HC Deb 05 July 1957 vol 572 cc1506-26

12.55 p.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Hare)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

In the Army Estimates debate in May I said that Her Majesty's Government had decided to alter the terms of engagement in the Regular Army and that the normal engagement in future would be for twenty-two years, with a probable minimum Colour service of six years, and not three years as at the present time. The Bill enables us to give effect to that plan.

Under Sections 4 and 5 of the Army Act, 1955, soldiers serving on a 22-year engagement have a legal right to terminate their Colour service after three years. We are now planning for an all-Regular Army by the end of 1962. In these changed circumstances I consider that the 3-year engagement has outlived its purpose. This does not mean that my predecessor was not absolutely right to introduce the 3-year engagement when he did. As long as we relied on National Service men to maintain the strength of the Army there was the strongest possible reason for this 3-year engagement. It succeeded in inducing a large number of men to serve with the Colours a year longer than they would have had to do under the National Service Acts. But as National Service ends, the inducements of Regular pay and other Regular conditions of service compared with those enjoyed by the National Service man will obviously cease to have any significance.

The Regular Army of the future will have to recruit its soldiers in competition with the attractions of civilian life, and there will be no comparison in the prospective recruit's mind between National Service and a very short service engagement. We are now reverting to our ancient tradition of an all-Regular, all-volunteer Army. Professional soldiers will no longer spend a large proportion of their time in absorbing and training National Service men and other short-service soldiers. National Service has been an unavoidable necessity, and all the praise which from time to time has been given to National Service men is more than deserved. But the rapid turnover of these men has been discouraging to the Regular officers and N.C.O.s who watch the men they train come and go with ceaseless rapidity.

The Army of the future's requirement is for fewer men, better trained, and equipped with the most modern weapons available. I believe that the restoration of stability which will obtain in an all-Regular Army will, together with material improvements in conditions of service, provide a real inducement to men contemplating an Army career. A minimum of six years Colour service, with very few exceptions, will be infinitely more satisfactory than any of the expedients to which we have had to resort since the war.

The main purpose of the Bill, therefore, is to empower the Army Council to regulate at the time of enlistment the points at which persons enlisting on a 22-year engagement on or after 1st October next may transfer to the Reserve or be discharged before completing twelve years Colour service.

This power will enable the Army Council to vary from time to time the minimum periods of Colour and Reserve service of persons wishing to enlist to accord with the estimated demands for recruits, without first having to obtain further legislation. The power will at present be used by giving the soldier the option of transferring to the Reserve at the 6-year point, with a liability for six years on the Reserve, or alternatively at the 9-year point, that is, nine years with the Colours and three years on the Reserve. At the 12-year and subsequent 3-yearly points the option to leave the Army without any Reserve liability remains, and cannot be altered by the Army Council.

I must emphasise also that the Bill does not give authority to alter the conditions of service of a serving soldier either now or in the future. The soldier will be bound by the terms in force at the date of his enlistment, and this is a very important point. If the Regulations should change after a soldier has enlisted, only newcomers will be affected, not the soldier already in the Army.

In considering the date on which the new terms should take effect, we have had to recognise the fact that there will be a drop in Regular strength when the last men who enlist for three years leave the Colours and there are no new 3-year men there to take their places. This trough we reckon will be at its lowest in the fourth year following the change to the longer initial engagement which I am proposing.

If we were to delay the changes until next year our Regular strength would be at its lowest in 1962, but here we must remember that by the end of 1962 we intend that the last National Service men will be leaving the Colours. Therefore, bearing these two factors in mind, the sooner we get on with the job of recruiting Regulars for the longer initial engagement the better able will the Army be to face the end of National Service. I have had to consider the time required to enact this Bill, the time needed to make the new Regulations, and all the other administrative action necessary. Accordingly we have decided that 1st October next will be the earliest practicable date for this purpose.

The House may like to know what few exceptions I have in mind to this general rule that six years will be the shortest initial engagement. They fall broadly into three categories. In the first place, for as long as National Service lasts, serving National Service men will be allowed to enlist on a 3-year Regular engagement if they wish to do so. Secondly, the Brigade of Guards will retain the right to enlist men for three years with the Colours. They did so pre-war with excellent results, and we recognise from past experience that service in the Brigade of Guards for a limited period appeals to a special type of recruit. For instance, I am informed that many chief constables, before accepting a recruit into their police force, advise those young men to serve for a short period with a regiment of the Foot Guards.

Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)

Why?

Mr. Hare

That is up to them. That is a statement of fact. I consider that such types of recruit would be lost to the Army if they were required to serve a minimum of six years Colour Service.

Finally, there are special categories, affecting a small number of men, where special qualifications are required, and where we think that the minimum 6-year engagement might be more of a deterrent than an incentive. I will list them. Police cadets will be able to enlist in the Royal Military Police or any other arm on a 3-year engagement. An exception will also be made for established employees of the General Post Office wishing to serve in the Postal Service of the Royal Engineers. We shall require also on a 3-year engagement a small number of men of a specialised standard of education for the Intelligence Corps, and also men with civilian qualifications who will be willing to serve for three years in the Army Catering Corps. These are the only exceptions which we have in mind at present, although experience may show that there are one or two other categories for which special treatment might be required in the future.

I want to make it clear to the House that the total of any exceptions made will not seriously infringe the general application of a minimum 6-year engagement. The numbers involved are small. Apart from the National Service category which I have mentioned, the best guess I can give is that the Guards and other special categories will not amount to more than 1,000 men a year. The position of women serving on a 22-year engagement will be unchanged. They will still be able to leave at the 3-year point and, of course, they have no compulsory Reserve liability.

The abolition of the 3-year engagement does not of course affect soldiers serving on engagements for less than twenty-two years which are currently authorised by Section 4 of the Army Act, 1955, or those who enlist on 22-year engagements before 1st October next.

Now a word or two about the Bill. The first subsection of Clause 1 empowers the Army Council to prescribe the times when the soldier may transfer to the Reserve or leave the Army before he has completed twelve years' Colour service. The second subsection merely removes any legal doubt about the ability to transfer to the Reserve or to discharge men at times other than those prescribed under the first subsection. Subsection (3) gives the soldier the right to leave the Army at the 12-year point and at subsequent 3-year points, subject to the provision made in subsection (5). Subsection (4) permits the Army Council to regulate the length of Reserve service provided that it does not extend beyond twelve years from the date of enlistment.

Major H. Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)

If a man has enlisted for twenty-two years, and supposing he is doing his Service with the Colours and has only served three or four years and then is given leave to go, I do not understand why his Reserve service must not exceed twelve years from the date of enlistment.

Mr. Hare

It is laid down that Colour service, together with Reserve service, shall not amount to more than twelve years. That is inherent in the system.

Now a word about subsection (5). This authorises the Army Council to obtain a waiver of their rights under the Bill from soldiers who receive certain benefits or advantages. There will be cases where a man wishing to better himself voluntarily attends certain courses of instruction or wishes to transfer to another corps where he thinks his chances of promotion will be better. As an illustration of what I mean, let us say that a soldier wishes to go on a long guided weapons course shortly before the time at which he would normally terminate his Colour service. In such a case he would be asked—remember he has volunteered for the course—before being accepted for it, to guarantee that he would not terminate his engagement at the next point at which he is entitled to do so. I think the House will agree that this is a reasonable proviso.

Subsection (6) provides the important safeguard which I emphasised earlier. It prevents the Army Council from altering retrospectively the terms of Service of persons already serving. Subsection (7) repeals Section 5 of the Army Act, 1955, as regards persons affected by this Bill, and adapts some provisions of that Act to persons who enlist after 1st October next. Subsections (8) and (9) are consequential provisions to meet certain types of case.

I trust that the Bill will receive full support from both sides of the House. I am convinced that the measures that we propose will clear the ground for the formation of an all-Regular Army, and it is with that end in view that I commend the Bill to the House.

1.10 p.m.

Mr. John Strachey (Dundee, West)

As we understand the Bill and the Secretary of State's explanation, this is an enabling Measure. It enables the War Office to make new terms of service for the engagement of soldiers and to vary them very widely. It certainly gives the War Office very much wider powers than it has previously had in this respect.

