DEFENCE (ARMY) ESTIMATES, 1968–69, VOTE A (Hansard, 6 March 1968)

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. James Boyden)
I ask leave to speak again, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We have just spent five hours and more discussing the Reserves. We now have rather less than two hours left to us in which to cover the ground to which the whole of the Estimates debate is usually devoted. The total of Army Votes for 1968–69 is £600¾ million. This is about £15½ million less than for the present year, after allowing for the Winter and Spring Supplementary Estimates. The figure for the coming year takes account of the Army's share of the reduction of £110 million in defence expenditure for 1969 which my right hon. Friend the then Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on 18th November. This total means that we expect to absorb the effects of devaluation, higher prices and other costs which have risen. We expect also to absorb the military redundancy payments resulting from the planned reduction of the Army.
The Estimate does not reflect the changes announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 16th January, except for a cut in the provision for the T & AVR III. Apart from this exception, the changes will not affect the Army's requirement for funds in 1968–69. I expect their effect to start 574 to make itself felt in a substantial way in 1969–70.
When I introduced the Army Estimates a year ago, I had been in my present appointment for a matter of a few weeks. Since then, I have been able to visit many units, training depots and schools in this country and abroad. I have seen the Army training in the field at home and overseas. As a result of my experience, I can now, quite objectively, pay a great tribute to the courage, skill, devotion and unfailing good humour with which the Army has carried out its many and varied tasks in the last 12 months. I am sure that the House will agree that these qualities were undoubtedly seen at their best in South Arabia last year. The last of our forces left Aden on 29th November. The withdrawal was completed in perfect order and without casualties and was a magnificent example of an orderly and well planned operation. Throughout the period leading up to independence, our forces maintained authority by their rofessional skill, used always with patience, restraint and courage. Inevitably, there were casualties both among our own troops and among the civilian population, but it is a great tribute to our men that these were not very much greater than they were.
In June of last year the South Arabian Army relieved us up-country, and from then until independence we were concentrated in Aden town. Here our troops faced great difficulties, for their opponents were often indistinguishable from innocent bystanders and it would have been only too easy for law and order to break down with tragic consequences, not least for the people of South Arabia. That this did not happen was, in great measure, due to the British Army. The House will agree that our soldiers in South Arabia added another chapter to the Army's proud record of achievement in most difficult conditions.
In the Far East theatre, the garrison in Hong Kong supported the local Government and police in combating the Communist campaign aimed at frightening the population and thus weakening the Government's position and undermining business confidence in the Colony.

§ Mr. Cranky Onslow (Woking)
On a point of order. May the House have your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker? The time for debate on the issues before us 575 is strictly limited, and you will be aware that the Minister is rehearsing much of the material which has already been presented to the House in the Defence White Paper. If you check with the documents, you will find that I am correct in this. I appeal to the Minister, through you, to allow Members who still wish to intervene in the debate as much time as possible to do so, and to avoid unnecessary repetition as far as he can.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)
Order. The Minister will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said. I have no power to intervene. It is open to the Minister in moving Vote A to do it in his own way.

§ Mr. Boyden
I am well aware of the shortage of time, and I propose to make my remarks as short as possible. I should have thought that hon. Members opposite would wish to be associated with me in paying tribute to what the Army has done in places of difficulty, such as Arabia and Hong Kong.

§ Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans)
We do not have to have you to do it for us.

§ Mr. Boyden
That is an incredible statement from the hon. Gentleman, that the Army Minister is not expected in the annual debate on the Army Vote in this House to pay tribute to the Army on behalf of the country. I resent that remark very much indeed. Not only some hon. Members but the Army and the public which is interested in the Army wish to hear my speech.

§ Mr. Goodhew
The Minister was suggesting that hon. Members on this side of the House were not prepared to pay tribute to the Services. All we were saying was that we had done so in the past and were always prepared to do so and do not need any lessons from the hon. Gentleman. Since he seems to have no support for the Estimates he is moving, would not it be more appropriate for him to abandon the whole operation?

§ Mr. Boyden
I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman's condensation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Condensation?"] Yes. He has come to earth.
In Hong Kong the terrorists did not hesitate to resort to murder and the in 576 discriminate use of bombs, which often killed or maimed innocent civilians. After an incident in which five policemen were killed, the Army took over responsibility for frontier security. There were many border incidents, all of which demanded considerable professional skill and discipline from the British and Gurkha soldiers there. The Army also assisted the local police in cordon duties and bomb disposal. No praise is too high for the coolness and courage of the men of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps and the Gurkha Engineers, who dealt with many bombs and booby traps in Hong Kong last year. As the House knows, some were killed or injured.
As the Statement on the Defence Estimates makes clear, the foundation of Britain's security now, as always, lies in the maintenance of peace in Europe. Our support for the North Atlantic Alliance must, therefore, be as full and positive as we can make it. The British Army of the Rhine is our ground force contribution to the alliance, and better trained and equipped fighting troops are nowhere to be found.
As we withdraw from other parts of the world and increasingly concentrate our defence effort on Europe, I do not doubt that, in the longer term, we shall be able to improve the terms on which we commit our ground forces to N.A.T.O. This will not mean a greater number of troops on the Continent but it will mean that, given the political warning we expect of any intentions or aggression in Europe and with modern transport capability, we shall be able to regard the forces in this country and in Europe much more as one force available for use on the Continent should the need arise.
The details have yet to be worked out, but I am confident that our allies in Europe will be able to count on the British Army even more than they have done in the past. Towards this end, there has been created the new Army Strategic Command, responsible for most of the field force formations and units in the United Kingdom. This will lead to a higher standard of operational efficiency. The new arrangements will also produce manpower savings, some of which have already been achieved. We propose to look at further changes in the command structure in the United Kingdom to see 577 whether we can go further in this direction.
The basis of the British Army's success is good training, and for training, and as battle techniques develop, computers come in more and more. The Field Artillery Computer Equipment—known as "FACE"—will be issued to training units in the United Kingdom in the coming year. This brings the computer to the battlefield.

§ Mr. James Scott-Hopkins (Derbyshire, West)
To what Vote is the hon. Gentleman referring and what is the size of the Estimate? Perhaps he will tell us so that we can follow his argument in justifying them.

§ Mr. Boyden
As the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) said, it is in the Statement on Defence and I am developing what I said last year about this aspect.

§ Mr. Scott-Hopkins
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought we were discussing Vote A and not the Defence Statement. Will you give some guidance?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
We are discussing Vote A, which is the size of the Army, and there must be many statements in the Defence White Paper which are relevant to the question the House has to decide on Vote A.

§ Mr. Boyden
Last year, when I mentioned this subject, I was challenged because it was claimed that I was looking too far ahead. Now I am dealing with something that is actually happening. Not only in training for defence, but in the more mundane domestic area of training, one of the things I am proud to have seen is the excellent way in which the Army deals with training at all levels.
The Army is very self-critical of its tests and examinations. It is very critical of its own methods of selection. It has succeeded, in the course of this year, despite the complications of the need to train for all sorts of difficult apparatus—that is why I mentioned FACE, for example—in maintaining the level of cost as before. In other words, it is training better on more complicated apparatus, and doing it within a very good control cost system.

