ARMY RESERVE [MONEY] (Hansard, 27 November 1961)

§ Mr. Christopher Mayhew (Woolwich, East)
After that disastrous vote for the Government, this Resolution gives a much-needed opportunity to the Minister of Defence to give us some of the answers to the questions which we asked in the previous debate.

Hon. Members
Where is he?

§ The Chairman
This is a debate on the Money Resolution and not a debate on the Bill.

§ Mr. Mayhew
I will not attempt to stray beyond the rules of order, Sir Gordon, but there is nothing to prevent the Minister of Defence replying to the remarks which I propose to make. After the experience which the Government have had this afternoon, they should welcome the chance to try to redeem something from the mess in which they find themselves.
There is also a secondary point. We want to make sure that the Resolution will not bind us too tightly during the Committee stage. There may be a number of fairly wide-ranging Amendments which we wish to propose, Amendments to which only the Minister of Defence can give a suitable answer. Therefore, we must look carefully at the Resolution which we are now asked to pass.
I am glad to know that the Minister of Defence is being sent for. When he comes, perhaps we can invite him to reply to some of our questions. My right hon. and hon. Friends have a number of questions to put on the Reso- 180 lution. Whilst waiting for the Minister of Defence, however, I should like to point out one anomalous matter in the Bill. Perhaps someone could explain it for us.

§ The Chairman
The hon. Member cannot refer to the Bill.

§ Mr. Mayhew
I understand completely, Sir Gordon. This is the description of the financial effects of the Bill. I wonder if I should be in order in referring to the paragraph headed, "Financial effects of the Bill" I take it there is no objection to that, Sir Gordon?

§ The Chairman
No

§ Mr. Mayhew
The paragraph in question reads as follows: Some expenditure will arise from the provisions of Clause 5 relating to reinstatement in civil employment and protection of civil interests. The extent of the expenditure cannot be forecast as it is dependent upon the extent to which the powers under the Bill are exercised. I should like your guidance on this point, Sir Gordon. Should not the heading, "Financial effects of the Bill" be comprehensive? Should not, therefore, the paragraph which follows refer not only to reinstatement in civil employment and protection of civil interests but to other forms of expenditure under the Bill, forms which are not referred to in that paragraph? Obviously, a great deal of expenditure will be involved. The Secretary of State did not attempt to hide this, nor did the Under-Secretary of State. I do not think any of the statements made publicly by Ministers about the Bill have hidden the fact that a good deal of expenditure is involved in it. Why, then, does this paragraph refer only to some minor part of the expenditure, to expenditure relating to civil employment and protection of civil interests?
We should like a further explanation of the meaning of this Resolution. After all, it has happened before that Resolutions of this kind have severely restricted discussion of Bills in Committee. Could we please have an explanation of the wording of the Resolution: it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other Act. 181 I think that we should ask for a full explanation before we agree to pass the Resolution.

§ Mr. George Brown (Belper)
Come on, answer. Who is to answer?

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Alan Green)
I hope I can give an immediate and direct answer to the hon. Gentleman. The Resolution refers, as the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill says, essentially to Clause 5 and the safeguards on reinstatement and on the protection of certain civil rights. The basic safeguards for National Service men are in Part II of the 1948 Act. These safeguards are applied by the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act, 1950, to the National Service officers and to reservists or members of Auxiliary Forces called out in cases of emergency. The Ministry of Labour has responsibilities under both Acts, as the hon. Gentleman appreciates. It seems natural, therefore, for me to answer the hon. Gentleman's question.
The sort of sums which we expect to be involved under the machinery provisions of the Bill are to be counted in hundreds of pounds and not thousands. The reason for that, if I may give one or two figures from past experience, which is probably the best thing to go on, is that the cases of reinstatement which have been referred to tribunals have averaged about 100 in number each year since 1955; that is, from 1955 to 1960. The largest number was 165 in 1958. Of these, a small number, ten in one year, seven in another, appeal against the findings of the reinstatement committees. The cost per case averages about £20. There are also—about one a year—a small number of prosecutions of employers for ignoring prohibition of dismissal. These prosecutions cost about £10 each. The sum of money involved in the full operation in this respect of the National Service Act is, therefore, between £3,000 and £4,000 a year.
It is, naturally, expected that if National Service men are retained, or if others are called up there will be a certain number, a limited number, of additional appeals on reinstatement, or, at the time of call-up, for the protection of civil rights.
182 10.30 p.m.
We cannot, of course, estimate exactly how many they will be, but I hope that I have given the order of magnitude involved in the operation of the machinery of the Bill. The best we can say at the moment is that additional cost arising out of the machinery will run into hundreds of pounds.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) may not like the way certain words are inserted in the Bill, but what I am seeking to answer is the terms of the Resolution and I have every intention of keeping within the rules of order. As I understand it we are concerned, under the terms of the Resolution, with the machinery of operation of Clause 5, and the cost of operating that machinery is, as I have said, a matter of hundreds and not of thousands of pounds.

§ Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton)
I find this very mysterious. As far as I have understood, one of the constitutional protections which this country has always enjoyed is that military expenditure cannot be entered into unless authorised annually. We are told that this is a Resolution which authorises the payment of a few hundred or at most a few thousand pounds in legal expenses concerning appeals in connection with reinstatement. What about the other expenditure which the Bill brings into being? Is the Resolution wide enough to cover that?
Clause 1 covers a number of people who are to be retained for an additional six months, and not only paid for those months but paid at new rates. I should have thought that that involved a very large sum of money. Are we not to be asked to authorise it? Are we not to hear from the Minister of Defence what sort of sum is involved?
Clause 2, again, involves us in very large sums of money which are quite undefined. There seems to be no limit on the number of people who take on an engagement, whether they do anything under it or not, and who are to be paid at the rate of £3 a week, annually renewable. Where does the money come from to do that? I should be very surprised if we authorised that in the last Army Act. It certainly slipped my notice.

§ The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Profumo)
I do not know whether I can be in order on this Resolution but I am prepared to try. The money for the sort of things which the hon. and learned Member has in mind will come in the next Army Estimates.

§ Mr. Paget
How do we then cover it in this Bill? Clause 5 provides for "Safeguards for civil employment and interests". How on earth does it provide the means to do that when these men will be paid for six months before we get to the next Army Act? How do we pay them? How do we pay them at the new increased rates? There is no provision in Clause 2 about when that comes into operation; about when recruiting of the "Ever-readies" is to start, or when they are coming into service; or what authority, without a Money Resolution, the Government have for pledging the credit of the country to these men whom they are proposing to engage and to whom, apparently, they are to pay capital sums each year for services which they might not, and which we all expect they will not, render. All this is being done without a Financial Resolution or any provision of money, so far as we can make out. At least we want an explanation of these oddest of odd arrangements. When can we learn? Do I have to continue until the Government are in a position to answer?

§ Mr. Green
Perhaps I can refer the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) to something I have already said. We have to have this Resolution, which is quite normal, to provide that the machinery of the Bill may be paid for. That is precisely what it seeks to do. It seeks to ensure that if and when, as I devoutly hope, the Bill becomes an Act provision has been made for the machinery of the Bill which is embodied in Clause 5. The cost of defence, the question now being raised by hon. Members, is a proper subject for the Army Estimates, or Defence Estimates.

§ Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North)
No doubt all forms of expenditure have to be covered by Estimates. But we were told earlier that £3 a week was to be paid to these volunteers. Is that payment covered by this Resolution or not?

§ Mr. Green
I do not see how it could have been. It will be covered in the Army Estimates.

§ Mr. Paget
I could understand that argument if, for instance, Clause 3 did not come into operation until after the Army Estimates, but the power we are giving under it somes into operation immediately. Are these men to be told, "We are prepared to enter into a contract with you; we cannot pay you now and we are not certain we can pay later; it depends on what happens to the Army Estimates."? Is the Minister prepared to tell us that nobody whose discharge is due before the Army Estimates will be retained under Clause 1? Can he promise us that?

