VOTE 1. PAY, &c., OF THE ARMY

HC Deb 15 March 1955 vol 538 cc1177-220

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £119,620,000, be grunted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, &c., of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. F. J. Bellenger (Bassetlaw)

There are only two points that I wish to raise on this Vote. One was referred to in the early hours of last Wednesday by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough). One of the disadvantages of continuing our debates into the early hours of the morning is that sometimes these topics are not argued at sufficient length and, even if they are, are answered somewhat perfunctorily by the Minister.

The point which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow concerned the status of the B.A.O.R. if and when the London and Paris Agreements are ratified. This is of considerable importance not only to the troops over there, but to a far wider public. My hon. Friend asked what would be the future of the British Army of the Rhine after the change of status in Germany. He said that the Army is now getting special facilities in the way of duty-free allowances and certain other privileges which he thought might be prejudiced when the status was changed.

In his reply, the Under-Secretary of State said that negotiations with the German Federal Republic were now taking place to protect these facilities as far as possible. He said that if it were not possible to get agreement with the German Government and the Army lost these privileges which it now enjoys, a local allowance to these troops would be granted instead. He went on to say that, in any case, the soldier would not suffer.

Except for those who have served in B.A.O.R., hon. Members are not fully aware of what these privileges consist. I venture to suggest that they are substantial to both officers and other ranks. I wonder whether it would be possible for the Secretary of State to tell the Committee what these privileges consist of, so that we can judge whether a local allowance will fully compensate these officers and other ranks if they should lose the privileges on the ratification of these Agreements.

I have been looking at Command Paper 9368, which deals with certain matters which will arise when these Agreements are ratified. I find that arrangements have been made so that British troops shall not be unfavourably prejudiced by future taxation when the Agreements come into force. But I can find nothing in this document which deals with the question, for example, of N.A.A.F.I. concessional rates which are, of course, of considerable advantage to families living in B.A.O.R.

Another matter is concessional rates of travel on the German railways. I believe that that is mentioned somewhere in the document, but it would be as well to know to what that amounts and to what it is likely to amount, if anything, when the Agreements are ratified. I do not want to take up too much time in extending this debate, but this is a topic of considerable and continuing interest to that large number of troops whom we shall be bound, by the Agreements, to keep in Germany for forty-five or forty-six years. At present, as hon. Members may know, B.A.O.R. is considered to be a home station. If it is to become a foreign station, as I imagine it will be when these Agreements are ratified, I want to see what the exact position of our troops will be in relation to the perquisites or privileges which they now enjoy.

There is another matter which concerns overseas service. I think it can be related to Subhead K. It deals with the allowances paid to those serving overseas. I think that that Vote can be reduced. Nearly £10 million is now provided, and if the Secretary of State could provide for a reduction in the period of overseas service, that could be reduced. It will have two effects. It will, of course, reduce the overseas allowance, or the money provided for it, and it will produce another indirect benefit—which I am sure the Army will appreciate—that of lessening the period for which officers and men will have to serve in an overseas station.

If one compares the Army to the Navy, or to the Air Force, one finds that the other two Services are in a better position than is the Army. I presume, therefore, that they have to spend less money, because they are able to rotate postings for their men much more speedily and extensively than is the Army.

In answer to a Question which I put to him on 8th February, the First Lord of the Admiralty told me that the maximum period of overseas service Has been 2½ years, but this is being reduced on the majority of overseas stations as a result of the General Service Commission scheme …about two-thirds of the ships due to be manned under this scheme are already so manned; for these the maximum period of service abroad is 12 months."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February, 1955; Vol. 312, c. 201–2.] I do not anticipate that the Army can reduce its period of overseas service to so short a time as that, but I think that the period of three years might be reduced. Indeed, I did hear that there was a rumour—of course, the Army is always full of rumours—that the period was to be reduced to two-and-a-half years.

Mr. E. Fernyhough (Jarrow)

If the period of service is reduced without the numbers abroad being reduced, all we do is speed up the number of shipments, but we do not lessen the overseas allowance.

Mr. Bellenger

That, of course, is the type of answer we expect the Minister to give. It is simply an arithmetical calculation that if the period of overseas service for families can be reduced, the Vote can be reduced. That is one of the reasons I am trying to make this case. I hope my hon. Friend will agree that it is a good case to make, even if I am not using the right argument. I advance this argument because I had to relate my case to this Vote.

Brigadier Peto

I take it that the right hon. Member is suggesting that men serving overseas in Germany should serve a shorter period and that he is not suggesting that units, regiments or battalions, should serve a shorter time abroad. If he is suggesting that individuals should be transferred home to other units, I should be opposed to that.

Mr. Bellenger

I was not relating my argument to Germany, but thinking more of the Far East. I believe that the period in Germany is less than three years, but that it is not on a par with Service in the Far East, because Germany is considered to be a home station. What I should like to say, although I could not relate my remarks to this Vote, is that I think we should reduce some of the numbers serving overseas. But the reasons that I should advance in support of that argument would probably be out of order, at any rate in the discussion on this Vote. But I hope I have said enough to persuade the Committee that we should reduce that period of overseas service, particularly at what I would call the hotter stations, such as Singapore and Malaya, where conditions are very arduous, particularly for married families.

Those are the two main points which I wish to advance to the Committee. On the question of the pay of the Army generally, I think a considerable amount has been done in an attempt to bring the pay rates, particularly of junior officers, more into relation with what they might receive in civil life. However, pay is not the only consideration for the right hon. Gentleman, if he wishes to maintain and, indeed, to improve the forces at his disposal. Although pay is undoubtedly a very important matter, especially for junior officers about the time that they wish to marry, I think that even more could be done to improve their housing accommodation both at home and overseas. The right hon. Gentleman might achieve better results in recruiting if he paid attention to that, but, obviously, I cannot extend that argument.

I hope that because I have raised only two particular points, the right hon. Gentleman will not imagine that we have not a considerable amount to say today. Our time has been cut a little short because of the "naval engagement" which preceded our discussion, and I hope that all those who speak will make their points briefly and precisely as I have attempted to do. I hope, also, that the right hon. Gentleman will pay attention to them, and give us an extended reply such as we did not receive early last Wednesday morning from the Under-Secretary.

Mr. John Hall (Wycombe)

I hope that I may follow the example of the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) and be as brief as he asked us to be.

I was interested in his point that we should endeavour to maintain for the forces in the B.A.O.R. some of the perquisites which they now enjoy. It is one of the unfortunate things about the Army in general that perquisites which made life in the Army a little more enjoyable have been whittled away one by one. I think that that is a pity, and I support what the right hon. Gentleman said about it.

I wish to talk about the pay of the Army in general. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the pay of junior officers, which he thought insufficient to attract men from civil life and not comparable with what they could earn in a civilian occupation. I do not altogether agree about the pay of junior officers, but on pay as a whole I think that we have a long way to go before the Army is competitive with industry.

If we examine the tasks facing the Army in present conditions, we find that they have to accept separation inconveniences and problems regarding education which do not apply to the majority of civilians. One would think, therefore, that the pay would be higher than the rates offered to potential recruits; that they would be much better than could be obtained in civilian occupations.

In general, the rates of pay for other ranks are not bad, but they do not compare with the industrial average. They are still below that average and below the rates of pay which any competent man can obtain in the majority of industries. Although one may think that the pay for junior officers is reasonable, the higher one goes the worse it becomes. I am not sure that the emphasis on the rates of pay for junior officers is not encouraging into the Army men who take commissions because they are a little doubtful about their ability to earn good money in civilian life; while, at the same time, discouraging the type of person with confidence in his ability to make the Army a sound career, because, later in life, he may not be able to command a high salary. I think that we should examine the rates of pay again to see whether they need revision.

6.15 p.m.

Another good reason for this is that in the future we shall expect the Army to do rather more even than is done at present. In the debates on defence and on the Army Estimates we heard that the Army is to be stimulated; that the soldier will be expected to be much tougher; that he must learn to do with- out the vast commissariat which previously followed him into battle; that he must get on to his own flat feet and do without vehicles; that he must live off the country. That is not learned just because a war starts. Soldiers must be trained and toughened in peace-time. We expect our Army to go through a much tougher kind of training and work a little harder in the future even than it does now. There will be a little less of the ordinary five-day week, and a little longer and much more intensive training programme will be carried out throughout the year.

