HC Deb 14 March 1961 vol 636 cc1305-25

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £133,170,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, &c., of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg (Dudley)

I wish at this stage to raise three points, of which I have given notice to the Under-Secretary of State. The first point concerns the revaluation of the German Deutschmark. Hon. Members may wonder whether this is in order. Let me relieve them of any anxiety on that point, because I am raising it in connection with Vote 1, Subhead K. The troops—officers, warrant officers, N. C. O. s and men—who serve in the British Army of the Rhine and in Berlin are regarded as being on home service. This meets the administrative and political convenience of the Government, because, by virtue of its being regarded as a home service station, these men do not get as much leave and do not get the privileges that they would get if they were' serving in a foreign station.

Whatever right hon. and hon. Members may think about the rest of what I have to say, one thing which is certain is that the Rhine Army, which includes also the other Services stationed in Germany, has suffered a cut in its standard of life by no less than 5 per cent. by the revaluing of the German Deutschmark. One may hold views whether the Government should have foreseen this, but it is the fact that 5 per cent. of the pay of all ranks has gone just like that. I am told by those serving in Germany that this has created a certain amount of indignation. People are wondering how they will make both ends meet, because there is a tendency for German prices to rise. It may well be that before many months the cut in the standard of life will be not 5 per cent. but 10 per cent.

I therefore put it to the Government, not necessarily that there is a considerable case for reconsidering the position of the Rhine Army as a home station but that it is within their power if they so wish, to grant a local overseas allowance to meet the increased cost of living arising from the revaluation of the German Deutschmark.

My second point arises from something I had to say in the Estimates debate. Among the most important functions performed by the Army are the relations of the officers, warrant officers and N. C. O. s who are selected to serve with colonial forces. This contact is among the most valuable that exists. It is my view—I have said so many times over a period of years that the selection of these officers, warrant officers and N. C. O. s should be done most carefully. We should send our best. Therefore, if we are asking our best to go, often at what may seem to be the cost of an agreeable job, possibilities of promotion within their regiments and the like, they should go under conditions which enable them to be free from financial anxiety. That is not so at the present time.

Perhaps I am pushing at an open door in the case of the War Office. The decision does not rest there, or even with the Colonial Office. It rests with the ancient enemy of all members of the Armed Forces—the Treasury. I should like to think that on this point at least I carry right hon. and hon. Members on both sides with me in saying to the Under-Secretary, who is the spokesman tonight of the War Office, that it is the wish of the House of Commons that, in the interest of the Army and of the Commonwealth as a whole, the conditions under which these officers, warrant officers and N. C. O. s are asked to serve in the colonial forces should be looked at and that they should be treated with the greatest possible generosity not only in terms because generosity is desirable but because only by so doing will the Government get the very best at a time when only the very best will meet the case.

I come now to my third point. Hon. Members will have seen in The Times yesterday morning an able article which said something that wanted saying for a long time. It was always difficult, and it still is difficult, for hon. Members on either side of the Committee to talk about the quality of current recruits because if a wrong word is said in this connection it can have the most unfortunate consequences—and, of course, again, the Army wants its share of the best. The Times can say this because the public may or may not accept the objectivity and lack of partisanship of Members of this Committee, but they tend to look on The Times as a more traditional part of the Establishment which uses its platform to say things which it thinks ought to be said. It was a very important article and it said something which needed to be said.

However, there is a danger that the War Office may find itself in a very weakened position vis-à-vis the Ministry of Defence. Here is a danger which has been growing up for a long time. The Ministry of Defence has gone up in status; the Services have sunk a little in status. Policy is worked out in the Ministry of Defence and sometimes tends to be imposed upon the Navy, Army and Air Force. Here there is a great temptation for the Government, who want to get the requisite recruits to tend to say, "Get them by any method you can." There was a suspicion of this in the speech of the Secretary of State for War the other day when he talked about the lowering of the standards of education of recruits. It was a most retrograde step to advocate and it brought me to my feet as the right hon. Gentleman said it. Perhaps I misunderstood him perhaps that was not his intention. But, of course, one has to remove from one's mind the possibility of such a step.