§ Mr. Profumo
I have already told the House that we will not be retaining anybody until after 1st April of next year. I have also explained that we will start recruiting the "Ever-readies" before then, but that this might have to be spaced over a longer period of time. The point my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour was trying to explain was that the cost, in so far as any cost arises out of this Bill, will either be paid for under existing Army Estimates already passed or will come under the Army Estimates for next year.
The point is that my hon. Friend is dealing with the Resolution as set down here and which he has explained, and that the money which is defence costs is borne on the Army Estimates.

§ Mr. G. W. Reynolds (Islington, North)
We have a troika of Ministers present for this Money Resolution, but we still have not had a satisfactory answer to our questions. Nor have we the presence of the Minister of Defence. I hope someone at the top of this pyramid of Ministers knows the answers, or perhaps we can persuade the Leader of the House to help us out.
I understand that we have been told by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour that this Money Resolution simply deals with Clause 5 and nothing further. We were told a moment or two later that the matter of providing money for the "Ever-readies" and for meeting the wages of any National Service men retained or recalled 185 would be provided in the Estimates. But surely a Money Resolution, irrespective of whether Estimates are due shortly or some way ahead, usually makes general provision for the expenditure to be met from money provided by Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Sometimes these Resolutions are tightly drawn. I am scared, in this case, because, apparently, this Money Resolution deals with Clause 5 but nothing deals with other Clauses. Does this mean twat it will be either almost impossible to amend the Bill because it will be out of conformity with a Money Resolution which does not exist, or that we will be much freer than usual to amend it because of the lack of a specific reference in the Resolution to anything other than Clause 5?
Even if that were so, I find it strange to have been told that it is necessary to have the Money Resolution for Clause 5 because certain administrative arrangements have to be made to get the machine ready. Later, the Secretary of State intervened to say that whilst the Army might start recruiting "Ever-readies" now, they will not be engaged until the Estimates next year. Surely, if it is necessary to get administration ready to deal with appeals, money is also needed to start the recruiting of "Ever-readies", which will begin before the Estimates.
We have had a mass of contradictions from the three Ministers who are trying to assist the Committee, but are merely succeeding in confusing it more. I hope that the Secretary of State will get his information from the Minister of Defence rather than from one of the Government's Law Officers.
The Secretary of State has been contradictory. On the one hand, he tells us the money will be in the Estimates; on the other, that the recruiting of the "Ever-readies" will start before the Estimates. That must involve the spending of some money—in advertising, in the employment of staff and other things of that nature. If it is necessary to have a Money Resolution to cover administrative arrangements for Clause 5, it is necessary to have one to cover the preliminary administrative arrangements for the other Clauses. I hope that, if we cannot get an answer from the three Ministers here, other Ministers will help us.

§ Mr. Paget
The Secretary of State has at least made one observation which, I think, will come as a considerable relief to a good many men, that is, those whose release date falls between now and April will not be retained. It seems rather an odd arrangement that because the Money Resolution is drawn in this way a number of people will arbitrarily get released, and another number of people will arbitrarily get recalled with reference to 1st April. That is what the right hon. Gentleman said. He said that nobody would be retained.

§ Mr. Profumo
I do not want to prolong these proceedings. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are seeking to muddle the situation. It is perfectly clear. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had done me the courtesy of listening to my speech when moving the Second Reading of the Bill earlier today, he would have heard me make plain beyond doubt the position of those who may be retained. It is nothing to do with the Money Resolution, and he knows it.

§ Mr. Paget
I take it from that that nobody who is due to be released before April will be retained. He will be discharged under this Clause, and then pulled in again under Clause 2 as somebody who has a reserve liability and is wanted back again. This seems to be a rather curious way of going about it.
The "Ever-readies", referred to in Clause 3, are to be recruited, but not paid, until April. Why not have a Money Resolution which provides the money required to perform the obligations undertaken in this Bill? The Government say that they do not want this immediately, and nobody will appear before a tribunal within the next day or two because of matters arising under the Bill. Why do the Government not withdraw the Money Resolution and come back again when they have had another look at it? It is wrong. Plainly, it will not work. It is as ill-conceived as the contents of the Bill. Surely the Government could take the Money Resolution back and come back to the House when they had thought about it a little more?