I do not think that is any reason in itself why we should oppose it, but it will produce a new system in that the War Office will be able, as described by the Secretary of State, to set out, as it were, a schedule of terms of engagement in respect of different categories of men for engaging in the Guards or in the line regiments. I take it that men will be engaging in different trades. Do I take it that the War Office could say that it would engage only men who wished to serve in a certain trade for a certain period, or is that not so?

Mr. John Hare

On the right hon. Gentleman's general observations, perhaps I might say that for years past the Army Council has had the right to alter terms of engagement within twelve years. The right hon. Gentleman had those powers when he was Secretary of State. No new powers are conferred in that respect. The only new powers are in relation to the 22-year engagement, which did not exist when the right hon. Gentleman was in office. The powers for which we are asking are not quite as sweeping as the right hon. Gentleman has indicated.

Mr. Strachey

Perhaps not, but the Bill represents a considerable enlargement of the powers of the War Office. I do not really object to that. Something of this sort was clearly necessary to take the place of the 3-year engagement, and I entirely agree with that, but it gives the War Office very considerably wider powers of variation. We should like to know whether the terms of engagement, when finally settled, will be put before the House in any form and whether they will be debatable. That is important. I am not talking about every minor change, but this is a major change, and from next October we shall have a new set of terms of engagement for the Army centring round, as the Secretary of State has made clear, a 6-year engagement but with important variations in certain categories. The right hon. Gentleman estimates that up to 1,000 men will still be joining for the short 3-year engagement, and that will be a permanent arrangement, and also, temporarily, there will be a great number of men still so engaging as an alternative to National Service.

I suppose that under the Regulations the right hon. Gentleman could for certain categories insist upon an engagement of longer than six years, between six years and twelve years, if he so wished. He has not suggested that, but I take it that it could be done. Therefore, these are big new powers, and we are inclined to think that there ought to be an arrangement by which Parliament, certainly when they are first introduced, has an opportunity to debate them. I should have thought—I am open to argument here—that major changes will be made in the Regulations, and perhaps we may know what Parliamentary arrangements are in mind in that respect. No doubt the matter is governed by the Army Act.

I have said that this is an enabling Bill, and the Secretary of State has given us an idea of the use that he proposes to make of it. I hope that he does not think that the Bill in itself, or even anything that he can do under it, will solve the problem of getting an all-Regular Army of approximately 165,000 men in the required time.

It is of great importance that at a very early date—well before October, if possible, so that people are given notice —the right hon. Gentleman should publish his schedule of new terms of engagement so that people will know the conditions—they will be fairly complicated—in which they can join the Army. Until that is done, the whole thing is left in uncertainty. I get the impression that in the last two months since the issue of the Government's Defence White Paper by far the most adverse factor in recruiting and in the morale of the Forces generally is that they have been plunged, perhaps inevitably, into a good deal of uncertainty. It is very important that this should be cleared up.

When I look at recent recruiting figures, I take a somewhat gloomy view of the position. I am not suggesting that we can tell very much how things are going, in the situation which the Bill is called upon to help to remedy, from the recruiting figures for the last two months, because they are not broken down into the numbers engaged for different periods. We do not know what proportion of the drop represents 3-year men, an aspect which is not so serious, and what proportion represents longer-term recruits, but on the face of it the drop is fairly serious. This April only 2,433 men joined the Army as against 3,800 in April, 1956. May was a little better, the figure being 2,588 as against 3,308. However, on the face of it, those are very serious deteriorations in recruiting, and unless we can be reassured that there is no deterioration in the case of the longer-term recruiting, which is what really matters, they are serious.

The fact is that at the very moment when, as the Secretary of State has emphasised, recruiting is of the utmost importance, the figures seem to be moving in the wrong direction. We shall not really know until we see the quarterly break-down of figures. Incidentally, could we not have the monthly figures broken clown in the same way as the quarterly ones? Unfortunately, the figures are net so huge that this would cast a very heavy burden on the Adjutant-General's Department.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray)

I am reluctant to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but there is nothing in the Bill about the break-down of the figures.

Mr. Strachey

I will not pursue the point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I was following the Secretary of State who very vividly put before us his problem of getting recruits for an all-Regular Army. In commending the Bill to us he very rightly pointed out that it is his purpose to get a sufficient number of recruits for an all-Regular Army. Surely the existing state of recruiting is, at any rate in passing reference, relevant to the problem to which the right hon. Gentleman addressed himself. It seems to me that if the right hon. Gentleman is to meet the time-table which he put before the House, a timetable in which the last call-up is at the end of 1960 and the last conscript leaves the Army at the end of 1962, he has a very serious problem to face and that the Bill takes only a first hesitating step towards meeting it.