§ Mrs. Anne Kerr (Rochester and Chatham)
To what extent does my hon. 578 Friend feel that this will further the good will of this country and the good will and relationships between this country and other nations? Does he really feel that this sort of expenditure is going to help humanity?

§ Mr. Boyden
A party of Royal Engineers has gone to Beef Island, in the Virgin Islands, to build an airstrip. This will give them valuable training and will also help the local population increase their tourist trade. That is a very good example of the way training facilities will develop beyond the actual facilities of the British Army, producing good results for the civilian population. I wish to say something about this aspect and am shortly concluding my speech, which will obviously please hon. Members. I want to say something about the development of this aspect of relations between the Army and the civil population. The Army has always had a good reputation and has been anxious to assist the civil population. The example of the work in Beef Island is a good example of the sort of thing which has been going on overseas for some years.
I have been chairing a committee of officials in the Ministry to see in what way we can further the assistance which our forces stationed in this country are able to give the civil community. We have made considerable progress in simplifying the ideas and procedures and we hope that it will become a regular feature of all the training activities of units in this country that, when they do their training, they will often leave behind something which is of physical value to the civil population.

§ Mr. James Ramsden (Harrogate)
Will there be a modification of the Defence Council instruction which, if my recollection is right, considerably restricts the amount of help that can be given?

§ Mr. Boyden
Yes. This is one of the things that we are dealing with now. We propose to make it easier for local authorities and other Government Departments to understand exactly what the procedure will be, and the same applies to the point that the right hon. Gentleman has made in relation to forces.
Already there has been a very encouraging response to this in Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has raised this with 579 me on previous occasions, and I am very hopeful that this particular activity will do something to meet the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Anne Kerr) raised with me. The equipment that the Army has been receiving during the year has brought it up to strength. Two more armoured regiments have been equipped with Chieftain; the delivery of tracked A.P.C.s gave infantry battalions their full entitlement, and there has also been a considerable delivery of self-propelled guns, which will greatly increase the mobile fire-power of B.A.O.R.
The increasing mobility of the battle group will be matched by supporting vehicles with an equally good cross-country performance, in the shape of a tracked fitters vehicle for R.E.M.E. and further deliveries of the Stalwart high mobility load carrier. All in all I should like to report at this stage that the equipment of the Army during the year has been very much improved and increased, the training has gone from strength to strength, the actual operations in which the Army has been engaged overseas have reflected very great credit on it, and I hope that we shall hear from hon. Members opposite, perhaps for a change, some favourable things about the state of the Army and what it is doing.

§ Mr. Nigel Birch (Flint, West)
I would not have spoken except for some remarks made by the Minister of Defence for Administration at the end of his speech, in which he went back to the idea that one does not need any Army reserves, Territorial or otherwise, provided one can blow up enough women and children. This seems to be profoundly foolish and immoral. It stems from what the Secretary of State said in the last defence debate, that it was much more preferable to have a nuclear exchange than a prolonged conventional war.
God Almighty! The evil, the nonsense, the swinish degradation in that statement I find impossible to swallow. How hon. Gentlemen opposite, after all that they said before 1964, can stand the idea that one need not have conventional forces because one can blow up the women and children I do not know. It is impossible to believe.
580 The whole basis of military thinking, after Dulles, has been moving inevitably towards the idea that it is the conventional forces that matter. There has not been a day since the end of the war that has not shown this. We have had Vietnam and Nigeria and other places where the history of the world has been changed by conventional forces, not by nuclear exchanges. In the conventional war the state of one's reserves are obviously absolutely vital.
By these last measures relating to the T & AVR III we are taking steps to weaken our possibility of building up the conventional army in an emergency. This is what I feel most strongly about in the Government's policy. The Secretary of State for Defence sits there with his great blotchy face constantly wreathed in smiles when he is caught out in yet another contradiction, another mistake. He is perfectly right to be amused. He is amused because people, the fools, believe what he has said, sworn or unsworn. That is what we are up against here—somebody who thinks himself immune, because somebody believes what he says. I think we have got to the stage now where nobody will believe a word that the right hon. Gentleman says.

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)
Briefly, on two subjects. As my hon. Friend said, I have had an interview with him, and much correspondence, on the question of the civil uses of the Forces, and I would like to pay tribute to the G.O.C. Scottish Command, General Sir Derek Lang, and to all who work with him in the Ministry and Scottish Command for the experiments which have been done and for the good work which has been done on the storm damage.
I think one should not be naïve about this and suppose that civilian tasks will occupy a major part of the work of the Forces in the future. Perhaps it is possible to harm the case by overstating it. All I say is that a good start has been made. I hope that plans will be developed for worth-while projects which have of necessity some training content, and particularly in Scotland, perhaps in the North of England and in Wales, where there are certain projects which are urgent and where trade unions and 581 others would certainly welcome projects undertaken by the Forces.
If there is a job to be done at home I think it is also important that a job should t e done abroad and here I would simply ask a specific question of my hon. Friend. On Friday, 1st March, I asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he had to extend an airfield in the British Solomon Islands, and for what purpose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. With all the good will in the world, we cannot discuss airfields on the Army Estimates.

§ Mr. Dalyell
Well, Mr. Speaker, this Question was answered by my hon. Friend who is on the Government Front Bench; that Question was answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) and I would imagine that it was within his jurisdiction. Briefly, the point simply is this; why put in the Defence Review a project which apparently, according to the Answer I got, involves one officer and two n.c.o.s?

§ Mr. Speaker
With all the good will in the world again, we are not discussing the defence review. We are discussing the Army Estimates.