In return, we should expect to pay them much higher rates. We must offer rates of pay which will attract people into the Army and, indeed, into the Services in general; rates which bear comparison with other industries. In return for improving conditions in the Army, we expect harder work and that soldiers should undergo a much tougher type of training; that they should, in fact, become a corps d'elite. If we associate high rates of pay with a type of training which will make a man proud to be known as a soldier, I think that to some extent we shall overcome the difficulties about recruiting which we have experienced in the past.

Most hon. Members would agree that we should be best served by a larger Regular Army and that, if we want a larger Regular Army, we must stimulate recruiting to a far greater extent than has been the case over many years, and much more than it is likely to be stimulated under present conditions so far as one can visualise. I know that pay is not the only reason why men do not join the Forces, but it could be one of the main reasons, and we could overcome that by giving better rates than those offered in industry.

I hope that my right hon. Friend will examine this matter again, to see whether the rates of pay in the Army can be increased and made more attractive than they are today.

Mr. Woodrow Wyatt (Birmingham, Aston)

I wish only to make two points briefly, and they both relate to the serious inability of the Secretary of State for War to admit when he has made a mistake.

My first point relates to the continued existence of the Home Guard. This was produced with a great flourish earlier in the life of the Government as being a great and necessary safeguard in the new atomic age. It was supposed to contain 175,000 men. It was to be divided into various zones in the country, where in some parts we should have more men than in other parts. What happened was that in the parts of the country where the War Office wanted the most men it got the least, and in the parts where it wanted the least it got the most. Even the combined total of the two came to rather less than one-third of the figure for which the War Office had asked as an overall figure. Today we see in the Estimates that we are—

Major H. Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)

On a point of order. The hon. Member has raised an extremely important point relating to the Home Guard. Surely we are concerned with that under Vote 2 rather than Vote 1?

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris)

I was waiting to see the connection between the hon. Member's remarks and this Vote. It was not clear to me.

Mr. Wyatt

I thought that I was dealing with the question of pay for officers.

The Deputy-Chairman

If the hon. Member is discussing the question of pay, that comes under Vote 1 and it is in order. But if he is merely discussing the question of recruitment to the Home Guard, that is out of order.

Mr. Wyatt

I am not discussing the question of recruiting. I was merely presenting, as a preliminary, a background to explain why it is completely unnecessary to give adjutant-quartermasters a salary. I thought it necessary to present that background, otherwise hon. Members might be under the impression that those officers had some work to do, and therefore that their pay was justified.

We are being asked to provide for a Home Guard of about 55,000 officers and men, some of whom are to be paid. The original intention was to have a force of about 175,000, distributed in an entirely different way.

The Deputy-Chairman

That is clearly out of order upon this Vote.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

On a point of order. Are not the officers who organise the Home Guard upon the permanent staff, and does not that fact make this discussion in order?

The Deputy-Chairman

It may be in order under Vote 2, but not under Vote 1.

Mr. Hughes

The word "officers" is mentioned in the first subhead.

The Deputy-Chairman

But that is not the point which the hon. Member was discussing. He was referring to the question of distribution.

Mr. Wyatt

Surely the question of pay is in order on Vote 1, which is headed "Pay, &c, of the Army." The specific point which I wish to raise concerns the pay of adjutant-quartermasters in the Home Guard. I do not see where else I can discuss that matter.

Mr. Wigg

Under Vote 2.

Mr. Wyatt

Why not under Vote 1?

The Deputy-Chairman

If the hon. Member will turn to page 28 of the Estimates he will see that the Home Guard comes under Vote 2.

Mr. Wyatt

Very well, Sir Rhys. I shall raise the matter when we come to Vote 2.

Mr. Wigg

I shall endeavour to step into the breach while my hon. Friend is working out his problem. I want the Secretary of State to explain one or two points. First, would he be kind enough to tell us why, during this debate, he has made no reference to the colonial army? He did not refer to it in his first Estimates speech, and he did little more than refer to it lightly when he wound up. He said that he would draw the attention of General Templer to the speech of the hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser). What is the significance of General Templer's new appointment? Is he going to reorganise and step up recruiting for the colonial forces, or is this just another piece of window-dressing?

I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to admit that it is window-dressing, but he might tell us whether General Templer is going to attempt to reorganise the colonial army. If so, will he tell the Committee whether he has gone back upon the statements he made in his Estimates speech in 1952, when he told the House that 1,200 officers and N.C.O.s—just the men in respect of whom the greatest shortage exists—would be required to organise one West African division, and went on: The bill for the buildings to house them in West Africa would be at least £13 million, and … would take between four and six years to complete."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 1034.] Has anything happened to change that situation?

The right hon. Gentleman does not deceive anybody on this side of the Committee—and I say "deceive" in the most friendly way—but he may have led astray hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Member for Stafford and Stone and even innocents like the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery), who thought that the right hon. Gentleman had waited for three years and, after pondering upon this problem of raising a considerable colonial force, had decided, upon the eve of the discussion of these Estimates, to send out General Templer. That may be so; I am prepared to believe anything, but I should like to have a definite assurance that such is the right hon. Gentleman's intention.

Perhaps he would also be kind enough to tell us what, if anything, the Government are going to do in respect of Colonial Paper No. 304 of 1954. A conference was held in Lagos in 1953, presided over by the Minister of State, and its proposals are very far-reaching. There was an admission that we should never be able to find sufficient officers ourselves, and that, whilst a few could be sent to Sandhurst in the short run, there would ultimately have to be a Royal Military Academy in West Africa. Even if such an institution were set up, however, it was considered that we should still not be able to find sufficient instructors. I thought that the suggestion that we should go to the Commonwealth countries and say, "Look, this is a good idea" was very constructive. It adds to the strength of the Commonwealth as a whole. Let us find the instructors from Commonwealth countries.

What is the policy of the Government in this connection? This conference took place in Lagos on 20th April, 1953. The White Paper appeared in July last year, and there has never been a word since. There is little or nothing about colonial forces either in the Defence White Paper or the Secretary of State's Memorandum, and there was nothing in his speech about it. Now we have the appointment of General Templer. Can we be told something about the position?

I turn once more to the question of National Service. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was present earlier, but if so he would have heard us congratulating the First Lord upon his inquiry into Regular recruiting and National Service. Although the real difference between the right hon. Gentleman and us is with regard to the steps to be taken, he cannot be satisfied with a situation which places a burden of two years' National Service permanently upon the backs of our young men. That does not lead to a strengthening of our military potential, and it is certainly a subtraction from our economic well-being.

If young men have to continue to do two years' military service it is clear that we shall not be able to get sufficient technologists and technicians to maintain our position in the forefront of the international industrial Powers. We cannot even be the foremost industrial country of Europe while we continue to have two years' military service. We cannot afford to be the only European country which is making any attempt at all to tackle the problem of raising and training military forces. It is impossible for us, with a population which is ageing and declining, to continue to carry this tremendous burden.

I agree that it may not be possible, overnight, to do much about cutting down the period. If I thought that the Government's policy was moving in a direction which would one day make a reduction possible I should be happy, but what worries me is the possibility that we shall have a period of two years in 1956 and so on for ever and ever and ever.

We wound up our discussion upon Vote A with a reference to this subject. We tried to get certain assurances from the right hon. Gentleman, but we could not put our finger upon the precise pledges that were given in this respect on behalf of the Conservative Party. Any hon. Member who looks at this problem will realise that it is for the good of the Army and the country that we should see if we can make a cut in the period of National Service.

Defence is not a subject which captures the public imagination—or many votes—but it is important to educate public opinion upon the realities of the situation. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) is something of a backslider. He talked about pay. That is what the right hon. Gentleman and his friends used to do when they were in opposition. They were mesmerised by the question of pay. Of course the Regular soldier wants to be adequately paid, but I agree with Field Marshal Montgomery, who said in a lecture at the Royal Institute that the answer to the problem would be found, not in pay, but in better conditions.

The hon. Member argued that if we want to increase recruiting for the Regular Army we must step up the pay. With great respect, that is nonsense. The best trained and hardest trained army was that of the Old Contemptibles in 1914, and they received Is. a day. To suggest that because training has to be tough and realistic we must step up the pay—upon the principle of payment by results—is quite clearly to suggest that we should impose a burden which, if we are ever to raise a Regular army of the size we require, would be economically intolerable.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. John Hall

May I point out that pay is only one of the things, and that although it is true that the Old Contemptibles fought extremely well on a "Bob" a day, our problem is to attract more people into the present Army? We cannot attract more people into the Army unless we can produce more pay as well as better conditions.

