HC Deb 09 March 1953 vol 512 cc1069-80

VOTE A. NUMBER OF LAND FORCES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 554,000, all ranks, be maintained for the safety of the United Kingdom and the defence of the possessions of Her Majesty's Crown, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1954.

3.45 a.m.

Mr. Simmons

There are one or two points I want to raise. I shall not quote so many figures as did my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Adams), but I have one figure for the Under-Secretary of State. I do not think that his figure of 554,000 officers and men is accurate. He is out by 508. In the Vote there is constant reference to retired officers. They were not in last year's Estimates in six Votes out of 10.

Can the Minister explain the function of these retired officers who are being brought into so much greater use as civilians? Are they really civilians, or are they officers who have been retired into civilian jobs in the Army for the purpose of making it look better, so far as the tail is concerned? Can they be classed as "civilians" instead of as "soldiers of the line"?

We are dealing with the number of men and how they will be used. I want to raise a point on page 10 of the Estimates, relating to the Household Cavalry, where it is stated that they consist of a number of armoured car regiments with the addition of two mounted squadrons for State and other ceremonial duties. The other relates to the Royal Regiment of Artillery, where it states: The Royal Horse Artillery carries out State and other ceremonial duties. Why is so much of the strength of the Army diminished by these ceremonial duties? Cannot these duties be spread around the Army instead of having these people set on one side for this purpose?

I have one point of commendation and one of condemnation. On page 12 of the Estimates, under the heading "Military Provost Staff Corps," it is stated: An important part of its duties is the training and rehabilitation of soldiers under sentence. When I was in the Army we had the "glasshouse," although I never got there. Its name was a by-word in the Army.

In my days, we did not have all this trick-cyclist business, or rehabilitation and training. It is a very good idea. We had some bad cases for which the training would have done a great deal of good. Is this just window-dressing or is it a fact that men sentenced under military discipline get rehabilitation to make them into human beings? If so, it shows a very great improvement upon the days when I used to be in Her Majesty's Forces.

We cannot help wondering about it when we read, as we did in the Press this morning, what happened at Bordon, in Hampshire. I think that this is a new departure in the Army. We are told that some of the serjeants in the married quarters had to carry kit a mile before they could lay it out. But what worries me is the last paragraph of this report, because it states that the adjutant was asked if officers would have a kit check. He replied that they could be so ordered, but added, "Of course, it isn't done."

If it is not done for the officers, then why is it done for the serjeants and w.o.s? Why this class distinction? I have spoken before on the Estimates on this very subject, for class distinction is one of the more serious things which we shall have to alter if we are to get the recruits that are wanted. We are living in 1953, not 1873, and this class distinction no longer applies in the factories and workshops because the lads just would not have it. We must not have it in the Army; if we do, we shall suffer.

I notice that we lump together in this Vote garrisons in Europe, including the United Kingdom. Why cannot we have the United Kingdom figures shown separately? It would give a fairer picture of the distribution of the Forces. Those are the points I wished to raise, and I thank hon. Members for bearing with me.

3.52 a.m.

Mr. Swingler

I wish to enter a protest on this Vote, and I hope that I may have guidance if I have taken the wrong occasion for raising my point. Perhaps the best way is if I call attention to what I said on precisely the same subject five years ago. In 1948, I said, I rise on this point because I do not think that we should let this Vote pass without a brief recapitulation of some of the points made 12 months ago. The Committee no doubt will approve of the sum of money which is to be voted under this heading, but I must point out that, of course, we do not know what we are doing. Up to 18 months ago, and in previous peace-time years, the Army, like other Services, provided an analysis together with this Vote to show the precise way in which the money was to be used. I do not blame my right hon. Friend and the War Office; it is something which has happened since the creation of the Ministry of Defence about 18 months ago. The curtain of concealment has come down and we have not got, together with this Vote, an analysis of the composition of the Army. Therefore, some protest must be lodged. Twelve months ago the question was put to the Minister on this Vote as to why the analysis of the composition of the Army and the percentages in the various Corps, arms and branches of the Service could not be given. The argument that there were 'reasons of security' was given, but that has been said over and over again. It is quite obvious in this case that a simple analysis of the composition of the Army by percentages in each arm of the Service could not possibly give anything away that is not already in the possession of the Intelligence Services of foreign Powers. When an hon. Friend of mine, whose lips are unfortunately sealed tonight, raised this question 12 months ago, we were told that there would be serious consideration about giving some more facts. While we have been grateful this year for the additional facts and information produced by the Ministry of Defence and the War Office, unfortunately we are not grateful for the lack of information on this Vote. That practically makes it meaningless. I must emphasise that the Committee is bound to pass the Vote almost blind. I want to lodge my protest about that matter and again to ask that the consideration of the Secretary of State for War and all the Ministers of the Service Departments be given to letting us have the necessary information so that members of the Committee can understand just what we are asked to pay for in this respect."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March, 1948; Vol. 448, c. 1193–94] All that was said then, and had been said in previous years, with regard to the analysis of Vote A still remains true. Ever since 1947 we have been awaiting explanations from the Service Departments, and particularly from the War Office, as to why they departed then from the analysis that had always previously been given about the composition of the Army. All that was said then, when this cloak of concealment was dropped in 1947, was, if hon. Members like to consult the record, some vague reference to documents which had been captured during the war. It was alleged that those documents, which had been taken from the Germans, proved that the kind of analysis that had been given previously as to what percentage of the Army was in the Royal Artillery, what was in the Royal Engineers and so on, and the distribution of the intake into the Services, had given away information to foreign Powers and that it would be ended.

