HC Deb 15 March 1967 vol 743 cc518-37

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £146,580,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the expense of the pay, &c., of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1968.

4.13 p.m.

Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans)

Having had debates on the Estimates of the three Services over the last two weeks, we now meet to vote the money for those Services. We debate all the Services in one day and this is a short enough time. Experience shows that we seldom have time to debate all three. It is, I understand, the custom not to suspend the Ten o'clock rule, which means that, today being a Wednesday, we shall finish at 9.30 p.m. Having had a late start, there is rather limited time, which will mean that it will be more reasonable to ask questions rather than to probe the sums involved in detail and depth, as one might like.

Such is the presentation of the Estimates that it is not easy to go into detail at any time. As we had our debate on the Air Estimates only yesterday and the Under-Secretary's winding up speech is not even on the record yet, it has not been easy for us to give him notice of any matters which we may want to raise, but I am certain that any of my hon. Friends who ask questions will understand if he writes to them rather than answers across the Floor.

My first question on this Vote concerns the University Cadetship Competition. I see from page 68 of the White Paper that the average annual target is 67, but that during the past year only 37 awards were made, plus, after an autumn subsidiary competition—presumably to help to increase the numbers—five more. There is now, therefore, a total of only 42 for last year, compared with the normal average of 67, and I wonder whether the Minister can give an answer to that.

On the subject of the recruitment of commissioned officers, we notice that the number of navigators is still slightly short of target and that all the main ground branches are running about 25 per cent. short even now. We are told that in the engineering branch the number of graduates and professionally qualified people is very disappointing. Is this due to the uncertainty about which I spoke yesterday?

I was encouraged to see that many more young airmen are successfully obtaining commissions in direct competition with civilian interests. This is always a good thing for the Service, and those who join in the ranks should know of this opportunity and the success which so many achieve. It is welcome news. One wonders whether it would not be possible to make good the shortage of which I spoke in the main ground branches in the same way, as this would encourage further recruitment.

Is there any anxiety about the rate of pay in the commissioned ranks? On 18th March, 1963, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) complained bitterly that my party had delayed an increase of pay for the Services which had been agreed by the Grigg Committee, by giving only half the increase in one year and delaying the other half until the next. For a party which complained of such action when in Opposition, the present Government have behaved peculiarly, because they went further and referred the increase in pay and allowances to the Prices and Incomes Board, which was an extraordinary action.

I wonder whether the Prices and Incomes Board is qualified to decide matters connected with Service pay, which has been the subject of a special committee's inquiries over a long period. If the Board wishes, it can recommend a standstill. I cannot help feeling that there may be some anxiety among the people in the Forces and those who might otherwise join, lest they find that the prospects held out to them did not materialise, simply because, as a result of this Government's policies, increases which they would normally get were referred to the Prices and Incomes Board and they did not receive them at the appropriate time. The Government are clearly not conscious of the difference between the Armed Forces and the civilian employees in this respect.

Re-engagement is very much a part of the same subject. The White Paper says, on page 70: Interest in re-engagement and, to a lesser degree, extension of service increased in the spring of 1966, following the Defence Review and the pay increase announcements. The improvement has not been maintained. This shows that I was right to point out yesterday that while there had been this optimism in the Services in general, and the R.A.F. in particular, when the Defence Review appeared—because the men assumed that they would have settled conditions, that the R.A.F. would know the rôle it would have to play and that it would be given the appropriate arms and weapons to perform that rôle—the truth has gradually dawned on people, who have realised that there is still no certainty about the future of the Forces, of the rôles of the Services and of the rôle of the R.A.F. in particular.

I gather from Annex A that the active strength of airmen, to put it that way, was 101,000 at 1st April, 1966, that the estimated strength is 98,000 for 1st April of this year and that it is estimated that the strength will be 96,500 on 1st April, 1968. We know that the R.A.F. is being run down and, therefore, these estimates do not surprise us. Nevertheless, do we have the right number of men available in the right trades? If the Service is to continue to be run efficiently, it is vital that a correct balance is maintained. These figures of strength, recruitment and re-engagement mean nothing unless one is able to make an analysis to decide whether we have sufficient men in each trade.