Mr. Wigg

The hon. Member is again talking nonsense. He fails to understand the problem. If he will read the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech he will find that he has done quite well. After three years, he has learned lesson No. 1, and that is that only a certain number of men will join the Army. It does not matter whether we increase the pay or cut it, the number remains fairly constant.

The problem is what happens when they go into the Army. What the right hon. Gentleman wants to do is to persuade them to stay in the Army and to remain in the Army on long-service engagements. We shall not get them to do that merely by increasing the pay. The reason for the sensational rise in recruiting in the years 1951–52 was to be found in the steps taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), when he was Minister of Defence, with the support of the party opposite, in introducing a differential.

It was the fact that when a young man joined as a National Service man he got 4s. a day, and when he joined for a three-years' engagement he got 7s. a day. He could see at the end of the week the difference between 4s. and 7s. He might not be a senior wrangler, but the difference of a guinea was something which he could appreciate, and that got the recruits.

I think that the Secretary of State ought to be seeking to sharpen the differential. We shall not get the Army that we want until we attend to the conditions. If hon. Gentlemen opposite can persuade the Treasury to increase the pay they will still not find the recruits that they want. This is essentially a long-term business. I do not agree that if the right hon. Gentleman had a change of heart overnight and suddenly became wholly sensible he would gain, in the course of one year or two years, any marked results in recruiting.

Before the war we had a class Army, and we still have a class Army. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that when one is in the Army one can see this class difference and cannot avoid it. I read with great interest over the weekend a very interesting book, which I commend to the right hon. Gentleman—"Called Up. "We find the young guardee going to Caterham, and as soon as he gets inside, he finds that all the boys from Eton go off to the Roberts block. They are all potential officers and are not allowed even to mix with the common herd in the canteen.

Even during their leisure time, when they go to buy a cup of tea and a "wad," to use an Army expression, they are not allowed to mix with the common herd. That kind of thing is stretching through the Army under the administration of the right hon. Gentleman from top to bottom. If I can persuade the Committee of the seriousness of this position and the correctness of my analysis, we may next year get better results for the same amount of pay, or even during the present year.

Mr. J. Hudson

On a point of order. At what point did this discussion get out of order, as I judged that it was doing by your movements in the Chair, Sir Rhys? Is it right that we should discuss on this Vote the "Bob" a day and the defects or advantages—I gather that they were the advantages—of a "bob" a day that my hon. Friend was putting forward? Or is it a question of what happens to the Eton boys? At what point is it possible to discuss these matters and not get out of order?

The Deputy-Chairman

I do not know at what point it is possible to get out of order. What I am concerned with is that the discussion is kept in order.

Mr. Wigg

I would never get out of order.

My hon. Friend has been very naughty and has misrepresented me. He is very naughty indeed. I did not speak about the advantages of a shilling a day. I was most careful on that point. I am in favour of the highest possible rate of pay. I was saying that it is nonsense to relate a system of payment by results to conditions in the Army; we cannot do it. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman saw fit to disturb the flow of my argument. It looks as if he is a secret ally of the Secretary of State for War. I have suspected that for a long time.

The right hon. Gentleman, soon after he became Secretary of State for War, sought to make an announcement that N.C.Os. of the Household Brigade of Guards and junior N.C.Os. would be segregated. The right hon. Gentleman later said that it was a most unpleasant suggestion that he was in favour of segregation. I have never been able to understand why the party opposite, and the right hon. Gentleman in particular, with his own social background, should always believe in some divine inspiration relating to leadership.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head)

That is an old thing about segregation. It arose because, in the Brigade of Guards, a corporal is a lance-sergeant. What worried the hon. Gentleman was that corporals had a separate mess. All that happened was that, being a lance-sergeant, the corporal went into the sergeants' mess.

The Deputy-Chairman

I am wondering how this can come under Vote 1.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

On a point of order. The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) referred to divine inspiration. Is divine inspiration in order on the Army Estimates?

Mr. Wigg

The pay of the corporal is borne on this Vote. I am not in any way confusing the rank of corporal with the appointment of lance-sergeant. The right hon. Gentleman referred to something quite different. One of the early decisions which he made in order to get value for money under this Vote was to segregate the junior ranks in the Brigade of Guards. That is the only part of the Army in which this segregation takes place. We have the admission, in a book published in the last few days, that this segregation continues.

The Deputy-Chairman

I do not see how segregation comes under any one of these items.

Mr. Wigg

I am very sorry, Sir Rhys, but this is a technical subject, and is very difficult to follow. I appreciate your difficulty. I am dealing with the amount of pay under Vote 1 and the value which we get for it, and whether we can take steps to improve it during the coming year.

My case against the right hon. Gentleman is that consistently, during the last three years, his analysis was faulty. His analysis of the steps to be taken was wrong when he was in opposition. Hence, when he took over the job, he thought that all he had to do was to increase the pay. I regret to say that, although the right hon. Gentleman has himself become converted to what I regard as the correct doctrine, these old heresies still persist.

It is too much to hope that overnight hon. Gentlemen opposite will accept our point of view. I want to press on the Committee that the policy which we are urging is the same policy as the Labour Party has pressed for for a considerable time, namely, an all-party look at the working of the National Service Act, and its review at regular intervals, not to establish new facts, because I think that the facts are well known. We want hon. Members from all sides to come to a common agreement about the situation which confronts any Service Minister. I stress that. It does not matter whether the Secretary of State happens to be a Conservative, a Labour Member, or even, if I may draw on my imagination, a Liberal. The problem is with us for a long time to come, and a solution has to be found in the interests of the Army and of the country.

I do not believe that, with the even balance of political forces in the country, one party is capable of taking the step needed to put this matter right. Once the problem is recognised, all sides can share in the responsibility for solving it. I have asked in the past for that to be done, and I am again pleading for it tonight. The right hon. Gentleman has not much longer to hold his present office because there will soon be a General Election. Nevertheless, I hope that at the eleventh hour he will be converted to this eminently sensible point of view.

Mr. Wyatt

May I ask for your guidance, Sir Rhys? We have been talking about pay for adjutant-quartermasters of the Home Guard, which you have suggested is out of order under this Vote. Nevertheless, in the explanatory notes to Vote 1, under Subhead A, which relates to the pay of officers: This subhead provides for expenditure on the pay of officers of the British Army …including non-Regular officers employed on full-time duties with the Territorial Army and Home Guard. In spite of the fact that this appears under Vote 1 it seems that by your Ruling I shall only be able to discuss it on Vote 2.

The Deputy-Chairman

Vote 2 deals with Reserve Forces, the Territorial Army, the Home Guard and the Cadet Forces. The point to which the hon. Gentleman referred should be discussed under that Vote and not under Vote 1.

Brigadier Peto

I shall not attempt to follow the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) very far, because we are skating on very thin ice on this subject, and I am not as clever as he is in doing it. The hon. Member is an extraordinary example of a man with a great deal of common sense but an almost vicious bias against the Brigade of Guards. That is a great pity. He raised a point about pay which interests me because I made the point in a speech on Vote A. It is not a question of giving more pay to encourage men to join the Army in the ranks, so much as of conditions of service once they get there. On that point I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman.

The other point I want to raise was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger). He said—I repeat it from memory—that he was not satisfied about the pay of the junior officers as compared with what they could have earned in civil life. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) who followed him differed, taking the view that the pay of the junior officer was adequate while that of the senior officer was inadequate. That is my point of view, which I illustrated on Monday last when I gave instances comparing Service pay with wages at various stages of a young man's life up to the period when he had spent 25 years either in the Army or in business. It was quite apparent, from research which I undertook, that, after about 20 years' service, those who are in business begin to go right ahead out of all comparison with officers of the rank of lieutenant-colonel and above.

After 25 years' service, a lieutenant-colonel draws only £1,770 a year, with allowances, if he is married, whereas after 25 years, and having risen to the top of his department, a man in civil life would be earning between £2,000 and £5,000 a year.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Peter Roberts (Sheffield, Heeley)

In referring to a lieutenant-colonel, my hon. and gallant Friend is not taking an officer who has reached the top of the tree and become a brigadier or a full colonel, but an officer who is equivalent to somebody who is fairly well down the administrative ladder.

Brigadier Peto

I do not think I am making an unfair comparison, but if my hon. Friend thinks that I have exaggerated no doubt he will be able to make that case, if he has an opportunity. There is a great discrepancy between the pay of a senior officer and the pay of a similar man in industry. There is less discrepancy in the pay of junior officers compared with the pay in a business, a store, or an industry.

