CATTERICK CAMP(CONDITIONS) (Hansard, 9 May 1956)

§ Mr. George Craddock (Bradford, South)
During recent months I have had a great deal of correspondence with the Minister about Catterick Camp and the conditions there, and I should like to say how pleased I was that he was willing to visit the camp to see things on the spot, to check the lay-out and to examine conditions as they affect our young men who are serving there. I have always found the Minister to be most accommodating.
From information I have received, it would appear that there are about 16,000 men at the camp. That is a very considerable number. I think that most are National Service men. While I do not wish to make any distinction between them and Regular soldiers, it is obvious that the mental approach to service is different as between those two elements. It is, therefore, not unnatural that those who are conscripted into the Forces look at service in quite a different light from the men who have volunteered for a number of years' service.
Naturally, if a man volunteers he is prepared to take most things that come along. Service life is something which must have appealed to him, otherwise he would not have volunteered. In this cam—I call it a sort of reception camp—men are trained for periods from eight to twenty-three weeks. Those who have a general training receive about twelve weeks' training, and those who are trained for a technical branch of the Army stay there for about twenty-three weeks. After that basic training they are sent to active service stations overseas or to service elsewhere in the country.
Most of the complaints come from National Service men and their parents. For a long time I have had a continuous stream of complaints from young men at the camp and from their parents. It is unnecessary to reiterate all the complaints, but they include too much "bull," too many bosses, too many 1379 orders, indifference to reasonable complaints, additional duties which keep men occupied the clock round, sweeping the roads outside the camp, and carrying coal by hand from place to place. Those are a few of the complaints that have been passed on to me.
One parent spoke of N.C.O.s standing over his son all day long to ensure that he did the right thing the whole time. That sort of thing has a psychological effect upon these young men which is very disturbing for them. When on leave or when writing to their parents they speak about the points which I have mentioned.
If we are to do justice to a man and make him a good soldier, we have to make him reasonably comfortable and he has to be paid a fair rate and to have decent treatment. At this camp there is much to be desired. There are also complaints about insufficiency and poor quality of food, and poor cooking. It is also said that men are kept in the camp for four weeks when first admitted. When young men have left their homes to go into the camp, it is too long to keep them there for a month before they are allowed out. When I last raised this subject the Secretary of State said that it was desired that they should be sent out nice and tidy, dressed well and an example to others. I should not think that matters so much in a district like Catterick as it would in a town. It seems to be something that can be stressed too much.
In order to get some up-to-date and first-hand information I have made two visits to the camp. I talked to all ranks there for about three days. I watched the men at their training and exercising. I visited their sleeping quarters, places of refreshment, detention cells, rooms set apart for reading and for television viewing, and so forth. I am bound to say that the amount of social welfare provided, taking into account the reasonable needs of 16,000 men, is almost negligible. I think that someone is very seriously at fault in failing adequately to meet the needs of these men.
I was taken to the television room. To me it was amazing. It was, I imagine, big enough for about 20 people. There were, I think, two television sets and two such rooms. Here and there I came 1380 across a billiard table. When people are detained in camp for the first month, however, facilities of that kind do not add up to a serious attempt to make welfare provision for them.
These young men's main complaint is that they did not bargain to go into the Army, and that they have not volunteered. It may not be everybody's "cup of tea" nowadays to go into the Army, Navy or Air Force. There are people who do not feel they ought, in peacetime, to have to do this service. I think that that is something which we should look at most carefully.
I found these young men suffering from a deep sense of frustration and bewilderment, especially with the strict discipline which is imposed on them. The far too many orders and minor things they have to do make these youngsters feel that it is difficult for them to keep out of trouble.
I regard the Under-Secretary as a man of great understanding, and I am sure he will make it his business to inquire why these men feel this way. Someone should be instructed to look into this matter and see what can be done to improve conditions to make the lives of these young fellows reasonably happy.