This situation has to be watched very closely indeed. For there was the kind of thing written in The Times yesterday morning about the Green Jackets, a crack regiment. Well, of course, I know that the Guards will be all right. They always are. No matter what the Army may try to do, the Guards and the Household Cavalry will take very good care that they do not get anybody they do not want. But if they look after themselves and the Green Jackets look after the Green Jackets and the Royal Armoured Corps looks after itself, and so on, and this goes on through all the various units of the infantry, what will happen to those service branches of the Army in which, despite the shortage of numbers, are needed some of the more intelligent and abler and skilled people who are absolutely essential to them? What will happen to them if this process goes on?

The suggestion I make is a very simple one. I could have tackled the problem by putting down a Question on the Order Paper, which is what I do not want to do, or I could have asked for a White Paper. What I should like the Government to do is to make available in the Vote Office a statement, the sort of cyclo-styled statement we get, on recruitment in which the Government would publish, starting at 31st December, 1960, the number of recruits obtained in that quarter; and then that they should also publish the number of men who have become non-effective in that quarter, breaking the number down by brigades for the infantry and for all the units and branches of the Service. Then we should begin to see how many recruits are coming into each brigade group and what the wastage is.

The information could be broken down through sub-paragraphs. The model of paragraph 503 of Queen's Regulations could be followed. If that were done there would not necessarily be a direct relationship between the figures of recruits in any quarter, except in the Army's sub-paragraphs, showing, for instance, those discharged for offences on enlistment. I hope the hon. Gentleman follows what I have in mind. At least, however, there would be an indication of what is happening and information would be made available to hon. Members on both sides who want this information, which would enable them to tackle this problem in a responsible way in order to safeguard what, irrespective of party, I am sure we must be worried about, the problem in the Army not only of numbers but of quality as well.

I am sorry to have taken up even these few minutes of the time of the Committee on these three points, but I hope very much that if the hon. Gentleman cannot give me an answer tonight—I shall not be very disappointed if he cannot—he will take these points away and consider them. Perhaps on some future occasion he can let me know the result, perhaps by answering a Question. I should be happy to co-operate with him about that. Or perhaps he will let me know by letter. However, I urge him to consider these points which are put forward in no partisan spirit but in the best interests of the Army.

9.15 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)

Vote 1 deals with the pay of the Regular Army and is one of the weapons whereby we can hope to attract a sufficient number of recruits. The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has raised an extremely important point about the devaluation of the Deutschmark, because if we are to have troops in Germany, playing our part in N.A.T.O., and are receiving in real value less than those stationed elsewhere it will not be a great inducement to men to join the Army.

I wonder whether the White Paper on Army pay published in February, 1958, foresaw such an issue arising. I very much doubt that it did. It would be totally wrong if we were involved in N.A.T.O. to a considerable degree—and N.A.T.O. itself is taking a very large proportion of the Regular Army—and if these men were to suffer by being stationed in Western Germany.

Last November, The Times said that General Norstad was complaining that units in the British Army of the Rhine were seriously below strength. There may be a tendency for that strength to get even lower, but the Minister of Defence says that he wants seven brigade groups in Germany, amounting to 55,000 men. I notice that while a map published with a White Paper last year showed that in Berlin there was one brigade group, a similar map issued this year shows that there is only a brigade in Berlin. Are we economising in Berlin or are we running the risk of having an unbalanced force there?

I have been one of those who have tried to help the hon. Member for Dudley over the years in the attempt to bring Army pay up to a satisfactory level, but we shall defeat our own object if at the end of the day we are to have one of the principal overseas stations—though I agree that it counts as virtually being in the United Kingdom—being a place where men are not getting what they ought to have in real terms in relation to others who are serving in the Army. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be able to say something about that.

I should also like to ask to what extent the £24,880,000 paid to officers and the £68,730,000 paid to warrant officers, non- commissioned officers and men and the gross total under this Vote of £139,880,000 are paid in the overseas stations in real terms so as to ensure that those who receive the pay get the same amount pro rata. This would apply in Cyprus, in Aden and all the other overseas stations. If we are to allow for the revaluation of the Deutschmark we must do the same with pay at other overseas stations. What about Hong Kong? There are many men there. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to satisfy us that wherever a man is stationed the rate of exchange will not act to his disadvantage.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)

I am much in agreement with a good deal of what my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has said. If we have soldiers then there is a case for paying them. I do not disagree with that proposition. But if one looks at the cost in hard cash to our people—which is what I am concerned with—then one can only express some alarm. We are asked to vote £133,170,000, which is Government expenditure the economic result of which is inflationary. When any other Department, like the Health Ministry, brings its Estimates to the Committee, every item of expenditure is denounced as inflationary. Yet we are now being asked to vote this considerable sum and, in a way, rush it through because the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) wants to get to the Air Votes. Our job is the meticulous examination of public expenditure.

Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke-on-Trent, South)

There is also a net increase of £5,929,990 over last year.

Mr. Hughes

I shall come to that later. If I omit anything, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) will make up for it. The devaluation of the Deutschmark has created an interesting situation. It makes one ask why we need to keep such a large number of troops at such expense in Germany. The Committee must consider whether it should revise its ideas about expenditure on soldiers in Germany, and ask if it is justified in the national interest. The devaluation of the Deutschmark must make us think again. What is happening at present? The West German Government are becoming more independent in many ways of the other N.A.T.O. Powers——

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Ronald Russell)

Order. The hon. Member is going rather wide of this Vote. This has nothing to do with the policy of the West German Government.

Mr. Hughes

I am not dealing with the number of men, Mr. Russell, but with the expenditure, in pounds, shillings and pence of keeping an Army in Germany. This is an expenditure which we shall have to reconsider, because we shall face a financial crisis. If the West Germans get into a stronger economic position than we are, then we shall find ourselves paying a disproportionate amount of money for military purposes.

I do not see what useful purpose is served by keeping the British Army in Berlin. It is no use there. If the Russians wanted to take West Berlin they could do so. Vote I, in so far as it covers expenditure in Berlin, is unnecessary national expenditure, and I am opposed to it.

I am not enthusiastic about bringing Gurkhas over to this country. The pay for the Gurkhas is included in this Vote. I read with some interest a military article in The Times saying that we could not solve the problem of recruiting by means of posters, television or enormous publicity campaigns, and that the one way out was to bring in the Gurkhas. Now we have Americans at Holy Loch, we may have Germans in Wales and Gurkhas somewhere else. We shall have a fine international Army here to defend us.

I want to refer to the criticism of the Army contained in The Times. I follow the instructions of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley very carefully. If he says that there is an interesting article by the military correspondent of The Times, I read every word of it.

I do not know whether it was my hon. Friend who advised me, or whether I advised him to read a recent leading article in The Times which dealt with wastage in the Army and with which I was very much impressed. It said that the recruiting figures seemed to be going up, but it asked about wastage, saying that within a month of entering the Army 10 or 20 per cent. of the recruits bought themselves out while others were discharged because they had not passed certain psychological or educational tests. As fast as the Minister gets the men, they disappear. The Army is mobilised and at once begins to evaporate. That situation will not be solved by specious ideas about selective service.

The Times leading article went on to reach the interesting conclusion that the average intelligence of those who remained in the Army was lower than that of a cross-section of National Service men. Thus, according to The Times, we are spending money on an Army with an average intelligence lower than the average outside. That puzzled me when I read it and I await with interest the report of a committee set up by the Secretary of State for War, who ought to have put in some sort of casual appearance in the debate. I do not know where the Minister of Defence is. In a previous debate the Civil Lord of the Admiralty was on the burning deck for about six or eight hours.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw (Stroud)

Has the Vote anything to do with the Minister of Defence?

The Temporary Chairman

I was waiting to see how far the hon. Member went in that direction.

Mr. Hughes

These big items of national expenditure deserve the presence of a senior Minister, and it is not good enough that the Government should send the office boy.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. James Ramsden)

Without wishing to quarrel with the hon. Member's description of me, may I say that it is traditional that debates of this kind should be attended and answered by the Under-Secretary, wearing his erstwhile hat of Financial Secretary. That explains the non-appearance of my right hon. Friend, who is following tradition and not intending any discourtesy to the Committee.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

I have been in the House of Commons for a long time. I did not intend any discourtesy to the hon. Member and I at once withdraw every word that I said.

The situation presented by the article in The Times is curious. The last article in The Times which my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley asked me to read was two columns long and said that even if the Government got the men into the Army, they would not have the equipment for them. We should then have the curious situation of having an Army which had nothing to use. That is an insoluble problem, and yet we may have an Army without any equipment, conventional or strategic, on which we shall have spent £133,370,000.