Another point is whether Germany will be regarded in the near future as an overseas station or whether it will continue to be a home station. It makes a considerable difference to the allowances and other perquisites which can be obtained if it is regarded as an overseas station. Could my right hon. Friend give us a little enlightenment on that point?

Mr. Swingler

I have two simple propositions to put forward. The first would increase the size of the Vote and the second would diminish it. The first proposition is that pay should be generally increased.

I hope we shall not discuss Army pay as if it is only a question of baiting a trap. It would be deplorable to discuss the pay of men in the Army only as an attraction to more men to join. There is a little matter of justice to be considered. We are the people who must be the judges. The men in the Services are not in a position to make organised representations or to enter into collective bargaining with the Secretary of State for War.

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was here when we discussed pay on the Navy Estimates, but I hope he will admit that the pay code, or the multiplicity of pay codes, are out of date. Immediately after the war there was an attempt to relate Army pay to civil pay by making a rough calculation of what was given to men in the Services and taking the average wage in industry. Industrial wages have moved up considerably in the last few years, but Service pay has not. The majority of men in the Services, whether Regulars or conscripts, are still in the 1950 position. We all know that profits, salaries and wages, like prices, have moved up very sharply since 1950. This matter concerns also the wives and families of Service men. The marriage allowances are completely out of date.

The time has come for a general review and revision of the whole of the Army's pay code. I hope very much that the Minister will not talk as if the concessions given last year amounted to a new pay code. We welcome the concessions that were made, but, after all, they affect only a minority of officers and men. Those concessions should not be used as a means of denying justice to the majority of Regulars and the whole of the con- scripts who are on rates of pay which are now out-dated.

I should very much like to see the Services get together and publish the facts about the present average wage in British industry, the average rewards in civil life, and their relation now to what the man in the Army is getting and the value of what he is getting. That should be produced in a comparative table to see how this matter has altered in the last five, six, or seven years, or at any rate since the time when the calculations were made about 1947 and 1948. I am sure that would make out an overwhelming case for an all-round increase of pay in the Army.

Obviously, this has a bearing on the question of voluntarily recruiting. I hope that it will not only be considered whether or not we should increase the pay of a few more men at the top. If we are to get more men to join the Army one of the most important things is that it should be felt that Parliament is doing justice to the men now in the Armed Forces. Certainly justice is not being done in this matter of pay.

To come to my second point, I believe it absolutely necessary, because of the cost of the whole of the apparatus and because of the nature and size of this Vote, to cut the period of conscription. That, of course, would enormously diminish the size of this Vote. As I have said before, I think this should be done for three reasons. The first is that the commitments of the Army are reduced. That is admitted and is stated in the Defence White Paper. The second is that the Secretary of State for War can claim that he has more volunteers. There are 100,000 more in the Services as a whole since the period of conscription was extended, in 1950, to two years.

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Member is going beyond this particular Vote. Conscription or any other method of recruiting does not arise under this Vote.

Mr. Swingler

I hoped it might be possible to raise it here, because I do not see how it could come under any other Vote and it is in relation to pay.

The Deputy-Chairman

That might be true of other Votes, but I am not concerned with other Votes. I am concerned with this Vote.

Mr. Swingler

I am making the proposal in relation to the importance of diminishing the size of this Vote because a very substantial part of this Vote is concerned with the pay of conscripts. That arises, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) mentioned, from the lengthy period of National Service. I would be very sad if you cut me short at this point, Sir Rhys, because I had hoped to quote from a speech of yours in 1950.

The Deputy-Chairman

Whatever my speech about conscription may have been in 1950, it cannot be relevant to this Vote.

Mr. Swingler

If that is so, and you cannot allow me to continue to discuss that question, I can only finish by saying that the other night when we tried to raise the matter on Vote A we were caught out by the Secretary of State for War on the question of whether he was bound by a pledge to cut the period of conscription. I can only ask the Secretary of State to read in full the debate on 15th September, 1950, including your speech, Sir Rhys, and that of Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, as he then was, to put into perspective the very short quotation we made the other night. The right hon. Gentleman would then see that the leaders of both political parties in this country are pledged to a reduction in the period.

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Member is still pursuing what is out of order on this Vote.

Mr. Swingler

I am very sorry, Sir Rhys, I merely say that I hope I have made out the case for my second proposal. In my opinion, we should diminish the size of this Vote by reducing the period of National Service, which, in any case, we are bound to do by pledges given in 1950.

Major Legge-Bourke

I have not intervened in the discussion of these Estimates before and I shall try to be as brief as I can. There has been a tendency, in anything connected with the War Office since the last war, to use it for the purpose of having fairly frequent changes. We remember very well that in the days when the party opposite were in power the War Office was becoming the receptacle for Ministerial waste. The first thing I should like to do tonight is to congratulate my right hon. Friend on having survived as long as he has, and particularly to pay tribute to the way in which he introduced the Estimates last week. We were all deeply impressed. I think the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) was unfair when he suggested that my right hon. Friend was no more interested in the colonial forces because he did not mention them. Considering what he did mention, that was a little unfair.

There is one particular officer who comes under this Vote to whom I would draw the attention of the Committee. He is the Director-General of the Territorial Army. I have mentioned that we have had frequent changes. This officer is a Regular officer and I think he is paid under this Vote. The War Office changes its immediate Ministerial representatives, but if those changes are outrivalled it is by the number of changes which have taken place in this particular appointment. It is very important that the Territorial Army senior Regular officer should be a person who is able to get fully versed in the great problems which confront the Territorial Army and that he should be paid commensurately with the job he has on hand.

If we look at the rates of pay in this Vote we find that the rate of pay of a major-general is £2,637. The rate of pay of a lieutenant-general is £3,185. If he is married he gets more, of course. I am wondering whether it is really fair to expect an officer to carry out a job of Director-General of the Territorial Army on the same pay that he would receive if he were serving in that rank in a job connected with the Regular Army.

The Deputy-Chairman

It is not clear to me at the moment whether the hon. and gallant Member is dealing with the Territorial Army.

Major Legge-Bourke

I am dealing with a Regular officer who is appointed Director-General of the Territorial Army. He is paid under this Vote.

Mr. Head

Under Vote 3.

The Deputy-Chairman

It is not clear whether it is under Vote 2, or Vote 3, but in any case it does not come under Vote 1.

Major Legge-Bourke

I hope that I shall have another opportunity of raising that question.

I wish to say how very surprised and gratified I am to be in agreement with the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) in the suggestion he made that the rates of pay of the Regular Army compare unfavourably with rates of pay in civil life. I have always felt that the biggest obstacle here has been the Treasury. The comparison I would be far more anxious to make in this matter is between the rate of pay of those in the Armed Forces and the rate of pay in the Civil Service and the terms under which men serve.

7.0 p.m.

There is no question whatever that the security of the job in the Civil Service, especially for those who get to the higher grades, is superior to the security of an officer, senior non-commissioned officer or warrant officer in the Army. When it is decided that men are no longer vital to the continuing existence of the Army and it is suggested that they should go on to the Reserve, what they get on the Reserve compares somewhat unfavourably with the pension which a civil servant receives.

Although comparisons may be odious, I believe that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is right in saying that this is a problem we must solve. If we can find an all-party basis on which to do it and avoid playing party politics over the Army, so much the better. I remember very well that in the 1945–50 Parliament, hon. Members opposite said that the last thing they wanted to see was the Army being turned into what they described as a praetorian guard; I remember that expression being used.

The first object, surely, is to try to get an efficient Army. If, to get an efficient Army, and the biggest Regular element that we can, it is necessary to pay soldiers at a rate which, in the belief of some, the more pacifist-minded, might be considered the rate that we might pay to a British praetorian guard, I say, nevertheless, let us pay them that.

As my right hon. Friend said when introducing his Estimates, there is very little question of voting on the Army Estimates anyway. If there is anything, it is on the question of how long National Service continues; but that has already been ruled out of order for discussion by the Chair, so I do not propose to elaborate on that. I think I am in order in saying that when the National Service Bill was introduced in the House, one of the things I said was that I disliked a conscript Army and I wished that we could make the Regular Army adequate.

Here we have the annual Vote for the payment of the Army, and it is the fairly formidable total of £119,620,000. It seems a great deal of money but it embraces, of course, marriage allowances, colonial service, and all the other things, and it shows what it costs to be a great country. Although I do not suppose that the nation's economy can stand it at present, if we want a really efficient, happy Regular Army, sufficient to provide the necessary defence of the ground which we have to defend and to keep the law and order which we have to maintain throughout the world, we must be prepared to pay for it. If, as a nation, we are not prepared to support it, the only alternative is that under which we are suffering at the moment.