No evidence has been produced since 1947. This question has been brought up repeatedly because it is quite clear now that Vote A is meaningless, and also the next Vote that goes with it. We have to vote blindly these large sums of money without knowing the purposes for which they are being voted. We cannot find out the distribution of the annual intake as between different arms and branches of the Service, and it enables the Minister to get away with it year after year. There are many questions that go unanswered in all these debates because this simple information, which is quite general and was given previously, has been denied to us since that time.

I am sorry that I failed to give notice to the Under-Secretary that I would raise this point, but I ask that the matter shall be looked at again. It has been allowed to lapse, but I ask why this decision was taken to suppress the analysis of the composition of the branches and arms of the Service which had been given with the Army Estimates every year between the wars and up to 1947. Either something should be done to provide more information under Vote A or else some proper explanation should be given of the reasons for the change in the form of this Vote and the ambiguity which now surrounds it.

I do not know whether it is proper also to turn to another point about which my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) spoke, namely, the question of the educational qualifications of those at the Royal Military College, Sandhurst. I should like to elicit a further reply from the Under-Secretary on a point about which some of us have been concerned during the past year. My hon. Friend gave figures. I looked up some Parliamentary Questions asked on this subject last July, which show that of those cadets training to be officers at Sandhurst at the moment 67 per cent. come from public schools, 22 per cent. from grammar schools,.4 per cent. from secondary schools and the balance from Army schools.

I am not asking that the Under-Secretary should go into this matter himself, but I ask that he should give an undertaking that he will take urgent action to draw the attention of the Minister of Education to these facts. If we are to get better opportunities for young men generally from all types of school to become cadets and officers in the Army, and if there is to be a proper ladder of promotion, it all depends upon the spread of equal opportunities in education for the country as a whole.

Unfortunately, however, one of the Under-Secretary's colleagues in the Government—the Minister of Education —has embarked upon a policy of reducing the chances of equality of opportunity in the educational system and of widening the span between a privileged education and an unprivileged education. One of the results of the policy of the Minister of Education in this Government, by slowing down the school building programme and by the educational economies, is to widen the span between the opportunities of those who have privileged education, which they buy, and those who have unprivileged education; and, therefore, to make it much more difficult for anyone educated at a secondary modern school to get to the R.M.C., Sandhurst; and, consequently, to make the situation worse.

Therefore, I ask for an undertaking from the Ministers of the Service Departments, who assert their keenness that there should be equal opportunities, which depend upon the education of men from all classes and sections of the community, and with all kinds of education, to become officers in the Army. I ask that they should draw the attention of the Minister of Education to this situation and to the fact that the Army at the moment draws its officers from a very small section of the community that mostly gets privileged education and that, therefore, they object to her policy of widening the span and of reducing the development of equal opportunities in the educational system.

4.3 a.m.

Mr. George Wigg (Dudley)

Historically there is no more important Vote than the one we are now being asked to consider, because the conflict in the 17th century between King and Parliament hinged upon the attempts of the King irregularly to raise an army. Therefore, we ought to be given the maximum information. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) has recalled that in 1947 many hon. Members on this side of the House protested about the paucity of information.

At that time we did not get a terrible lot of support from hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I think that in the next year we did. They thought it was a useful thing to do, and from 1948 onwards hon. Members on both sides of the House pressed my right hon. Friends that we should be given as much information as possible. Finally, a little belatedly, the Prime Minister joined in the hunt. Possibly he was seized of the importance of the point which we had begun to make in 1947, but perhaps also he thought it was a useful political argument.

