§ 32. Mr. Kershawasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the organisation of the Army logistic services.
§ Mr. RamsdenA Committee under the chairmanship of General Sir Roderick McLeod was set up last year to review the Army logistic organisa- 1286 tion and to recommend whether any changes were necessary in the interests of greater efficiency or more economical use of manpower and materials.
The Committee's main recommendation, which has been accepted, is that the three primary logistic functions of supply, transport and repair should each become the single responsibility of a separate Corps. To give effect to this, the Royal Army Ordnance Corps will take over from the Royal Army Service Corps the supply of rations, petrol, oil and lubricants and will thus become responsible, with certain minor exceptions, for supplying all the Army's stores and equipment; the Royal Army Service Corps, having shed its present responsibility for supply, will add to its duties those of the Royal Engineers transport units and the Movement Control Service, and will thus have sole responsibility for Army transport.
The Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers already carry out almost all the repair work in the Army, but certain of the Committee's recommendations for the transfer of some additional repair responsibilities are at present being studied and will be implemented if desirable.
Her Majesty The Queen has graciously consented to a proposal that the new Corps to be formed from the transport elements of the Royal Army Service Corps and the Royal Engineers transport units shall be known as the Royal Corps of Transport. The Royal Army Ordnance Corps and the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers will retain their existing titles.
It will be some months before detailed plans are ready and we can begin introducing the new organisation.
§ Mr. HealeyOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not quite improper for a Minister to make a major statement of this nature in answer to a planted Question from the back benches? Should not a statement of this nature be made by leave of the House after Questions?
§ Mr. SpeakerIt does not raise strictly a point of order. But everybody knows that it is inconvenient if long Answers are given in the ordinary course of Questions. Exactly which is the more desirable practice is usually a matter of judgment on each particular occasion. I do 1287 not myself think that on this occasion the exercise of judgment was utterly happy.
§ Mr. KershawIs my right hon. Friend aware that his Answer was no longer than the usual supplementaries asked by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin)?
§ Mr. RankinOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order to launch against the hon. Member for Govan, unprovoked, an unwarranted and unjustifiable attack in that way?
§ Mr. SpeakerI do not think that the epithets "unwarranted" or "unjustifiable" give rise to a matter about which I might express an opinion; but what I do emphasise is that no hon. Member should use the privilege of asking a supplementary question to make remarks which are, however, genial, offensive. Sometimes, one lets them pass in the hope of saving time, but we do not seem to have done that.
§ Mr. KershawIs my right hon. Friend aware that this division of responsibility among the branches of the Army seems extremely logical and reflects credit on General McLeod and upon his Department? What is likely to be the effect on the Royal Engineers, who, as I understand it, are losing a certain amount of functions? What will they do in the future?
§ Mr. RamsdenI am sorry, Mr. Speaker, if I did wrong in seeking to give the House this information at Question Time. It is an important statement regarding the Army, and I wished to make it.
In reply to my hon. Friend, it is true, as I said, that the present transport functions of the Sappers will go to the Royal Corps of Transport, and to that extent the Corps of Royal Engineers will be smaller, but I do not think that this will have a very significant effect upon the future of the Royal Engineers, because the personnel engaged in these transport activities have tended to be specialists in their own field. Nevertheless, as we have done in arriving at the decision to implement this recommendation, we shall watch the position of the Sappers very closely.
§ Mr. HealeyWill the functions of movements as well as transportation 1288 now pass from the Royal Engineers to the new corps?
§ Mr. RamsdenI said in my original Answer that movement control would become a function of the new corps.
§ Sir G. NicholsonIs not there a danger of my right hon. Friend, in effect, making two bites at the cherry? Does not all logistics really come under one heading, and will there not be overlapping between the various new organisations? Would it not have been much better to have one corps dealing with logistics as a whole?
§ Mr. RamsdenThis was considered, but even if we had one corps the three functions of repair, transport and store-holding would be separate functions in themselves and that even one corps would have required three divisions to discharge them, which would have been a less desirable arrangement, I think, than the one we have arrived at. We have sought in this solution to reduce overlapping to the very minimum.