hon. and gallant Member should not be allowed to get away with it.

What he is saying, in effect, is that the present conscription policy is not satisfactory, and that to avoid so much move- ment of men we should have a selective service for a longer period. What he is advocating is a ballot system of conscription so that there would be fewer men serving for a longer time, there would not be so much movement, and the item in Vote 5 would be reduced. That is what he is in effect saying, and it should be put on record that that is what the Conservative Party want to do.

Brigadier Head

The hon. Gentleman is putting words into my mouth in a manner which is strongly typical of himself and the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), and with which I am becoming well accustomed. If the hon. Gentleman had attended and or listened to the previous defence debate, he would know that we have always recommended the same things. That is, that if at an earlier period the pay for the voluntary elements in the Army had been increased, the wastage would have been far less, we should now have had an Army prepared to fight, and we should not have had to send 18 months' National Service men to the Middle East, which does not make sense.

Mr. Wyatt

Is it a fact that the hon. and gallant Member feels that now pay has been increased it will be possible to reduce National Service from two years to 18 months again?

Brigadier Head

Indeed, the whole point of increasing National Service was, as has been stated by the Minister of Defence and the Secretary of State for War, that as voluntary recruiting increases and the Regular element increases, so we can gradually turn off the tap of National Service—and that is Government policy, I would point out.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

The Under-Secretary of State said that I have taken an interest in Korea, as if it were not the duty of hon. Members to take an interest in Korea. I come from a part of the world where they are vitally interested in the soldiers despatched to Korea; the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders were sent there.

In this Vote there is a sum of £3,051,000 for the despatch of troops to Korea, and I think that is a large item. If it were £3,051,000 for bringing them back from Korea I would support it with great enthusiasm, and so, I believe, would 90 per cent. of the people of this country.

Brigadier Clarke

Is the hon. Member suggesting that we should bring them back from Korea now?

Mr. Hughes

Certainly. The hon. and gallant Gentleman should not become alarmed at these revolutionary expressions. They will be in Portsmouth very shortly. If the hon. and gallant Member gave them the opportunity of saying whether they should stay in Korea or should come home he would find that 90 per cent. of the officers and men would come home.

Brigadier Clarke

That is not true.

Mr. Hughes

But this is only the cost of despatching troops. It is not the cost of maintaining them. I should like to know when we are to have some idea of the cost which must be borne by the people of this country as a result of the present military operations in Korea. Is the cost included in this extra Supplementary Estimate of £20 million? It is certainly not included in the rearmament programme. The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) talked about hon. Members' hair standing on end over some technical question—

Brigadier Clarke

On a point of order. Is it in order to debate the Korean operations at this moment?

The Deputy-Chairman

I think the hon. Member is in order on this Service Estimate.

Mr. Hughes

I do not see why we should not talk about Korea. If we are spending money under the Estimate which includes the sending of men to Korea I do not see why we should not talk about it. I think we should have further information about Korea. As I was saying, before I was interrupted, the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton spoke of hon. Members' hair standing on end about the technical question of the movement of troops—

Brigadier Head

The hon. Member apparently regards as completely a technical question what I said about £24 million being expended on movement. It is a very considerable expenditure which, I thought, could largely be reduced—and I assume the hon. Member is in favour of a reduction in the expen- diture on defence—were it not an absolute necessity to send short service men to the Middle East and even the Far East.

Mr. Hughes

I quite agree with any proposal to reduce the Estimate, even by £24 million, but I suggest that if we are to be horrified by that expenditure then the Committee and the people of the country will be horrified when the total bill for Korea is disclosed. The cost of the total operations will amount to a gigantic sum.

I remember opposing the decision to go into Korea when I spoke in the House at the time, but we were told then that it would not be a war at all but would be a police operation. Now we find that merely the despatch of the men to Korea has cost £3,051,000. I want to emphasise what was said by one of our leading military experts in an article written in the "Daily Herald." It was written by Liddell Hart, who said that it was too late to retrieve our blunders in the Far East and wiser to cut our losses there. I am sure the majority of our people want to see us cut our losses in Korea and to see our troops brought home. The time will come when we in this House will be ashamed of sending our men there.

