BRITISH ARMY (AMALGAMATION OF UNITS) (Hansard, 18 July 1957)

§ Mr. George Wigg (Dudley)
If stories in the Press are to be believed, within a few days the Government will announce their proposals for the reorganisation of the Army. The point I raise now is the amalgamation of infantry units which must follow from the Government's proposals.
There are 64 regiments of the line, plus 10 Guards' regiments, a total of 74. It is clear that the Government are faced with a critical decision that regiments with great traditions of long and historic service in all parts of the world, in difficult 1513 and easy times, have to be amalgamated. The decision is bound to cause grave disquiet and protests, some of which have already appeared on the Order Paper.
Hon. Members from all parts of the country have tabled Motions calling attention to this or that regiment, in one case in such terms as to pay tribute to their hearts rather than to their heads. One might take the actual wording of the Motions, apply it to every regiment, and ask the Government to give most serious consideration before they take the final decision to amalgamate the units or perhaps to obliterate them.
What I want to do tonight is, first, to ask the Government when they make the announcement about changes not to do it in a hurried statement at the end of Questions, but to publish a White Paper and, in that White Paper, to make perfectly clear the principles which have influenced them in coming to this decision. I ask them to publish, or republish, in that White Paper the 1951 Corps Warrant. I do not think hon. Members can understand the situation unless they look at the Corps Warrant and the situation at present. I ask the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary to ask his right hon. Friend to publish the dates at which the regiments were formed and their present depots.
When we have that picture and recognise the manpower situation of the Army as it is at present, never mind what it will be in future, we shall see that we cannot sustain the present number of battalions. Something has to go and those who want to protest will at least have a little more idea of what they are protesting about than would appear from some of the Motions on the Order Paper and protests in the Press. I started on that basis myself and I have come to certain conclusions about the Government's decision. I could make a forecast as to what will happen and, if I have time, perhaps I shall indicate some of the regiments which, I think, will have to go.
I live in Staffordshire and I think it is an absolute certainty that in the Mercian Brigade, which contains the Cheshire Regiment, the Worcestershire Regiment, the North Staffordshire Regiment and the South Staffordshire Regiment, the North Staffordshire and the South Staffordshire Regiments should be amalgamated. I think that would be a commonsense 1514 decision. Although I would regret it, and many people in Staffordshire and in my constituency would regret it, it seems a commonsense decision.
I also think that hon. Members who have protested by Motions on the Order Paper about the amalgamation or abolition of the Durham Light Infantry are worrying themselves needlessly. That regiment has a first-class recruiting record and a first-class fighting record. I should have thought the Durhams are fairly safe, but what I want to argue is that that is not the consideration. One of the great weaknesses ever since this Government have been in office, ever since they restored the second battalions in a moment of what I might call passionate crisis, has been that the world has seen innumerable British regiments which were scarcely able to move their own baggage. If there is one way of making absolutely sure that that the Bill is at its highest and the defence contribution at its lowest, it is to have large numbers of regiments below establishment.
I say quite frankly that I doubt very much whether the recruiting figures as they will be in future will be even sufficient to maintain the number of regiments which it would seem it is the intention of the Government to preserve. It is my view—and, again this appears to be borne out by the stories going around—that the 64 regiments of the Line, including the Rifle Brigade, they are to be reduced to 50, which means the amalgamation of at least 28. If one looks at the statement of the Secretary of State for War on the Second Reading of the Army Enlistment Bill, one sees that he told us he would be retaining the 3-yeas engagement in the Guards and a number of ancillary units and hoped to get 1,000 men from that source, but he cannot possibly maintain 10 battalions of Guards at a competent establishment on the basis of a recruiting level of somewhere between 750 to 1,000. It just will not work, however optimistic his advisers may be. What I am afraid of is that the Government, because of the pressures which will be exercised in this House and in the Press, will not make sufficient cuts.