§ Mr. Dalyell
Then, Mr. Speaker, I turn to Appendix IV on page 117 of the Estimates and I will relate my remarks to the vote for the Chief Scientist (Army). The question which I really want to raise is one general point about the responsibilities of the Chief Scientist. It would be improper and I do not wish to go into the detailed work of the Select Committee on which I serve at present examining the D.R.E.s, but I simply want to make the point that many of us will probe throughout the spring and throughout summer the extent to which the Defence Department can operate with other Government Departments to implement the ideas which were first put forward by the Prime Minister when he was Opposition Leader at Scarborough in 1963, namely, that the defence research establishments would be used where possible for civilian research.
I do not want to take up the time of the House on details but I refer to one establishment for which, I understand, the Chief Scientist has some responsibility, the Microbiological Research 582 Establishment at Porton. I asked this of the Secretary of State today, 6th March, Why he gave instructions that the British Broadcasting Corporation, having made formal arrangements to make an hour-long television programme of activity at the Microbiological Research Centre at Porton, should be refused permission to enter the Microbiological Research Establishment, Porton. I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) said: Permission has now been granted to the B.B.C. to go ahead with this programme. I think that this is a wise decision. Perhaps it is the thin edge of a justifiable wedge.
I do not think that any Government—Conservative or Labour—have be wicked about this matter. I am sure that both the M.R.E. and the C.D.E. are used basically for defensive purposes. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), and to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Anne Kerr) that if offensive weapons have been developed, I am convinced that that has been done simply to test defensive weapons.
In so far as these establishments are defensive—and I believe they are—it seems that they should he open, that they should be put under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health or the M.R.C., and that far more civil work, such as work for the protective clothing industry, a growing industry, should be based on Porton as a civilian research establishment.
I want to raise one related question, and that is the question of classified contracts to universities. I refer to a Question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham on 13th February, 1968; it concerns the Chief Scientist to the Army. The reply was: The information is available only in respect of those contracts for pure research for defence purposes placed in the period April-December, 1967. 37 such contracts had a security classification."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th February, 1968; Vol. 758, c. 334.] It seems to me that this raises issues for us all, not least for the universities themselves. As my hon. Friend knows, in the United States there was a considerable argument at the University of 583 Pennsylvania about whether the university should undertake classified contracts.
There is a great deal of sorting out to be done both in relation to M.R.C. and whether it will accept non-classified and classified work, and if so on what terms. The Government ought to have the most serious discussions with the successor to Sir Harold Himsworth who is retiring. They ought to discuss the whole issue afresh. I am not saying that classified work should automatically be excluded from the universities. I am merely saying that this is a subject which should at least be discussed, probed, and gone into, like so many matters affecting defence research establishments.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. It may be a subject to discuss, but not on Vote A.

§ Sir John Eden (Bournemouth, West)
I am sure that in introducing this Vote the Minister was sincere in the tributes that he paid to the Army, and I am sorry if he misunderstood the intervention which greeted his remarks. I am sure he knows that everyone in this House wishes to be associated with what he said about the magnificent service which Her Majesty's Forces have given to this country in every theatre in which they have been called upon to perform a tour of duty.
The point which some of us were making, perhaps somewhat irreverently, may have escaped the hon. Gentleman. It is simply that throughout the presentation of a succession of Defence White Papers, throughout a succession of Defence Review policy statements, and throughout the speeches made by the Secretary of State on behalf of the Government, it has become apparent that the Government are set upon running down Her Majesty's Forces, that their primary purpose is to reduce the strength and capability of the Forces. That being so, the hon. Gentleman must understand that the praise of a Minister carries comparatively little force, and can have very little meaning. When his political master, the Secretary of State, has so flagrantly turned his back on pledges so recently given, he must not take it personally amiss if those who speak on 584 behalf of the Government are not taken seriously—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. After that exordium, the hon. Gentleman will now come to Vote A, I hope.

§ Sir J. Eden
There was some altercation between the two sides on this matter over the Under-Secretary's opening shots, Mr. Speaker.
The Vote is concerned primarily with fixing the maximum number of Armed Forces personnel for the coming year. I was trying to show that the effective maintenance of these officers and men depends largely on their confidence in Ministers' administration of their overall responsibilities. It is their inevitable lack of confidence because of the way in which Ministers have discharged those responsibilities which militates directly against the maintenance of effective strength in those Forces.
Anyone who has had dealings with serving men and officers knows how low morale is up and down the regimental ranks, and the Government must answer for that. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said in the defence debate, they recently advertised for recruits in an advertisement the language of which was, to say the least, not wholly in accord with the facts. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues must understand that if they are to maintain the strength of the forces and get the right volunteers, they must inspire them with confidence that they are determined to maintain the fighting capabilities of the British Army.
Will the hon. Gentleman say something about the details of the Vote? How does he see the future deployment of British Service men in connection with the Trucial and Oman Scouts, after this Government's decision to run out on our obligation to maintain stability and security in the Gulf? Has any undertaking or guarantee of future secure employment been given to them?
The Brigade of Gurkhas was referred to in the defence debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins), but the Minister did not then reply to him. We therefore wish to give the hon. Gentleman the chance tonight to deal with some of the points raised. Again, I must express my surprise that since the Minister made 585 the case that he was solemnly presenting Vote A to the House, he did not go out of his way to answer the points made in the defence debate the other day, which are wholly relevant to this discussion.
What is the future of the Brigade of Gurkhas? Again, I must emphasise that there can be no future unless there is confidence in the word of the Government. In this regard, it is of vital importance. The hon. Gentleman does not need me to recapitulate the delicate state of international relations which exists between Nepal and some of its neighbouring territories. He will know how important it is that those who rule that country can rely upon the word of the Government.
This is a brigade of fighting men who, as every hon. Member will recognise, have served this country magnificently over a very long period of time. Their service has been given in a very special way to the crowned head of the country in person. They have felt a very special and direct link with the crown head—today, Her Majesty the Queen. This is something of such a precious nature in the world today that none of us would wish to see it weakened or cast on one side.
Again, as a result of the Government's arbitrary decision to withdraw from Singapore, difficulties will arise when it comes to determining where the Brigade of Gurkhas is to be stationed and trained, and in what overseas theatres it is to be deployed. Hong Kong does not provide a proper solution to this problem, but since the Minister must agree with this view I am sure that he must have other ideas. His right hon. Friend who visited Nepal and negotiated these arrangements must have spelled out very clearly to the Government of Nepal what is to be the future of the Brigade of Gurkhas.
I emphasise again that this is a very significant fighting element in the British Army. It is a force which can most usefully be deployed, particularly in the Far East theatre but not only there, to defend the cause of freedom when it is challenged, and in whose defence we must be ready to act. It may be that the Brigade of Gurkhas could help in supporting some of our Commonwealth friends in the overall disposition of their military strength. Whatever the position, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take 586 this present opportunity to spell out quite clearly how he sees the future of this fine fighting force.

§ Mr. J. D. Concannon (Mansfield)
Once again I apologise to the Front Bench. I think my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will understand when I say that I am absent without leave from a Standing Committee upstairs.
Over the last two days in the defence debate we have discussed the strategy of our defence system. We have been discussing the new role of the Army and its equipment, nuclear tactical weapons, trip wires, bombing theories, ballistic missiles—everything but the men who are to man the new sophisticated weapons we have put, or are to put, into their use. I congratulate the Secretary of State on getting priorities in the right order—I do not care by what devious route, so long as we have arrived—and the rôle of the British Army settled.
Rather heavy weather has been made of the withdrawal of a brigade from the B.A.O.R. With the transfer of facilities at our disposal, there will be the usual diplomatic trouble, but this trouble in B.A.O.R. will not spring up overnight and the redeployment will not be of a worrying nature. With Germany, as it were, just over the river, it is right that the strategic reserve should be placed under the command of N.A.T.O.
My second point relates to the sheer professionalism of our Forces. Now we have got the role and commitments into the right order and an Army of the right size to carry out those commitments, we must aim for an Army which is better trained, better equipped and better looked after than ever before. Never again should we have our Forces in the state they were in in the fifties. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) spoke of the morale of the forces. The morale of the forces in the fifties was lower than for a considerable time. I was a member of the forces then and I know that they were under-manned, badly equipped, badly paid and completely over-stretched. If their morale had been rather higher, I would probably still be in the Brigade of Guards in a sentry box down the road.