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing (Hendon, North)

Would the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he thinks it worth while to uphold the principle of collective security, and what value he places on that?

The Deputy-Chairman

I hope the hon. Gentleman will not answer. It would not be in order.

Mr. Hughes

I could answer very effectively. However, I want to say that if Korea is to be made a hell on earth, and if there is to be misery for millions of people in Korea, and if that is collective security, then it is time we had a new foreign policy.

Mr. Nabarro (Kidderminster)

Let the hon. Gentleman start it.

Mr. Hughes

Given the opportunity, I would.

Brigadier Clarke

Not many people would follow the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hughes

I speak for a rising opinion in this country. However, I am not going to argue with a military Communist like the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He obviously objects to being called a military Communist, but he has been a military Communist for very many years, and does not know it.

Brigadier Clarke

On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman has twice referred to me as a military Communist, and he has referred to me as a military Communist before. I am not a Communist, and I should like it publicly known that I am not.

Hon. Members

Withdraw.

Mr. Hughes

I do not want to argue about this; I think it is a compliment to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. After all, Communists are very often intelligent people, and I am not sure that I am not complimenting the hon. and gallant Gentleman by calling him a Communist. He has been employed by the State for a long time; he has been ordered about for many years; and I do not understand why he objects to being called a military Communist.

However, the sum total of this is that we are increasing the total Estimates for the Army to £390 million, and this has got to come from the people of this country. It has to be found by reducing the standard of life of the people, and sooner or later they will have to foot the bill. This will bring them down to poverty level, even if we do not have war.

Brigadier Thorp (Berwick-upon-Tweed)

There are only two or three small points I want to make. First I want to refute the statement that has been made by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes)—which is, I think, completely libellous—that our troops in Korea are so unpatriotic that, if given the choice, they would come home tomorrow. That must not go out from this House.

There are one or two questions I want to put to the Under-Secretary of State for War. One is the question of the actual transport to Korea. I believe the figure of the cost was £3 million. I wonder if the hon. Gentleman would explain that a little more, because it seems to have given his hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire a slightly wrong impression. I can hardly believe that moving less than two brigades, one from here and one from Hong Kong, to Korea would have cost £3 million. I know that that is not true, and I know that when the facts are given they will explain that cost, but as the hon. Member for South Ayrshire seems to be completely taken in by that, and as his impression is wrong, I think it worth while that this should be explained.

The other small point I have to raise is the question of the amount of money to be found for paying bills rather more quickly than had been anticipated. I am very glad that this has happened, but could it not have been estimated that these bills would become due, and what is the reason for the sudden or increasing production that has made the payment of these bills come in so much quicker than had been expected?

Mr. Heathcoat Amory (Tiverton)

It will be clear, I think, that we on this side of the Committee are looking at the Supplementary Estimates with a very kindly eye. In fact, I think, it is true to say that the items that cause us most concern are, in the main, those that show a decrease. I realise, of course, that that is an attitude not without its dangers, and that it is an attitude which ought not to become a habit for the future. There are just one or two points I should like to raise.

9.30 p.m.

The first is on Vote 1, D, the pay and allowances for Colonial troops. I realise that the main part of the expenditure on the Colonial Forces falls on Colonial funds, but, to those who hoped that there would be a growth in the strength of the Colonial Forces, this item here looks a little disappointing. I take it that the decrease in Vote 2, C—"Territorial Army works buildings and lands"—is due not to any contraction in the programme, but to the fact that it has not been possible to carry out the work as fast as was hoped.

Mr. M. Stewart indicated assent.

Mr. Amory

Perhaps the most disappointing thing about these Supplementary Estimates is the failure to record progress in the policy of civilisation. In fact, it seems to have gone back a bit. I know the difficulties, and I imagine one of the causes is lack of accommodation in the right place. I hope that the Under-Secretary will take note of what my hon. Friends have already said, and will do everything possible to cater for and to interest these older ex-Service men. I particularly hope that the vacancies and where they exist will be brought to the attention of those men whose time is almost expired and who will soon be back in civilian life.