This brings me to a constituency case about which I have written to the Minister in the last two days. It illustrates the type of difficulty that arises. In this case a man, in the position of clerk statistician, entered the R.A.F. as a boy entrant at the age of 15½ and at that time signed on for 12 years as from his 18th birthday. Now aged just under 21, he wishes to purchase his discharge. He has been informed that his trade is 100 per cent. manned, but that that is not sufficient because the Service would require his trade to be 105 per cent. manned before he could be released. I appreciate that a trade in the R.A.F. must be more than 100 per cent. manned to enable the Service to release those wishing to leave, since it must not be run down in strength by undermanning the individual trades. However, is 105 per cent. the correct figure? Since it is planned to run down the Service in any event, is there not scope for giving accelerated opportunities to people who wish to purchase their discharge?

Under Vote 1 (E.) are sums for the Royal Air Force (Malaya) and Royal Air Force (Malta). This Vote is headed …Pay, &c. of Royal Air Force Corps Abroad". The word "Corps" struck me as unusual, used in a R.A.F. context, and confused me for a moment. I was particularly interested, bearing in mind what is going on in Malta today, to note that the figure for the R.A.F. Corps in Malta is up from £220,000 to £225,000 for the coming year. In view of the difficulties that are a manifestation of the Government's desire to reduce our forces in Malta, I was surprised to see an increase in that case.

Under Vote 1 (Z 1) appears a figure for Receipts in respect of personnel lent to other governments". This is down by about £330,000, or about 17 per cent., on last year's figure. What does this indicate? Does it mean that fewer R.A.F. personnel are being allowed to help train Commonwealth air forces, or is there another reason? Surprisingly enough, Vote 1 (Z 3) shows, under the heading "Other receipts" that these receipts are up from £760,000 to £1,670,000. This is an increase of more than 100 per cent. and I wonder why it is so much higher. I am not sure what is included in the heading "Other receipts" and whether it contains money paid by people purchasing their discharge. From the experience of my constituent, I would not be at all surprised if that were so; and I hope that the Minister will give us more information on this issue.

Commenting on the Royal Defence College and the way in which it will affect the Air Force, the Under-Secretary said yesterday: What this means for the Royal Air Force, for Cranwell, is that officer cadets for the General Duties, Equipment and Secretarial Branches and for the R.A.F. Regiment, will start training at Cranwell. After they have completed general military training and gained either their wings or completed equivalent professional training, they will go for one year's academic instruction at the Royal Defence College, together with young officers of about the same age from the Royal Navy and the Army. Those young officers who are capable of taking university degrees, and who wish to do so, may remain at the Royal Defence College for a further two years to complete their course and to graduate. Those officers who do not wish to take degrees and those who have graduated will return to the Royal Air Force for advanced flying or equivalent professional training before joining operational units."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1967; Vol. 743, c. 257.] This compares somewhat strangely with the arrangements announced by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army, who talked about the Army sending men to Sandhurst for one year and then to their regiments for two years, and then going to the Royal Defence College. For how long are R.A.F. cadets to wait before they, too, can go to the Royal Defence College? If the Army is doing one year at Sandhurst and two years with a unit, one can hardly see an R.A.F. cadet joining up with his fellow men of the same age-group—

The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. G. W. Reynolds)

They will be a year younger.

Mr. Goodhew

I am grateful for that information. It presumably means that R.A.F. cadets will have two years at Cranwell and will then go to the Royal Defence College.

Mr. Reynolds indicated assent.

Mr. Goodhew

What are the final arrangements likely to he about flying training for officers who, presumably, will by then have left Cranwell and have been commissioned? The Under-Secretary said yesterday, in response to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey): What is envisaged is refresher training, perhaps in association with a university air squadron. I will look into that aspect ".[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1965; Vol. 743, c. 258.] Perhaps this is too soon after the hon. Gentleman made that comment for him to give more information on this aspect.

This is a matter of great importance because there should be opportunities, during the period at the Royal Defence College, for pilots to continue their flying at a reasonable rate so that they do not lose their touch. If there is one thing essential in flying, it is to keep at it throughout one's flying career.