He did, however, lay down a principle, and if the Under-Secretary of State refers to HANSARD he will see that on 16th March, 1950, his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said: It is not right, for instance, that the House of Commons should be so much worse informed about our defences than the Soviet Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1950; Vol. 472, c. 1282.] One entirely agrees with the right hon. Gentleman. As his complaints were couched in the most bitter terms about the lack of information that was given by my right hon. Friends, we thought that after a year in which to cogitate and ruminate on what had been done in the past, we should get much more information than had been given by my right hon. Friends.

We find today, however, that the Estimates are in precisely the same form, and obviously no attempt whatever has been made to increase the information that has been given to us. It may well be that the Soviet intelligence service is not as competent as it ought to be, or as competent as our own—unfortunately, it has one or two marked achievements to its credit—but surely one must expect that it knows the strength of our Forces in Germany. If it does know them—accepting the dictum of the Prime Minister—I should think there could be no argument at all, except a desire to conceal the strength in Europe from the House of Commons, why we should not know what it is.

Again, I should not think it would be giving away much to give more detailed information about colonial troops, but the form in which it is presented seems intended to conceal information. I have no access to secret information—nothing like the information of the Secretary of State for War, when he was on the Opposition benches—no information official or semi-official, but simply the information one gets by correspondence and reading the public Press. Yet I can break down the figures and get the total of 80,700. Of that I think the hon. Gentleman will find that 13,000 are serving with British units. Therefore, the actual numbers of colonial troops, including the Gurkhas, is about 67,000.

I got this information in the course of correspondence with the Ministry of Defence, and I am sure that the Ministry would not give me secret information. If I am given that information, why is the House not given it? I asked the Ministry of Defence the figure of officers and n.c.o.s serving with colonial troops —a very important figure if we are to understand the change of front on the part of the Government—and I was told 14,700. If I can be told that why should we have to wait until Vote A before we can even scratch the surface?

I am not going to press the point because we have many more topics to raise before we conclude our business. I must again express regret that there is no representative of the Ministry of Defence here—

Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison

The Parliamentary Secretary was here——

Mr. Wigg

He ought to be here now. The Minister of Defence is not in this House and we should insist on having a representative here. The hon. Gentleman should go to his noble Friend and tell him that the House of Commons is not going to accept this sort of stuff when we have complaint made by the Prime Minister after a most bitter attack on the withholding of information by the Labour Government. Next year we want all the information that can be given and not to be treated like little children about the way in which the Estimates are presented. There is no change in form at all from the improvements which were effected between 1947 and 1948 as a result of pressure by my hon. Friends.

I hope that the Under-Secretary will be good enough to deal with these points. It is quite extraordinary that neither he nor his right hon. Friend said a single word about the proposed colonial defence conference which was exclusively referred to in the "Sunday Times" yesterday. The "Sunday Times" has ready access to Ministers and is given all sorts of information which is denied to the House of Commons. It can announce a most important step, which is at least an indication that the Government are having second thoughts and intend to investigate the policies which they laid down when in Opposition. It refers to a forthcoming defence conference between representatives of the West African and British Governments on colonial defence.

The right hon. Gentleman—than whom there was no more voluble advocate of a colonial army when he thought it would embarrass the Labour Government—at least had the grace to admit a year ago what he had been up to. This year we do not find a reference at all, either in the Memorandum or in the speeches. I consider that this Committee has been treated in a very cavalier fashion. It has been treated with less respect than the "Sunday Times," and that is not good enough. If the position had been reversed, if the information had appeared in "Reynolds News" or the "Daily Herald," without the Government spokesman saying a word about it, there would have been protests.

On the one day of the year when we should have the maximum information, I think the withholding of any statement about this proposed conference has a sinister ring, in view of the failure of the Government to carry out the policy laid down by the Prime Minister. It would appear that the Army Estimates are now used to conceal information rather than to give it. If I am wrong I shall be glad to admit it, but in that case I hope that the Under-Secretary will be much more forthcoming about this matter.

Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison

I am afraid that I cannot be more forthcoming, because I do not know any more about it than the hon. Gentleman. If this is a question of a colonial defence conference he should address his remarks either to the Minister of Defence or the Colonial Office.