I want now to make a few remarks about the camp in general, the buildings, siting and lay-out. The way in which Catterick Camp has been built up seems to have made it devoid of any kind of community life. It has grown like a mushroom. The only thing that it appears capable of doing is to indoctrinate a spirit of militarism in the young fellows who go there, and it disregards entirely the personal and social life which they ought to enjoy.
I cannot help feeling that all this reveals an attitude of mind which belongs to Queen Victoria's days, and not to the year 1956. This is a camp spreadeagled over a vast area and providing little in the way of social amenities. It has been correctly described as a vast wilderness. It would be grossly unfair to place the responsibility for the construction and siting of the camp, which was so hurriedly built in the 1914–18 war, on to present Ministers. However, it is ridiculous to continue a camp so remote from civilisation and usefulness, unless fundamental changes are made to provide up-to-date 1381 quarters and modern social facilities for the men.
Militarism no longer means making men tough and giving them plenty of "square bashing" and similar duties. In the next war, if war should fall on humanity, we should need an Army of scientists and technicians. The Army with the greatest scientific "know-how" would win. Much of the training imposed and the equipment at present in use for training men in the art of war would stand as much chance of success in the event of war as a snowball in the African sun.
Some of the buildings are forty years old, made of wood, some are made of thin brick, with stone floors and leaking roofs, with no washing or toilet facilities and no means of heating in living quarters. Men have to cross a road to wash in the early morning and to get to conveniences. If we are taking into the Army vast numbers of men to be trained for the eventuality of war, we should at least provide them with facilities which are reasonable and helpful to their bodies and minds.
I am given to understand that when heating is necessary, there are 400 heating units to heat various buildings in this vast camp. In Western Germany last year I saw our men in some of the German barracks which were vast palatial buildings. several storeys high, with central heating and all modern conveniences, I cannot understand why we should lack those facilities and conveniences at home.1 hope that the £17 million which the Secretary of State has said will be put aside for providing better buildings and more up-to-date facilities for the men will be used in that way, and that the Government will proceed with the job as soon as possible.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Fitzroy Maclean)
I1 welcome the opportunity which the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. George Craddock) has given me of answering some of the complaints which have been put forward by him and to some extent in the Press about conditions at Catterick, and to try to put some of the questions into what I consider to be their proper proportion. The outstanding characteristic of the complaints which have been made—and 1382 I1 do not for a moment question the spirit which lies behind them—has been the general terms in which they have been presented and, if I1 may say so, their vagueness.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the continuous stream of complaints which he has received from constituents, from soldiers and from their parents about Catterick. I am able to say that not a single specific complaint about conditions at Catterick which has been put forward by an hon. Member of this House on behalf of a named constituent has on investigation been confirmed. In only one of the cases about which hon. Members have written to me has the name of the soldier complaining been given, and in that case, on investigation, the constituent who had written to the hon. Member agreed that the complaint had, in his own words, been grossly exaggerated.
I say at once that if hon. Members will write to me giving particulars of a complaint and the name of the soldier making the complaint and of his unit I will undertake to look into it at once and to put right anything that needs putting right. I wish to repeat what has been said over and over again before, that there is no question of any disciplinary action whatever being taken against any soldier who complains to his Member of Parliament, We have made that clear on a number of occasions. Soldiers have the right to complain to their Members of Parliament, and that is a right which we ensure is very jealously safeguarded.
We at the War Office do not claim that everything is perfect either at Catterick or in the Army as a whole. There are bound to be shortcomings in an organisation of that size, and one point upon which I would immediately agree with the hon. Member is the question of accommodation. My right hon. Friend has made it quite clear on several occasions in the House that he is far from satisfied with the standard of accommodation at Catterick in particular.
Catterick has other disadvantages from the soldier's point of view. It is extremely isolated and the climate, however bracing it may be, is certainly not to everyone's taste. Another point which I think is worth mentioning is that as the units there are mainly training units there is a very high proportion of 1383 new recruits. They receive the first impact of Army life at Catterick. They receive it before they are properly settled into the Army, and, as the hon. Member says, the great majority of them are not volunteers. Therefore, it is quite natural that there should be a certain number of complaints. But, as I have already said, in considering these complaints and in deciding how we can best meet them, it is absolutely essential that we should have details.