§ Mr. Ramsden
The hon. Member is making a serious charge. If what he says 587 is true, how does he explain that recruiting then and re-engagement then was very much better than it is now? Apparently there was some satisfaction then among those in the forces.

§ Mr. Concannon
Once one has signed on as I did, one has to like it or lump it and see the time out. I congratulate the Minister on seeing that the Army is in a good state and that the Territorial Army is now better equipped and trained than ever before. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said yesterday: We shall need 35,000 young men a year who will have to be physically fit, mentally alert and have above average intelligence in order to enable us to carry out these commitments."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 267.] It worries me because in this age of computers and sophisticated weapons the story of the weekend about the British Army was centred around 41 junior guardsmen who "did a bunk". I was glad to hear that they returned to barracks, because I have slowly become an "Ombudsman" for disgruntled Servicemen and I half expected to have 41 guardsmen to tea on Sunday.
What has the British Army in the age of sophisticated weapons to do with highly polished boots? We have junior soldiers who, in the words of an hon. Member yesterday, should have been trained to such a pitch that they are the nucleus of a modern Army, but we visualise these "physically fit, mentally alert" highly trained young men sitting cross-legged on their beds like a row of Beatles having a day of transcendental meditation with the maharishi disguised as an n.c.o. passing his verdict on a row of shining boots.
If we are to have a modern Army, we must give up these 19th-century attitudes. When I visited Israel after the troubles, I never once saw a pair of shiny boots. I am sure that the Viet Cong never indulge in shiny boots parades. I hope that hon. Members opposite will not give me the old story about discipline, because I had that thrown at me many a time in the Guards. If the House believes that, it should instruct the Chief Whip to order 600 pairs of boots and a ton of boot polish, share them out, and let us all get cracking.
588 If we are to have a modern Army, we must give it proper training and schedules as befit a modern Army. Only when we have rid ourselves of 19th-century attitudes and brought ourselves truly up to date shall we have a modern Army befitting a modern country.

§ Mr. Marcus Kimball (Gainsborough)
I wish to refer to one item in the Vote. Will the Under-Secretary of State tell us what progress, if any, has been made with the inter-Service rationalisation of repairs? There is only one short reference to it in Chapter 3, page 24, of the Defence White Paper, and there is, naturally, no real mention of it in Vote A. But I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that a most important experiment has been conducted in my constituency.
The 25 Command Workshops in Gains-borough have been the first Army unit asked to carry out B vehicle repairs for the Royal Air Force. Is the Under-Secretary of State prepared to tell us what progress, if any, has been made with B vehicle repair rationalisation between all three Services?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I hope that this comes under Vote A.

§ Mr. Kimball
It does, Mr. Speaker, because it directly relates to the strength of R.E.M.E. Command. It is astonishing that, before a full assessment of this inter-Service experiment has been made, the R.E.M.E. Command at York has decided that a serious cut-back must now be made in the number of civilians employed in R.E.M.E. Command. What is so extraordinary is that this decision about the level of employment in R.E.M.E. Command should have been taken before anyone in R.E.M.E. Command knew the result of the inter-Service committee's work on the rationalisation of repairs.
The redundancy notices were handed out at the depot before a conference had been called to tell the R.E.M.E. Command what the assessment of the experiment was. The notices were issued at the end of January, and yet the first the brigadier in command of R.E.M.E. knew about the effect of the assessment was a conference called on 5th March. That cannot give anyone in R.E.M.E. Command any great confidence about the various experiments which are being 589 carried out in the hope of prolonging the life of the Command and making proper se of the facilities available.
Does the Minister himself know what assessment has been by the Royal Air Force of the future of its own repair flights?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am sorry to sound like Shylock and say that I cannot find it in the bond, but I am certain that I cannot find the Royal Air Force in this Army Vote A.

§ Mr. Kimball
Mr. Speaker, this is an experiment in which Army officers and men are being used to fulfil a commitment to the Royal Air Force. The trouble is that a cut is being made in the number of Army officers and men employed on this Vote before proper assessment has been made of what the Royal Air Force demand is. It is an experiment in inter-Service repairs, and a decision has been taken without a proper assessment having been given by the R.A.F. What is more, the decision has been taken to cancel facilities which are available in an area where the Army is weak and the Royal Air Force is strong.
Even worse, the decision is being taken to create a large number of redundancies among Army employees in my constituency and to continue to divert Army work to the R.E.M.E. depot at York where unemployment is low, despite the efforts of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, where housing is expensive, and where there is a great demand for other labour. That is the position which applies in Gainsborough today.
Redundancies are being created in a depot which is very well placed to help the Army out of its difficulties on R.E.M.E. repair work. It is one of the few Army depots in the middle of a countryside which is totally monopolised by the Royal Air Force, an Army depot in an area where there is very little civilian competition for labour.
Great hardship is attached to this decision, because the Army moved into Lincolnshire because labour was available and housing was cheap. The tragedy of the decision to close down the R.E.M.E. depot in my constituency is that although the people in question are established civil servants, they have no hope of getting a job elsewhere. Housing is still 590 cheap in Lincolnshire. In the area where the present R.E.M.E. depots are being maintained, it is extremely expensive. There is no hope of anybody selling his house in Lincolnshire and moving into Yorkshire or down to Banbury, Bicester or the other R.E.M.E. depot centres.
The employment position in Gains-borough, thanks to the efforts of hon. Members opposite, is worse than it ever has been since I represented that constituency. It has got worse and worse during the last four months. The employment position at York seems to be extremely good. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members opposite do not take into account any political considerations when they decide about the employment of civilian personnel within the Army. Could it be that York is a very marginal seat? The last thing that anybody could say is that Gainsborough is a marginal seat.
I would also like the Under-Secretary of State to tell us the position concerning the Chieftain tank. I understand that that tank is manufactured principally at Leeds and in Northumberland and that it has to be transported to the Royal Armoured Corps units on Salisbury Plain and at Catterick by the Royal Corps of Transport, the depot of which is at Ranby, in Nottinghamshire.
Nobody will argue that that depot is not well placed. It is right on the edge of the main new trunk roads, the A.1 and the motorway, and it is close to the centres of manufacture. The importance to my constituency of Ranby, however, is that the tank transporters cannot work without the R.E.M.E. depot at Gains-borough. A decision to run down that depot cannot be taken until we have a proper assessment of the future role of the Royal Corps of Transport depot at Ranby.
I fully realise that once a decision to run down the Territorial Army was taken, the future of the R.E.M.E. depot at Gainsborough was in doubt. I am very conscious that when I was in the Territorial Army, I used to ensure quite a lot of winter work for my constituents by the amount of kit we used to damage at summer camp or failed to maintain during our winter week-ends. So that from the time that the Territorial Army began to be robbed of its equipment, I have always been aware that the depot 591 in my constituency was in a precarious state.
As I understand it, however, there has been a rethink on the Territorial Army. A lot of the vehicles and equipment have to be kept—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We have debated the Territorial Army earlier today.

