HC Deb 25 June 1968 vol 767 cc403-14

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

11.52 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro (Dumfries)

It is a happy coincidence that today the new Scottish Division was formed officially and the new divisional commander, Maj.-General F. Graham, raised his flag in Scotland. This debate takes place in face of another White Paper that may reduce again the number of Scottish regiments. We view this with grave concern. The timing of the debate may be inconvenient to the Government because of the White Paper which is coming out in a few weeks' time, but it is essential that the Minister understands the strong feeling of hon. Members and of the Scottish people. From bitter experience, we have found that it is no use trying to influence the Government after a White Paper is published; we must make our impression now.

The Army has been reducing in size for a long time, and we accept that this may have been necessary to suit modern conditions, but amalgamations and disbandments in the past are no argument for continuing this policy in the future. We think that this has gone far enough and at the present point we make our stand.

Governments in the past have decreed that strengths must be reduced, but we contend that the limit has been reached, and that in any event Scotland has lost disproportionately too many regiments. It is true to say that in times of stress it is always the infantry that bears the brunt, and there are never enough foot soldiers available. However, the past is past, including, tragically, the Cameronians, and on 1st July we have the new Scottish Division, in which separate identities are retained, and this is important.

In the Lowland Brigade we will have the Royal Scots, the Royal Highland Fusiliers and the King's Own Scottish Borderers. In the Highland Brigade we will have the Black Watch, the Queen's Own Highlanders, the Gordon Highlanders, the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and there will still be two battalions of Scots Guards, and, in the Royal Armoured Corps, the Royal Scots Greys.

Within the Scottish Division there will be great flexibility and cross-posting, which has happened frequently in the past. There will be an interchange of officers and friendly competition, yet they will retain their own tartans, their individual traditions, the regimental areas and the common bond of being Scots.

The Minister must realise that these things mean something in Scotland. He should have seen the welcome home of our regiments from service overseas. I remember well the King's Own Scottish Borderers returning from Malaya. All of us in Scotland have been tremendously impressed with the welcome home of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders from Aden, and this shows how out of touch are those who advocate large regiments, of a single Highland regiment, a single Lowland regiment or, indeed, of a corps of infantry.

The regiments in the Scottish Division have an exceptional record of efficiency and recruiting. In most regimental areas, recruiting amounts to about 60 per cent., and in the case of the Black Watch, it is exceptionally high, with 90 per cent. However, in view of the very serious fall in recruiting to the Army generally, which was announced yesterday in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), the Scottish achievements must sound like pipe music to the Minister's ear. Scotland's efforts in recruiting must not be overlooked, and if recruits want to join Scottish regiments, those regiments ought not to be disbanded.

In reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), who is tonight in his own regimental area, the Minister set out the organisation of infantry as from 1st July, 1968. There will be six divisions and 56 battalions. That represents an average of just over nine per division. Of those 56 battalions, 39 are English, four are Welsh, four are Irish and nine are Scots, the latter figure including the two Scots Guards battalions which are not in the Scottish Division.

Statistically, if two or three battalions are to be disbanded, it would seem right that they should come from the 39 English infantry battalions which, it must be said, do not appear to be as concerned about their future as those of the Scottish regiments.

Looking at the divisions, the Guards Division has eight battalions, the Queen's has 12, the King's has 11, the Prince of Wales' has 11, the Light—a rather special —Division has seven and the Scots has seven battalions. So we are again below average.

I turn to the Royal Armoured Corps and particularly the Royal Scots Greys, which is the only Scottish cavalry regiment and certainly the most famous. There are 20 regiments of the Royal Armoured Corps. Surely Scotland is entitled to one of them. To amalgamate the Greys with an English regiment would immediately destroy its unique and special character. It is the best recruited regiment in the British Army, and that was confirmed again today in reply to a Parliamentary Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr.

It is because of its remarkable recruiting that frequently it has been able to lend squadrons to other cavalry regiments which are short-handed. To the extent of 80 per cent., it is recruited from the regimental area. That must be exceptional in the Royal Armoured Corps. Efficiency is very high. It was chosen to represent the Army in the N.A.T.O. Tank Gun- nery Competition this year. If the Royal Armoured Corps is to have another reorganisation, surely a new individual rôle should be found for this outstanding regiment. I cannot over-emphasise how much this fine regiment means to Scotland.