During an Adjournment debate just about a year ago I forecast that our recruiting figure would be about 12,000 a year. I still believe that figure to be right. What number the Government are 1515 ultimately able to recruit will depend upon the number of years for which they can get the men to enlist. I fear that the 50 battalions will not be able to be maintained at an effective level. I hope, therefore, that the Government will not be dissuaded by any pressure from the course of action which their duty indicates.
My purpose tonight is to try to set out some of the considerations, the extent of the problem, and to fortify the Government against what I regard as irresponsible pressure. It may well be that next week, when the Government's intentions are announced, every hon. Member in the House will have pressure put upon him from the area which he represents to maintain this, that or the other regiment when all experience shows that to do so would be a piece of nonsense.
Some hon. Members will be going to their constituencies this week-end. Perhaps I could fortify them with an argument or two. This will not be the first time in our history that protests have been made about the designation of regiments. I looked up a Motion moved by the Earl of Galloway in 1881, when the Government announced their intention to do away with the numerical designation and to use a territorial designation.
The Earl of Galloway's Motion was: That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to cause a reconsideration of the proposal to efface the present numerical and other distinctions in regiments of the line and Militia by the substitution of novel (so-called) 'territorial' titles inasmuch as this proposed substitution is known to be viewed as subversive of esprit de corps." Of course, when one goes back seventy or eighty years before that one finds that there was a combination of both numerical and territorial designations—the 1st of Foot the Royal Scots, for example—and that there were similar protests.
The Army is a conservative institution, but, of course, this is a very delicate matter. It is something more than just surface feeling. There is an intensity of feeling, especially on the part of men who have fought and whose relatives have fought and perhaps died in these regiments. We have now reached the stage in our affairs where in the matter of de- 1516 fence we must get value for money. In the future we just shall not be able to afford the price of sentiment, a consequence of which, as I say, is that a very large number of regiments are under establishment.
I promised to give the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), a ration of my time and I will not let him down. I have indicated that the starting of my thinking on this point is about the 1951 Corps Warrant. If hon. Members will start from that point they will be driven irresistibly, as I am, to the conclusion that changes are absolutely inevitable.
I should like the Under-Secretary to take back to his right hon. Friend another factor, perhaps the decisive factor, which should be included in the White Paper that I hope the Government will publish. It is that the recruiting figures must be linked up with the practice in the corps area. This is absolutely fundamental.
If we look at the Midland Brigade we find that the recruiting of the Warwicks and the Lincolns, the Leicesters and the Sherwood Foresters is not very good, and it would seem inevitable that there the last formed will have to be amalgamated. Again, recruiting is not good in the Home Counties Brigade. I do not know whether that the link up will be between the two Surrey regiments, or the West and East Kents. I do not envy the right hon. Gentleman his task if he proposes that the Buffs should be amalgamated with the West Kents. If he does make that proposal, I suggest that he does so en route for the Continent.
Recruiting for the Anglian Brigade is not good, but perhaps I had better not make a suggestion there, although I could. Likewise, there is the Yorkshire and Northumberland Brigade. Heaven knows what will happen to the hon. Gentleman if the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) has to be told that the "Fighting Fifth," the Royal Northumberland Fusiliers, have to be amalgamated. I can only wish the Minister the best of luck.
It seems to me that the West and East Yorkshires, and one or two other Yorkshire regiments are not producing the recruits necessary to maintain their battalions. In the Lowland Brigade, too, I think that amalgamations will have to 1517 take place, and that the K.O.S.B.s and the Cameronians would be candidates. Then there is the Highland Brigade—what is to happen to that? I would have thought that the Seaforths and the Camerons would have to amalgamate. Here, again, I am sentimental, because some of my own relations have served in the 91st of Foot—the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. Nevertheless, it would seem that neither the Highland nor the Lowland Brigades can continue as at present.