I think we were all glad to hear what the Under-Secretary said about the stores, and that a substantial part of the extra expense is due to stocking up. I hope that is so in regard to the very big percentage increase in the expenditure on clothing and clothing allowances. I expect it is. Finally, although I realise it is only approximate, I think that the approximate allocation of the expenditure given on page 6 is most useful and informative.

Mr. Rankin (Glasgow, Tradeston)

I should like, very shortly, to raise one point on movements, Vote 5, for my own information, and, I trust, for the information of others who, like me may possess very little information about military affairs. Vote 5A refers to "Inland and coastwise conveyance of troops and animals," and Vote 5C tells us the cost of the conveyance of troops and animals by sea and by air instead of sea. I should like to know a little more about the animals. I am not referring only to those animals who move about on two feet, but also to those who move about on four feet. I have heard a suggestion that some of these animals may be regimental pets. Are these animals being conveyed from this country to Korea? Are they being conveyed by air? Does "travelling allowances and expenses" include animals?

This matter seems to be put vaguely in the Estimates. I wonder whether my hon. Friend could inform me how many animals are involved? I had come to the conclusion that warfare was now so highly mechanised that at least the four-footed animals had been excluded altogether from participation, and I was hoping that ultimately we would mechanise warfare so highly as to exclude the troops from it altogether. I wonder whether my hon. Friend could enlighten me on that.

Colonel Clarke (East Grinstead)

My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Amory) asked whether the reduction in Vote 2 C—"Territorial Army works buildings and lands" was due to lack of opportunity for carrying out the plans rather than to a reduction in the plans themselves. I gathered from the Under-Secretary, who nodded assent, that that was the case. I regret that it is not possible to carry out these plans as originally intended. At present, it is very important not to let the Territorial Army think they are neglected in favour of new formations. At the beginning of both the last war and the 1914–18 war, that happened. When I joined the Territorial Army, in 1914, it was definitely prejudiced in favour of Kitchener's Army. During the last war, the Territorial Army was doubled at almost a moment's notice and it had an almost impossible task thrust upon it, but it managed to get away with it. I feel that it is most important to let these volunteers, who, without being specially called on are giving their services and getting themselves prepared, feel that they are not being passed over in favour of new formations.

I know that there is a feeling in the Territorial Army even now about the Z reservists. Although they are glad to have them, they fear that their own friends will be sacrificed in favour of the Z reservists and they may have to do fatigues and so on in order that the Z reservists may have more opportunity to train. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will say something to dispel that idea which is prevalent today among some of the rank and file. I think that we ought not to give the impression that the Territorial Army is not receiving the attention which it used to receive and which it should receive.

Brigadier Clarke

On Vote 4—Civilians at Pay and Record Offices—I have had a considerable amount of correspondence with the Under-Secretary concerning men leaving the Service and failing to get their pensions until many months later. I am glad to see that there is an increase of £110,000 under this head, and I hope now that the excuse that men must wait because of shortage of personnel at the pay and record offices will not be made in the future.

What I cannot understand is the decrease under the Subheads K, L and M—civilians at R.A.O.C. and R.E.M.E. establishments and civilian staff for works, engineer and lands services. With the rearmament programme, I can well imagine that the civilians in these establishments will have increased. One might say that this is a matter of full employment, but that is not strictly accurate, as I have men in my own constituency rejoining, and I know of a similar situation in other constituencies. There is a saving of £753,000 at R.A.O.C. establishments at a time when we are having a rearmament programme, and it is not sensible to make these men rejoin one day, put them on the unemployed list and ask them to come back in six months' time to serve their country as civilians. One would imagine that a considerable amount of armament stores are now being repaired. Why are we saving £440,000 on civilians working in R.E.M.E. workshops?