On 11th May, 1967, the Minister of Defence announced changes in the infantry, and perhaps I might quote three extracts from his replies. Talking about regiments retaining their separate identities, the Minister said: I should like to make it clear that this new organisation does not affect the separate identity of the individual regiments. Secondly, he said: I am glad to confirm that battalions will retain their existing names. Thirdly, dealing with another Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn, he said: I recognise that very well, and would point out that regimental and battalion identities are not affected by this regrouping."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 1714– 116.] That seemed a clear indication. However a few weeks later the Cameronians were scrapped. It is interesting, too, in mentioning this fine regiment that is no more, that all the officers and men have been posted to other regiments in the Scottish Division. There are 18 officers and 80 other ranks in the King's Own Scottish Borderers now. Would it not be intolerable if those officers and men had to face another amalgamation or another disbandment? That would be asking too much of any soldier.

This concern about the future has been heightened by The Times leading article on 17th June. I hope that it was not an inspired leak. It was full of foreboding and contained a threat that, if the regiments did not become more flexible, it would result in a corps of infantry. How can this attitude promote confidence in a career structure? The Army thinks that its regimental future has been jeopardised for administrative convenience. This thought must certainly have been prominent in the mind of Colonel Colin Mitchell of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders when he sent in his papers last week. His own future seemed to have reached a full stop and the future of his regiment is in grave doubt.

The public sees it in this way. Here is a born leader, a very gallant officer. Many think him to be quite the best battalion commander in the Army. Yet, despite promises specifically made by the Secretary of State earlier this year that his promotion would not be retarded, he has been driven from the Army. Leaders of this calibre are all too few. What Colin Mitchell did for his country in Aden, for his regiment and for the Army should be proclaimed from the roof tops, and accelerated promotion should be his. On no account should the Army and Scotland lose his services. I hope that the Under-Secretary will say something about this, because the feeling in Scotland is very strong indeed, particularly in the light of the Secretary of State's assurance earlier this year.

The regimental system is the envy of every other army in the world. It harnesses together local and family pride, and particularly so in Scotland. This interest in the regiment is backed up by local recruiting and reciprocated with efficiency and performance by the soldiers themselves. It is interesting to recall how very many senior Army officers have come from Scottish regiments. Lord Wavell was one of the most progressive field marshals. He said this 20 years ago: The regiment is the foundation of everything, and nowhere is the regimental spirit stronger than in the Highlands. It is the fashion today in some quarters to seek a soulless uniformity in all things and decry any individual tradition and spirit. It will be a sad day and an evil day for the British Army if the reformers ever succeed in weakening or destroying the regimental tradition. That was very true then. It is equally true today, but the situation is very much more serious.

I have stressed flexibility and accepted the necessity for reorganisation. Surely this can be done without demolishing that essential enthusiasm built up through this tradition. Military success depends on character, morale and leadership. It takes years to develop, yet can be destroyed overnight by political decision.

I hope that I have shown the strong case for the retention of the complete Scottish Division, with each regiment retaining its separate identity, and for the retention of the Royal Scots Greys in the Royal Armoured Corps. On every count—statistically, on recruiting, and on efficiency—the Government should keep their hands off Scotland's regiments, which are providing a rich dividend for the Army. Let the Government take heed of Scotland's feelings. I say this to the Minister with great sincerity, and let him realise that a weak reply tonight and any sheltering behind a forthcoming White Paper will not be acceptable in Scotland. I hope that he will be more forthcoming and give an encouraging reply that certainly where regiments mean something they will be retained.

12.5 a.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson (Stirling and Falkirk Burghs)

I am glad of the opportunity to speak for a minute or two in this short debate. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) has spoken with a feeling for the Scottish regiments and the Scottish tradition in soldiering which we all share. I have no quarrel with him on that. The traditions of the regiments and the Scottish part in the British Army have for a long time played a considerable part in Scottish life. But I feel that the hon. Gentleman has spoken too much about the past and too little about the problems of the future. One cannot think of this sort of situation simply in terms of our tradition, no matter how distinguished and admirable the tradition is. One must see it in terms of necessary reorganisation in face of a different kind of defence, a different kind of defence policy and a different kind of defence organisation.