Then there is the Lancastrian Brigade. Some of the Lancashire regiments seem to call out for amalgamation, because recruiting in Lancashire is poor. There is one double regiment depot—the East Lancs. and the Loyals—so perhaps those regiments will amalgamate. In the Wessex Brigade, recruiting is bad, and it would seem that, possibly, the Devon-shires, the Dorsets—and even the Wilt-shires—will call for similar treatment. The Light Infantry Brigade is something else for the right hon. Gentleman to play with. That is a functional organisation rather than strictly territorial, but it would certainly seem that the Light Infantry is not finding sufficient recruits.
That brings me to the Brigade of Guards. I have been critical of the Brigade of Guards in the past, but 1 should greatly regret it if any hon. Member came here and said that there the first formed should be the first to go. I hope that that will be resisted in all parts of the House. This illustrates what I want to say. The Welsh Guards were the last to be formed—in 1915—and, before them, the Irish Guards, in 1901. The Irish Guards have a magnificent recruiting record. If anyone, on the basis of egalitarianism, tries to get rid of those two Guards regiments they will be making a fundamental mistake.
What is done here has to be linked with future recruiting. As I say, I am pessimistic about the Government's recruiting prospects. I am pessimistic about my right hon. Friend's recruiting prospects. I would use words that appeared in The Times this week, used by Mr. Sidney Rogerson, who gave excellent service as public relations officer at the War Office. He said that the recruiting figures had been depressing, and were now becoming disquieting.
1518 My excuse for troubling the House at this very late hour is to plead with the Minister to "come clean" to publish all the facts, to try to educate public opinion to military reality; and to plead with every hon. Member who has any regard for the Army—and, if he has not, has some regard for the size of the bill—to see that the Government's proposals are looked at on their merits, and not on the basis of "phoney" sentimentality.

§ Major H. Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) for allowing me a few moments in which to speak before the Under-Secretary of State replies to the debate. I hope that he will forgive me if I say that in the speech he has just delivered, though the touch was that of the Duke of Wellington's Regiment, the voice was that of the Royal Army Educational Corps. I certainly feel that the hon. Gentleman has served a very useful purpose in raising the matter tonight. However, I must say, as the grandson of a Coldstreamer and son of a Coldstreamer, that if he looks back into history he will find that, so far from being the last to be formed, the Welsh Guards have a claim to be regarded as the first, because the bowmen who won Agincourt were, in fact, the Welsh Guards of Henry V. That, from a Household Cavalryman, is saying a lot, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) would agree.
I have carefully avoided putting a Motion on the Order Paper regarding the regiments of the county which I have the honour to reside in and to represent in this House; the Isle of Ely is part of Cambridgeshire, and the Cambridge-shire Regiment is the county regiment in the Isle of Ely. The Cambridgeshire Regiment is a Territorial regiment.
There are some counties which have no direct association with the Army other than through their Territorial regiments. Whatever arrangements are made in the forthcoming White Paper, which, with the hon. Member for Dudley, I hope will be published next Wednesday, I hope that there still will remain some direct link between all counties and the British Army. I was very interested to 1519 hear from the hon. Member the suggestion of giving to each regiment a numerical title, and he reminded us, quite rightly, that, for a long time, the regiments had as their principal title a numerical title only.
I think that there may be a case for returning to that system in the new arrangement, because there are some counties which would never regard an amalgamation with any other county as anything but purely a nominal matter which had no real significance. I have a feeling that there may be a case for saying that, in the new organisation, it would be better to give each regiment a numerical title, if it really means two counties, or, in some cases, perhaps three, which have been amalgamated, disappearing, in fact, from the regimental point of view. The hon. Member for Dudley rightly reminded us that many of the regiments were proud of their number; the Fighting Fifth was one example.