A considerable sum is to be spent on recruiting activities. In our last debate on the Army I pointed out that the enormous amount of money spent on publicity had been completely ineffective and exceedingly expensive and that some of the recruiting literature grossly underestimated the average intelligence of the young person in Britain today. They want to know why they are asked to join the Army. That is what the average citizen does not yet understand.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart (Beckenham)

I prefer to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) rather than those of the hon. Member for Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), especially as the hon. Member for Dudley referred to the vital rôle of liaison with colonial forces. In debates in this House over many years there has been some discussion of the advisability of raising colonial forces to supplement the British Army. In fact, of course, these colonial forces do exist. There are large numbers of Malayans serving in the Army, large numbers of Nigerians, large numbers of West Indians and Ghanaians, and they are, of course, serving in their own countries, and, to a large extent, have taken over some of the responsibilities which the British Army once had.

For instance, if there is an outbreak or an insurrection in Malaya, the prime responsibility for maintaining law and order will rest on the Malayan forces. There has been a British battalion in the past earmarked ready to fly out to the Ghanaian diamond fields in case there should be a breakdown of law and order there. Now, of course, the maintenance of law and order in Sierra Leone will become the prime responsibility of the Sierre Leone military forces. One can go on round the world pointing to places where we now share the responsibility with the emergent forces.

At present, there are 1,000 British officers and 1,000 British N.C.O.s who are engaged in helping these emergent forces to find their feet. I believe that they do most excellent and admirable work, but I fear that only too often we in this country are inclined to strike rather hard bargains with the Governments concerned. I have noticed in West Africa and the West Indies that, whereas we should be urging them to accept this form of help and assistance, we seem to be trying to extract the very last penny from them. It seems to me that it would be intensely useful to increase Vote 1 by a small amount for British officers and N.C.O.s going to serve in this liaison capacity.

I should like also to pay a tribute to the work done at Sandhurst and the Staff College, and, above all, at the Imperial Defence College, in furthering this Commonwealth ideal, which all these officers engaged in this liaison work are doing so well.

9.34 p.m.

Mr, George Chetwynd (Stockton-on-Tees)

My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has rightly raised the effect of the change in the German currency upon the position of our troops in the British Army of the Rhine. Within these troops there is a section who, in my opinion, have been unfairly dealt with in the past few years. I refer to the National Service men who have been serving in Germany side by side with Regular troops at a rate of pay about one-third, or even less, of that of the Regular soldier.

A man who has served between 12 or 18 months in the Rhine Army has to live on a rate of pay of 5s. 6d. At the current rate, that will be capable of purchasing something like 4s. worth of goods in Germany in the future. It will not leave very much with which to buy the things the man needs in order to keep him happy in these circumstances. Even now, I know of cases in which many of these men, who were deferred up to 21 years of age, who were used to fairly regular spending habits, are now dependent for cigarettes and things like that on their wives and families in this country sending them out to Germany. I suggest that this category of men who are serving today in the Rhine Army, and are now coming to the end of their service, ought to be better treated than they have been so far. If there are any priorities in this matter of trying to put affairs in Germany right, we should insist that the National Service man is given the first priority.

It is easy for the Minister to say that they are all going out, and that they have to be there by law in any case, for another twelve months at the most, so why should they be paid any more. But one reason for the failure of his recruiting campaign to attract National Service men to join the Regular Forces so far has been the discrepancy in pay as between the National Service man and the Regular. If he could make National Service men happy in their last nine months' service in the Rhine Army he would stand a good chance of getting some of the men to transfer to the Regular Army. I therefore beg him with all my power to see that an extra allowance is given to the National Service man in Germany, in order to make his rate of pay commensurate to his needs.

This will be all the more important if we are going to have German troops over here. As a result of the change in currency regulations they will be better off than before, and it will be a poor commentary upon the fact that we have been in a position to defend Germany up to now if their soldiers serving here are better placed than our National Service men serving in Germany. That is an additional reason for doing something for them, even at this late hour.

9.36 p.m.