I shall not refer to the Royal Scots Greys, but I am concerned with the Highland Brigade and, in particular, with the regiment which has its headquarters in my constituency, the Argylls. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was talking with knowledge when he spoke of Colonel Mitchell being driven from the Army. If he was, he knows more than we do. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will comment on that. I have been much concerned about Colonel Mitchell, but I have no knowledge that that is the situation, and I shall be glad if my hon. Friend will say something to clear the matter up.

The tradition of the Argylls and of other Scottish regiments is likely to be preserved. In any case, we know from our past history that not only in recent years have there been military reorganisations which have lost something which had great tradition and glory in the past. This is not the only period, not even the only century. It has happened before. It is part of our continuing process. I look forward to Scotsmen playing just as strong a part in the defence of this island as in the past.

12.7 a.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell (Moray and Nairn)

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), who has admirably expressed the feelings of all Scottish Members and the feelings of Scotland itself in this matter. Scotland has been able to provide a supply of great military manpower, and Scotland also has a military tradition which the Government should not lightly cast aside. In recent years—I speak of the very recent past—Highland battalions in particular have demonstrated the truth of that in Brunei, Borneo and Aden, where they have carried out tricky and most successful operations.

British infantry, and Scottish infantry in particular, have a special ability to cope with and settle difficult political and military situations. Their special ability will be needed in the future. It is needed now in the United Nations force in Cyprus, and it will be needed hereafter either under United Nations auspices or in other circumstances. But, once destroyed, as my hon. Friend said, it is well nigh impossible to recreate military formations of this kind.

Last year, within a day or two of the event, I drew from the Secretary of State for Defence a tribute to what the Argylls had done in reoccupying Crater. Also, as my hon. Friend said, I obtained an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the identities of the Scottish regiments would be retained. Unfortunately, since then there has been one disbandment. I ask the Government to ensure that those identities continue to be retained and that there are no further disbandments. The Government should consider carefully the special contribution which Scotland can give to Britain's defence.

12.10 a.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) for having chosen this subject for debate. I have had on the Order Paper for a long time a Motion to very much the same effect, but I was not as fortunate as he was in the Ballot for an Adjournment debate.

It is entirely wrong that the Scottish regiments should be left in doubt about their future. They are gallant regiments which have rendered great service to the State. Their officers and men are good citizens with families in Scotland, and it is right that their families should not be left in doubt. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to make a definite statement about the future of these gallant gentlemen who have been left in the undignified position that they and their families do not know what their present is and what their future will be. I strongly support the hon. Member for Dumfries.

12.11 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. James Boyden)

I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) for raising the question of the future of the Scottish regiments tonight. I go a long way with him in paying tribute to the efficiency, courage and military splendidness of the Scottish regiments. There has been a good deal of discussion in the Press about the effect which the White Paper, which will appear next month, might or might not have on the Scottish units. I am very glad that we have had an opportunity tonight for Scottish hon. Members to express their views on the matter. Those views are passionately held, as the House has seen tonight, and very rightly held.

I am not insensitive to the strength of feeling associated with the Scottish regiments. I know that they command very fierce local pride and tremendous loyalty. I can go a long way back to the 1914 war, when one of the joys of my heart as a child of four and five was to hear the Scottish regiments go past my door on the way to France. This spirit is the basis of the Scottish fighting record, which has played a magnificent part in the history of the British Army and of Scotland.

Because the future of these regiments arouses such emotion it is right and proper tonight to look at it against the wider background and perspective of the Government's overall defence policy. As a result of the cut in our commitments outside Europe, we announced last July that the Army would be reduced in size by 15,000 all ranks by 1971. As we said in the White Paper, this meant the disappearance of 17 major units, including eight infantry battalions and four armoured units. That is a slight correction to what the hon. Gentleman said about the infantry taking the brunt of the cuts. Many of these are regiments —Scottish, Irish, Welsh and English regiments—with long and distinguished histories. But much as we regret their disappearance a reduction in major units follows inevitably from the Government's decision to reduce the number of tasks to be undertaken by the Army by concentrating our future defence effort mainly in Europe and the North Atlantic area.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced to the House last January, the whole of our defence expenditure was again reviewed against the background of our commitments and alliances. The defence decisions taken at this time were summarised in the Statement on Defence Estimates, 1968. They will lead to big changes—and this is the essence of the matter tonight— in the role, size and shape of the Forces, their equipment and support.