I press him very strongly, as I pressed him on the Army Estimates, not to leave it at this, but at a very early date to take those measures which must be taken soon if a very grave dilemma is not to face the country in three or four years. Frankly, an increase in pay seems to be the only quick way, and in saying that I do not depreciate the other possibilities which he mentioned, an improvement in conditions and in barracks, which I know he has very much at heart.

While this little Bill is welcome, because it goes a little way in the right direction, our experience in the two months since the new plan was published has reinforced our concern and our doubts whether the Government are doing anything like enough, quickly enough, to make the necessity of moving the recruiting figures in exactly the opposite direction to that which they are now taking, if we are to have Regular forces which can fulfil our needs without National Service.

One more issue which is bound up with the whole subject is that of disincentive, which has to be got out of the way by meeting the needs for compensation and the needs for certainty of those officers and rank and file who are being dropped from the Army at the moment. The Bill will be useless unless that is done, and done soon. Again, I urge the Secretary of State to take early action. I regard with great concern his statement in the Army Estimates debate, that he cannot settle this matter—he was speaking about officers—until next November. I appreciate his difficulties, but experience is showing that uncertainty is proving a very great disincentive to recruiting. Whatever conditions are produced will prove unattractive if, at the same time, the axe is hanging over the heads of many men. I realise that some officers must be compulsorily retired, but I press on the right hon. Gentleman the case of N.C.O.s and warrant officers.

I should have thought that with the numbers the right hon. Gentleman has indicated it should be possible for him to guarantee that no N.C.O. or warrant officer will be compulsorily retired and that establishment will be found for them without blocking the promotion of younger men—which is indispensable. Possibly the biggest single factor in making the Bill effective in getting new recruits will be to drop the disincentive of the axe which is giving the Services serious concern.

The situation has probably been exaggerated; these things always are. The number of men whose careers may be threatened is much less than many men believe. For example, I notice that the Press is talking of 7,000 officers being sacked from the Army. I understand that that is the figure for the three Services taken together and, according to the Secretary of State, the figure for the Army will be only 3,000. That is an example of the exaggeration which this state of uncertainty produces.

The Bill should be regarded, as the Secretary of State said, as a clearing of the ground, but if he is to find the recruits who are indispensable for the abolition of conscription, which we have advocated and which we advocate as strongly today, drastic new incentives to voluntary recruiting must be offered and the disincentive of the axe must be swept away.

We press the Government strongly to take action in this matter before the country finds itself in a most painful dilemma. Whoever is conducting its affairs at that time will be in a most painful dilemma if the necessary constructive action to make possible the abolition of National Service has not been taken early enough.

1.26 p.m.

Major H. Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)

I certainly support the Bill and its purpose and congratulate my right hon. Friend on having introduced it, but I want to know why it was introduced as a separate Bill and was not merely called an amending Bill for the Army Act, 1955. That is what it really is. It eliminates Section 5 of the Army Act, 1955, and everything in the Bill arises from that. The Bill's title should be Army Act, 1955 (Amendment) Bill. That seems to be a more accurate title.

Those of us who have had military experience have, in the past, had the doubtful pleasure of inserting Amendments into our copy of the Army Act. The Amendments are published periodically by the Army Council and with a pair of scissors we have had to cut out strips of paper and paste them in the appropriate places.

When the Bill becomes law, when it is published on white paper instead of green, it will be available to any man who wants to know what his terms of enlistment will include, as he may if he volunteers for twenty-two years. I do not believe that the Bill, however well amended, will by itself be enough for such a man to know enough to feel that he is well-informed about the matter. He will have to have a copy of the Army Act with him. My right hon. Friend might address himself to that consideration, for it is one of the jobs of Parliament, which we are apt to overlook, to make intelligible to the people most affected by it the legislation which we pass.