Brigadier Sir Otho Prior-Palmer (Worthing)

I support what the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) said about German currency. He expressed the matter very clearly, and I shall do no more than refer to it.

I want to turn to the question of the marriage allowance. At the moment it is not too bad; people are quite happy with it. But there is one burden which married couples in the Army have to bear which has not been sufficiently alleviated, namely, the expense involved in disturbance. An incredible amount of money is spent by married families in the Army in moving their furniture, goods and chattels from one station to another, more than once or even more than twice a year. I hope that my hon. Friend will comment upon that aspect of the matter and undertake to look into it carefully.

My second point concerns education allowances. I want to say a word about the education of the children of officers, warrant officers and men. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee are extremely anxious that recruiting should go well, and one of the chief deterrents to recruitment in the past has been the doubt about the facilities for educating the children of officers and men. I know that a good deal of improvement has taken place, but I hope that my hon. Friend will consider the question of children who are sent home and who are entitled to receive a local authority grant to assist them with their education.

This system does not work very satisfactorily. Local authorities, when deciding upon the size of grant to award, base their decision upon the standard of living or the cost of living in their own areas in this country. They have not the foggiest notion—how can they have?—of the standard of living or the cost of living in the station in which the parents or guardians of the children may be at the moment in any part of the world. I hope that my hon. Friend will make a careful study of this matter and, if possible, instruct local authorities, by circular or in some other way, about the cost of living in stations abroad so that the children of whom I am speaking can be given an adequate grant, thereby relieving their parents of an undue strain upon their resources.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds (Islington, North)

Reference has been made to recruiting. Pay in the Army inevitably plays a large part in recruiting. Most of the advertisements which I see on recruiting emphasise the travel facilities available and the adventurous life awaiting those who join the Army. The advertisements show the large number of jobs available and the facilities which are provided for technical training and matters of that kind. Very few posters mention the pay which one is likely to receive if one joins the Army. It looks very fine on a poster to see a smart officer in the Army coming out of a Beau Geste type of fort in the Aden Protectorate, but some idea ought to be given to the man of what he is likely to get for doing that job.

Can the Minister give us some idea of the sort of salaries and wages which men receive? They are given at the back of the Estimates, but they are complicated. Can the Minister give us some idea of what a grade 1 private with six years' service who is not a tradesman but who has signed on for twenty-one years is getting at the moment? Perhaps he could also give us similar information about a sergeant in similar circumstances on the assumption that he is married, has two children, and is living in married quarters outside London. He might also give us the information with regard to a captain with six years' service in that rank, again married with two children and living in quarters. More information of that nature included in recruiting posters and advertisements might be of great help in persuading a few extra men to come into the Army.

My main point, and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) I have given the Minister notice of this, is the problem of the Rhine Army and service in Germany. I was in Germany until a couple of days ago and I heard rumblings about this matter although I was some distance away from British troops on the Continent. As I see it, most other troops stationed overseas receive allowances if the cost of living in that country warrants their payment, but this does not apply to Germany which is regarded as a home posting for the British Army.

There has been a 5 per cent. revaluation of the Deutschmark. It can be said that this is only a small thing, and that it is something about which we should not be unduly worried, but my fear is that after the Federal elections in the autumn—and this is already being rumoured—there will be another 5 per cent, revaluation, making 10 per cent. in all. Unless we get the matter clear now, we may find our troops in Germany in a worse position than they are at the moment. Because of the 5 per cent. revaluation, some warrant officers may be £50 a year worse off. A private might be £25 a year worse off, and a captain £75 worse off in terms of pay, with the possibility of further revaluation to come. I am of the opinion, as I am sure the majority of my hon. Friend are, that something must be done in this matter otherwise it will seriously damage recruiting, which the Government are trying to encourage.

9.43 p.m.

Mr. Kershaw

On the question of recruiting, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the possibility of opening British recruiting offices in parts of the Commonwealth? At present there is nothing except for Gurkha recruits, and it is not possible to join the Army from the Commonwealth unless one goes to a consulate and they pays one's passage across the sea to join the Army here. If one is doubtful about whether one will be accepted, that will obviously make young men hesitate to undertake the journey here, and if such arrangements could be put in hand with the Commonwealth I am certain that it would be easy to get many satisfactory recruits for the Army if we had recruiting offices open for the British Army in the Commonwealth.

