HC Deb 10 March 1960 vol 619 cc765-73

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That a sum, not exceeding £64,240,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of stores (including stores for research and development projects and inspection, disposal and certain capital and ancillary services relating thereto) which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Mulley

In view of the short time which remains for discussing the rest of the Army Votes, I shall not put some of the questions I had intended to put. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will permit me to write to him and take up some of the more detailed matters in that way.

This Vote is probably the most important of the Votes with which we are concerned, because, as far as I can understand the accountancy of the Army, this is the Vote within which the technical stores, weapons, and so forth are contained. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can amplify a little paragraph 6 of the Memorandum which simply says that Much of the Army's maintenance requirements will again be met from accumulated stocks, but savings from these sources are diminishing. The sale of surplus stores is expected to realise £10.3 million, compared with £12.1 million in 1959–60. To what extent can we, in this year, in view of the improved equipment of the Army, expect to have our maintenance requirements met from past stocks?

The other thing which surprises me is that surplus stores should today have such a phenomenal value as £10 million. Every year, it seems that the Army has large surplus stocks to dispose of. This seems to indicate, unless there is some overriding reason, very bad planning in the purchase of stores at present. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) has often raised questions about Army boots. I shall not take up that matter tonight, but such things do cause considerable concern in the public mind.

People feel that, while they do not mind providing the money for the Army, they want the money to be well spent. As one goes about the country, one sees the many "surplus stores" shops selling what is alleged to be Army equipment, clothing and so forth, and one wonders how it comes about that, so long after the war, if there is prudent planning by the War Office, such shops never seem to lack clothing and equipment of many kinds.

I think I should disappoint the Under-Secretary of State if I did not ask him why the hair cutting of Gurkhas has special provision within this Vote, under "Clothing Services." My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) asked about this last year and I remember that, not surprisingly, the hon. Gentleman was then unable to furnish an answer. I am sure that this year he has come fortified with the reasons why the hair-cutting of Gurkhas has such a prominent place in our Army accountancy. I should, of course, be the last person to want to deprive the excellent Gurkha troops of anything they reasonably require, but it is a little surprising that they alone should be catered for in this particular way.

It seems a little odd, also, that, while the provision for clothing is to be subtantially increased in the next year, despite the rundown of the Forces—perhaps this is a result of the new uniform and we shall be told about that—the Subheads "Clothing Allowances" and "Clothing Services" show reductions.

The main issue we must concern ourselves with here is the broad question of whether the men in the Army are having the weapons about which we hear in these debates. We see pictures of them in the Memoranda. I was interested when the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) spoke about the possibility of the Territorials having the gun illustrated in the Memorandum. I should like to know the date when our troops in the front line in Germany will have that kind of gun.

Mr. H. Fraser

What is the hon. Gentleman referring to?

Mr. Mulley

The new general-purpose machine gun. I think that the hon. and gallant Member spoke about that.

Major Legge-Bourke indicated assent.

Mr. Mulley

Presumably, it is the replacement for the Vickers. Last year, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones), then Minister of Supply, speaking always in the future tense about the provision of weapons said: The rifle before the F.N. rifle goes back to the First World War. The machine gun goes back to that war, and the 25-pounder gun goes back to 1938."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1959; Vol. 600, c. 1317.] He also said in the same debate—I thought not very encouragingly for the young men in the Service—that the Army could not have proper equipment until it got rid of the National Service men, which was very surprising and I thought rather unfair. The deplorable state of the weapons in the Army was shown last year. We are asked for considerable sums of money, and now, of course, the War Office has control of the provision or ordnance for the Army. I think it would help us a great deal if we could get from the hon. Gentleman tonight some idea of what has actually gone to the men in the last year, and what weapons they will get, not in terms of designs and pictures of weapons, but in terms of actual weapons in the hands of the fighting troops in the current year, for which we are asked to provide money tonight.