All too often, we have very complicated phraseology, and one or two subsections in the Bill are extremely complicated. For instance, Clause 1 (8) says: For the purposes of this section— (a) a person who enlisted on any date for a term other than a term of twenty-two years and who is treated under subsection (1) of section six of the Army Act, 1955, as if his enlistment had been for a term of twenty-two years shall be regarded as a person who enlisted on that date for such a term…". It would take several readings before anybody could become fully conversant with what that means. Having read it six times, I am beginning to understand it. It is very important that legislation of this sort should be available in an intelligible form to those who have had little experience of military law and still less of Parliamentary drafting.

I want to ask my hon. Friend if I am right in one respect. As I understand it, a man who volunteers to serve a term of twenty-two years in the Army will do six years with the Colours; he will then have an opportunity of signing on for a full twelve years with the Colours; at the end of that period he will have the right to apply for an extension of service under Section 8 of the Army Act, 1955 and, towards the end of that period, a further extension, which I believe also comes under that same Section. I hope that I am right about that because, reading the Bill alone, it appears that the man who volunteers for twenty-two years' service and does six years with the Colours will on no account have to serve on the Reserve to a date later than twelve years after his date of enlistment, whereas he originally said he was prepared to serve for twenty-two years. There seems to be a slight non sequitur there. I hope that I have got the procedure right. There is a re-engagement after six years, followed by an extension, followed by a further extension, that takes him up for a few more years beyond the twenty-two, if he wants to serve the extra years at the end of his service. Perhaps my hon. Friend will deal with this matter.

The right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) has had much to say about the other factors which are in a man's mind when he thinks of joining the Army. The right hon. Gentleman would probably agree that he went fairly wide of the Bill in his argument—and you allowed him to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker—so if I do not go any wider than he went I hope that I shall be allowed to make one or two observations along those lines.

My feeling is that however good the terms of service may be in respect of the right given to a recruit to change his mind and to stay longer in the Army than he originally intended, it must be remembered that we first have to get the man to join for the twenty-two years. My belief is that there are two factors which are a positive discouragement from doing so, at the moment. First, there is the rate of pay that he will receive, which he will compare with that which he can get in civilian life and, secondly, there is the question of the uniform that he will be given to wear.

I have talked to a great many professional soldiers in recent years, and every one has told me that he believes that the present No. 1 dress is quite inadequate for its purpose. I once described it in this House as a glorified bus conductor's uniform, and it seems to me that that factor must be considered in relation to our need for recruits. Whether the design should be this, that or the other is not material to the debate. All I am saying is that the questions of uniform and pay are important and that however good the terms of service set out here may be—and I think that they are sensible terms—those two discouragements must be removed.

When a man joins he should know his full pension rights. We know the horrible thing called a pension abatement. When a man reaches the age of 65 and begins to receive his old-age pension his Army pension or retirement pay is reduced by roughly the same amount. Could not we write into the Bill, somewhere, a provision which will ensure that when a man joins the Army he shall be made fully aware of what will happen in respect of his pension when he eventually reaches the retirement age? The State is as interested in that matter as it is in this. If such a provision cannot be written into the Bill perhaps it can be added as an Amendment to the Army Act, 1955.

The difficulties to which the right hon. Member for Dundee, West referred are certainly serious ones, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend is fully aware of them. My belief is that we cannot put them right only by means of the terms of service. Only by providing adequate payment and by making the Army more attractive to the young man —and we must remember that what attracts a young man into the Army is not necessarily the same thing as that which will keep him in—can we achieve the result we desire.

We have to make the prospect of Army life really attractive to the young unmarried man, and when he is in the Army we should make sure that he will want to stay in because he knows that he will be able to have a happy married life and an active one. I support the Bill, but I hope that my hon. Friend will give some consideration to the points that I have raised.

1.34 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)

My right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) described the Bill as a first, hesitating step. A first, hesitating step where? I believe that the solution to the problem of getting a large professional Army in the atomic age is beyond the capacity of ordinary recruiting methods, and I cannot see anything in the Bill which provides the slightest shadow of a suggestion that the War Office has even the vaguest practical proposals for facing the issue, which the right hon. Gentleman calls a tragic dilemma. I do not believe that it is a tragic dilemma, because I think that it would be a good thing if no people at all got into the Army. I do not feel greatly disturbed at the fact that the figures show that in April of this year only 2,000 recruits joined, as compared with 3,000 in April of last year. What I wonder at is the fact that after the Suez crisis we were able to get even 200, let alone 2,000.