Secondly, I should like to refer to the small item of the outfit allowance for officers and to regret, once again, that the War Office is adamant about not allowing household troops in London to walk out in full dress. This would be a powerful recruiting incentive, and I am certain that it would not cost, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War said, £100,000 a year. It could not possibly do so. That is the amount which is spent on all the full dress, and it is not to be presumed that they will be ruined and that a second suit will be needed. The War Office ought to look at this again. It would be very factory if it did.

On the question of the German revaluation, it will cost us £3 million this year on £60 million, and possibly, with revaluation after the election, £6 million. We have the possibility, which I hope my hon. Friend will bear in mind, of bringing two brigades back here for our Strategic Reserve. That will be cheaper and better, and will be within our obligations to N.A.T.O. and will not harm our alliance. We have the right under the N.A.T.O. Treaty, for balance of payments reasons, to move part of our forces here. Nowadays, under the changed conditions, that could be done without any military or political harm to N.A.T.O. Lastly, under Vote 1, I have been looking at rates of pay to men and lady officers. [An HON. MEMBER: "Women"] Some are ladies. I am very surprised that an officer in the W.R.A.C. is paid nearly £100 less on joining and throughout her time gets about £100 to £200 less than the equivalent rank of a man. I wonder for what reason that is. She has just the same appearances to keep up and she can be married with a husband to support. I should like to know why they are paid so much less. I should also like to know how many women officers receive marriage allowance.

9.45 p.m.

Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett (Croydon, North-East)

I can make my speech almost in one sentence. I have listened to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). Every single proposal he made would result in an increase in expenditure. If we followed the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) there would be no expenditure whatever. At any rate, there is one hon. Member of this Committee who believes that expenditure should be contained and held at all costs this year. If these various expenses have to be incurred in Germany, I sincerely hope that a proportionate number of troops will be brought home to prevent us having to spend more money.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. Ramsden

I am sorry that we have not had longer time for our discussion on the Army Votes. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have been kind enough to give me notice of many points to which they require an answer on other Votes besides this one. I am grateful for that consideration and I shall try to say something in reply to the points which have been raised on this Vote.

The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) and also my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) all spoke of the effects of the recent revaluation of the German mark. So far as we can see at the moment, the additional cost to Army Votes will be in the region of £2 million a year, because it will cost us more to buy the marks to give our soldiers to spend. Hon. Members also referred to the effects of this recent German decision on the purchasing power of our soldiers' pay. I am able to assure the Committee that as a result of the German decision, which was taken only recently, we have instituted an urgent examination of the need for a revision in the rates of local overseas allowance.

It was suggested that, Germany being treated as a home station, our soldiers there are not eligible for such an allowance, but the position is that local overseas allowance is paid in all theatres where local living costs are greater than they are in the United Kingdom. That, I think, will cover the position arising out of the recent German decision. As this has only just happened, there is nothing more I can say at the moment beyond that it is our intention that soldiers in Germany should not suffer because of this revaluation and, where necessary, we hope to adjust the rates of local overseas allowance accordingly.

The hon. Member for Dudley and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) both referred to pay and allowances of officers seconded to the forces of various overseas territories. I was glad that (they both stressed the importance of these arrangements. not only to the countries to whose forces they go but to this country. It is right—here I agree with the hon. Member for Dudley—that we should see that the men seconded to other forces are well paid since we must be able to attract a high class of volunteer for this work. For that reason the cost to the Governments concerned is inevitably rather high. I am glad to say that the demand from overseas Governments for officers and men to do these jobs is what may be described as buoyant. I do not, therefore, think that there is necessarily a case for any kind of subsidy beyond that which is at present paid in some cases from Colonial Office and Foreign Office Votes but, as the hon. Member for Dudley said, this is not a question on which I am properly qualified to give an authoritative answer.

I stress again to the Committee the value of these appointments, and I assure hon. Members that I am confident that it has been accepted now throughout the Army that these jobs are worth doing and that it is in every respect an asset to a man's career to be chosen for secondment. The hon. Member for Dudley and other hon. Members asked about wastage. If I do not say very much on the general subject of wastage at the moment it is because time is short, but there will almost certainly be an opportunity for an extended debate on this subject when the Army Bill comes back from the Select Committee.