The gap between the design and the time when the weapons are actually in the hands of the units, ready to be used if necessary, is extremely long in the Army, as in all the other Services. While we can understand the big problems concerning the provision of aircraft, I should have thought that in the case of Army equipment we could cut this gap. I wonder to what extent, both for reasons of speed and economy, we could possibly work more closely than we are doing with our Allies in N.A.T.O. and Western European Union, but that is rather a large question on which we cannot do much with the present generation of weapons. It will be the next generation of weapons in which, if we get the proper drive from the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend, we can possibly make economies and work in greater co-operation with our Allies.

I should like to know what the Army got last year for the money which we voted, and what it is getting this year from this money in terms of weapons actually in the hands of the troops.

9.38 p.m.

Mr. Wigg

My concern is not with the goods in the shop window. We shall know before many months are out how far the first line re-equipment of the Army has gone. I am prepared to accept, as the Secretary of State has told us, that the first line of re-equipment is going smoothly, and I can tell hon. Members who may go round visiting units that I think they will find the situation quite satisfactory.

To my mind, that is not the problem. It is a question of the whole service and the organisation and maintenance of the stores which exist. I want to take up the question of the ammunition which is borne on this Vote. I think that one of the most short-sighted economies which the War Office and the Minister of Defence have carried through is the winding up of the command ammunition depots and the concentration of ammunition in three central depots at Kineton, Corsharn and Bramley. Hon. Members should pause for a moment and see what this means.

The major part of the strategic reserve is in Southern Command. This reform—if that is the right word—and I would call it something quite different— means that that strategic reserve, if ever called upon to operate, even in a limited field, would have to draw its ammunition from Bramley. By my calculations, the regimental transport of 140 units would be milling round Bramley for a period of four days. I do not think that that is clever, and I want hon. Members to note what happened in the First World War. It was a model of what mobilisation should be. Hon. Members have no need to look any further than the first chapter of the first volume of the history of the First World War. It was a magnificent achievement. We cannot recall it too often. Sixty thousand men and 60,000 horses, with their forage, in a period of fourteen days were taken across to France and were in action by first light on 22nd August.

We cannot even begin to touch this problem. Perhaps the best thing to do is to hand the whole matter over to the hon. Member who asked about boots and dispose of it for all the value it is, because they are of use only if they can be available on mobilisation. This is one of the most short-sighted economies that any Government has ever carried out. I hope that in the reappraisal of defence policy which is taking place at present the hon. Gentleman will have a look at this matter. It is one of the key points in the Army.

I say to the Government, for heaven's sake do not be cheeseparing in this matter. If they are, and should another situation like Suez come along, the Government will find themselves in precisely the same situation as that which prevailed at Suez, namely, a situation which requires immediate action, but they will be incapable of acting. The matter therefore gets drawn out. When the operation is finally launched, it is a hopeless flop. It depends on the Government's ability to carry through speedy action in a real emergency and on their ability to handle the problem speedily. I therefore begrudge every penny that the Government save in this sphere. It is the falsest of false economies.

Major Legge-Bourke

I should like to support what the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has said. Perhaps I might add one point which I think emphasises what the hon. Member has been saying. If we have automatic rifles, we shall get through ten times the amount of ammunition needed for any previous rifle. That is the great argument against having automatic rifles. The expenditure of ammunition is appalling.

Having fired the F.N. rifle, being one of the first hon. Members to have done so, I can say that I have a great respect for the efficiency of the weapon and I do not wish to suggest that we should cancel the order to supply it. However, we must be very careful before we change the basic machine gun of the Army. I have been reminded of this throughout these debates. The Vickers machine gun had one type of stoppage in which one fired a few rounds and then stopped again and took various action with the crank handle and other things and eased, pulled and tapped. This reminds me of the hon. Member for Dudley attacking his right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey). However, I think that we all fire a few rounds, stop, and then fire a few more throughout these debates.