§ Mr. Kimball
This is in direct relation to the equipment being put on a care and maintenance basis, Mr. Speaker. Even if it is on a care and maintenance basis, it must be brought to Gainsborough at least every two or three years even to be kept up to that standard.
My only other question to the Under-Secretary is to ask whether he is determined to help and to try to keep the depot at Gainsborough, bearing in mind that there is no possible alternative employment for his skilled employees there. What steps is the hon. Gentleman prepared to take to look round for alternative workloads for this depot?
The Under-Secretary may get a bonus because the Government have decided to shift this way or that on the issue of the Territorial Army. There are some vehicles to be kept after all, even on a care and maintenance basis. Civil defence vehicles are being drawn into central stores. Even in central stores, they must be looked at every so often. Can they still continue to come to Gains-borough?
What other sources of damaged vehicles is the Minister going to look for? Could not the Minister of Housing and Local Government be approached to see what fire vehicles could come to Gains-borough? The Army has all the equipment to repair these vehicles. Could not the Minister find a use for this depot, rather than close it down and so take a decision which, in the opinion of everybody in the area, will have been hastily taken and is ill-considered, and in respect of which no proper consultation has been gone through so far?

§ Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)
Vote A calls for 224,500 men for the Army for the coming year. I argue that this is too many. I cannot say precisely to what extent it is too many, because the traditional Amendment, which, for 592 many years, it has been the custom of the House to discuss, is not being called. I regret that fact and reserve the right to refer to it at a later stage, because in my opinion it takes from hon. Members the right to question the number of soldiers required for the Forces—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member is speaking in ignorance of what has happened. If he had been in the House earlier in the day he would have known that Mr. Speaker had said that if the hon. Member succeeded in catching Mr. Speaker's eye he could move the Amendment in his name on the Order Paper.

§ Mr. Hughes
I apologise, Mr. Speaker. It is difficult to be in the Chamber all through the day. I am glad that the traditional right has been maintained—not for myself but probably for other hon. Members at different times. This is a traditional right, and I am glad and relieved to know—

§ Mr. Speaker
Lest the hon. Member should claim too much as of right—the power of the Chair is to select Amendments.

§ Mr. Hughes
Yes, Mr. Speaker; I do not doubt that—but it is the duty of hon. Members to protect the interests of other hon. Members. I merely assert that because I think it is very important. As I shall be called to maintain the rights of hon. Members in the future, long after you and I have departed, Mr. Speaker, I shall formally move the Amendment in my name. I argue that the requirement for 224,500 men is too much, and that this number is not necessary for the defence of life and property in this country. I say that this manpower is being misused and that it would be far better employed in other directions at home than in the various places abroad where our troops are now stationed.
I suggest that at the present time our people need protection through the police force and the prison service, and that many of the men required for the Army are trained men who, sooner or later, will come out of the forces into civilian life and into the services which I have mentioned. I have had this argument with the Army Ministers more than once. The lives and property of our people in this time of crime and violence are far more important, and these soldiers should 593 be out of the Army and in the police force and the prisons service.
If this proposition is not acceptable to the Minister—who argues that they should be permanently in the Army—I suggest that these men should be given leave to come out of the Army, and that as long as we have this wave of crime and violence in London and other parts of the country the first priority is not the Army in Germany—

§ Miss J. M. Quennell (Petersfield)
I am obliged to the hon. Member for giving way. He is not reluctant to intervene in other hon. Member's speeches. How does he propose to persuade the soldiers that he is going to release from the Army to go into the police force and the prison service? Suppose they do not want to?

§ Mr. Hughes
I am delighted that I gave way to the hon. Lady. If there could be placed in the depots in Germany, and anywhere else where the British Army personnel are now stationed, notices stating that Servicemen will be given an opportunity to serve in the police or the prison service, I believe that without the exercise of compulsion we would get the men who are needed more in those services than they are in Germany or Hong Kong and such places. I am not suggesting that they should be brought out compulsorily. We should ask for volunteers. I understand that one murder is committed every week in Glasgow, as well as numerous other crimes of violence, because there are insufficient men in the police force, and I am sure that the men in the Scottish regiments would volunteer to serve their country where they are most needed, defending their kith and kin against the thug, the bandit and the robber—

§ Mr. Anthony Royle (Richmond, Surrey)
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is not giving way.

§ Mr. Hughes
I will give way later, but I want to finish this part of my argument. I wish to emphasise that the men serving in the military police in Germany are needed more in the prison service of the country. A fortnight ago I visited the largest prison in Scotland and 594 I found the prison officer strength was 50 short. That is a serious situation, and we should recruit the necessary prison staff from the military police in Germany and other places where our soldiers are stationed.

§ Mr. A. Royle
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. I have been following his argument carefully. I have been puzzled by one aspect of his argument concerning the police. He is anxious to expand the police in this country because of the crime wave which he alleges is getting worse. How does he square this up with what his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department says, namely, that he is going to cut down recruitment in the police?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not be tempted to depart from this Vote into a debate on the Home Office.

§ Mr. Hughes
No, Mr. Speaker. I can resist everything except temptation when it comes in the form of an interruption. But I am talking about Vote A, and I will not be diverted from that Vote. I am suggesting that the number of our soldiers is too high and that it would be possible, without damaging our military effectiveness, to transfer some of them home, either on leave or on pension, in order that they could do more necessary work. I hope that I shall get a more sympathetic answer from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army, of whom I have high hopes, than I got from his hon. Friend earlier.
I want now to raise another point. I agree entirely with what has been said about the Gurkhas. That may be thought a strange thing for me to say, but the Gurkhas who come within Vote A—and I am keeping strictly within order in this—have given good service to this country. They deserve to be treated considerately and compassionately if their brigade is to be disbanded. I may well be asked what is my constructive suggestion. I would say that if the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) would accept the proposition that these men would be welcomed in Bournemouth and would not be regarded merely as coloured immigrants, and if he would 595 say, "Yes, we are prepared to take 50,000 Gurkhas whom the landladies of Bourne mouth will welcome", then I would warmly support him. I would then hope that it would not be said, "We will keep the Gurkhas out because they have brown skins".
The Minister, in his opening remarks, referred also to Hong Kong. We have large numbers of troops in Hong Kong, and I am not sure that the Minister is right in describing the island as a possession of the Crown. I may be historically wrong, but I was under the impression that Hong Kong was leased by some former government of China under an agreement with us, and also that that lease is going to expire. We should, therefore, reconsider this commitment of keeping troops in Hong Kong. The number of men coming within Vote A who are in Hong Kong should begin to be reduced.
What is the position in Hong Kong? It is true no doubt, as the Minister said, that the troops did a service to the community there, and I am in no doubt about their serving the interests of this country well. At the same time, I do not think that we can continue to keep a considerable army in Hong Kong if the situation should get worse than it has been. We are in Hong Kong on sufferance, by permission of the Chinese, and if the Chinese Government decided to take the Colony, it would be a very difficult operation from the purely military point of view to hold Hong Kong. For instance, the water supply depends upon supplies on the mainland, and if the Chinese Government should take it into its head to turn off the water, then it would be an extremely difficult proposition to keep our soldiers in the Colony.
If only Her Majesty's Government looked on this matter from the point of view of reducing the number of troops—and from the point of view, incidentally, of saving some money—we could come to an understanding and negotiate with the Chinese Government. To talk of keeping soldiers there for military operations is, to me, absolute nonsense. They would be sacrificed for something which could never be done. I could say the same thing about Singapore, but I want to give an opportunity for other hon. Members to speak. My point is that 596 this number of men, when this country is in the economic state that it is, and this huge sum of £600 million, is something which this country cannot afford. I protest, and say that this Vote ought to be reduced.