§ Mr. Profumo
There is no need to do that. If any "Ever-readies" are recruited before the next Army Estimates, 187 or there is any expenditure, that is covered in Vote A. Any expenditure incurred before the next Army Estimates is covered in the present Army Estimates. It is clear that this is an Army Estimates matter and not a matter for the Money Resolution.

§ Mr. John Strachey (Dundee, West)
The right hon. Gentleman has now taken the Committee to a very strange position. He has explained that the Money Resolution provides specifically, if necessary, to pay for a trivial part of the expenditure under the Bill. On the other hand, apparently no Money Resolution is needed to pay for the main expenditure under the Bill, which is to be quite considerable.
The right hon. Gentleman at one moment explained this by saying that none of this expenditure would take place before April next and the next Army Estimates. Is this so? Can he say definitely that there will be no expenditure before next April, other than that trivial part covered by this Money Resolution? If that is so, it is remarkable, because it means that none of this augmenting of the forces which we are told is so urgent can possibly take place until next summer. If that is so, very little is left of the argument that this is connected with the Berlin crisis.
There is a further point. We are told that any expenditure which takes place before April will take place under Vote A of the Army Estimates of last year. I imagine that when he said this he was appealing to the doctrine of virement of which the Committee is very well seized. But this is stretching the doctrine of virement very much further than it has ever been stretched before. A Money Resolution was never meant to cover this point. We are now told that money voted under last year's Estimates should be used to finance the provisions in a Bill now being put through the House of Commons. This is stretching the old established doctrine of virement—which has been looked on somewhat jealously by Parliament—far too wide. We must have it explained to us.
Is there to be any expenditure before next April? If not, the whole effect of the Bill is postponed. If there is to be expenditure, under what legislation? Is it to be taken from the last Army Esti- 188 mates, as we have just been told? If so, does the Minister seriously suggest that this is a possible application of the doctrine of virement? If it is not, will he take this Money Resolution back and revise it and bring it into some relation to the Bill which he is asking the House to accept?

Hon. Members
Answer.

§ Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)
This seems to be a most extraordinary example of muddle and confusion on the part of the Government. The Minister does not reply because the Government do not know the answer. The Minister of Defence has intervened twice—

§ Mr. Gordon Walker (Smethwick)
Not the Minister of Defence.

§ Mr. Fletcher
I beg the Committee's pardon. The Secretary of State for War has intervened two or three times and on each occasion he has made the position worse.

§ Mr. Gordon Walker
We are getting deeper into the mire.

§ Mr. Fletcher
I hope that we shall have a proper and intelligent explanation from the Secretary of State for War, or at least from the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who, I imagine is primarily responsible—

§ Mr. Gordon Walker
Or the Leader of the House.