Those are the main questions that I should like answered. Some of them may be difficult for the Under-Secretary to answer today, but if he has to notify us later I shall quite understand.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Tim Fortescue (Liverpool, Garston)

In yesterday's debate I was able to ask two questions about Royal Air Force numbers, and before the end of the debate the Under-Secretary of State gave me the answer to one of them. I would, however, ask him now to clarify that answer; it was a little late at night, and he may have rather more information now. The hon. Gentleman said that the apparent discrepancy in numbers appearing in the Defence Estimates was due to the fact that overseas personnel were included in one case and not in the other. What does the hon. Gentleman estimate the total strength of United Kingdom personnel will be on 1st January, 1968—that is, the figure corresponding to the 124,300 for 1st January, 1967 which appears at the foot of page 66 of the Statement? With that figure we shall have an exact comparison, without the confusion of exclusion or inclusion of overseas personnel.

The other question that I asked, but which the Under-Secretary did not have time to answer, was whether the figure represents his best hopes or his fears of what the strength will be. Are the numbers more or less than he would like to see?

4.32 p.m.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins (Merton and Morden)

I understood from an intervention from the Treasury Front Bench just now that Royal Air Force officers will go to the Royal Defence College after completing two years at Cranwell during which time they will be under training. From what we were told in the debate on the Army Estimates, they will there join Army officers who have had one year's training, and then two years —perhaps two years of fighting—with their regiment doing normal duties. On the other hand, judging from that intervention a moment ago, R.A.F. officers will go straight from training to the College—as it were, straight from school.

That means that these two groups—and we do not yet know about the naval officers—will be very different. They will be different in age and, more particularly, they will be different in experience. From what we had been told earlier, we thought that the idea was to get people a little older, with a little more experience, before giving them this degree course or one-year course. It now transpires that this is not the case. The Under-Secretary should justify to the House the difference in treatment of Army and Royal Air Force personnel. As I say, we shall come later to the Royal Navy.

4.43 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Merlyn Rees)

This is a curious debate, in that there is not time to be given notice of what are often very detailed questions. I am, therefore, grateful to the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) for what he said. I shall deal one by one with the points he has raised.

The university cadetship scheme which we run in the Royal Air Force is extremely important. In this age, when far more people go to the university, it is important that the Services should recruit their fair share of graduates. This has its bearing on what I will say in a moment about the Royal Defence College. The university cadetship scheme is now in its fourth year. There was a slightly different system in existence before that. Cadetships are awarded to selected candidates who have obtained for themselves a place at a university or who are already in residence. They are commissioned in the rank of Acting Pilot Officer, and while they are at university they are in many respects in a better financial position than are other students.

The need to attract more graduates into the Service has led to a gradual increase in the size and scope of the arrangements. The original scheme provided in 1963 for an average of 25 cadetships in the general duty and engineering branches to be awarded annually. In January, 1966 we had a total of 57 cadetships in the general and engineering branches. For the main competition in 1966 the number of applications was the highest ever. There were 46 awards—48 were offered—against 43 in 1965. There are more people than that up at university. We would like more young men to get into this scheme, but the plain fact is that although there is a higher number than ever before, there is great competition, and we are by no means satisfied merely that the number is larger than it was in the previous year.

In the engineering branch one also meets competition from the civilian side. That is why it is difficult to recruit young men in the engineering branch directly. We get a small number coming in on the university cadetship scheme. I do not have the exact figures relating to the R.A.F., but even since my day it has had a very good record of commissioning N.C.O.s who are trained as engineers. I should have thought that during the war and just after it, as high a proportion as 90 per cent. plus of officers were commissioned from inside the Service. A great deal of that commissioning goes on. This subject was raised last evening by the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), who recalled, no doubt from his days as Secretary of State in my Department, that recruiting then was in a different form.

One problem in the engineering branch is the promotion ladder whereby officers in that branch can feel that they can get up to two-star or three-star rank. As I assured the right hon. Gentleman last evening, this point is being looked at, because it is important that we should get this position right. I must say that this is one of the things I find especially gratifying in the Royal Air Force. I was in the company the other night of the Air Officer Commanding a Command who had joined the Royal Air Force as an apprentice way back in the late 1920s. Apprentices in the Service can eventually go through Cranwell, and there is a royal road to promotion—usually on the technical side—which is second-to-none to any.

Last year's increase in pay throughout the Service was not delayed by reference to the National Prices and Incomes Board. The pay award made in April was exactly the same as that which had been decided under the Grigg formula. There may well be argument—and I know that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) feels strongly on the subject—about having an incomes policy at all, but if there is to be such a policy it is extremely important that those sections of the community which are not in a position to use bargaining strength should know that any award made elsewhere is also subject to scrutiny.