§ Miss J. M. Quennell (Petersfield)
It is something of a coincidence that, almost exactly a year ago, when we had a similar debate on a similar Vote, the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) spoke just before me and the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) spoke just after me. At this hour it is not possible, and would not be welcome to hon. Members, to embark on a lengthy speech.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. Lady, but perhaps the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) will tell me whether he moved his Amendment or not.

§ Mr. Emrys Hughes
I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I beg to move, That the said number be reduced by 1,000 men.

§ Miss Quennell
I want to raise two points. The first is one which perhaps the Under-Secretary of State can deal with by regulation, for it refers to the payment of pensions of other ranks. This is normally done by postal order on a weekly basis. The pensioner has to collect payment from the post office. Former serving officers can have their pensions paid through a bank, but that system is not extended to other ranks even if they have had a bank account for years.
This regulation probably goes back into the ancient past when the banking system was not so extensively developed. But today banking facilities are widely accessible and fully available all over the country. There has also been a great change in the type of personnel in the Army itself and it seems absurd that this regulation should continue. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look at this to see whether the regulation can be amended so that, if other ranks express their wish for it to be done, their pensions can be paid direct into their bank accounts.
597 The second point is much more substantial. I raised it a year ago on the same Vote. On that occasion, the debate was based on the assumption of withdrawal from the Far East by the mid-1970s. Now there is to be a much accelerated withdrawal, expected to be completed by 1971. A year ago, I drew the hon. Gentleman's attention to problems which would be created unless his Ministry succeeded in establishing clear lines of communication with the various local authorities in whose areas camps were set up to which the men from overseas would be repatriated.
The nub of the problem, I pointed out, lies in maintaining good relations between the Army and the local authorities, and plans should be considered well in advance of the arrival of the men and their families before a strain was placed upon local authority services. Warning is needed on this, to make adequate provision. The White Paper anticipates an accelerated withdrawal of forces and contemplates completion by 1971, not the mid-1970s. We have only three years to consider the practical consequences of the repatriation of large numbers of men. Paragraph 12 of the White Paper refers to withdrawal in 1971. Paragraph 19 anticipated a concurrent run-down of the strength of the Services and implied that these would be harmoniously and smoothly timed and married together.
The implication, one hopes, will become a reality. In the Statement on The Defence Estimates, page 65, paragraph 21 there is a frank confesion that: The detailed plans that had been worked out following the reductions announced in the Supplementary Statement on Defence Policy, 1967, are now being revisesd to take account of the accelerated rundown…it is not yet possible to be precise… about prospects. All one can say, broadly speaking, is that the problems that I outlined last year will be accentuated and accelerated by the increase in rundown. By their nature, Army camps are situated in rural districts and administrative counties, less well endowed with rateable value sources. They do not have big conurbations. These are the authorities most likely to be embarrassed by sudden demands to extend services and they are the most vulnerable to the retrenchment recently announced.
A year ago I asked the Minister some questions relating to the solutions of the 598 problem that his Department had tried to work out. He was not very encouraging in his reply. He said that any assistance from the Exchequer would have to be provided through the normal machinery of local government finance. He said that he would be writing to me, and he did but I had clearly failed to make the point clear because in his letter he admitted that a temporary shortage of privately-built houses could result. He said: We hope that this will be overcome by revising future private building development. When the Army Lands Department buys a large number of privately-built houses in an area, and holds them vacant for many months the consequence is that the number of houses for private purchase is reduced. The Minister suggested that the shortage created could be overcome by revising the future private building development. I failed to make my point clear—it is the fault of the speaker and not the listener. A local authority has no means of knowing who is buying private houses in its district. A local authority cannot possibly revise its future building development, since the planning authority must be appraised three years ahead of future military requirements.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. What the local authority does about the problem that the hon. Lady is raising does not come under this Vote.

§ Miss Quennell
This is in connection with the activities of the Lands Department, which comes under this Vote. When the Lands Department operates or buys houses for the Army—quite rightly—there are consequent effects in those localities. All I seek to ask the Under-Secretary is that he should reconsider the channels of communication which he has in contemplation for allowing local authorities to know what his Department has in mind in order that it can make proper provision for the troops.
May I ask the hon. Gentleman two questions in connection with the Vote? Does the accelerated withdrawal east of Suez mean that the release of War Department land will now either be retarded or stopped? Secondly, in connection with redundancies, do the accelerated withdrawals mean that redundancies already planned will now either be retarded or cancelled?
599 These are points which I sought to make a year ago, and while I do not think they are quite so emotionally of importance perhaps as the reduction of the Brigade of Gurkhas and the Oman Scouts and certain other units of the Army, nevertheless they will be of great importance if we in this country are to accommodate, smoothly and without irritation to the citizens of the country, a larger standing army than we have had in the country before.