The hon. Member for Dudley asked whether I could place in the Vote Office a return setting out, by arms and brigades of Infantry, recruiting figures, and number of discharges. He wished me to give the reasons for discharge, the number discharged in the first three months of service, and the number discharged later in their service. I was impressed by his argument and I will certainly look into the point. I cannot at the moment give him any definite undertaking.

The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) was good enough to assist our recruiting publicity by asking me some questions about current rates of pay. To give him only one example, a sergeant non-tradesman who signs on for a 22-year engagement, with first option of discharge in the ninth year, assuming he is married and has two children, will be getting in cash £869 a year, which is about £17 a week. In answer to a further point on which the hon. Member for Dudley previously expressed interest, a soldier can expect on average—I emphasise on average—to be promoted to sergeant at about the age of 28 or 29.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir O. Prior-Palmer) asked about disturbance and educational allowances. The disturbance allowance rate has been improved within the last year. I will look into the other matter he raised and write to him in due course. Educational grants are paid to parents who have children at home in boarding schools at a rate of £150 for the first child, £175 for the second and £200 for the third. My Department is grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education for what he has done to make available places in boarding schools for the children of parents to whom my hon. and gallant Friend has referred. I will certainly see whether there is anything further which we can ask my right hon. Friend to do in the light of my hon. and gallant Friend's speech.

I think that I have covered as best I can most of the points made by hon. Members in our short debate. I conclude with a further expression of regret that our time for discussion of the other Votes is likely to be drastically curtailed.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

Will my hon. Friend reply to my question about Berlin?

Mr. Ramsden

I apologise to my hon. Friend. I assure him that the brigade in Berlin has supporting administrative arms and, therefore, it is not essentially different from an ordinary brigade group.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

Is there a monetary saving on last year?

Mr. Ramsden

That may be so. I cannot tell my hon. Friend without notice.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

I think that we should spend a little time examining with more attention all the items in Vote 1, to say nothing of Votes 2, 8, 9 and 10 and the Supplementary Estimate. I take a view different from that taken by hon. and gallant Members opposite who are interested in the Services. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Sir O. Prior-Palmer) take a different view, but I take part in these debates purely from the point of view of my constituents. After all these items have been considered, I want to know what the justification for them is. I wish to understand how I may justify them when I have to face my constituents.

We have heard, for example, about the recruiting campaign. I could not find that there was a recruiting campaign in my constituency and I could not find out whether anyone had joined up, so I asked the Secretary of State for War how many recruits from Ayrshire had joined the Army in January. There are five constituencies in Ayrshire, and the total number joining in January was eight. This includes not only my constituency, but Kilmarnock and the constituency of the hon. Member——

The Chairman

I must interrupt the hon. Member. He is dealing now with numbers, not with pay. He is dealing with Vote A.

Mr. Hughes

I will relate it to pay. I suppose that the eight would receive at the most £72 in a week or, rather, four times that in a month. This is expenditure which indicates the background of the Estimates we are discussing. I am very surprised that the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean), who is really my opposite number in these debates, has not been here to discuss these Estimates. He has not contributed anything constructive.

Not only have I failed to discover a recruiting campaign in my constituency, but I have failed to discover anything in the constituency of Bute and North Ayrshire.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey (Macclesfield)

On a point of order, Sir Gordon. The hon. Member is making many points and it is questionable whether they are all in order. May I call your attention to the fact that the Air Estimates have not been discussed at all, yet there is all this rubbish about Ayrshire?

The Chairman

It is not a point of order that the Air Estimates cannot be discussed. I think that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is again dealing with numbers rather than with pay.

Mr. Hughes

I do not mind at all if the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), in his anxiety about the Air Force, should refer to my constituency in that way, but in referring to Ayrshire as rubbish he is referring to four other constituencies, including two represented by his hon. Friends. However, that is not the point.

In my part of Ayrshire, what interests us is the growing amount of public expenditure under these Estimates which will have to be met, and which is being met, by increasing other charges, raising Health Service charges, and making economies——

Mr. Reynolds

If my hon. Friend does not sit down, he will not be able to vote against the Estimates.

Mr. Hughes

I do not quite understand——

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Report of Resolutions to be received Tomorrow.

Committee also report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.