It may well be beneficial in the long run to have these awards looked at by an objective board or commission, as the result may well be a greater increase than was originally decided. The hon. Member for St. Albans smiles, but in many industries the pay structure is often out of tune with today's conditions. That happened in the case of the Board's Report No. 18 dealing with the industrial civil servants whom we employ. The pay structure had got out of true over the years, and that Report was extremely valuable. The point is that last year when it went to the Prices and Incomes Board it was fully endorsed. The problem which arose subsequently for medical officers did not arise out of the Grigg formula. The doctors equated themselves with the private medical profession, and this led to problems.

Mr. Goodhew

Would not the hon. Member concede the point which I made, that if it is desirable—and I do not necessarily say that it is—for these matters to be looked at by a body, the Prices and Incomes Board is not the right body? It is very unlikely that there are people on that board qualified to assess the need of one of the Services. This is where the hon. Gentleman, as the manager of the R.A.F., as he put it yesterday, should be worried about the possibility of it being assumed that this is the way in which it will be done. Does he not think that the Grigg Committee is a much better approach to the whole problem?

Mr. Rees

I take the point, but it is not the case that the Prices and Incomes Board determines the original award. This will still be done inside the Ministry of Defence. I have nothing to report at this stage to suggest that there will be any change in the procedure the next time it arises. It is purely a question of going to the Prices and Incomes Board in exactly the same way as that in which the Board looks at most other major changes in prices and incomes. It is vital that men in the Armed Forces should not be treated differently in this respect from civilians.

Mr. Goodhew

Surely as the Minister in charge of a Service he accepts that a member of the Armed Forces is in a very different position from that of a civilian? I have come across the case of a person aged 21 who is in the R.A.F. for another nine years, whether he likes it or not. It is vital that somebody should be protecting his interests and that it should not be assumed that he is in the same position as a civilian who can give notice tomorrow and find another job.

Mr. Rees

The short answer is that the award made last year was extremely generous and took account of the fact that the men were not civilians and were in a different position from civilians. I will come to that point, for we must take account of it.

I was asked about re-engagement. The right hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying that last year after the Grigg award there was a sudden spurt of signing on. The carrot was the higher pay. They may also have been waiting for the pay. There was, therefore, more than a proportionate increase at that time. It is not a question of the truth suddenly dawning. There are difficulties in the modern Services, and particularly in the R.A.F., as a result of earlier marriages. There has been a great deal of what the Services call turbulence and unaccompanied tours abroad. There are different attitudes in the modern world from those of the past and it is extremely difficult to get people to sign on for longer periods. But this is not new. It has been developing over the years and we are well aware of it.

The hon. Member was good enough yesterday to say a kind word about my attitude on the personnel side. That attitude reflects only the very high standard which I have found in the personnel side of the R.A.F. It is true that we often have to write letters which do not seem to be of great help, but that is not because careful consideration is not given to these matters. For example, last year I discovered that there was a problem for airmen and officers where the family had a child of 16 taking his ordinary level examinations. There was a problem of being moved at the wrong time.

It was my view, based on past experience, that it was the last year of the child's life in a secondary school that mattered most. It was not long before a new instruction was issued that an officer or airman who has a child of about 16 years of age taking ordinary level examinations would either be able to stay at his last station for a year or would be moved early to a new station in order to give him a full year there. That is one example of the personnel management which takes place.

Even so, I fully agree that the amount of re-engagement is not enough. The hon. Member said yesterday that in some trades we are not up to strength. This is in the administration trades generally, the List 2 trades, trade assistants general—in my day concerned with equipment—and R.A.F. Regiment men. There are problems in this respect, and that is why it is important, when talking about recruitment, that one should not indulge in recrimination because a decline is taking place. For example, in 1963—I think that was the year—recruitment to the R.A.F. was stopped altogether. This has had an adverse effect on R.A.F. recruiting ever since.

I discovered during the election last year that for the three weeks of the election campaign advertising of this kind had to cease because it was argued that it might reflect on the Government Party and add to their votes in the election. Consequently, I discovered, during the election period no recruitment advertising took place. In the chart which I saw subsequently it was clear that during the election period recruitment had slumped astronomically. It may have been that they were glued to their television sets for one reason or another. It occurs to me that my hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration might think it worth while for both sides of the House to look at this situation. I doubt very much whether there is any kudos to be claimed by the Government party for recruitment advertisements.