The very nature of Catterick camp makes it quite impossible to generalise about conditions there. Its military population numbers, as the hon. Member said, around 15,000 or 16,000 troops. Half of them belong to the Royal Corps of Signals, a quarter to the Royal Armoured Corps and a quarter to other arms of the Service. There are no fewer than 48 different units at Catterick which vary in size from under 10 men to over 1,000 men. The work done by these units varies, and naturally the character of the personnel also varies. They are at different stages of their training, and they are accommodated in different types of accommodation.
Perhaps I might remind hon. Members of the nature of the accommodation at Catterick. Accommodation for about 6,000 men—een one-third and one half of the accommodation—uilt in the 1914–18 war, and is inadequate and out of date. Accommodation for over 5,000 men is in hutments built in 1939. That, too, is not up to standard. It is our intention to replace as much of that accommodation as possible as soon as possible. We have a ten-year plan which will include eight new major unit barracks, a new hospital, a new cookery instructional centre and improved electricity and water services.
The hon. Member mentioned heating. We know that that is not up to standard. particularly in the old hutments, where it is by slow combustion stove, but we hope that with the improved electricity services there will be an all-round improvement.
On 4th May three new barrack blocks were opened, and these give some idea of what we are aiming at; and certainly the local Press gave a very enthusiastic account of what is being done there. The hon. Member quoted a number of 1384 anonymous reactions to conditions in Catterick, but I notice that one soldier, referring to the new buildings, is reported as having said to a newspaper man, "Why, it is as good as a holiday camp ".
The hon. Member referred to barrack buildings in Germany, but I would remind him who built those barracks and how they were built. I do not think he would feel it worth having the sort of regime which built those luxury barracks in order to get better acommodation for our soldiers, although that is something very near my heart and to that of my right hon. Friend.
The messing accommodation is admittedly inadequate and we are pressing on, as far as funds, material and labour permit, to replace it by accommodation which is up to standard. Food in a big camp like that is bound to vary from one unit to another, although the ration scale is the same as in any other part of the country, with a supplement for arduous duties, where that is necessary. The cooking varies from one unit to another, as is the case in the whole Army, but at Catterick we are very well provided with Army Catering Corps staff. There is a specialist A.C.C. officer and two warrant officers to supervise unit catering, there is a specialist officer for messing at the hospital and eight officers in the units' A.C.C. staff.
The hon. Member said that some of the duties performed by the soldiers were uncongenial. That, I am afraid, is bound to be the case. As far as possible we try to employ civilian labour for such tasks as sweeping and carting coal, but it is not possible, in a big camp like Catterick, to employ exclusively civilian labour, and soldiers have to take their part in those duties.
On the other hand, as my right hon. Friend has announced, an Army Council directive has gone out, which has led to an all-round reduction in frustrating and unnecessary duties, and the reports which we have received in the last few weeks from Catterick, as from other districts and commands, do show an all-round reduction in duties of that kind, in so far as that is possible without any falling off in the proper military standards which we are bound to uphold.
On the subject of complaints, I would mention that in addition to being able to 1385 complain through their Members of Parliament whenever they wish to, soldiers are also always able to complain through their N.C.O.s and officers, and it is the sign of a good officer or N.C.O. that he should be in close touch with the men under his command.

§ Mr. Craddock
The trouble is that the complaints get stuck in the pipeline, and I am told they never get through and are never dealt with. That is why I intended, if I had had more time, to argue that for all places like Catterick Camp, there should be a camp council on which are represented officers, N.C.O.s and men.

§ Mr. Maclean
I really do not think the hon. Gentleman is accurate when he says that these complaints get stuck in 1386 the pipeline and never get through. There are not an awful lot of complaints from Catterick, but those that are made definitely get through, and a soldier is able to carry on right up the chain of command until he makes his complaint felt. As I have said, if any soldier were to feel he was being denied the right of appeal to his military superiors he is always able to approach his Member of Parliament.