HC Deb 23 February 1954 vol 524 cc187-8
21. Mr. Wyatt

asked the Secretary of State for War on what technical grounds the Director General of Artillery disagreed with the first results of the comparative trials between the Belgian F.N. rifle and the British E.M.2 rifle held in 1951.

Mr. Head

This officer seems to have based his disagreement with the interpretation of the trial results in 1951 on a different assessment of about 20 technical factors involved.

Mr. Wyatt

Is it not a fact that the conditions under which these trials were set were afterwards discovered to be founded on an error? Would it not have been more candid of the Secretary of State, when he told us in the debate that the trials showed practically no difference between the two rifles, to have explained that there were a number of technical points in which the trials were set wrongly and that when this was found out it showed that the British rifle was far better than the Belgian rifle? Does it not also show that the celebrated telegram, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred rather disgracefully at the end of his speech, had no relevance whatever because at that time the final trials had not taken place and we did not know that the British rifle was very much better?

Mr. Head

I think the hon. Member is sticking to his gun in a rather undue way. These trials were carried out absolutely neutrally by a body of expert opinion and the report was made. The Director General of Artillery had a perfect right to express an opinion but he was not present at the trials. His opinion does not alter the findings of the trials.

Mr. Strachey

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Army Council, which, after all, is qualified to judge, accepted the judgment of the Director General of Artillery.

Mr. Head

No, Sir.

Mr. Strachey

It did—

Mr. Emrys Hughes

Could not this be settled by a duel between the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend, arranged for both rifles to go off simultaneously, to the satisfaction of the House?

Mr. Head

I take it that where military matters are concerned the hon. Member represents the big bore.