HC Deb 15 March 1965 vol 708 cc993-1002

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £5,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of miscellaneous effective services, including grants in aid, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. Allason

I am surprised to see an 8 per cent. drop in the welfare Vote in view of what is an extremely important element in the Army, particularly for the families, wives and children, who need a lot of looking after, and in view of the wonderful work that is done by the various welfare organisations. I am, therefore, disappointed to see this 8 per cent. reduction. But by comparison, compensation for losses, damage and so on goes up by 20 per cent. I hope that this is not a reflection on the Socialist administration of the Army—8 per cent. drop on the welfare Vote and 20 per cent. up on he damage that is liable to be done.

There is a considerable increase in the cost of the South Arabian Federation Regular Army. I have seen these troops in action and they are doing an excellent job, but is it right that the British taxpayer, through the Army Vote, should be paying for this? I understand that a portion of the cost comes on the Colonial Office Vote, but should the Army Vote carry a certain amount of this cost since these troops are entirely for use in the Aden Peninsula? I cannot understand why the Army Vote should be meeting such a substantial amount of this cost.

Turning to the item of fees for civilian doctors for the examination of recruits, the medical requirements for recruits vary very considerably. There is a constant stream of statements to say, "You can now accept a chap with one blue eye and one brown eye, which you could not do last year, and a chap lacking a finger, as long as it is the right sort of finger, can still be enlisted."

It is very difficult for civilian doctors to keep up with these changes. As a result, a civilian doctor employed to "vet" a recruit may reject a suitable man, whom the Army does not then get, and on another occasion accept as a recruit a man who should not have been accepted. Considerable expense is involved, because the man is brought to the Army, examined again, and found to be unsatisfactory. He may by that time have given up his job because he thinks he has been accepted—and then out he goes again.

A great deal of misery is caused in that way, and it would be far more satisfactory if, whenever practicable, an Army doctor were to examine recruits. It is not possible in very remote areas where very small numbers of recruits come in, but in large centres of population it is perfectly practicable to have an Army doctor examine a recruit at once. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that Army doctors should be used in this way, thereby relieving civilian doctors of an arduous and rather awkward duty which they find very difficult to fulfil.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Snow

I did not quite follow all the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason), but he has referred to the Socialist administration of the Army. My own view is that the Army is now having a chance to see how its affairs can be organised by common sense and not just from the point of view of the orderly room at Chelsea Barracks. There is a chance now to introduce certain reforms that have been far too long delayed by the former Administration.

Referring to Subhead B—publicity and recruiting services—I often wonder whether the Army recruiting posters one sees really go to the nub of the matter of getting more recruits. Some posters are very good and indicate some degree of professionalism; but, working on the assumption that we want as many recruits as we can get, I do not think that some of the major matters are even touched on.

Mention has been made of the excellent family welfare services, but some of the regulations, well known to the public, and which become known to those who are contemplating entering the Army, militate against the family interest. This is not the time and place to go too deeply into the question of the lack of provision by the previous Administration of sufficient married quarters. I only know that in my postbag I get a great many letters complaining that men and women are separated because the units are moved.

I want to take this opportunity to refer to a matter that should be mentioned in publicity, and that is what happens to his family when the soldier gets into trouble. Does the Army look after that family? I have recently referred to my hon. Friend a case that caused me some alarm. It is the case of a soldier who committed a military crime—he was absent without leave—and was sent to the "glasshouse". His wife was in England and he was in Germany. His wife's marriage allowance stopped. That may be in accordance with Army Regulations, but what happens in such a case is that, straightaway, the wife goes on National Assistance.

These regulations should be amended in the light of present-day thought and present-day employment possibilities. In civilian life, if a man commits an act of indiscipline in the firm where he works and gets the sack, he can find a job next day; he will not be out of work for long. If a soldier commits an act of indiscipline, his wife suffers immediately. This matter should be considered. Why should the wife have to go to National Assistance? Why is the marriage allowance automatically cut off? I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to study this matter to see if something more sensible can be worked out which is in line with modern conditions.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) has said about Subhead B—Publicity and Recruiting Services—but I cannot follow him into the case of his constituent who got into trouble. When a soldier becomes part of Her Majesty's Forces, he signs a contract and accepts the conditions which are set out in that contract, namely, that he will serve, and serve where he is asked to serve. It was unfair of the hon. Gentleman to say what he did about the previous Administration. The Army does its best, and has done its best, to provide married quarters if the soldier is married, accommodation for his wife and children, and schooling facilities as well. Great strides were made by the previous Administration, as I think is generally accepted throughout the country.

I, too, want to ask the Under-Secretary what plans the Government have for using the £220,000 under Subhead B for publicity during the coming year. This Vote Excludes expenditure on large scale Press and poster advertisements and recruiting films". What recruiting campaign have the Government in mind? I have been greatly impressed by the various demonstration units that go round during the summer months and in the autumn and put on demonstrations of equipment, give drill displays, and so on. This is greatly to the advantage of recruitment. What plans do the Government have for keeping up the recruiting figures?