Under Subhead M—civilian staff for works, engineer and lands services—I imagine that they are the people who paint houses, repair and decorate barracks and quarters. My own officers' quarters had all its windows and doors replaced because they had not been painted for 10 years, and they fell out. It is a very short-term policy to replace doors and windows which have fallen out from lack of paint. I suggest that some of that £564,000 might be well spent by allowing people to repaint barracks and officers' and men's quarters.

Mr. Hoy (Leith)

I wish to raise a point relating to the item which deals with the despatch of troops to Korea. During the last war one of the main complaints made by the ordinary soldier was about the appalling conditions under which he was compelled to travel. In my own experience I remember having to spend nearly three months on the boat which took us to the Middle East. It was an experience which I hope will not be repeated in this campaign. The provisions for the other men could only be described in one word—vile. Only today I had a letter from a constituent who was in the Army at the same time as myself. He raised this very point, that the one thing which frightened most people was that they might have to face up to those appalling conditions under which they were compelled to travel with practically no facilities.

So I hope that included in this item is an allowance to provide better conditions for the men we are sending to the Korean front. They are entitled to get the best we can give them, and I hope we shall not repeat the mistakes we made in the last war. I hope also that when the Under-Secretary replies, he will be able to give us an assurance that better conditions are being provided for the other ranks Who have to travel in these boats.

Mr. M. Stewart

I hope I may, without disrespect, remind the Committee that this is a Supplementary Estimate we are debating and not, as may have appeared from listening to the debate, the Army Estimates themselves. I hope the Committee will forgive me, therefore, if I do not pursue fully the many points raised in this extremely interesting debate.

With regard to Vote 2, it is correct that the decrease there is not due to any change of plans but to a difficulty in fulfilling in the physical sense the plans we have made. I do not think there is any justification for any fear in the Territorial Army that in the pressure of new tasks their needs are being neglected. Indeed, in the past year or so, it has been remarkable what progress has been made in the re-organisation of Territorial units and in the provision for them of proper headquarters accommodation. I think the re-organisation which has been fairly recently carried out in the Territorial Army has been cordially accepted, and they are now ready to go ahead in their new rôle as a force composed both of volunteers and of National Service men.

On Vote 2, the item where there is the biggest proportionate reduction is the Supplementary Reserve. There it must be confessed we were over-optimistic in what we hoped to get. It is still at a comparatively early stage, and it did not prove possible to get the response for which we had hoped originally.

If I may say a word on Vote 4, concerning civilians, the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke) tended to speak as if these decreases were savings deliberately achieved by a decision to spend less than we had been spending. That, of course, is not the nature of the savings described in the Supplementary Estimates. This is simply money that has not been spent because we were not able to find the channels in which to spend it. It is a comparison not with what has been spent in the same time in the past, but with what it was intended and hoped to spend at the beginning of the financial year. Some of the comments made on this subject of civilians tended to neglect that point.

9.45 p.m.

With regard to the employment of ex-soldiers, I must mention that I never visit an Army unit without finding among those who are doing work of this kind men with long records of service. I think hon. Members are aware that often the problem is that in one area the supply of people qualified and able and willing to do this work may exceed the demand. There may be a crying need for them in another area, but human beings are not as mobile as that.

I shall, however, certainly look with very great sympathy into the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head), because it is important that we should not neglect any possible source of getting men to do this type of work. The ex-soldier is particularly suitable for it. I doubt, however, whether the prospects of employment for Regular soldiers leaving the Army have ever been as satisfactory as they are today, both as a result of the general employment situation and as a result of the particular measures taken by the Government to ensure that employment will be available, not only for ex-Regular soldiers, but also for ex-Regular sailors and airmen.

A great deal was said about Vote 5. It was suggested that we might not have to spend so much on movements if the whole organisation of the Army were different and if we had followed earlier the advice of the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton. I listened with great interest to a reply to that by one of my hon. Friends. Hon. Members opposite now say that they were always demanding increased pay for the Services, but their fight for that objective was a fight waged with one hand tied behind their backs by the promises of reduced taxation which their party was making at the same time.