The problem goes far deeper than the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) thinks. It goes far beyond the question of pay and uniform. If we ask people to go into the Army at all we should see that they have a decent living wage. If there has to be this kind of an industry—if one can call it that—reasonably attractive conditions should be provided. In these days the minds of the men to whom we are appealing think slightly beyond the glamorous elements which once made them want to join—the conditions outlined in recruiting posters. They want to know what sort of career they can make.

If they are intelligent, they want to look nine years ahead. If they want to look even further ahead—twenty-two years ahead—they may turn to the Defence White Paper and try to gather what sort of life they will have in the Army in five, nine or twenty-two years' time. They will read the prospectus outlined in the White Paper and will then see that the authorities have not the slightest idea what the Army will be doing even in two or three years' time, let alone twenty-two years' time.

I do not see any solution to the problem of attracting the intelligent man into the Army. Such a man must realise that the time has come when intelligence will abolish armies. If he is told that if he joins the Army he may be sent for a pleasant time in Germany he may think, "Suppose a war comes along when I am in Germany, and somebody drops a bomb on my family at home". He may ask himself how he can defend his wife and family against an atomic bomb if he is in Germany. The old idea of joining the Army was to defend the homeland against a foreign invader. I do not know any country which wants to invade this country at the moment.

The fact is that the average potential soldier—the young man to whom hon. Members are appealing—asks these questions and receives absolutely no answers. The Minister tells us that the Army must attract people in competition with civil life. I do not know how this can be done. I cannot conceive that any attractive prospectus provided for potential recruits can possibly compare with the opportunities offered in civil life that the young man can discover if he takes up The Times.

Imagine, for example, a young man coming out of one of the big public schools and realising that if he becomes a soldier it may be for twenty-two years. I understand that an officer may resign after nine or six years according to what the Army Council determines. Imagine a young man who comes from the traditional officer class of the country being offered a career either as an officer or as a Member for Parliament. After the statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday, I do not see the slightest possibility of such a young man deciding to join the Army. He would probably go into politics.

If in the matter of recruitment we are to compete with modern salaries in the commercial world today we shall have to offer fantastically high rates of pay to prospective recruits in order to compete with the attraction of achieving high positions in the nationalised industries. We have to compete with the possibility of men becoming technicians, engineers and similar highly-skilled people to whom very high wages indeed are paid.

I certainly have a great deal of sympathy for the people who are trying to reorganise the Army under these conditions. My sympathy would extend to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee if he became the Minister of Defence or the Secretary of State for War in the next Government, because I believe that any Service Minister would be up against an insoluble problem in this respect. It is only because of that sympathy and because of my sense of chivalry that I abstain from calling a Count at the present moment. Apparently there are less than twenty of us interested in the future of the British Army.

The Minister said that he was very anxious to attract recruits into the Guards. One of the reasons he gave for this was that these days chief constables when appointing new recruits to the police force prefer to appoint men who have been in the Guards. When I asked the Minister why this was so, he beat a very quick strategic retreat behind a smokescreen of words.

I have been a member of a local authority and have had to choose between certain people for the post of chief constable. I would not necessarily choose as a chief constable a man who had been in the Guards. Indeed, some local authorities would not regard it as a qualification at all, because a modern chief constable has to deal with other problems than merely that of old-time discipline, and they would not regard as a potential civil administrator a man who had been in any kind of uniform.

Though the Minister wants to get people into the Guards, I do not. I could find more useful occupations for them either in the National Coal Board or in other productive industries. But if the Minister wants to get people into the Guards, I think that instead of offering the inducements contained in the Bill he should abolish parades. I think that when people read in their newspapers that thirty-five Guardsmen have dropped, one by one, on to the parade ground owing to being overcome by the heat, because the Regulations, the commanding officer or someone else have not the sense to dismiss them, it is shockingly bad propaganda for recruitment to the Guards. In these days, such a thing is an anachronism.