A large number of cases about discharge reach the Under-Secretaries in the Department. A few go to my hon. Friend the Minister for Administration. Perhaps I should explain why they go to different persons. Former Ministers and Privy Councillors and present Ministers—we had to pick a group—go to my right hon. Friend so that he is at the centre and can see a cross-section of discharge problems in three Departments. In the odd case it may be done differently if the case has been previously in the hands of the Under-Secretary.

In the Army there are more cases than those which I received in the R.A.F., but there are a number of ways of obtaining a discharge. One is by purchase. A problem is that if a trade is undermanned it is impossible to do this unless there are compassionate grounds—and what is compassionate is a subject of judgment. But where there are compassionate grounds which are clear and obvious, the R.A.F. will go to the furthest lengths to be helpful. I recall the case of an airman whose wife was suffering from cancer. It was not just a question of discharging him. It was a question of arranging the discharge to meet his needs and when his new home was ready. I find that the R.A.F. is ready to help in this respect. I am looking at the particular case which the hon. Member raised of a statistical clerk.

Mr. Goodhew

What of the position of a person who wishes to purchase his discharge and is then posted, let us say, to Singapore? Perhaps a few months later or a year later he discovers that the manning position is such that he can purchase his discharge. I understand that he is required not only to purchase his discharge but to pay the air fare home. This seems a little hard since it was Purely the exigencies of the Service which took him to Singapore just before he was able to get a discharge.

Mr. Rees

I will look at that point. Normally, if a man puts in for a discharge on career grounds—the needs of the Service come into this—he will not be posted. There may be instances in which it has happened, but I will look into that point.

The hon. Gentleman asked about Malta and the increase of £5,000. At this moment I have not the answer, but I will write to him if the answer does not appear mysteriously before I finish speaking.

As to receipts in respect to other Governments, there is aid or help to the Ghana Government with their air force. The downward trend is not a reflection of a change in policy.

"Other receipts" represent a variety of matters, including receipts for services to civil authorities, such as hospital services in other countries. Where our strengths are running down, we are able to offer small services so as to maintain these facilities and accordingly the receipts increase. I am not fully aware of why these hospital services in other countries should arise. I will let the hon. Gentleman know when I have had time to look into the matter in greater detail.

The hon. Members for St. Albans and for Merton and Morden (Mr. Humphrey Atkins) raised the question of the Royal Defence College. The underlying philosophy behind the Howard English Report, which has been discussed over a long period, was that young officers of the three Services should spend a period of time together when they are first in the Services rather than later on when they might meet at the I.D.C. or some such institution. In other parts of the word the philosophy has been taken much further and there has been complete integration of the Services.

Not only was there this philosophy behind it. There was also the question of providing greater facilities for higher education in the Services. The great difference between the R.A.F. and the other Services is that our young men at Cranwell have to learn to fly. The question is when they should learn to fly. Would it be good sense to put them into the Royal Defence College when they first come into the R.A.F., after a matter of weeks; to let them do a knife, fork and spoon course at Cranwell and then send them to the R.D.C.? The young men in the R.A.F. would in those circumstances be considerably younger than the Navy and Army cadets. This looms very large in terms of activity in college. Maturity matters a great deal between the ages of 17 and 21, far more than does the difference in maturity at the age of 30, 40 or 43.

In the end it was decided that our young men, certainly the G.D. branch, would do their basic flying at Cranwell first. As the other cadets will have done a year plus two, our men will still be a year younger. The underlying philosophy and overriding problem is to mix these young men together at an early stage It undoubtedly leads to a problem. The one problem we have to consider most carefully is the split in flying time, the fact that having done their basic training, they would go to the College and might be there for three years. I am not attempting to hide the fact that this is a problem. My argument is that for the two reasons I have given, this was the philosophy which guided us. It was before my time, but I think that probably the Howard English Report was commissioned by the Tory Administration. This idea was not just a political one. It has been played about with for a long time.