I shall need a lot of convincing that any replacement for the Vickers is better than the Vickers. I believe that we should be very careful before we dispense with this gun.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. H. Fraser

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) referred to the general purpose machine gun and said that we should get it into operation immediately.

Mr. Mulley

I did not say that we should get it into operation immediately. I thought it proper that the fighting men should have it first before it was considered for the Territorials.

Mr. Fraser

I agree. The trouble about a question like this—and this is where the former Minister of Supply was to a large extent right—is that it is vital to get the basic weapons of the Army right. It would be the greatest folly to invest in a weapon until it had undergone the most stringent, urgent and tough troop trials. I agree with the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) that the mass of equipment is coming forward as the House of Commons expects and that it is being successful.

The hon. Member raised the question of ammunition, as did my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke). Last year, we had difficulty with ammunition. We had difficulty with fuses and with special types of shell and, as will be remembered, we dropped rather heavily. This year, I am happy to say, the position is much better. If hon. Members look at the Estimates, they will see that our ammunition supply is going well.

The hon. Member for Dudley raised the great question of the Expeditionary Force in 1914. It was indeed a remarkable achievement. Many of those conditions, however, do not apply today. The main difference is that more than half our Army is overseas, in Germany especially; and that is where the bases, dumps, and so on, must be. Therefore. I would not agree with the hon. Member about the rundown from the command ordnance depots to the central ordnance depots. I should be prepared to debate that in detail with him.

Among the other questions, the hair-cutting of the Gurkhas was raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park. As time is running short, I will communicate with the hon. Member by letter. I remember the details but do not want to weary hon. Members with them. A point of importance made by the hon. Member concerned the amount of equipment we were selling annually. He asked whether we were living too much off our fat and whether all the stuff was dud. The truth is that we have been running down the Army since the mass Army of Korean days. It automatically follows that £10 million worth of stores, including items like boots, flows on to the market every year while we run down. We do not want to over-flood the market, but try to keep it in fair balance so as not to suffer undue loss. This state of affairs, however, is coming to an end within the next few years. The sale of surplus stores has dropped from £12 million last year to £10 million this year and will continue to drop as the rundown continues. Since 1956, the number of ordnance depots has been reduced by 62.

Those were the main points raised on the Vote. On the whole, the provision of stores has gone well. Hon. Members will take pleasure in the fact that we are spending £5 million more on the equipment of the Army than we spent last year.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Wigg

I shall look forward to the debate with the Under-Secretary on the subject of ammunition. He was skating on thin ice when—he put it rather nicely —he said that last year we had some difficulty with ammunition. As we are to have a debate, let us mention one or two of the difficulties that we have had so that the hon. Gentleman will, perhaps, clear them up.

At the time of Suez, our infantry antitank weapon was the Bat. It had to be withdrawn because the ammunition was defective. In its place, the only thing we could do was to use the American 106 mm. and use it at Suez in defiance of a solemn undertaking which we had given to the Americans that we would use that weapon only with their permission. If the hon. Gentleman cares to check, he will find that on 5th November, 1956, the State Department protested against the misuse of that weapon.

Mr. H. Fraser

I cannot see how I am responsible for that. I am responsible only for the present Vote.

The Chairman

It does not arise on this Vote. The Question is—

Mr. Wigg

The hon. Gentleman was good enough to say, Sir Gordon, that there had been difficulties and he talked about a debate. I am all in favour of debate. I am not going into it at any great length, but it is important to point out also that we went into Jordan a little later. What did we go in with? The British anti-tank weapon? Oh, no. Up pops the American 106 mm. again. Therefore, are the ammunition difficulties in this field being solved? First we had the Bat, then the Mobat, now we have the Wombat. When he mentions ammunition difficulties, is the Undersecretary absolutely certain not that we are overcoming them but that they have been overcome?

Mr. Fraser

On these grounds I can give the hon. Member an assurance.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That a sum, not exceeding £64,240,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of stores (including stores for research and development projects and inspection, disposal and certain capital and ancillary services relating thereto) which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961.