Mr. Wigg

Surely I am not expected to take the hon. Gentleman seriously, Here is an announcement in a newspaper which certainly has the ear of Ministers and of the Conservative Central Office. I do not say that in any unkind way. Everyone knows that the "Sunday Times" is an authoritative organ, and that a great deal of what appears in it is based on the proper contacts which exist between it and the Government. Here is a statement about a defence conference between West African representatives and the Government, and the Government spokesman says he knows nothing about it. Can we take it that this statement in the "Sunday Times" is inaccurate?

4.13 a.m.

Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison

The hon. Member can take exactly what I said, that I know nothing of such a conference. I will go into the matter and discover whether it is a thing which comes within the cognisance of the War Office, and if so I will inform the hon. Member. But I am no more in a position to give him information now than he is to give me information. That is the answer to that one.

Mr. Swingler

Surely the hon. Gentleman is not going to treat the matter like that——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Order. Whether or not the Minister proposes to give an answer does not come within Vote A.

Mr. Swingler

But surely——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

It does not come within the Vote.

Mr. Swingler

On a point of order. Is not this matter to do with manpower which comes under Vote A? This question has to do with the manpower of the colonial troops. I should have thought this was a matter which could be discussed in connection with manpower.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

If the question of manpower were treated in that way we should have a very wide debate, but it is only numbers that we are dealing with here.

Mr. Swingler

Will not this affect the numbers?

Mr. Emrys Hughes

Can the Under-Secretary give the House any information about the character of the colonial troops? Does the number include the Dyaks from Borneo who are operating in Malaya? We have had a confession from the Secretary of State for the Colonies that the Dyaks, the head-hunters of Borneo, are operating in Malaya. A photograph appeared in a Communist paper. It was said to be a fake, and there were heated arguments about it. Then, to our great surprise, the Secretary of State for the Colonies admitted that this head-hunting business had been carried under the auspices of the British Army in Malaya. I would ask if the Dyaks are still there and if those operations are still continuing?

Mr. M. Stewartrose——

Mr. Hutchison

I am a little lost about the way this debate has gone. I was trying to answer the point of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), and I thought that when the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) inter-s vend it was to add to the same point. It seems yet another speech is to be made. I do not want to curtail the discussion, but I had started to answer the points of the hon. Member for Dudley. I have answered him on the question of a colonial defence conference.

Now I will answer the point that he and the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme brought up about information. Here again, I cannot answer "off the cuff," but I think he answered it himself. He disclosed that it had been discovered in 1948 that the system and method of publishing Vote A at that time had been discovered in some German Intelligence papers, and that they had been able to get information which otherwise they would not be able to get.

On the point the hon. Gentleman made about being able to get the strength of our forces, he said he thought no doubt the strength of our forces in Germany would be known. It is one of the fundamentals of security not only that one hides certain points and factors, but also that one does not make it easy for an enemy to get information that otherwise they would not get. The more we publish and tabulate things which an enemy might want the easier we make it for him.

The hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) asked me whether retired officers of classes I, II, and III, were camouflaged civilians. No, they are not. They are pukka civilians brought in because there were certain staff tasks they could obviously do which ordinary civilians could not do. But it is a straightforward civilian appointment, and they are not officers on the Active List in any category or form.

The hon. Member then brought up the question of the Household Cavalry. The ceremonial duties carried out by them and the King's Troop, Royal Horse Artillery, are only part of their duties. The same men do not stay there throughout their military career. They take part in training, and in the wars take their part in active fighting.

His other point related to rehabilitation. At one of the military establishments at least, Shepton Mallet, great attention is paid to rehabilitation, to bringing the men back to a better attitude of mind, with the idea of reforming rather than of punishing.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

I wanted to know about the Dyaks employed in Malaya.

Mr. Hutchison

I do not think that they are being employed by us. Such Dyaks as were employed would come under the Colonial Office.

Mr. M. Stewart

This Vote does contain a reference to the brigade of Gurkhas. I think the Government of India, and to a lesser extent the Government of Nepal, are increasingly averse to the recruitment of Gurkhas from Nepal by this country. Sooner or later that development was bound to end. The very unusual, and I think now unique, arrangement whereby the subjects of one State are recruited for special service in the Armed Forces of another is not one likely to survive far into this century. Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this changed attitude has produced any marked effect on the character of recruiting and what consideration the War Office has given to the problem?

Mr. Hutchison

We have given a great deal of consideration to it, but I hope I shall not be pressed too hard on that question, which is a delicate matter at present under consideration.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 554,000, all ranks, be maintained for the safety of the United Kingdom and the defence of the possessions of Her Majesty's Crown, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1954.

To report Resolution, and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Oakshott.]

Report to be received this day.

Committee to sit again this day.