We have heard a lot of catchwords during the debate. We have heard about incentives, stability, and so on. I have heard these catchwords and platitudes in every debate on Army recruitment during the last ten years, and they in no way achieve a solution of the problem. I am quite sure that when my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), for whom I am deputising this afternoon, is in his place he will be able to subject the Bill to a shattering analysis. I hope to be able to co-operate with him during the Committee stage.

I ask the House seriously to consider that I have talked the most common sense in this debate. If one is asked to join the Army for twenty-two years, one has got to think twenty-two years ahead at a time when everything is changing very quickly and when the capacity for a future Prime Minister depends not upon increasing military expenditure, but upon cutting it down. The fact that at a time when the Army is being cut down officers are being sacked and receiving shabby treatment, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee said, acts as a disincentive.

Even if my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley and I manage to make the Bill something really worthy to be placed on the Statute Book, the solution will still be far off. I see absolutely no future for a large professional Army in this country. I believe that in the atomic age such an Army is a waste of time. We shall submit the Bill to a very critical analysis when it reaches the Committee stage.

1.46 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Julian Amery)

The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), who deputises for the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg)—I did not know of this interesting new axis in our political life—has raised many points of principle which, on another occasion, I should much have liked to debate. From what the hon. Gentleman tells us, he and his hon. Friend will next week subject the Measure to a searching scrutiny.

I should like to say a word on one point raised by the hon. Gentleman. It is about the fact that chief constables in many cases like to recommend those who would join the police force to do service first of all in the Guards. This is a fact. It was also interesting to learn that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire had helped to choose chief constables. This illustrates the varied experience that awaits those who join the police force.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) said that the Bill should really have taken the form of an amendment to the Army Act, 1955. There would have been certain difficulties about adopting that course because the Bill does not amend Section 5 of the Act so far as it applies to men who join the Army before 1st October, 1957. It would have been possible, I think, to have got round that difficulty. It is really a matter of taste whether to have an enabling Act, —an extra Measure, as it were—or to amend an existing one. We thought on balance that it was wiser and easier to have an extra Measure.

My hon. and gallant Friend mentioned the difficulties involved for men who paste amendments into their books. My short experience at the War Office has taught me that this procedure is not altogether a popular one. We thought that a separate Measure might be easier and might involve the use of less scissors and paste for the ordinary soldier.

Major Legge-Bourke

Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that it will now be necessary to have a copy of the Army Act, 1955, and of this Bill when it becomes an Act before any man can understand what really are his terms of enlistment? Therefore, there is a case for saying, I think, that there should be a joint publication of the two in some form or other.

Mr. Amery

There will be more paper, less scissors and paste.

I think that the background to this Bill is well understood. In the old days before the war the Army used to enlist a man for twelve years. From the Army's point of view that was a satisfactory length of contract, but it gave the individual too little security of tenure. As the House knows, during the administration of Lord Hore-Belisha at the War Office instructions were issued that no soldier would be refused permission to prolong his service beyond twelve years unless there were very strong reasons for such a refusal.

In 1952, the introduction of the 22-year engagement gave statutory form to the idea of the long-term contract of service. Under this we gave the soldier reasonable security of tenure and something approaching a life career. We had hoped in return to get more Regular soldiers, and more contented Regular soldiers. The object of this Bill is to give us greater freedom, within the framework of the 22-year engagement, to vary the proportion of Colour to Reserve service in the first twelve years of a man's Army career.

The right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) said the Bill gave us very wide powers. In fact, I think it modifies our existing powers only in one main respect. This is that it brings to an end a soldier's right to leave the Army on the completion of three years' Colour service with only four years' service in the Reserve. The right hon. Gentleman asked for information about terms of engagement which would hold good in the future. Our present intention, as my right hon. Friend said, is that the minimum term shall be six years with the Colours and six with the Reserve, and after that nine years with the Colours and three with the Reserve. This involves the abolition on the one hand of the 3-year engagement and an extension of Reserve service on the other. That is to say, instead of 6 and 3, and 9 and nothing, it will be 6 and 6 and 9 and 3.

I should like to say a word about the ending of the 3-year engagement. I think there is a wide measure of agreement in the House that it was necessary. In one respect the 3-years engagement abundantly fulfilled our expectations. A large number of National Service men were persuaded by the provisions of the 3-year engagement to give us an extra year of service. This increased our manpower, and the extra year of training undoubtedly improved the quality of the Army. In another respect the 3-year engagement has been disappointing. We had hoped that a substantial proportion of 3-year men would prolong their engagement at the end of the 3-year period. In fact, less than 10 per cent. have done so.