I cannot give the figure, for which I was asked, of the number of troops in the pipeline in transit at any one time. It is certainly higher than we should wish it to be, but I think hon. Members will realise that, quite apart from the organisation of the Army itself and the very nature of the task it has to perform today, the fact that we cannot know from month to month what new requirement may be made, or what present requirement may come to an end, has in recent years made the problem of movements a burden.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) asked about the movements of animals. There are still parts of the world where there is severe limitation on what can be done by mechanised transport and where the horse, and, still more, the mule, have a part to play in military operations. There is also the excellent service rendered by dogs in guarding valuable stores. I could introduce my hon. Friend to some of the dogs who do this work, but he would be well advised to take careful precautions should he meet them.

On the matter of movements, my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) suggested that it was important that we should not require men to endure the conditions of transport which many of them had to endure and which, knowing the necessity, they were cheerfully prepared to face in time of war. We have had a number of inquiries and some complaints recently about conditions in troopships, but I am glad to say that on investigation I have invariably found that those complaints referred only to the most minor and trivial matters which could be, and usually were, quickly put right during the voyage. I shall always be glad to get any information from hon. Members on this subject, but my belief is that transport conditions today are reasonable.

I have a very vivid recollection of a journey I made in a troopship during the war, when the accommodation which fell to my lot was some 12 square feet underneath a table on the mess deck. I cannot too much congratulate myself that I decided to transfer from beneath the table to the top of the table the night before the sea was particularly heavy and poured down the steps and all over the floor of the deck.

Questions were asked regarding Vote 7. It is not possible for me to allocate the increased prices to particular items. I thought that the Committee would notice with pleasure the comparatively small proportion which this item takes up of the whole of the increase under this head.

Questions were asked about lodging allowance and local overseas allowance. There have not been any reductions in the rates of London and lodging allowances. In regard to overseas allowance we have had increased expenditure through increases of rates in a great many areas, which are of course usually retrospective in effect to a date considerably in the past. In regard to Vote 8 and married quarters almost the entire expenditure on married quarters at home now falls into Vote 11. The increase here is not more than one must expect in the uncertainty of estimating a total vote of this kind in a field where the future is so difficult to predict as to what one can achieve in works, construction and maintenance.

A question was asked whether the £3 million really could be the figure for despatching troops to Korea. If we consider not only the initial despatch but the further despatch of stores and reinforcements ever since, the figure is not very far from being correct. I believe that covers nearly all the points raised, and I trust that the Committee will be willing to approve the Estimate.

Brigadier Head

I think we ought to thank the Under-Secretary for the very full answer he has given to our questions. Many hon. Members would be worried by his underlining of the shortage of the Supplementary Reserve which provided a very important specialist unit for the Army. I hope steps will be taken to bring them up to strength in the future because without them it only means that more technicians of the Z Class Reservists will be called away from their occupations.

Someone spoke of the old soldier being employed as a civilian and the Under-Secretary said that never have conditions been brighter and better for the man finishing his service. Why does he not do what we have been saying for years should be done, guarantee employment for the old soldier? Recruiting would go up at once; that would help recruiting more than anything else. He now has a new Secretary of State and is an old soldier himself, so he may be able to do something about this.

There was a tang of the hoardings, I thought, when the Under-Secretary said that we kept on asking for the pay of the Regular Forces to be put up yet had one arm tied behind our backs—[HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear."] Wait a minute before saying "Hear, hear." What we said, and we said it throughout—I can remember these words very well—was, "If you will spend a little more on the Regular element and take a chance you will put up Regular recruiting and stop the flow out of the Regular element. Then as a result you can give back to the Treasury a reduction in the National Service intake which will more than repay it." [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is true; it is an absolute fact. Hon. Members may mock, but it is a fact.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Mathers)

This point does not arise under the Supplementary Estimate.

Brigadier Head

I am sorry, Mr. Mathers, I was led into the wilderness by the Under-Secretary, and I must apologise. There were questions about animals in aircraft. I do not know what the correct answer is, but I do know that the Royal Air Force are referred to by the rude term of "Pongos," and perhaps when reference is made to animals in aircraft, aircrews are meant.

Resolved That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £20,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Army Services for the year.