§ Mr. Fletcher
Or the Leader of the House or the Chancellor of the Exchequer who are primarily responsible for the finances of this country and for the due administration of the Constitution.
May we please have the position explained to us before we accept this Money Resolution? In terms it is most ambiguous. It seeks to provide that we should make further provision with respect to reserves for the Regular Army. We have been told by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour quite categorically—this is on record—that the only object of the Money Resolution is to authorise the payment by Parliament under Clause 5 of the Bill.
No one could possibly have understood that from reading the terms of the Resolution. If ordinary English means anything, it would appear from the terms 189 of the Resolution that it covers any expenditure. I am not referring now to the Bill, but to the Money Resolution. It is in the widest possible terms and could, presumably, without any explanation, have covered any expenditure under the Bill.
We have been told by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, and the Government are bound by this, that it is intended only to cover the expenditure under Clause 5. So we must have an explanation. Is any money to be expended because of this Bill under an earlier Measure either before April or after?
The Secretary of State for War stated that in so far as some money was to be spent before the next Army Estimates it could be properly paid because of the Vote passed earlier this year. With respect to the Secretary of State, that is quite wrong. It would be constitutionally impossible, legally impossible, contrary to parliamentary procedure—[Hon. Members: "And ultra vires"]—and ultra vires for the Government to spend money under the Bill out of funds voted earlier before the Bill was even contemplated.
If money is voted by this House for a specific purpose, it has to be applied to that purpose. Parliament is in control of the expenditure of money voted by this House and it is not for the Government, if money has been voted for one purpose, to apply it for another purpose. If they want to apply it to another purpose they should come to the House and say that they want to apply it to another purpose. This is another example of the deception which this Government are practising on this country, whether in respect of immigration, the Common Market, or anything else. They speak in the language of ambiguity. We can never get the truth from the Government.
On this occasion, Ministers have overstepped themselves, because they have indicated that they intend to act illegally and unconstitutionally. I advise them that we shall watch every penny of expenditure that they incur under this Measure. This is not the way to treat the House. If they want to spend money under Clause 1 they should say so. If 190 not, they have no right to produce this Measure and make speeches such as they have made today asking Parliament to pass the Bill into law urgently when they say that they do not intend to spend any money under it before April next year.

§ Mr. Austen Albu (Edmonton)
Before the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour—and, following him, the Secretary of State for War—spoke, I was not quite certain what the case of my hon. Friends was. It seemed that the Money Resolution covered the expenditure involved. It was very strange, however, to be told by the Parliamentary Secretary that the Money Resolution meant nothing of the sort, but covered only a very small part of the Bill, Clause 5, which he himself said would involve only an expenditure of tens or hundreds of pounds.
It is not much good looking back to the past, when there were very different conditions. The patriotism of employers may not be as great as it was and resistance to carrying out the wishes of the Government in reinstating those called up under this disgraceful Measure may find them not so willing. There might be more expenditure than the Parliamentary Secretary thought. That, I admit, is a somewhat minor matter. Far more important is the point raised by my hon. Friends on the question of virement. As I understand, the practice which we have been told will be carried out in this case of applying funds voted by Parliament under one head of a Vote to another, has never been used to change a policy, but has merely been to adjust a balance of expenditure within a given policy which Parliament has approved in given statutes or Estimates.
Now we are told that there is to be a change in the way that the money voted by Parliament is to be used to bring into effect what is virtually a complete change of policy. Clauses 1, 2 and 3 provide for new Government policies which were never envisaged when the current year's Army Estimates were passed. It is quite monstrous that money voted in that way under different heads should now be used for quite different purposes. The use of virement covering changes in Government policy, extensions or new Government policy, 191 is quite scandalous and I am not surprised that my hon. Friends have raised a serious protest about this matter.

§ Mr. Mayhew
May we have further elucidation from the Secretary of State of the statement that the money would be forthcoming from Vote A? As I understand, Vote A provides for the maximum number of officers and other ranks to be maintained in the Army service. There is no reference to the pay of the Army on Vote A and no reference to bounties nor any of the other things to which the Secretary of State has referred. If this is an obvious mistake he has made, perhaps he would like a little time before we conclude this discussion, as, unfortunately, we must in due course. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because the rules of order prevent us exploring this matter as exhaustively as it deserves. Will the Minister explain exactly what he meant by saying that he would find the money under Vote A when it is not concerned with money at all?

§ Mr. Profumo
The position is that the Money Resolution covers everything which is new expenditure. There will not be any uncovered expenditure other than that which my hon. Friend was talking about. As the Committee knows, the legal basis for all Army pay is the Royal Warrant, which entitles us to make payment. What I was saying to the Committee was that there will be no expenditure in respect of raising the "Ever-readies" or of anything else which will not be covered by next year's Army Estimates. There will be things which cannot be covered by money already voted.
Perhaps I may give an example. Some months ago we started a different sort of bounty for a different sort of reserve—the Army Emergency Reserve, Category I. This was done after the Army Estimates last year, but we did not need a Money Resolution for it.

§ Mr. Gordon Walker
Was there a Bill?