I think the reasons for this are mainly psychological. The potential Army recruit, like any other applicant for a new job, will tend to sign on for the minimum period, especially if his security of tenure, for at any rate up to twenty-two years, is guaranteed whatever the length of the initial contract. In the context of National Service this has tended to have discouraging results. The story has been told of three recruits who came into the barrackroom and found themselves in adjoining beds. One was a young man who intended to make the Army his life's career and to do the whole twenty-two years. One was a disguised National Service man serving three years with extra pay and the other was a National Service man. The three became firm friends and when the last two went back into civil life, the call of civil life proved too strong for the third one.

There is another side to this. Three years after the date of enlistment finds a young man at an age of somewhere between 21 and 24. He will hardly have settled down in this time in the Army and unless he is exceptional he may not have been singled out for promotion. Three years later, however, after, say, a 6-year engagement, he will be more mature in years. He may well have married. He will have settled down in the Army and may be on the way to promotion, or even promoted. All these things taken together lead us to believe that the 6-year engagement is a better starting point in an all-Regular Army than the 3-year engagement.

It is a matter of opinion and in a sense it is a gamble. As a matter of mathematics, from the point of view of the Army one 6-year man is worth two 3-year men. From the point of view of quality, the 6-year man is worth rather more than twice the 3-year man because of the experience and training he acquires. So it is our judgment that we shall secure at least half as many recruits on the basis of the 6-year engagement as we would have received in similar circumstances under a 3-year engagement.

My right hon. Friend has explained that as well as terminating the 3-year engagement we intend to extend the existing Reserve liability. We already have power to do this, but in fact it is the natural consequence of this Bill. As I said, at the present time a man on a 6-year engagement is only liable for three years with the Reserve, and a man on a 9-year engagement has no Reserve liability. We intend to change that to six years with the Colours and six with the Reserve or nine years with the Colours and three with the Reserve. The all-Regular Army will have a Reserve problem and this decision will help to strengthen the position so far as the Reserve is concerned. It is true that if we persist with the 3-year service, the Reserve position would be stronger in the early nineteen sixties. But only in that period. By the middle of the 1960s the 6-year men will be taking their place in the Reserve and bringing it up to the same level of strength as we should have had if we had kept the 3-year engagement. We think the risk in the early 1960s is acceptable, since at that time there will still be a large number of trained men in the country as a result of National Service.

The essence of the Bill is to enable us to end the soldier's option to leave the Army after his first three years of service and to substitute for it the minimum of six years with the Colours and six with the Reserve. We think this the engagement most likely to give us the long service all-Regular Army. However, we lay no claim to infallibility. It may well be that some different combination of Colour and Reserve service may prove more suitable either to the Army as a whole or for certain corps of the Army.

The right hon. Member for Dundee, West asked whether there would be an opportunity to debate changes of that kind. There is no statutory provision under the 1955 Act or this Bill for debating such changes. But Questions could be asked in the House, and if there was a wish for a debate, no doubt that could be arranged. It is one of the merits of the Bill that it leaves it open to the Army Council to vary the combination of Colour and Reserve service as experience may show to be desirable, always provided, of course, that no such variation has restrospective effect or exceeds a maximum of twelve years service.

The great question remains. Shall we get the recruits? We are well aware of the difficulties. I do not think that the Government are being as slow or dilatory in this matter as the right hon. Member for Dundee. West suggested. Were he at the War Office now, he would perhaps be surprised at the amount of midnight oil which is being burned there.

We are all agreed that the term of engagement can at best only be a small part of the answer to the problem of recruiting. Much will depend on other aspects of the material conditions of employment, and perhaps even more on the psychological appeal and the question of the status of the soldier in the community. There is, for instance, the question of uniform. My hone and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely has also raised the question of the abatement of pensions. I should have thought that problem was one we should consider in connection with the Pay Code rather than during a debate on this Bill. In any case, we believe that the changes proposed in this Bill are an essential step towards building up a professional long-service Regular Army. In that belief we ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Legh.]

Committee upon Monday next.