I only hope that the hon. Member for Dudley is able to persuade all his hon. Friends to take the line on which he finished his speech this evening. The hon. Member knows as well as I do that over the years when we have both been in Parliament, a certain amount of party politics has been wrapped up with Army pay and with the conscription issue.

Mr. Wigg

It is all on one side.

Major Legge-Bourke

No, it is not by any means all on one side. I am quite-prepared to believe that neither of us has been perfect over this, because, I hope, we are both human and that automatically means that we are not perfect. Nevertheless, if the hon. Member is prepared to declare an armistice on this, so am I, and I hope it will not be necessary to have a mixed armistice commission to keep the peace. Let us hope that we can come to a sufficient agreement on the sort of way in which both of us were able to agree on the reform of the Army Act. That seems to me to be an admirable way of approaching this problem.

I am a little concerned, because the point that I particularly wished to raise occurs in a Vote which is not to be called.

Mr. Head

May I interrupt my hon. and gallant Friend? I unwittingly misled your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. MacPherson, and my hon. and gallant Friend, because we understood that that matter was in Vote 3.

Major Legge-Bourke

I am not clear now which Vote it is in. I heard my right hon. Friend say distinctly that it would be in Vote 3—that is, the question of the Director-General of the Territorial Army. I was under the impression that the Director-General was paid under Vote 1, because he is a Regular officer.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson)

The Ruling which has already been given is relevant now, and I repeat that Ruling.

Major Legge-Bourke

That Ruling was given on the advice tendered to the Chair by my right hon. Friend who said that it came under Vote 3. I am not clear, from my right hon. Friend's latest intervention, whether it is in Vote 2 or Vote 3.

The Temporary Chairman

The point simply is that as far as any evidence which I have is concerned, it is not on Vote 1. It is, therefore, out of order now.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton (Brixton)

After a long period of almost Trappist silence by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), it is indeed refreshing, and quite like old times, to have the pleasure this year of hearing one of his interventions in the course of the Service Estimates debates. I believe that this is the hon. and gallant Member's maiden speech this year in the Service debates.

I do not know whether the Secretary of State has read the book which was recently published relating the experience of about 16 young men who were called up for National Service. The point that comes to the forefront in that book is the unsatisfactory relationship between officers and men. That leads me to ask whether we are getting the right type of junior officers, and whether we are paying them the right amount for their services.

The Temporary Chairman

I hope that the last phrase mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member will provide the text of what he says rather than what preceded it.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton

A very competent officer—namely, Field Marshal Sir Claude Auchinleck—stated as his opinion that the contacts between officers and men in the Army at the present time, particularly between junior officers and men, were not at all satisfactory. In other words, a man doing his National Service, apparently, did not even know the name of his officer, or saw him so rarely—

The Temporary Chairman

The hon. and gallant Member is not keeping within order on this Vote. He must confine himself a little more strictly to the actual Vote.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton

I content myself by saying that we do not seem to be getting a proper return from this expenditure in relation to the contact that ought to exist between the junior officer and the National Service man, for whom we are providing money in this Vote.

However, I shall not pursue that point. To put the matter beyond any doubt, I want to refer to Section L, "Miscellaneous allowances," on page 22 of the Estimates, which is definitely within Vote 1, because at the top of the page there appear the words: Vote 1.—Pay, &c, of the Army. In those circumstances, if I say a few words about the outfit allowance, I shall probably be dealing with a matter which is contained within the Vote that we are now discussing.

The Secretary of State or his Department announced a little while ago that mess dress was being reintroduced into the Army. The view then expressed by the right hon. Gentleman was that although mess dress was being reintroduced it would be quite optional for junior officers. Evidence which I have seems to indicate that this reintroduction of mess dress is not anything like as optional as we were led to believe it would be. I am not suggesting that there is anything in the nature of compulsion in the matter by senior regimental officers, but—

Brigadier O. L. Prior-Palmer (Worthing)

Is this argument in order on this Vote? Officers buy their own mess dress.

The Temporary Chairman

I was a little apprehensive about where the hon. and gallant Member's remarks were leading, but I do not think he has yet strayed far out of order.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer

But he is talking about mess dress.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton

In this Vote provision is being made for outfit allowance to the extent of £830,000. I was about to suggest that the so-called optional reintroduction of mess dress makes this Estimate of £830,000 quite inadequate.

The Temporary Chairman

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and gallant Member again, but the reference in this Vote is to the initial allowance, and I understand that mess dress is not included. Unless the hon. and gallant Member wishes to argue that it ought to be included, I do not think his remarks can be in order.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton

I am going to try to argue that provision should be made for mess dress.

Provision is made in the Navy, for example, if I may quote that analogy, for mess dress. I suggest a similar provision ought to be made for Army officers to that made for naval officers. Unfortunately, mess dress is already beginning to be regarded as indispensable. A junior officer joining a regiment naturally feels a little out of place if some function takes place in the mess and if all the officers are in mess dress and he is—

Brigadier Peto

In the mess.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton

—the only one who is not, because the allowance with which he is provided does not enable him to buy mess dress.

I believe that a mess dress costs about £50, and it is impossible for a junior officer to find that amount. Although it is not compulsory to wear it, it must be a considerable embarrassment to a junior officer to join a regiment for the first time and to find all the other officers in the mess have mess dress and he has not. Naturally, he feels he too ought to have it.

I saw in the "Daily Telegraph" a report to the effect that at the St. David's guest night of the 1st Battalion the Welch Fusiliers all 34 officers present were in mess kit. That seems to indicate that the officers concerned, even if they were junior officers, were able to find the money for the mess dress out of their own pockets, but to have to buy mess dress out of their own pockets is a handicap which should not be imposed upon junior officers.

Mr. John Hall

Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell me whether the mess dress to which he is referring was paid for by the officers concerned? Or was it obtained in some other way?

The Temporary Chairman

I think that to go into details of that sort would be out of order.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton

I am glad to avail myself of the protection that you, Mr. MacPherson, have afforded me, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) will acquit me of any discourtesy if I ignore his intervention.

However, I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say a word or two on the subject, for the evidence seems to suggest that at present junior officers joining a unit for the first time find the question of mess dress a source of embarrassment.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

I am not interested in mess dress. I am interested only in the mess. I was rather upset when the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) cast aspersions on the Treasury. He seemed to suggest that the Treasury was the villain of the piece in connection with these Estimates, that the Treasury was restricting expenditure on officers' pay and all the pay items outlined in this Vote.

I see no Minister from the Treasury sitting on the Treasury Bench, and there seems to be no Treasury point of view expressed in this debate—except my own. I want to express what I think is the Treasury point of view, because the Treasury has to find the money. If the Treasury were to agree to all the demands by the Service Ministers this country would go bankrupt.

Therefore, we should not be thinking of the point of view of the Service Ministers only, nor should we be thinking only of the reminiscences of the old soldiers. We should be thinking of what is contained in this Vote. I believe that the Treasury, far from having restricted expenditure, has been far too generous to the War Office. If I had been at the Treasury I should have cut these Estimates, including these items of pay, very drastically, and that is exactly what we must do if this country is to be solvent.

It is all very well the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) to demand much higher rates of pay which, according to these Estimates, total no less than £120 million. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer were here, or even the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, he would say that he had been far too generous in allowing this sum for the Army at the present time. There is room for a considerable reduction of these Estimates.

I am not biased against the Army like my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely said that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley was biased against the Brigade of Guards. I have no bias against the Brigade of Guards. My bias, if I have any, is rather against the 3rd Welch. [Laughter.] If hon. Members knew of some of my experiences with the 3rd Welch they would understand.

I want the Committee to fulfil its function as the critic of expenditure, and, far from agreeing to this £119 million, to reduce it drastically. I could suggest drastic reductions in all these items in Vote 1, but the one I would specially reduce is the local overseas allowance. I believe that an overseas allowance amounting to £9½ million is far too high and that it should be drastically reduced. By that I mean we could reduce the overseas allowance by reducing the number of men overseas.

That item of £9½ million would be whittled away to almost nothing if there were a sensible point of view at both the Treasury and the War Office. If we were to bring those men home from overseas there would not be so much money expended on the overseas allowance. My idea is that a very large number of those soldiers could be brought home to form the strategic reserve in this country in readiness for demobilisation.

We have our commitments, it is true. I do not blame the Secretary of State for War for this huge sum, except in so far as it concerns the Army Estimates. He has to carry out the policy of the Government. By reducing our commitments we surely could reduce—

The Temporary Chairman

The hon. Gentleman must watch how he is going. I am afraid that he is getting very nearly out of order.