Subhead D, on which the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth touched, is £360,000 for welfare expenses, which is a reduction of £31,000 on the previous year. I imagine this is for grants for welfare services and work which has been done on the kind of case of which the hon. Gentleman spoke, and perhaps grants to S.S.A.F.A. etc. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could explain what this point is.

Subhead E—Compensation for Losses, Damage &c.—shows an increase of about £200,000. How does this amount subdivide between traffic accidents and accidents arising during training? This is compensation for accidents which occur during training which is paid to farmers and civilians, presumably for damage to their property. Does this include payments made overseas—for instance, in respect of accidents arising during training in B.A.O.R.? B.A.O.R. in the past had claims made against it, and I am sure that it still does, for damage caused during training exercises. Is this included in this sum? How does this sum sub-divide between traffic accidents and other matters? Perhaps it would be simpler if I left it to the Under-Secretary to tell the Committee, because I can see that he is absolutely bursting with his usual enthusiasm to tell me.

Subhead H refers to the National Army Museum. I took great interest in this some time ago. What progress is being made? The Museum was at Sandhurst. There were plans to move it to London. What progress is being made? How is it intended to spend the £3,500?

Subhead J covers research, design and development work by industry. We are told that research and experiment is being carried out by universities and other research bodies. This is a very healthy sum—£4,380,000. Can the hon. Gentleman say what kind of research is being carried out by the research bodies, and what bodies these are? Is the research on existing items of equipment or on projected types of equipment? If the latter, one can understand if the hon. Gentleman is reticent, but I should like to know exactly what the money is being spent on.

If I may now refer to Subhead M, Other miscellaneous expenses, I see a sum of £380,000 for the purchases of maps, which amount is almost the same as last year. These maps are purchased from the Ordnance Survey Department. This seems a tremendous amount of money and I should like to know whether these maps are for use at home or overseas.

There is an item— (3) Part Office charges for cashing postal drafts. I have never understood why this should stay at £180,000. It seems a very large sum for cashing postal drafts.

Next there is an item "Sundry charge" amounting to £646,500. There is no indication of what the money is being spent on.

There is a note stating that this item Includes provision for hospital services, field intelligence … Can the hon. Gentleman say what this fairly large sum will be spent on?

Exactly the same thing occurs under Subhead Z, Appropriations in Aid. Under "Other receipts" there is a sum of £640,000. This and the preceding item virtually cancel each other out. This last item Includes recoveries in respect of private use of official telephone facilities, sale of newspapers… Can the hon. Gentleman tell me why this item has not been properly sub-divided. as it used to be?

9.22 p.m.

Mr. Reynolds

The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) has obviously been enjoying himself going through every one of these items, and I shall endeavour to answer some of the points which have been raised.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the Army Museum which, he said, used to be—and I can assure him still is—housed in the old premises at Sandhurst. I think that I can say that the trustees of the museum will agree to its removal elsewhere in the not too far distant future to a place which, I think, the hon. Gentleman will find acceptable.

As to the use of civilian doctors for examining recruits in the Army, which was raised by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason), one of our main reasons for using civilian doctors is that there are not enough Army doctors. The medical branch is still under-recruited. There has been a considerable improvement in the recruiting of doctors in the last couple of years following changes which were made, but we certainly have not got enough Army doctors even in the urban centres. We therefore rely upon the use of civilian doctors.

As to Subhead C, the service seems to work well. Civilian doctors have a lot of other work to do and they have to keep abreast of the regulations governing the work they do in the Defence Department. If there is any doubt about any particular case one can always refer to them for further examination, but, so far as I know, there seem to be very few complaints about the system.

Mr. Allason

Can the hon. Gentleman tell me the number of men who have been rejected shortly after joining the Army on medical grounds? My impression is that the number is rather high.

Mr. Reynolds

I cannot give the percentage at the moment. I will write to the hon. Gentleman and let him know. In the debate on Vote A, I gave the percentage of wastage of recruits, which I think, was 18 per cent. That was the total wastage of recruits, and the medical part would, therefore, be comparatively small. There is, of course, the other side of the argument. One sometimes has a complaint from individuals that the doctors have failed them when they ought to have passed. There is a procedure for dealing with those cases if necessary.

The apparent reduction from £391,000 to £360,000 under Subhead D, dealing with welfare, is in fact, strange though it may appear, an increase, because the £91,000 for 1964–5 included £100,000 as reserve sum for the possible introduction of a television service in B.A.O.R. After further investigation we reluctantly came to the conclusion, announced in the House a few weeks ago, that we could not proceed with its introduction, but we are keeping the matter under constant review. This sum is not in the present Estimates and, therefore, there is an increase of about £70,000 on the actual amount spent in the current year.