The question arises of what happens when a man returns to flying. If he has been absent from flying for a year, there will be a drop in his performance by the time he comes to fly aircraft again. This factor, too, will have to be taken into account. I deliberately said yesterday that it was silly to hide the fact that there are problems. However, they are problems that we are well aware of.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins

The very laudable object of the arrangements which the Under-Secretary is describing is to mix together the young officers of the three Services so that they can help to educate each other by broadening each other's outlook. The defect under the present arrangement is that the young Air Force officer going to the Royal Defence College will go having done very little service. All he will have done is a couple of years at Cranwell. He will be able to contribute nothing to cadets of the other Services. He will not have served in a squadron, group, or whatever. He will be able to contribute very little to greater understanding between the three Services.

Mr. Rees

I accept that this is one of problems. The men from the other Services might even have been in the field, with all the maturing effects this can have. I assure the House that we have considered this aspect carefully. The solution we have arrived at is final in the sense that, after all the talking, this is what we have decided to do. There is no finality in the sense that alterations cannot be made. I suggested yesteday that if young men can fly, as they do in university air squadrons, this would have an effect.

I assure the House that there is no dogmatic educational philsophy underlying this. It is something we must come to terms with. It is excellent for personnel of the three Services to get together at an earlier time. Perhaps it goes back to the days of the last war, but even in the House when we debate defence matters I sometimes still find the attitude that the R.A.F. is composed of "the Brylcreem boys" who sit in a warm mess all the time and who are rather different from Army personnel. Although this might well be a joke, it can be a barrier which prevents an understanding of the common problems in the Services. It will be an excellent thing if something can be done to overcome this in the early years among young officers.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) asked me about figures. I have some figures here. I promise him that if they are not meaningful to him, I will look at them again. I have not had time to turn to the pages in the Defence Estimates. The hon. Gentleman has obviously done his homework. The firm point is that on 1st January, 1967—page 66 of the Defence Statement the figure is 124,300. The only other figure I can give to him is apparently not for 1968 but, from Annex A, that the figure will have dropped to 124,000 by 1st April of this year.

I have a number of other figures here, but I suggest that either we get together on this later in the evening, rather than that I should read the figures meaninglessly now, or that I will put them in black and white.

4.59 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Wolverhampton, South-West)

I want to refer to two points arising out of the Under-Secretary's speech. The first concerns the reference of the Grigg Award to the National Board for Prices and Incomes. It is important to re-emphasise the reasons why we on this side think that that reference was inappropriate. The Government cannot themselves determine what number or quality of recruits or officers they will get at a given price. Therefore, the fixing of the salary and the conditions which are offered is, in effect, a decision about recruitment. It is a decision about the number and quality of the officers and men. Whatever may be said about the functions of the Prices and Incomes Board in other areas of the economy, no one will contend that it is appropriate that that decision should in any way be for the Board.

When they determine Service pay, the Government are simply, clearly and solely taking a decision, which can be only their responsibility, about their recruitment intentions. In our view, it is wholly inappropriate that the directness and clarity of that Government responsibility should in any way be blurred or interrupted. I thought it necessary to re-emphasise that point.

Next, I come to the question of the reorganisation of officer education and the Royal Defence College. As usual, if I may say so, the Under-Secretary of State was helpfully candid in his discussion of the subject, and I was very glad to hear him say that, although the general outlines of the shape of the new educational cursus were a final decision—I think that he called it a final solution—on the part of the Government, their minds are open as to the way in which the reshaping would be organised. There are two or three points which I wish to make about it.

First, I hope that we shall be able to do this initially in a way which makes it possible for account to be taken of experience. The change proposed is a very big one. We ought not to underestimate how fundamental it is and what effect it will have on the ethos of the three Services. We do not know—none of us can know—the effect which the reorganisation will have, and it is all the more important that, without creating avoidable uncertainty, we should not at this stage be dogmatic and we should take into account experience as we go along.

Second, I am not sure that in bringing young officers of the three Services together at the academic stage of their career, and an exclusively academic stage, we achieve the cohesion which we all want. The hon. Gentleman referred to the deplorable effect which can sometimes result from inter-Service misunderstanding and inter-Service rivalry. Having spent most of my war service in inter-Service organisations of one kind and another, I can personally appreciate the value which arises when members of the different Services work physically together upon the same problems. But—and this I emphasise—that effect is most marked when the problems on which they are working together have a military content, when they are related to the purpose which, after all, has brought men into their respective Services. In my view, this is yet another reason why we should anxiously consider the apparent divorce of the academic section of the new training career from the military or Service aspects.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman referred to the ways in which, during this academic section, it will be possible in the Air Force for the officers to keep in touch with their Service training. Yesterday, in answer to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), he spoke of refresher training perhaps in association with a university air squadron. Before we go any further here, the Government must be much clearer than they have been hitherto about the resources which will be available for this kind of refresher training.

