HC Deb 12 March 1953 vol 512 cc1681-6

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a number of officers, airmen and airwomen, not exceeding 302,000, all ranks, be maintained for Air Force Service, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1954.

12.44 a.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

Would the Under-Secretary give some details of what I consider to be rather a large sum which is being allocated by the R.A.F. to the Coronation? I put a Question to him last week and he said that £150,000 was to be spent by the R.A.F. on Coronation day. I should like to ask him to look into the matter a little more closely.

I do not think he is justified in using these men to this extent in what is to be a fly-past on Coronation day, because if these aircraft are jet bombers and jet fighters they will fly past so quickly that nobody will ever know anything about it. It is rather a waste of public money to have aircraft dashing through the sky in this way; nobody will get any credit for it and nobody will really see them. If it bad been a comparatively small amount nobody would have grudged it. But here is £150,000 of public money——

The Chairman

The only thing we are discussing at the moment is that the 302,000 all ranks be maintained. We are not discussing the pay.

Mr. Hughes

It is a question of the use of the services of these men. These men are to be employed on this particular day in a way which I believe involves a waste of manpower, and I want the Under-Secretary to look at the matter again. Coronation day should be a day of jubilation and gaiety, yet the public are to be reminded of bombing in its worst form, and it will cast a shadow over the whole scene. I suggest that people will not really see these aircraft, that this is a very large and disproportionate sum to be spent on that occasion, and that in these circumstances the Under-Secretary should look at the matter again to see whether something less expensive could be arranged.

Mr. Fernyhough

I want briefly to ask the Under-Secretary whether he cannot do something for National Service men which is already possible for Regulars in the R.A.F. I refer to the transfer of men doing identical jobs. If this were permissible for National Service men it would mean they could serve much nearer their homes. I have in mind two men, one stationed at West Kirby and the other at Lincoln. The man stationed at Lincoln comes from Chester and the man stationed at West Kirby comes from Lincoln.

They are doing identical jobs, but because they are National Service men they are not allowed to transfer. That would be permitted if they were Regulars, and I think that is something that might be considered. If there were held out to National Service men the inducement that if they could make the necessary arrangements they could transfer to near their homes the men would be much more likely to consider Regular service. If a man has no chance of getting near home he is very aggrieved.

The second matter was referred to earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton). I hope that the Under-Secretary will not too readily believe that criticism is always unfounded, malicious, unjustifiable, and that it cannot be substantiated. As has been revealed at Question time, there are from time to time officers who exceed their powers and duties. There ought to be no resentment if Members of this Committee decide to voice a grievance of their constituents. It is only by having an investigation that the truth or otherwise can be revealed, and I think we have a right to have an investigation into the West Kirby affair. During last year's debate on the Air Estimates, the Under-Secretary of State, presumably because he had talked to the commanding officer, in his final summing up said that mine was a most disgraceful speech and that there was no foundation in fact in it. Subsequently at Question time in the House he had to give the information which revealed that the statements I had made were completely true. Therefore, I hope that he will not feel that when we raise matters of this kind, whether in the case of the men from West Kirby, or in the case of a lad whom we might feel might genuinely be given a transfer without any serious repercussions arising——

Mr. Robert Crouch (Dorset, North)

On a point of order. May I draw your attention, Sir Charles, to the fact that the front Opposition bench has been unoccupied for the last quarter of an hour?

The Chairman

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Fernyhough

I hope that the Under-Secretary will not feel that it is personal animosity or anything of that kind which has caused me to mention this matter again in this Committee, but from a desire to see that the men who are in the Services get the best possible treatment to which they are entitled, providing, of course, that the regulations are being observed. That is the whole reason for raising this matter, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will accept this assurance in the spirit in which it is intended, and in the belief that we are only doing our best for those men who are in the Service.

Mr. Shackleton

It is the fault of the Under-Secretary that this debate is continuing, because he treated his hon. Friend and the Committee in a rather cavalier fashion. I must develop the point about the West Kirby incident. The hon. Gentleman said that I was badly advised in bringing the matter up, and, further, that I was slinging mud. I take full responsibility for bringing the matter up. I have indicated that I consulted friends to show that I did not like to do so, but I believe that I was doing my duty in so doing, because I am satisfied that there are unfortunate incidents from time to time.

I was hoping that some publicity and a forthright condemnation by the Under-Secretary would make it clear that this sort of thing is not to be tolerated. Instead of that the Under-Secretary has merely implied that he has investigated the matter as far as he could. Is there anything more ludicrous than the idea that he could investigate the whole thing in the course of three or four hours? The people concerned have long since passed out of West Kirby.