For the Army their immediate effect has been to accelerate the rate of rundown and the disbandment or amalgamation of major units. As I have told the House on many occasions over the last few months, a list of the further reductions in major units will be announced in the supplementary statement which the Government will present to the House next month. It is naturally very sad to have to make these reductions, but they follow inevitably from the Government's decision to cut defence commitments and expenditure. I can assure hon. Members that they will have a very good opportunity to debate this very soon. I can assure the House that the Army that will be left when the cuts have been made will be a good Army, with a good career for officers and men, and well able to carry out its rôle effectively in the 1970's.

Hon. Members will appreciate that for the reductions announced last July, the selection of particular infantry battalions and other regiments for reduction was a most difficult and painful task for the Secretary of State and the Army Board. We did not go into the exact criteria for our selection then, nor do I intend to do so now. It would only exacerbate the inevitable pain caused by the reduction, as well as providing the opportunity for endless and fruitless arguments, which would not get anywhere, on the comparative merits of individual battalions and regiments.

I agree with the kind of remarks which the hon. Member made about particular regiments. I could certainly make out a very good case for the D.L.I., and everyone can make a case for these particular regiments because they are splendid regiments and we are very proud of them.

I think the Army Board has done a very good job in the way it has faced up to this difficult task. We took many considerations into account, especially the strong national feeling in Scotland and I might add in Wales, Ireland and Durham. We have weighed all these factors with the greatest care, and the aim the Army Board set itself was to arrive at a solution which would be in the best long-term interests of the infantry as a whole.

I am confident that we achieved this aim, and I have no reason to doubt that the majority of the infantry have accepted these cuts with their traditional loyalty, and will accept the decisions to come.

Following the cuts announced by the Prime Minister last January, the Government are again faced with the difficult task of selecting further major units for reduction. The final decisions have not yet been taken, and this is why the debate tonight is so useful. I can give the House the assurance that what has been said, and the strong feeling in Scotland, will be taken fully into consideration by my right hon. Friend. I am confident that we shall again reach a solution which will be fair and in the best interests of the infantry as a whole.

I should like to remind right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that this Government are not alone in making cuts in Scottish regiments. The Scottish regiments did not remain immune from the reductions initiated by the party opposite in 1957. At that time the Royal Scots Fusiliers and the Highland Light Infantry amalgamated to form the Royal Highland Fusiliers, and the Seaforth Highlanders and the Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders amalgamated to form the Queen's Own Highlanders.

Moreover, there is no evidence that over the years Scotland has been unfairly treated in the matter of reductions. The cuts announced last July reduced the number of Scottish battalions—and I include the two battalions of the Scots Guards—from 12 in 1950 to nine, a decrease of 25 per cent. The comparable decrease in English battalions is from 54 in 1950 to 34 last July, a decrease of 27 per cent.

Mr. G. Campbell

But would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the particular point that recruiting in Scotland, which the Government badly needs, is so much better?

Mr. Boyden

Yes. This is one of the factors fully taken into consideration.

I should make it clear that the Scottish regiments are not being singled out and being asked to take more than their fair share of cuts in major units. Equally, however, there is no reason why units drawn from the rest of the United Kingdom should bear the brunt of amalgamations and disbandments.

I should like to take the opportunity of commenting on the point made in The Times article recently on infantry reorganisation. This was not an inspired leak. The reorganisation will not lead to the introduction of a corps of infantry, and regiments will continue to retain their names and identities within the larger divisional framework.

On the question of Colonel Mitchell which has been raised, I came quite objectively to the system of promotion in the Army, and I found it completely fair. In the case of Colonel Mitchell, I took the rather unusual step of asking the Military Secretary to assure him that he had a satisfactory career in the Army and that he should very carefully consider any steps he was taking. I do not think I should go further. But the idea that Colonel Mitchell has been driven out of the Army by establishment "nabobs", either Ministers or "brass hats", is false.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

Will my hon. Friend also take this opportunity to confirm that the bestowing of honours is a matter for the military authorities and not for politicians?

Mr. Boyden

Promotion and awards and so on should be left to the military authorities in the way it has traditionally been done. It is a fair system and I do not want to make further comment on that aspect.

I hope that I have been able to convince hon. Members, although I have not had much time, that the selection of units for amalgamation or disbandment is fair and that Scotland is being treated fairly. I cannot anticipate the White Paper and the debate and I have to say, as hon. Members chided me not to say, "Please wait a little longer until the debate."

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Twelve o'clock.