§ Mr. Profumo
This part of the Bill which we are now discussing, the part which might attract a bounty for a different sort of reserve, will also not come under the Money Resolution but 192 will come under the Royal Warrant which takes regard of pay, and any funds which are needed for the next Army Estimates will be carried on existing Army Estimates.
That is the reason that my hon. Friend has moved the Money Resolution, which is for uncovered pay, and it is not for very much. The substantial part of subsequent expenditure of this Bill, if it becomes law, will come under Army Estimates voted next year. Anything which has to be paid in advance can be covered by the Army Estimates and is legalised by the Royal Warrant which will allow us to come forward, if we have to, with a supplementary estimate.

§ Mr. Mayhew
But surely the Secretary of State is under a misapprehension. The Royal Warrant lays down the rates of pay, but the actual raising of money comes in the Army Estimates. I was suggesting that the Royal Warrant lays down rates of pay. The raising of money is a matter for Parliament and for the Army Estimates, and therefore the money that he is to spend in advance of next year's Army Estimates will fall on this year's Army Estimates and not on Vote A.

§ Mr. Profumo
The reason that I mentioned Vote A is that Vote A gives us powers in connection with numbers of people. The Royal Warrant is the basis of all Army pay. The right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), I am sure, understands this very well.

§ Mr. Gordon Walker
Sir Gordon, would it be in order for me to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again," so that we can go into this extremely important constitutional matter at greater length?
The right hon. Gentleman is now telling us that the Government propose to spend out of the authorisation for last year money for something to which Parliament has not even yet agreed. Or else he is telling us that the Bill is not necessary at all and that he could have spent all this money and paid these bounties without having a Bill at all. He has altered the entire basis of his argument this afternoon. He has rushed this matter through because of a terrible crisis and because of things happening 193 in Berlin, so we understood. Now we are told that we cannot begin the major part until April.
Would it be in order to move that Motion, Sir Gordon?

§ The Chairman
I could not accept such a Motion.

§ Mr. Reynolds
The Secretary of State said, first, that he relied on Vote A, and then, a little later, he changed horses in midstream and relied on the Royal Warrant. I cannot work it out. Royal Warrant or not, we have Vote 1 of the Army Estimates, which is headed, "Pay, etc., of the Army," and this Vote provides for expenditure on the pay of officers, including non-Regular officers employed on full-time duties with the Territorial Army, the pay of warrant officers non-commissioned officers and men, the pay of Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps, of the Women's Royal Army Corps, and of Gurkha and certain Commonwealth, including colonial, and other troops. That is what we are told in the Explanatory Notes to Vote 1.
Vote 1 of the Estimates was presumably based on Vote A. First we discuss Vote A and make provision for a certain number of men, and then we go on to Votes 1, 2, 3, and so on. Presumably it was based on Vote A, and Vote 1, therefore, does not provide for anything other than the number of men provided for in Vote A, and there is no provision made for any other kind of expenditure, either for "Ever-readies" or anything else.

§ Mr. Michael Stewart (Fulham)
There might be some expenditure on the "Ever-readies" which might fall due before the next Army Estimates. Royal Warrant or no Royal Warrant, that money has to be provided out of money already voted by Parliament. That means that it has to come out of some Vote. I think that must be right. The Secretary of State himself had a shot at it. He said that it had to come out of Vote A; but, of course, it cannot come out of Vote A because there is no money in Vote A. Presumably it would either come out of Vote 1, which is pay, or out of Vote 2, which is the Reserve Forces, Territorial Army and Cadet Forces. The right hon. Gentleman ought to be able to tell us which.
194 It may be that the addition is so small that it could simply be paid out of that Vote, and that would be that. On the other hand, it might exhaust the Vote, in which case, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, he might have to come to the House for a Supplementary Estimate. Alternatively, he could meet any shortage on that Vote by applying the surpluses from another Vote, the process referred to as virement. He would have to get, as it were, the posthumous approval of the House for doing that. What we want to know is this. The Royal Warrant gives authority to make payments. Out of what fund of money already voted by Parliament will the money be provided?