Mr. Hughes

With due respect, Mr. MacPherson, I was suggesting that the sum of £9,500,000 was rather high.

The Temporary Chairman

That is not out of order, but a discussion of commitments is not in order in debating this matter.

Mr. Hughes

I will leave the question of commitments and say that this item of £9,500,000 could be considerably reduced if the soldiers were at home.

Let us take, for example, the expenditure that must necessarily occur if these troops remain in a place like Cyprus. If they were not there, the total of overseas allowances would be less. Therefore, my argument is that these troops should be brought home from Cyprus. That is a financial argument. I am not talking about policy or about commitments. All I am talking about is the pay involved in keeping the troops in Cyprus. I was looking forward optimistically this yearto a considerable reduction in the Army Estimates. I thought that they would come down by at least £50 million.

Mr. Head

They have come down by £70 million.

Mr. Hughes

The Secretary of State has not quite grasped my point. I was referring to the pay. It would be quite out of order to follow the right hon. Gentleman's remark, because a reduction occurred in respect of equipment, and that is included in the £70 million. But do not let me get into an argument with the Secretary of State. I will say that I reasonably expected that the Army Estimates could be reduced by £100 million, and that could be done by transferring soldiers to places where they need not be paid an overseas allowance.

The point to which I was coming was that the basis for my optimistic belief that the Estimates would be drastically reduced was the expectation that the soldiers would be brought home from Suez. I was an enthusiastic supporter of a reduction in the military expenditure at Suez. I went into the Government Lobby to support the Government against the mutiny of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely and others. I helped to suppress the mutiny. I expected that, as a result of my helping the Government on that occasion and of the Suez commitment being reduced, I should be rewarded by a very drastic reduction in Vote 1 this year.

Instead of reducing the overseas allowance by bringing the soldiers home to Aldershot, to Edinburgh, or elsewhere, the Government took the soldiers to Cyprus. The result is that we shall have this commitment still existing whereas there could have been a substantial reduction. If the Secretary of State for War wishes to win his battles with the Treasury and bring next year's Vote 1 down by a considerable amount—by sufficient to satisfy me—all he has to do is to look at the item in respect of overseas allowances, look carefully at the places where soldiers are stationed overseas, and then reduce the overseas allowances. I am quite sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley understands that point perfectly.

For example, how much of this £9,500,000 is estimated to be in respect of Germany? I do not see what our soldiers are going to do in Germany.

The Temporary Chairman

The hon. Gentleman must not discuss each individual place separately. This is a question of pay generally, and as long as he keeps to that, he is in order. When he discusses Germany, Cyprus and so on he is getting out of order.

Mr. Hughes

I am obliged, Mr. MacPherson, for your Ruling and, of course, will leave that argument.

Major Legge-Bourke

On a point of order. Surely it is legitimate to subdivide this matter to some extent. Colonial troops, Commonwealth troops and so on are referred to, and they are not all stationed overseas in the same place.

The Temporary Chairman

It is legitimate to subdivide the matter to some extent, but it is difficult to follow this argument and decide what is in order and what is not. To mention Germany is definitely out of order, because the question of troops there does not involve overseas allowances.

Mr. Bellenger

Although I do not want to encourage my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), nevertheless we have been told by the Secretary of State for War that a local overseas allowance may be paid to our troops serving in B.A.O.R. if certain treaties come into force. I suggest, therefore, that so long as my hon. Friend relates himself to that he will be in order.

The Temporary Chairman

So long as the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) relates his argument to pay generally, he is in order, but it is difficult sometimes to distinguish whether he is in order or not.

Mr. Wigg

I suggest that if my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) follows the advice of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), he will scarcely be in order, because if it becomes necessary to give an overseas allowance to our troops in Germany surely it will be subject to a Supplementary Estimate. I suggest to my hon. Friend that he would be far wiser to confine himself to Vote 1, Subhead E which deals with colonial troops. He will then be able to make his case without going outside the Vote.

The Temporary Chairman

To discuss Germany, in any case, under this Vote would be out of order.

Mr. Hughes

I will make a strategic retreat and take up a stronger position in the rear.

I am not yet driven back to Vote 1, Subhead E, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley drew my attention, but I suggest that the total of Vote 1, amounting to nearly £120 million, includes the pay of officers and soldiers in Germany. I leave the question of overseas allowances. I understand I am completely out of order on that point.

This sum of nearly £120 million for which we are budgeting includes the pay of soldiers in Germany, and, therefore, I want to argue that this sum could be substantially reduced if we brought the soldiers home from Germany and established them here as a strategic Reserve. I fail to see in any case that they are really defending this country in Germany.

I do not quite understand what they will be paid for in Germany, because at this time last year it was assumed that they would be paid for being prepared to fight the Russians. This year it is assumed that they will be in Germany to reassure the French against the Germans. I suggest, therefore, that if only the Treasury lived up to its responsibilities, stood firm, and rejected all these arguments that come from the Service Departments, it could substantially reduce Vote 1. I do not attack the Army Estimates or consider them from the point of view of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley. He is a pure opportunist. He has no strategic principles at all.

I approach this matter, not from the point of view of a military expert who wants to see a bigger Army—I want to see a smaller Army. I want to see it reduced to a sort of police force, so I reject entirely the approach to this matter of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley. I say that that is not the way in which we should approach these Estimates. We should approach them from the point of view of the taxpayer who has to find the money.

7.30 p.m.

This country is in such a serious financial and economic plight at present, largely due to considerations which it would be out of order altogether to discuss on this Vote, that I believe that the House of Commons should exercise its ancient prerogatives and be vigilant and critical of these huge Estimates. I have pointed out before that the struggle over these Army Estimates has been one of the crucial issues of politics. I remember reading the biography of the father of the Prime Minister, written by the Prime Minister, and we find that the same controversy was raging at that time. The Army was wanting too much and the Treasury was saying, "Oh no, these Estimates are far too high."

The Temporary Chairman

We are still on Vote 1, and the hon. Member must not stray wide of the Vote and make a speech, embracing other matters.

Mr. Hughes

I am going to draw my remarks to a conclusion.

I believe in criticising Vote 1 from the point of view of the taxpayers and not from the point of view of the strategist, professional or amateur. This Vote should be examined carefully and with the utmost vigilance when it comes before us, as it does now, in Committee.

Mr. James Simmons (Brierley Hill)

I was rather surprised to hear the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton), because that speech reeked of snobbery. It was all about mess dress and comes under this Vote under the heading of "Miscellaneous Allowances." Cannot the officers eat their soup without having a mess dress? Do they have mess dress in the trenches? Do the fighting soldiers have mess dress? Why this class distinction from this side of the Committee? I am ashamed, aggrieved and disturbed that an hon. and gallant Member of this side of the Committee should so nakedly stand for snobbery.

Major Legge-Bourke

If I may follow that argument, the temperature of this Chamber is kept the same as that of a warm spring day, so why is the hon. Gentleman not wearing a linen suit?

Mr. Simmons

A linen suit would make me even more conspicuous than I am now, and I have no desire for such notoriety. There are hon. Members who rush to see reporters because they like to see their own names in the headlines. I do not want that; I am more modest. But I am concerned about this spirit of snobbery. In the old days the ordinary soldier had two uniforms. He had a red uniform and a khaki uniform. When he went out "square bashing" the girls ran after the uniform.

The Temporary Chairman

That is hardly in order on this Vote. I think that the hon. Member should return to what we are discussing.

Mr. Wigg

With respect, this comes under the heading of "Marriage Allowance, &c., of Officers," and my hon. Friend is therefore in order.

Mr. Simmons

I will leave "square bashing" and say that when the Army was doing is job khaki was good enough for it. What my hon. and gallant Friend is saying, in effect, is that 2 an ordinary working class chap attains the rank of second lieutenant he will feel out of place in the mess because other officers are likely to look down upon him if he cannot afford the mess clothes. Surely the way to deal with that is not mess dress for all, but mess dress for none.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton rose—

The Temporary Chairman

I hope that the hon. and gallant Member will not pursue this matter, because this discussion is out of order.

Mr. Simmons

Surely it comes under the "Outfit Allowance" expenditure.

Brigadier Peto

It does not come under "Outfit Allowance."

Mr. Simmons

I take it that mess dress is part of an outfit, and, therefore, this comes under the "Outfit Allowance" expenditure.

The Temporary Chairman

No.

Mr. Simmons

Then where does it come?