The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead seemed to think that because Labour was in office far more damage would be done during Army training and that this was one of the ways in which Socialist administration of the Army would manifest itself. Actually, the Vote for next year will contain sums in respect of compensation for damage which occurred before 16th October last. The Estimates can be related to the amount of training that we know will take place in a particular year and, therefore, the possible amount of damage that might occur and the amount of compensation which it may be necessary to find.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) referred to publicity for recruiting, which covers the type of things which he mentioned, the major television and Press advertising, the provision of things for unit displays and recruiting offices and matters of that kind. The programme of such activities for the ensuing financial year will not be greatly different. There is a marginal difference compared with the last year or two.

My hon. Friend referred to certain aspects of the Army Act and particularly to what happened to the family of a soldier if he became liable to certain types of punishment. I cannot go into this in great detail tonight, but the Army Act itself comes up for revision next year and if my hon. Friend makes many more speeches of this kind he will be talking himself on to the Select Committee which will then have the task of going through the Act and making recommendations to the House.

We do this every five years, and the time to deal with the matter to which my hon. Friend referred is when the revision of the Act comes up and the Select Committee can obtain all the information and have a look at it. We are looking at proposals which may be brought forward when that revision comes up.

Mr. Snow

I assure my hon. Friend that I do not want to attract any more work. Nothing is more depressing to the potential recruit than not to be sure that his wife and family will be looked after when he has been recruited. I am addressing myself to that point in the matter of publicity.

Mr. Reynolds

We shall have the opportunity, when the Act comes up for revision, to consider the question of what happens when the soldier gets himself into trouble. I have in mind as well the point which my hon. Friend now mentions.

The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) asked about the provision of maps. The item in the Vote is for the provision of maps which the soldier uses occasionally to go from one place to another. There is nothing more sinister than that in this item.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

This seems to be an excessive amount of money. Is the hon. Gentleman buying from another Department? As he knows, the Ministry of Agriculture produces Ordnance Survey maps which the Army uses at home. Is this a paper transaction or are maps being bought for troops overseas?

Mr. Reynolds

The item includes lots of maps, both for home and overseas, and we pay the cost of these to other Departments. They cannot be expected to subsidise us, nor we them. The item covers detailed maps of one kind or another and the cost is virtually the same as the previous year. There is only a very slight increase.

I turn next to Post Office charges made for the encashment of drafts at the post office. The Post Office, although not a fully commercial concern, was put on a commercial basis by the previous Administration and it makes charges for the services which it renders. This item represents the charge which the Post Office makes for the work it does in this connection.

As regards the sum of £646,500 in Subhead M (6), there is a brief reference to what is covered in the sundry charges. The same point arises as regards the £661,000 on the other side. The hon. Gentleman will realise that we are now following a practice which has been growing up over the years of not giving quite so much information in the Estimates. They have been somewhat compressed. and this is continuing an earlier decision made by the previous Administration.

These Estimates have come out in a new form, and this item is a collection of relatively small amounts which, in total, add up to quite a considerable sum. However, it is not really necessary, I suggest, to specify them all. If the hon. Gentleman really wants the information and would care to put a Question down. we shall be only too pleased to give him an answer.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

Perhaps the Minister will write to me if he does not wish to go into it now.

Mr. Reynolds

I shall write to the hon. Gentleman if he really wants the information.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

I should not have asked for it if I did not.

Mr. Reynolds

I thought that the hon. Gentleman was enjoying himself in going through the Estimates.

The hon. Gentleman asked also about Subhead K, the cost of the South Arabian Federation Regular Army. We have treaty arrangements there, not entered into by the present Administration, and we contribute over 20 per cent. to wards the cost of the Regular Army there. As the Committee knows, there has been and there is still taking place an expansion of that Force, and this explains the increase in the Vote under this Subhead.

Subhead J, which refers to research, design and development work by industry, shows a drop from £5,076,000 to £4,380,000. I have announced in the debate on Vote A last Monday that, while there was a 15 per cent. drop in the Estimate for the following year there would, in fact, be a 15 per cent, under-spending in the current year. I have since obtained more information, and the under-spending in the current year will be considerably more than the 15 per cent. It is estimated now that not more than £4 million will be spent in the current year, so there is an increase shown as printed in the current Estimate. We have gone very carefully into the Estimate to pare it down to cover the amount which we think will actually be done during the coming 12 months.

This Estimate covers quite a wide field. Quite a lot is spent on research and development on vehicles, for instance, in the motor industry. This is not work of a kind which our own Department is equipped to deal with, but it is something which the motor industry has special facilities for, and quite a lot is covered by that kind of work.

Work is going on also on weapons, instruments, ammunition, explosives and engineering equipment. A lesser amount will be spent in some other directions, dealing with certain aspects of chemical and biological warfare. A considerable range is covered, and we believe that the amount actually in the Estimates this year will be the amount required to be spent. Looking back on experience over past years, there have been considerable under-spending, on these and some other Estimates, and we believe that this is a realistic amount.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That a sum, not exceeding £5,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of miscellaneous effective services, including grants in aid, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966.