§ Mr. Cyril Bence (Dunbartonshire, East)
I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not comment on her remarks, because I want to oppose my hon. Friend's Amendment and make a few points on Vote A and the size of the forces. One of the best conditions by which to attract men, whether to industry or commerce or the Defence Services, or the police services is stability of the career structure. I think that that is what everyone seeks today. The Armed Forces require peculiar skills and peculiar qualities and whereas in commerce or industry the career possibilities are spread across a large number of multifarious occupations and functions, in the defence Services that is not so. One of the most vital conditions in the Services must be the career structure. This applies not only to officers but to other ranks as well. Officers and men entering the forces must feel that there is open to them a stable career structure. This is absolutely vital. I do not think we can create really viable Armed Forces to play their part in the defence of the western world unless we can attract to them men of the highest quality, and one of the means of attracting them is to offer them some security in their career and the prospect of a career for their working life.
Many years ago, probably before my lifetime, or until the early part of my lifetime, the training at military institutions, such as cadet colleges and Sandhurst, was a training which was unique and could be used only by the Forces. This has become and is becoming less true. The Army's institutions for educating and preparing men for their careers in Her Majesty's Forces produce very useful and valuable men, who supply valuable 600 manpower for other purposes when they leave the Forces.
I know a young man who was at the Mons Cadet School at Aldershot. The education and training that he received there gave him qualities of leadership which he has been able to exercise in the industrial complex which he has entered. He puts the value of his training above that which he received at a public school. I have never been prone to supporting military regimes, but this lad is a shining example of the kind of training provided at that school.
I hope that the Government's decision to cut our defence forces has not been taken unilaterally. I hope that it has been taken after consultation with our friends and allies who, like ourselves, want to defend our Western civilisation. I think that in the modern world it is wrong to take decisions without consulting one's friends and allies.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I hope that the hon. Member will not widen the debate. We are discussing Vote A of the Army Estimates.

§ Mr. Bence
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has tabled an Amendment to reduce the Vote by 1,000 men, and I am saying that our contribution to the defence of the Western world should be fixed in consultation with our friends and allies.
I have the greatest respect and admiration for my hon. Friend's single-mindedness, but I cannot understand his motives in tabling this Amendment. He says that in this country there are thugs, burglars, and violators of property, and therefore we should take 1,000 men from the forces to deal with them. What he forgets is that in the world in which we live there are also thugs, burglars, and violators of property, and that we as a nation must be prepared to play our part in deterring these people from indulging in acts of brigandry. We must have an Army to deter these international brigands and vagabonds. I do not understand the logic of my hon. Friend's case.

§ Mr. Emrys Hughes
Who is the international brigand?

§ Mr. Bence
We do not know. If our police force could bring evidence against the crooks in this country, we could 601 lock them up and make sure that they were not able to pursue their nefarious activities. We must have an Army to prevent international anarchy. I cannot see the point of wanting to reduce the size of our Army, which is part of N.A.T.O., which is part of an international body whose purpose it is to preserve peace in the world.
In recent weeks we have seen the amalgamation of the Ayrshire Police Forces to help to preserve law and order in the area. My hon. Friend may know the international brigands, I do not. We are faced with a number of imponderable, and I maintain that in the present world situation we must make our contribution to preserving world peace. All I hope is that in fixing the size of our Forces the Government have consulted our friends and allies, and members of the United Nations who, like ourselves, are determined to defend our civilisation. I hope that the Government will withstand my hon. Friend's blandishments to strengthen the internal forces at the expense of the defence forces. A young man who wanted to join the Army would not be attracted to the police force in the same way.

§ Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking)
I suppose that we must in these debates give the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) a chance to dree his weird—and pretty weird it is—but if he is to make six speeches on this annual event, the House must be protected against waste of time. I do not intend to waste time but to reinforce certain points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden), about morale in the Army. The White Paper is evidence of the decline and failure of recruiting, and in answer to a recent Parliamentary Question I was told about the alarming increase in the number of officers applying to retire prematurely—from 408 in 1963 to 670 in 1967. It is no use having an Army unless the morale is strong, and the morale of our Army is very much weaker than the Secretary of State concedes.
On 4th March, he talked of "some temporary problems" affecting Service morale, and as usual erred on the side of optimism. There are some short-term problems of man management concerning 602 those serving with B.A.O.R., which the Government can and should tackle fairly smartly. Devaluation has had a disruptive effect on B.A.O.R. morale. A young soldier serving out there has written to me saying: It is no secret that morale generally in B.A.O.R. has dropped tremendously since the effects of these new rates became apparent. If the House could not follow what the Minister tried to tell us yesterday, perhaps I should point out that a reply to another Question of mine on this subject recently showed that, as a result of devaluation and even taking into account the new local overseas allowances, a captain in B.A.O.R. has had to take a pay cut of £9 6s. a month in D-marks value and a corporal a cut of £5 a month. Cuts like this will not improve morale.
I may return on some individual Votes to aspects of the Government's treatment of personnel moving to and from B.A.O.R. Apart from accusing the Government of not looking after the men's feet, which is an essential aspect of morale, I must also accuse the Secretary of State of damaging forces' morale and there can be no question of allowing him to escape his proper responsibility. We now have "Stability Healey" in charge of our defence. Colour television would be interesting in allowing us to see how his gills redden when he is pinned on the hook by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell).
But it is not just in this House that his performance matters but particularly in the Army, which is conscious and must be conscious of the policy and attitudes of the Government of the day and the personality of the Secretary of State. The Army cannot ignore these things. The Secretary of State has puzzled the House and the Army by his refusal to resign. They and we know that he has broken the rules on more than one occasion. He broke more than one rule in the Parkes case, for instance. He has shattered his own reputation. When he was first appointed, I heard him described—

§ Mr. Emrys Hughes
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the reputation of the Minister of Defence involved in Vote A?

§ Mr. Speaker
I hardly thought so.

§ Mr. Onslow
The morale of the Army is very much involved, and so are the number of men whom we seek in order to maintain the national defence, and the standing of the Secretary of State for Defence is very much involved in the morale of the Army—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) for calling the House to order, but we cannot discuss the whole question of defence or of the Ministry of Defence on this Vote.

§ Mr. Onslow
I am sorry if I allowed myself to mislead you, Mr. Speaker. What I was trying to do was to discuss the morale of the Army and the difficulty of employing in the service of the Crown the number of men proposed if morale was not as high as it should be. I was seeking to adduce the influence of the Secretary of State and his behaviour on the Army and to show it is the main cause why morale is not what it should be. I do not want to develop the point at length, and will make only this final comment. If the Secretary of State were to change, it is possible that the Army's morale might be much improved. If he went to the post he covets, the Foreign Office—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. If the hon. Member pursues this too far we can have this debate on the three Votes before us—Army, Navy and Air Force, and then defence.

§ Mr. Onslow
I have no wish to make my present speech more often than the House would wish, which is once only, so I conclude by saying that if the right hon. Gentleman himself were to go out of office he would do the Army's morale the greatest service still in his power.