The Temporary Chairman

It does not seem to me that it arises anywhere here. The hon. Gentleman must discuss the Vote we are on and relate his observations to that Vote.

Mr. Simmons

I come now to "Married allowance &c. of Officers" and "Married allowance &c. of Warrant Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers and Men." I am amazed to see that 26,900 officers get £6,800,000 in marriage allowances but 315,100 other ranks get only £8,750,000. Is this another piece of class distinction? Can the Secretary of State tell us how these figures are made up, and why such a comparatively small number of officers should get so much and yet so many men of other ranks get less per head? Either one of two things must be true. Either the officers are very badly overpaid or the other ranks are very badly underpaid in respect of marriage allowances.

There is one other point which I want to query and that deals with National Service grants. This, I think, is of the utmost importance. As I have gone about my constituency I have had complaints that these grants are on a very narrow and meagre kind of scale. There is, of course, a means test applying to them and it is drawn very tight. I want some explanation of this. In page 20 we find a reference to the National Service grants and then, in page 207, we see a reference to marriage allowances for National Service men. In what circumstances does a National Service man get a marriage allowance? I see that those below the rank of sergeant get £1 15s. a week. Is that universally applied to all National Service men? My impression is that it is not, and if it is not then it is just a piece of window dressing.

I hope that the Secretary of State will let us have some information on the marriage allowance to National Service men, and will tell us whether all married National Service men get a weekly allowance at the rate of £1 15s. a week. If not all, can he tell us who, and if only some, why are the others excluded? Would he also look once more—I think I raised this question on the last occasion when these Estimates were under discussion in Committee—at the possibility of there being a more generous interpretation of the phrase "National Service grants"? We take these young men away from their newly-married wives, after they have taken on obligations of house purchase and hire purchase perhaps, or we take them away from their parents. Let us at least be generous to those whom these men leave behind.

Mr. Fernyhough

I began to be somewhat concerned when my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) said that these Estimates were too high and that he wanted them reduced. It appeared to me that my hon. Friend was taking a line which he does not usually follow, and that what he was seeking to do was to reduce the pay of the men concerned, because he did not mention that he wanted the numbers reduced.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

I said that I wanted these men brought home to form part of a strategic reserve with a view to their being demobilised.

Mr. Fernyhough

Reference was made to the overseas allowance, which is a small amount in the total we are discussing. The claims of officers for increased pay have been put forward admirably by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) —

Mr. John Hall

I was not only advancing the claim of the officers, but also that of all ranks.

Mr. Fernyhough

In that case, I agree with the hon. Gentleman, because I want the Secretary of State for War to appreciate that many of the young men now being called up for National Service are at present working in industry. Today, they are enjoying relatively high wages and, through working in industry, have become accustomed to a certain standard. The first thing that happens to them on entering the Service is that they suffer a considerable reduction in their standard of living. Boys of 18, who are doing a reasonable job in industry, are now earning from £4 to £6 a week, but when they enter the Service they automatically find themselves reduced to 28s. a week.

At the same time, their commitments are increased because it seems to be the policy of the Army to send them as far away from home as possible. Therefore, many of the National Service men are spending nine-tenths of their 28s. a week in trying to get home when they get a weekend pass. The War Office has a responsibility either to increase their pay or, alternatively, to give them a free warrant so that they can get home when they get a weekend pass.

I endorse what was said about National Service grants by my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons). There are many cases of real hardship and it is not good enough to limit the maximum to £3. Some of these boys, by working overtime and being on piece work, are able to earn £6, £7 and £8 a week. If such a boy has a widowed mother or a parent in poor financial circumstances, when he is called up the parent is denied the financial help previously given by the son. We here are responsible for imposing these hardships upon such homes by virtue of National Service and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to see whether it is not possible to increase the £3 maximum and so relieve much of the hardship which that causes at present.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Head

We have had a long and varied debate on this Vote, and, although the Committee will wish me to sum it up, I shall not do so at great length because we have a mutual undertaking with the Royal Air Force, and we must give the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) time to change his uniform.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) asked me in general terms whether, after ratification, Germany would remain a good station for British soldiers as regards their various concessions. I can tell him that it is the policy of myself, of the War Office—and we have an agreement on this policy with the Minister of Defence—that, since as far as we know Germany will remain a station for British troops for a considerable time, it should remain a good station. Goodness knows, the British Army has enough difficult and unattractive stations today and it is our policy to keep Germany a good station.

I know that the right hon. Gentleman would like a categorical assurance about what we shall do if such and such happens or if such and such fails or if we lose such and such as a result of the negotiations preceding ratification. I think he will appreciate, however, that I cannot tell him exactly what we should do, if, after the final negotiations with the Germans, certain taxes or concessions or protocols did not go our way. All I can tell him is that, so long as I am at the War Office, our aim is to see that the general privileges and conditions in Germany remain at a high level, and that Germany remains a good station. At this stage I do not think anybody could go much further.

Furthermore, I reinforce what was said by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War at the conclusion of the debate on the Army Estimates, namely, that so far as the cost of living is concerned—that is to say, if prices rise, as they may because of the labour overheads for N.A.A.F.I.—the difference will be made good by means of L.O.A., as is done in other overseas stations when the cost of living goes up.

Mr. Wigg

I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is underlining and reaffirming the undertaking given by the Under-Secretary of State for War when I asked him: The hon. Gentleman appears to have made an important statement. Will he be good enough to confirm that he is giving a firm undertaking on behalf of the Government that no soldier, or soldier's family will be worse off after Britain becomes responsible for the cost of the occupation of Germany? The Under-Secretary of State said: There will be compensation for any losses incurred. I then further asked: That applies to the soldier and his family? They will get a personal service allowance, or something like that? The Under-Secretary of State was kind enough to say: They will get the overseas allowance, or the present arrangement will continue."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1954; Vol. 538, c. 402.]

Mr. Head

The hon. Gentleman has great skill in asking tricky questions. He knows that there are certain "perks" which do not come within the scope of local overseas allowance. What my hon. Friend meant was that, within the ambit and scope of local overseas allowance, the increase in prices will be made good. That does not include certain things, however. For instance, at the moment a horse can travel in Germany a little cheaper than is normally the case. That does not come within the local overseas allowance.

Mr. Wigg

Is the right hon. Gentleman going back on the undertaking of his hon. Friend?

Mr. Head

The hon. Gentleman often accuses other hon. Members of misrepresenting him, and he knows quite well what I am saying. I am saying that certain things will not be made good by local overseas allowance. As for the rest, nobody is more anxious than we are in the War Office to keep up a good station, and that is our aim in the negotiations which are still going on.

The right hon. Member for Bassetlaw also asked whether we could not economise in the amount of L.O.A. by making changes of station more frequent. I must confess that I am rather on the side of the hon. Member opposite who intervened, because, although we might change the stations more frequently, our commitments force us to retain the same number of men overseas, and we should then be doing it more extravagantly.

Mr. Bellenger

The right hon. Gentleman knows what I was aiming at, which was to reduce the period of service of officers and men overseas from the present two or three years to something less.

Mr. Head

I now see the right hon. Gentleman's aim. He was using the L.O.A. to keep in order.

The real point is that the Army—rightly, I think—late in 1951 or early in 1952 went over to unit moves. Instead of a unit staying in one place a long time and the men going backwards and forwards, the whole unit moves. That was a considerable concession by the Treasury, and it meant that the men stayed together. However, one cannot move a unit overseas every two or three years, and so it means that the unit remains in one place but the men come and go. When due for "Python," the men might come back to England away from their unit. They might then come out of the Black Watch and go into the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders—and would probably be very angry indeed about it. We should then have a big increase in cross-posting.

The right hon. Gentleman will also appreciate that, until recently, 80 per cent. of the fighting units have been overseas. With that situation we cannot have a tour comparable to that of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, who have a far lower percentage of their forces overseas at the present time, and have a much more balanced layout geographically. I am sure that to do at the moment what has been suggested would result in a great increase in cross-posting, which everyone wishes to avoid.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) talked about pay. It is always difficult for anyone in my position to give any very categorical or far-reaching views about pay. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw will agree with me in that respect. All I can say is that I am only too well aware of the sort of points which have been raised, not only by my hon. Friend but by many other hon. Members about pay. This is something about which it really is true to use a very hackneyed phrase and say, "It is under constant review."