East Anglia has two counties which I doubt will ever agree on anything, no matter how long we may try to get them to do so. I refer to Norfolk and Suffolk. The Territorial Regiment of Cambridgeshire has had some association with the Suffolk Regiment. I want to see the association between Cambridgeshire and the British Army maintained. I am not quite certain whether it would be better maintained by having some combination with the Norfolk and Suffolk Regiments, with a Territorial attachment of the Cambridgeshire Regiment, or whether it would be better to give a new numerical title to the whole lot. I am inclined to think that, if we are to take the plunge, we might as well really do so from the high diving board rather than go in feeling our way with our toes.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Julian Amery)
I hope that what I have to say will meet some of the points my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) has raised, even if they do not altogether support the thesis which emerged from his last sentence.
The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) expressed, I think, a rather pessimistic view on the prospects of recruiting, whether by the present Government or by 1520 any further one. He struck a somewhat Cassandra-like note—I refer to the Trojan lady, not the columnist in the Daily Mirror. I hope that events will prove him wrong, and I am sure that he hopes it himself.
The argument which we are discussing tonight is simple enough. In accordance with the policy laid down in the Defence White Paper, the Army is to be reduced to about half its present size. This reduction will involve major changes in the organisation, structure and order of battle of the Army. It will also mean a major reduction in the number of units and, where the infantry and the cavalry are concerned, in the number of regiments. To bring about this reduction is in itself a fairly big staff exercise, as the hon. Member, with his knowledge of the War Office, will appreciate.
But it is also a matter of the closest personal concern to all officers and men serving in the Regular Army. And not to them alone. Any cut in regiments is bound to be felt by retired officers, by their familiies and by all those local forces outside the Army who are, nevertheless, as my hon. and gallant Friend said, very proud of their association with their county regiment.
We are touching here a vital nerve in the life of the country. Few things go deeper. Accordingly, we in the War Office have approached this problem of reductions with the greatest care and, I hope, with the greatest understanding and respect for the strong loyalties that are at stake. We have looked at every aspect of it closely and given full weight to all those vital considerations of morale, efficiency, operational flexibility and career stability. I can say with confidence that there have been no snap decisions.
Of course, there have been a lot of rumours, in the Press and outside it. The hon. Member for Dudley may have started a few more tonight with his forecast of what he thinks will happen. He has paraded some suggestions of what the reorganisation will be and he has given certain figures. I do not know whether the hon. Member is doing a service to the Army in making these forecasts at the present time. We have always given the hon. Member credit for having the best interests of the Army at heart, but I wonder whether he was 1521 really wise in putting down his Motion. I wonder whether it was a good thing to hold up these things, which mean so much to so many people, as a kind of public jest. I do not even know whether it was wise to initiate this debate tonight.
The Government will publish their decisions next week, as the hon. Member knows, and there will be a White Paper setting out in detail both what we are doing and the reasons why we are doing it. I should have thought that if there was to be criticism and comment, then would be the time; but I do not want to overstress the point.

§ Mr. Wigg
Of course, that is a consideration, but the Government have chosen to publish the White Paper within a week of rising for the Summer Recess. If I had not had the Adjournment debate tonight, it seems to me long odds that there would have been no discussion of this problem at all.

§ Mr. Amery
If the hon. Member does not think that the official spokesman for the Opposition would have found the time—because there will be opportunities—that is not for me to judge. Anyway, I would not want to take that argument too seriously.
I do not think that rumours and speculation will do much harm to the 1522 Army and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman believes it either. These things are part of the price we pay for a free society and we in the War Office pay it just as cheerfully as other sections of the community. By and large, the British soldier is not such a sensitive plant that he will bend or break under the breeze of rumour.
The only real damage that could be done—and that would be lasting damage—would be if it was ever felt that the Army Council or the Government had taken snap decisions; if it was ever felt that the fate of famous regiments had been decided without a close study of all the arguments for and against; if it was ever felt that obvious and avoidable mistakes had been made.
As I say, my right hon. Friend will bring the decisions before the House next week and will lay a White Paper. The hon. Member will not, therefore, expect me to anticipate those decisions in any way tonight and he will, I hope, understand if I leave unanswered most of the questions he has raised and most of the points which he has made.