§ Mr. Boyden
With permission, I will speak for the third time tonight and try to answer as many of the questions as I can in the time available to me. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) that the cost of the Army Cadet Force is about £1½ million a year, and that the cost of the Army part of the combined Cadet Force is about £½ million. I will, however, write to him about the details.
604 About 80 per cent. of the work of the M.R.E. is published, and the spin off for medicine, etc., is considerable. In addition, the scientific staff at M.R.E. frequently read papers to learned bodies. Work is done for the Medical Research Council and for bodies sponsored by it on repayment. There are contracts with several universities, but the details would be available only with the permission of the universities.
I appreciated the first part of the remarks of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden). I would not dissociate myself from any political responsibility for the results of what Ministers do. I stand by this entirely. What I was anxious to establish was that the Army must get a fair crack of the whip in the House and with the public for what it does. I have always considered, and hon. Members opposite have always impressed it on me, that one of the purposes of the Estimates debate is to give the Army credit for its activities over the year. I was endeavouring to do that. I take full responsibility for the political side.
The Trucial and Oman Scouts are available for internal security and local defence. They make a valuable contribution to stability in the area, and will no doubt continue to do so. As for the careers of officers on secondment, when their tour is over the officers go back to the British Army and are available again.
The Gurkhas are remaining in Malaysia and Hong Kong until 1971, in accordance with the Prime Minister's statement of 16th January. Their movements after that will depend on the general discussion that will take place. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Brigade is running down at about 2.000 a year, and this run-down will continue to the end of 1971, when the strength will be about 6.000—

§ Mr. Emrys Hughes
Would my hon. Friend give an assurance on behalf of the Government that any Gurkha wishing to settle in this country will not have his passport cancelled?

§ Mr. Boyden
They have to be discharged in Nepal. I am quite sure that there would be no discrimination against the Gurkhas, but I do not know that they would particularly want to come to this country in view of the climate.
605 I want to deal with allied questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and the hon. Lady the Member for Petersfield (Miss Quennell) about looking after Service people and giving them good welfare conditions. I noted what the hon. Lady said. Conditions have very much improved in our comunications with local authorities. The Minister of Housing and Local Government has asked local authorities to treat all military people on the basis of housing need and not on the time they have lived in an area. Many local authorities are very helpful in this matter.

§ Sir Eric Errington (Aldershot)
I received a letter only today from the Under-Secretary asking me to intervene with a local authority to get accommodation. Is it not possible for the Ministry of Defence to make an effort to persuade these people?

§ Mr. Boyden
We do so. Hon. Members are very helpful in this respect. Because of their local influence they can influence their local authorities. I frequently write to hon. Members to help in this way. Sometimes they know some of the background of such problems which is not known to me. Generally local authorities do what they can and in the hon. Member's area they are very helpful—and so is the hon. Member.
I agree very much with what my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield said about provision of good houses and schools and looking after soldiers' families to improve their morale. They are finding these services acceptable. On one of the key factors in morale, the state of family union, in 1967 only 3 per cent. of officers and 5 per cent. of soldiers were separated from their families at their duty stations. That has improved from 7 per cent. and 11 per cent. respectively in 1966. This has been due in large measure to the purchase of private houses. Two thousand two hundred and sixty houses have been purchased and are occupied or ready for occupation and a further 2,280 are in various stages of completion and a small number have still to be found. There are 305 married quarters under construction under the accelerated building programme. The first of these are nearly complete and a further 1,138 are in planning.
606 Generally speaking, our experience in private house purchase has been that it has worked well, but there have been a number of cases where the local house owners thought the value of their property would deteriorate and they have made a fuss. There have been changes in this, for example in Uckfield where originally there were complaints, the local people held a barbecue for the incoming troops and everything turned out well. The principle trouble we have found is that soldiers' families tend to be rather more numerous than those other purchasers of houses. They tend to put greater pressure on school accommodation, but we have much improved the liaison with the schools. Service directors of education have met the secretary of the A.E.C., Sir William Alexander and he has done what the Minister of Housing and Local Government has done—asked local authorities to keep in the closest touch and to make improvements where they can. We also have good relations with the Department of Education and Science. Some of the problems which for example existed in this respect in Uckfield a year ago have been ironed out.

§ Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles (Winchester)
I am not clear about whether the hon. Gentleman has dealt with the point raised in the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) about the garrison in Hong Kong. It might be misleading if it went out from this House that there is any question of reducing the garrison in Hong Kong.

§ Mr. Boyden
There is no question of that. I have been on good terms with my hon. Friend, but—

§ Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm this or not?

§ Mr. Boyden
Yes, I did confirm it, three times.
There is one other important aspect of housing conditions which I think the hon. Member for Petersfield will be pleased about. It has some bearing on the hostility of people on housing estates who fear that the Army coming to them will bring down the value of their houses. We have gone to a great deal of trouble to maintain these estates in possibly a better condition than private householders. They will be maintained 607 uniformly. We are introducing a much better system of housing management throughout the Army. This is in process now, not only on the Army estates, as at Aldershot and so forth, but on the privately built estates and parts of such estates which we purchase. I am sure that this will have a good effect on the general atmosphere and on the actual look of the estates.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield asked me about the 41 young Guardsmen. I was in Pirbright in the summer, although not at that particular unit, and I formed a very high opinion of the way that recruiting and the management of recruits was done. As I said earlier, I have been around a good deal to boys' training units, and, as a generalisation, I assure my hon. Friend that the standard of looking after the boys, bringing them on and giving them confidence is quite remarkably high. I have called for an inquiry into this particular incident. I shall personally look at its findings carefully to see whether there is anything wrong.
On the general issue, the parents and boys I have spoken to on the many occasions when I have had the opportunity have nothing but the highest regard for the confidence which is instilled into the young men, the education they receive, and so on. Only a few days ago, I was at Oswestry seeing a class of tough young men doing art with an enthusiasm one would expect to find at the Slade. I thought that it was a great credit to the Army that it could do the physical side of training, it could do the discipline side, and it could do the cultural side in that way.

§ Mr. Concannon
It did me quite a lot of good, too.

§ Mr. Boyden
It does a lot of people a lot of good.
I think that the best way to deal with the matter raised by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) is for me either to see him or write to him about it. It is a rather complicated problem. I cannot deal with it in the short time now left to me. I shall consider it sympathetically. I shall write to the hon. 608 Gentleman first, and, if he is not satisfied, he can come and see me.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) does not seem to appreciate that there is quite a big traffic between the Army and the police forces. The Guards, for example, have more or less an understanding about joining the Metropolitan Police when they leave the Army. My hon. Friend can rest assured that there is quite a good flow between the Services generally, and the Army in particular, and the police.
The hon. Lady the Member for Peters-field raised a question about the payment of pensions to other ranks. An experiment is being conducted on this. I shall look into it and see how it is going, and I shall be glad to meet the hon. Lady to discuss the issue.
Now, the question of morale which is constantly raised by hon. Members opposite. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) raised it tonight, too. The career prospects of men and officers entering the Army now are as good as they have ever been in peacetime. The career structure for n.c.o.s has been redrafted and re-planned to give a rather better structure than existed before, and the career structure for officers will be no worse than it was.
There is a danger, when hon. Members opposite constantly harp on the subject of morale, that they may do damage to the cause in which they may well believe. As I said to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West, I do not mind taking political responsibility at all. But this constant nagging away and saying that the morale of the troops is deteriorating all the time does not represent what I see with my own eyes when I meet the soldiers concerned, and I think it may well do damage in a way which hon. Members opposite would regret.