Vote 2. Reserve and Auxiliary Services (Hansard, 15 March 1967)

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)
Mr. Goodhew—

§ Mr. Goodhew
You have had me taking off from my launching pad at a very rapid rate this afternoon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If you do it again it will not be very good for my health.
I would first like to ask about a figure under Vote 2 (A) (2), Pay, &c., of reserve personnel during training, bounties, &c.". That seems to be reduced from £4,000 to £2,000, a 50 per cent. reduction. Does that mean that there has been less training for reserve personnel during the past year?
Vote 2 (B) (1) deals with pay, allowances, bounties and so on to the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve, and again there is a considerable reduction, from £91,000 to £74,000. Is that a result of a direct policy? Are the Government running down the R.A.F. Volunteer Reserve or are they finding insufficient people to join it? What exactly is the cause of that considerable drop?
538 Vote 2 (C) for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force also shows a considerable reduction. The pay and allowances are down by £5,000, from £38,000 to £33,000. I wonder whether that is a question of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force running down or being undermanned. We understand that it now plays a very limited rô;le and that there are just four maritime headquarters manned by it—a very sad and pale shadow of the former Royal Auxiliary Air Force, which served with such distinction in the last war.
One cannot help wondering whether its contraction into mere headquarter units has not been a very bad thing for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and those who wish to do part-time service in the R.A.F. There is no doubt that auxiliary squadrons were a great attraction in the past to young men who wished to do part-time service. They produced many of our finest fighter pilots for the early days of the last war, and one is disturbed to see that this very emasculated part of a once great force should apparently be reducing still further, if one is to judge by the pay, allowances and bounties which appear in the Air Estimates.
Vote 2 (D) deals with Grants, &c., to Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations. Those are up from £300,000 to £350,000, an increase of nearly 17 per cent., which is rather peculiar and surprising as one would have expected that the associations were being run down after the reorganisation of our reserve forces. Does that considerable increase in expenditure include some of the redundancy pay about which there has been so much concern on this side of the House, when we felt that some of the civilian employees of the associations had been given a very raw deal by having their gratuities and redundancy pay amalgamated?
Appendix III mentions the university air squadrons, to which the Under-Secretary of State referred yesterday in dealing with the question of flying training of those at the Royal Defence College. This purely factual appendix tells us that: University air squadrons form part of the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve. There are 18 squadrons which serve 24 universities providing pilot training and also, in certain squadrons, training for technical duties. Estimated average numbers of staffs at university 539 centres in 1967–68 are 97 officers, 108 airmen and 78 civilians. Provision for these staffs and other supplies and services is included under the appropriate Votes. What exactly is the future of the squadrons? The appendix does not indicate whether it is proposed that they should continue, whether they are flourishing, failing, or what is happening to them. That is an important aspect of the Royal Air Force, because there has been considerable recruitment for regular service from the university air squadrons in the past. I very much hope that the Minister can tell us his plans For them in the future.

§ Mr. Anthony Kershaw (Stroud)
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) has said how unfortunate it is that while payments to the T. & A.F. Associations appear to have risen in the Vote compared with last year, they must be limited by the most unfortunate decision to amalgamate the redundancy pay under the Redundancy Payments Act and the gratuities which the civilian employees of the associations imagined they were earning in addition to their pay.
We have been into that matter, and it would be inappropriate to dun the Minister again with the same argument. Nevertheless, I wish once again to register my regret that the Treasury should compel the Ministry to act as a less good employer. I feel sure that it is as embarrassing to the Minister as it is to anybody that he should do this, but one regrets that it is happening.
It has had a further unfortunate effect which I did not appreciate when we had our previous debate on the subject about three weeks ago. That is that it is widely regarded as a "dry run" for the Treasury, so that it does not get caught again with what it considers to be overlarge payments of the "golden bowler" type to officers who, because of the rundown of the Forces, have been told that they must shortly retire, before they reach the age of 55, which was the previous arrangement.
It is widely felt that the Treasury considered that it had rather bad treatment on that last occasion. Now it is determined to hold up these arrangements until there is better treatment for the 540 Treasury than before. Therefore, this delay in allowing officers to put forward their resignations, after for a long time having been encouraged to do so, has caused dismay, and to some extent hardship.
These officers and other ranks are approaching an age at which it will be difficult for them to get a job in civil life. The arrangements they have made have not been easy to make. This may be their last chance and they may find their opportunities are frozen. I hope that the Minister will convey to those concerned our sense that these matters are urgent so that these people may know where they stand. Quite apart from the money they receive, this is a matter of real importance to those concerned.
The Under-Secretary did not have time when answering questions last night at the end of the debate to tell me about my "bird", the one girl in the R.A.F. Volunteer Reserve. I should like to know who she is and where she lives.

§ Mr. Merlyn Rees
If I knew that I would not tell the hon. Member, but I will find out what I can about that matter. In view of what he said about the R.A.F. yesterday, it may be that my remark is tit-for-tat.
A number of questions have been asked. The first was about the reserves at the beginning, the R.A.F.V.R., the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and so on. The policy in regard to R.A.F. reserves was taken—I am not making a big political point about this—in the mid-1950s. This arose, I think, because the different philosophy about the reserve question of the R.A.F. is based on the fact that on the whole they will fly very expensive aircraft and a reservist is not in a position to do this. I make no reflection on the other Services, but this is a different function. So far as concerns the R.A.F., there is this difference in attitude, which is now of some years standing. General R.A.F. policy is that trained reinforcements overseas in the event of an emergency would come from Regular personnel and because of this fewer reservists would be required to be trained next year. This is the simple answer to the question, why have pay and bounties gone down?
541 There are two things to say about Territorials. Vote II(D) does not contain anything concerning the R.A.F. in respect of redundancy, which primarily is an Army problem. The reason why the Vote has gone up is that the Air Training Corps is an R.A.F. responsibility. Often the young men use huts on premises of the Territorial Army and they come under the Territorial Army Association in that sense. In my constituency the R.A.F. and the A.T.C. have a very fine pair of huts on a former T.A. site. I believe that when that site is sold a small portion will be kept going. Where such a procedure is impossible, we have to provide huts for the Air Training Corps. That is the reason for the increase in that Vote.
I think I have answered the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw). He made his point and I have no responsibility in that respect. It is one for the Army and I think he and his hon. Friends can make their point at some other time.