Quite rightly, the hon. Gentleman recognised that for many officers—we hope—this will be a matter not of one year but of three years, and a three-year interruption of the military side of an officer's education is a serious matter indeed. In some of the universities to which they will go, no doubt, there are and will be university air squadrons which can provide a suitable and available framework—

Mr. Merlyn Rees

It may have been a slip of the tongue on my part, and I should make the matter clear. There may be officers who go to university, but the three-year course, the two years after the one, will be at Shrivenham rather than in universities.

Mr. Powell

I should have spoken of the university-style course, the three-year university equivalent course.

Mr. Rees

Yes.

Mr. Powell

In that context, the hon. Gentleman referred to the function of the university air squadrons. Here, we must be better satisfied—not necessarily this afternoon, but before the new scheme is put into effect—that the university air squadrons will be able to provide the framework for that refresher training and continuing military indoctrination, because it will, obviously, be vital to the failure or success of that middle sector of an officer's training.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees

First, on the question of what happened last year when the Grigg award went to the National Board for Prices and Incomes, I should make clear that, while there is a wider aspect to it, the question went to the Board for its advice, and in this instance the decision was for the Government, as the original decision had been. Advice on a pay structure from an outside body is, in my view, extremely valuable, and, perhaps, in no field is it more important than where there is an attempt to have a correlation with civilian activities. It is difficult to get the right answer here, and, perhaps, over the years, the wrong answer has been obtained. But in this instance, certainly, the Board was asked for advice.

With regard to Service education, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) asks us to take account of experience. I know that he was speaking in a general sense, but one of the difficulties here is that there is no real experience in the practical sense on which one can draw. We are aware of the problem. The quality of experience will be determined by the quality and calibre of the first master whom we appoint. The essence of a university is indefinable. There are times, perhaps, when one would question the freedom which is present in a university, but freedom to think in whatever way one likes, untrammelled by the ideas of the past, perhaps, is a vital part of university life. For this genuinely to be a university will depend on the amount of intellectual freedom available there, which will come from the quality of the staff and the quality of the master in the first instance. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are taking these questions very much into account.

As regards the time when young men go up there, what I want to make clear—I shall qualify it in a moment—is that there will be no academic work at Cranwell. At present, at Cranwell and the other colleges a certain amount of academic work is done, though not in the university sense save in so far as it may be related to post-A level. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will at least go with me when I say that what we are doing is putting young men to do together, at about the same stage in their career, the academic work which has normally been done at the colleges. It is no more than that. It will not take the place of other mixing which may happen at a later time.

The qualification which I make—it is something I feel strongly about—arises from our knowledge that both today and over the last decade or so when we have increased the opportunities for young men and women to have a university education, the failure rate at many universities has been and is alarmingly high. People who have obtained very good A level results do not make the grade when they find themselves studying at university, and the real reason is that they have not a clue how to study. They have been taught, but they have never been taught how to study.

That is certainly something that people on the R.A.F. side are examining and I hope that at Cranwell under the new scheme in the early 1970s some academic work of this type will be done which will help young men when they reach the Royal Defence College. There will be a military slant, although I admit that that is rather different from practical military experience, in the studies that will be carried on at the R.D.C.

I meant it when I said yesterday that a university air squadron may be an appropriate way of young men keeping their flying hand in. Thought is being given to that. There is also a question of civilian flying on the lines of a civilian flying club, and it is extremely important in keeping a young man's hand in for the time when he eventually returns to flying.

We should all bear in mind that often young men who were not very interested in academic studies in their 'teens may well develop late, and the time when some people mature academically is not in the late 'teens. The scheme has been laid down, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there are no closed minds on it. There had to come a time when a decision was made, and I am sure that we were right to follow the Howard English Report and see that future young officers in the Services serve for a time together. The appropriate way was in academic study together instead of in individual colleges.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That a sum, not exceeding £146,580,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the expense of the pay, &c., of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March. 1968.