I would ask the hon. Gentleman to carry out a proper investigation. No one would be better pleased than I if it should be proved that there is no foundation for the charge that I have made, but I would ask the hon. Gentleman also to make clear that this sort of thing or anything like petty bullying or excessive use of authority unnecessarily will be frowned upon. I think that the Under-Secretary ought to have taken the matter a little more seriously, because he knows that I do not raise this sort of matter except in the best interests of the Air Force.

Mr. Ward

I am very willing indeed to admit—and I do not hesitate to say it —that if I treated the House or this Committee with discourtesy I would be the first to apologise, and to withdraw the remarks. I certainly did not mean to be, and I had no intention of being discourteous to anyone, and certainly not to the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton). My point, of course, is that I am very much concerned for the good name of the R.A.F. and the recruiting for it. If people read in some sections of the Press that questions have been asked in the House of Commons about men made to stand up at attention for five hours at a time it does not do the R.A.F. any good.

I did feel, perhaps wrongly, that had I been in the position of the hon. Gentleman when we were in opposition, I should have telephoned or perhaps stopped the Under-Secretary of State for Air and asked him to look into the case carefully, because if it was true it obviously would be a disgraceful thing. Had it been true I would have raised the matter because it should be stopped, but I should not have done so in that way. But I am concerned very largely with the good name of the R.A.F. If I have given the hon. Gentleman any impression that I was resentful of criticism, or was being discourteous, I apologise. The same applies to the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough). I did not think I had been peremptory with him.

Mr. Fernyhough

I would only like the hon. Gentleman to read his reply in the corresponding debate last year, when he was rather caustic. Subsequently, he must acknowledge that my remarks were quite justified.

Mr. Ward

Perhaps neither of us was entirely right. With these remarks I hope I have made my position clear.

Mr. Wigg

I think the hon. Gentleman is learning fast. With the experience of one or two Army debates he will become quite good. [Interruption.] Does the Leader of the House wish to say something? We can rule out the possibility that this incident took place in an aggravated form, but in view of the carefulness of my hon. Friend's investigations it is likely something did happen. If there was an incident where an n.c.o. abused his authority by making the men in two huts stand by their beds for a long period it would be widely known the next morning. Everyone at West Kirby would know about it, and recruits coming in for several weeks would hear about it. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman does not want to rise and speak, I should like to seek your protection Sir Charles.

The Chairman

I should be very glad to protect the hon. Gentleman if that is necessary, but I do not know what has happened.

Mr. Shackleton

Will you please instruct the Leader of the House to leave the Chamber because he is behaving with grave discourtesy. He is uttering meaningless explanations. It is really extremely discourteous when we are instructing the Under - Secretary in Parliamentary manners.

The Chairman

When I see anyone behaving in a manner which would justify me ordering him to leave the Chamber I shall do so.

Mr. Wigg

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was asleep or not, but as his remarks were audible it is obvious that he was not.

If I may now return to the hon. Gentleman, I should have thought that it was in his interests and that of the Royal Air Force to have a prompt investigation into this incident. Experience in Service affairs has revealed to me that publicity attaches to unfortunate incidents of this kind. Tales go round, and the only way to deal with them is to bring them out into the light of day. I hope that between now and the time my hon. Friend puts down a Question the hon. Gentleman will do his best to clear up the matter. I hope also that if he finds a subordinate has exceeded his duty he will not only bring the individual to task, but also deal with those responsible for the supervision, who must have been neglecting their duty to allow such a thing to occur.

I should be obliged if the hon. Gentleman would make some reference to local personnel abroad. The total is now 5,750. How are these men disposed of? Do they serve in a subordinate capacity in Regular Royal Air Force squadrons. Are they recruited locally into the Royal Air Force squadrons in British Colonies overseas? The number has increased by 650. Is it the policy of the Government to recruit people where possible into the R.A.F. in British Colonies and Protectorates? If not, would he say whether it is desirable to step up this figure?

Mr. Ward

I would refer the hon. Member to page 17 of the Estimates, which gives reasonably full information about local personnel abroad. If he wishes any further information I will try to get it for him and write to him.

We do recruit Dominion and Colonial people, but that is a slightly complicated matter. We have not recruiting officers in all the Colonies; that would be uneconomical and the people have to come here in order to be recruited. But apart from that restriction, and provided that they are suitable in other ways, we accept them.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, That a number of officers, airmen and airwomen, not exceeding 302,000, all ranks, be maintained for Air Force Service 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.