It is the job of all three Services to ensure that pay remains in line, as far as possible, with pay in civilian life, and it is also of great importance to ensure that the way in which we place the pay achieves the object that we require of it. The hon. Member for Dudley said that he would increase the differential. The last pay adjustments, which amounted to about £6 million for the Army—about 5 per cent. of the total—were calculated with a view to rewarding technical skill and similar qualifications, and the whole emphasis was on the Regular, and not on a general rise or on the National Service men.

I believe that to be the right trend, and I believe that is the way the future trend should go. I can assure hon. Members that I well appreciate these points. This is a matter to which we must pay very close attention.

Some hon. Gentlemen said very strongly "That is not all." If they had listened to what I said in the debate on the Estimates—having said it once, I do not propose to repeat it now, for that would only bore the Committee—they would have realised that there are a very large number of factors with which we are trying to compete to the best of our ability, such as barracks, overseas service, overseas separation and so forth.

The hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) started off very boldly. His first accusation was that the trouble with me was that I would not admit that I was wrong. It took him about four minutes to admit that he was out of order.

Mr. Wyatt

I was not.

Mr. Head

If the hon. Gentleman was not out of order, I do not know why he did not complete his speech.

The hon. Member for Dudley accused me, which is not an unusual trait of his, of wilfully or purposely omitting any mention of the colonial forces in my speech on the Estimates. At the start of that speech I said that I had a great deal to say and that I should not be able to cover everything—I do not believe the hon. Gentleman could have done so unless he had gone on for a couple of hours—but that I would try to answer any points which were raised during the debate. As a matter of fact, that subject was not raised very strongly in the debate. I do not think that any hon. Member made a speech particularly on the colonial forces.

Mr. Wigg

The right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) made such a speech, and the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Amery) treated the news that General Templer was going out to the Colonies as if he were Moses coming down from Sinai.

Mr. Head

That is true; I remember the speech.

With regard to General Templer's appointment, and colonial forces in general, I would say that there has been a great deal of progress in educating officers. That is one of the points that the hon. Member for Dudley mentioned. I wish he could see the very large college in Malaya for young Malayan officers, which is now running. I saw it. It is a very inspiring sight indeed. It has made a lot of progress, but that sort of thing takes time. This is an important matter. It is not just a matter of educating young natives to be officers; it is in the period when they receive a general education that they are in a position to start being educated as officers. It is a long cycle.

With regard to General Templer's appointment, as the result of the colonial policy which has been pursued since the war a great many changes have come and are coming with regard to the relative position of the various Colonial Territories and ourselves. That in itself raises many problems of administration and settlement of responsibility with regard to various aspects of colonial forces. General Templer, who has had a great deal of experience and has a great ability for getting things done and understanding problems, is to carry out a special investigation into all this.

The hon. Member for Dudley, besides mentioning pay—I think that in my general remarks I have already dealt with most of the points that he raised—spoke of the policy outlined in the book to which he referred. Oddly enough, when I read the "Sunday Times" on Sunday and saw the review of the book, I said to myself, "I bet the hon. Member for Dudley has probably read it already."

Mr. Wigg

I am delighted to find myself on the right hon. Gentleman's conscience, even on a Sunday.

Mr. Head

It was when I saw the heading, which referred to the fact that it was a critical book and a matter of great interest in relation to National Service, that the hon. Gentleman came into my mind.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

Who is the bookmaker who does business on Sunday?

Mr. Head

I think that that subject would be a little away from the Vote.

The hon. Gentleman made some rather unjustified remarks about all the boys from Eton being put into a certain part of the Guards Depot. It is my experience that a lot of the boys from Eton are failed at the W.O.S.B. Surprisingly, quite a number of my old school friends find their sons failed by the W.O.S.B. The accusation that just because someone was at Eton, or his father was a field marshal, he gets past the W.O.S.B. is untrue. It is not fair to suggest that just because men were at a certain school they are segregated—

Mr. Wigg

The book received a great deal of publicity—

The Temporary Chairman

Order. The right hon. Gentleman himself is getting rather wide of the Vote.

Mr. Head

I am extremely sorry, Mr. MacPherson. I am afraid that I have been led astray by the hon. Member for Dudley.

The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) suggested that we should cut the pay—

Mr. Emrys Hughes

I did not mean cutting the individual soldier's pay, but cutting the total amount of the pay by reducing the number of people in the Army.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Head

What the hon. Gentleman really did was to make a very original, serpentine and indirect approach through Vote 1 into foreign affairs, and the extent to which he succeeded was limited. I do not think I should be allowed to follow him into discussing the necessity of having troops in Cyprus. It would be quite incorrect to do so at this time.

The hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) asked about the marriage allowance. He did a bit of arithmetic showing there was so much for officers and so much for men. That 315,000 is the total number of other ranks in Europe. It does not represent the number of married other ranks in the Army. If it did, it is quite true that the amount for marriage allowances would be very low indeed. If the hon. and gallant Member looks at page 193, Appendix I, he will see the rates for officers, and further on in that Appendix he will find the rates for other ranks. I do not think that he will find his accusation is substantiated by those tables. Nor will he find the discrepancy which he suggested.

He also asked about National Service grants. I have taken note of what he and the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) said about that subject. I am not trying to escape responsibility, but it is not entirely in my hands. It is a matter over which the Minister of Pensions has more control than I have. But I will have a further look at the rates and study the remarks of hon. Gentlemen.

Mr. Simmons

While the right hon. Gentleman is dealing with the point about the number of National Service men who get the marriage allowance of £1 15s. a week, could I ask him what is the difference between that and the National Service grant?

Mr. Head

I think that the hon. Member's point was whether National Service men got the marriage allowance. So far as I know—I should like to make a reservation, because I will check this later—they all get it regardless of age. I do not think that there is any bar whatsoever, and I think that I am right in saying that if a man joins with a wife, he starts off with a marriage allowance on the first day. [HON. MEMBERS: "Join with a wife?"] It is perfectly possible to join with a wife, so far as I know. Theoretically it is perfectly possible.

Mr. William Keenan (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

Is it true that the wife of a National Service soldier gets less than the wife of a Regular soldier in the same way that the National Service man receives less than the Regular soldier? Is the Secretary of State prepared to give consideration to that complaint?

Mr. Head

They do get less, but that differential has been recognised by this and by the previous Government. It is a very important aspect of the three Services. If Regulars and National Service men receive equal pay, that would cost a great deal of money and would probably have the tendency to decrease the size of the Regular content of all three Services. This country is immensely more generous in this respect than the majority of other countries that have National Service. I think that I am right in saying that in Turkey they get the equivalent of 4d. or 5d. a month.

The hon. Member for Jarrow said that men very often have a long way to travel, I think he was referring to men in this country. To a certain extent they are fortunate to be in this country, and they are given two free travel warrants a year. My experience is that some men are a very long way from home, but it is remarkable how Service men continue to travel without it costing them an awful lot of money.

The Regular gets three free travel warrants a year as opposed to the two that the National Service man gets. I believe that two free travel warrants a year and the way men manage to get about show that they are not badly off, and if I had more money available, I should be inclined to see if we could not use it to get men serving overseas home perhaps once a year rather than to give more free travel warrants.

That brings me to the end—

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton rose—

Mr. Head

I must have missed a sheet of my notes. The hon. Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) is becoming the Beau Brummel of the Socialist Party. I was interested in his speech, which I thought was mainly concerned with the question of mess kit.

This is a vexed question, and it is a matter on which there is a good deal of difference of opinion. I repeat what I said when it was announced—we intend to make the wearing of mess kit voluntary. I know that hon. Members will say that is rubbish, because if a CO. scowls at one for not having it, one will get it. But we have sent out a letter which makes it abundantly clear that the wearing of mess kit is entirely voluntary. I have found a lot of officers dining in khaki and not in blue. I do not think that it will become compulsory.

I should like to remind hon. Members that there is an astonishing lot of mess kit. We had an Army Council dinner the other day attended by some very distinguished officers, and some of the mess kits were of a tremendous age, but they looked all right. There were a few tight buttons, but they all had a very good appearance. Retired officers have been asked for mess kits for regimental pools. I expect that Mr. Moss will do a certain amount of trade. We have abolished some of the expensive embellishments. The price is not £50, but £35. There are a few regiments, like the Highlanders, where they have a mess kilt with an awful lot of stuff in it. It is extremely expensive, I am sorry to say, but we are trying to cut it down.

I think I had better leave the matter of mess kit and I should say to the Committee that although I should be ready to continue the argument until 10 o'clock, we have an understanding, we have a lot more Votes to discuss, and we have already taken 10 minutes more than the time allowed for this one.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That a sum, not exceeding £119,620,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, &c, of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956.