Vote 1. Pay, etc., of the Army

HC Deb 12 March 1968 vol 760 cc1266-304

Motion made and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £186,790,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1969.

7.50 p.m.

Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish (Lewes)

It is important to bear in mind that all three Services are in a state of uncertainty, bewildered by contradictions and reversals in the Government's defence policy. There is much anxiety about disrupted careers and widespread feeling that the men and women have neither a credible rôle nor a dependable political champion. This debate gives the Under-Secretary an opportunity to dispel some of these doubts and uncertainties and to take a step towards restoring the confidence which is badly needed.

I propose to talk about the future pay and allowances of the Army, particularly the Government's reference to the Prices and Incomes Board, the disquieting figures for recruiting and outfall in the Army medical services, the effect of devaluation on the real incomes of men serving overseas and recruiting policy and general prospects, since the Vote must of course, be considered in the context of Government policy on the future size and structure of the Army. I have given the hon. Gentleman a note of some of my most important questions, since the object of these debates is not to catch Ministers out but to elucidate information. I hope that he will be able to give us the assurances which I seek.

First, the future pay and allowances. In view of the sorry state of recruiting and the need to restore confidence in the Services as a rewarding career, It is inconceivable that the Government should have chosen this of all times to upset the Grigg formula concept, which has been the root of good recruiting ever since first applied in 1960 by a Conservative Government, following Parliament's acceptance of the Grigg Report in 1958.

Under the Grigg formula, the Government are committed to biennial reviews of the pay and allowances and to relating changes to comparable sectors of civilian life. For officers, the yardstick was the relative changes in pay of executive and administrative grades of the Home Civil Service, and for other ranks the changes in average earnings in manufacturing and certain other industries, as notified by the Ministry of Labour. These yardsticks were chosen by the Treasury in consultation with the Service Departments, as the Grigg Committee recommended.

We see no reason why any Government should be precisely wedded to them. They were chosen presumably as the fairest yardsticks. The distortion of the economy in the past few years surely shows the need to consider the precise Grigg formula while retaining its admirable basic principle. There is nothing sacrosanct, either in the habit of reviewing Service pay every two years, but it is essential that the Grigg system should not be replaced by anything less fair and dependable and that the Services should have implicit and justifiable faith in getting a square deal.

Probably 80 per cent., perhaps more, of men now serving joined the Army on the clear and unequivocal understanding that this formula would apply to them. It was a contract of service—no more and no less. Some men who have joined since December, when the reference to the N.B.P.I. was made, presumably had only a tacit understanding that such a formula would be applied. The most recent copy of recruiting literature which I have contains this sentence: … and Army pay is automatically reviewed every two years to ensure it keeps in line with the wage of industry. I do not know how recent that is, but it was published certainly during the last year or two, and possibly even more recently.

It is well known that the Conservatives, when in power, twice applied the formula in full, but that, in 1962, when the economy was suffering some strain, the Government gave the Grigg increases in two halves. When that happened, the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) severely castigated us, saying that we had …unilaterally broken what I regard as an honourable agreement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1962; Vol. 655, c. 317.] He went so far as to say that we were cheating, having previously said that he chose this strong word deliberately.

None the less, in November, 1965, the Government referred to the N.B.P.I. the question of whether the application of the Grigg formula to revised rates of pay due in April, 1966, was consistent with Part 1 of the White Paper on prices and incomes. This was, of course, quite contrary to their position in opposition and in power. We objected and prayed against this proposal, taking the view that it was not consistent with the view of the present Foreign Secretary, who, when Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, recognised the importance of the Grigg formula for encouraging recruiting and re-engagement, but making it clear to the Services that … they will not be left out when changes in the remuneration of the community as a whole "— I emphasise those last three words— are taking place."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1965; Vol. 721, c. 771.] Not surprisingly, the Board's Report confirmed what the Government already knew. The Services, they were told, faced formidable recruiting problems which were likely to grow worse and any departure from the Grigg formula would increase recruiting difficulties. Lastly: Unless and until the Government duly notifies the members of the Armed Services that a new system of review of their emoluments is to be adopted, we consider that there is a commitment. "There is a commitment" and there was a commitment.

Therefore, the Board recommended the application of the Grigg formula in full and the Services heaved a sigh of relief.

When the formula was introduced, we welcomed its underlying principle because it removed Service pay from the whim of the Treasury and offered the men continuity and the confidence which they deserved. But we never suggested that the formula was perfect, and, after 10 years' experience, it would be strange if it could not be improved. In practice, of course, the Services lag far behind their civilian counterparts. The review takes place only every two years and changes in pay and allowances come into effect on 1st April, but are based on civilian rates in the previous July. This means that the Services are sometimes two years and nine months behind and never less than nine months behind. Some people may not have fully realised this.

Last December, the Government instructed the Board to keep under continuous review the pay, allowances, pensions and gratuities of the Services, although we were told at the time—strangely enough, although I was glad to hear it—that pensions and gratuities would not be considered by the Board, although they were in the reference. We thought that this was an unnecessary extension of the work of the Board, which is already heavily overloaded, and we said so. We felt that the Government were passing the buck to the Board and were wrong to do so.

We feel the Government should have taken the advice previously given by the Board that it was their job to give a lead. Revised rates of pay and allowances are due on 1st April, now less than three weeks away. On 5th March the Minister of Defence for Administration told the House that as the Prices and Incomes Board was a statutory body no Minister could instruct it to make its Report by any given date, but that he had every confidence that the Board would report as soon as possible. The White Paper tells us that the Board will report on this question early this year. I find those words on page 65. But is this good enough? I do not think it is. The prolonged doubts about Service pay and allowances are extremely damaging in the present state of recruiting and I hope we can have more information on this question today, particularly since it is now admitted that, in spite of the Government's attempts to curb them, by statutory control, first with the "freeze" and then through the period of so-called "severe restraint", wages during the two-year period in question rose at a rate bearing no relation to increased productivity, which was practically stagnant, and ran far ahead of the cost of living.

How much they rose in that period I do not know; perhaps I should. But I warrant a guess that it was at least 10 per cent. To award other ranks increases in pay and allowances lower than the Grigg formula would justify today would be bound to seem to them like victimisation.

As for officers, anything that may be done that makes it even harder to get and keep enough men of the right calibre would be a false economy at this time, and so I want to ask the Under-Secretary to tell the House upon what criteria the Prices and Incomes Board is supposed to advise on changes in pay and allowances and how these criteria differ from the Grigg criteria. We were quite unable to elicit this information in praying against the earlier reference to the Prices and Incomes Board. It was a most unsatisfactory debate, but we are entitled to have an answer to this question.

Secondly, when is the Report expected and when will the revised rates of pay and allowances come into force? Will they come in by 1st April, when they should; and if they do not will the Under-Secretary give an absolute assurance that in every case the revised rates will apply retrospectively, with no exception whatsoever? I very much hope that we can have assurances on these questions. I look forward to having full and clear answers, so that other ranks in the Army can have their anxieties either set at rest or confirmed. I very much hope it will be the former.

May I turn next to the very disquieting position in recruitment, and outfall in the Army Medical Services. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) referred to this so far as the Royal Navy was concerned. Certainly, I did not think much of the answer he got. Let us hope the Army can do better. I was not at all surprised to read in the Defence White Paper that the manning situation in the Services generally—and of course this refers to all the Services although in relation to this Vote I am concentrating on the Army—gives cause for concern. To quote page 57: Recruitment is not keeping pace with requirements nor compensating for the outflow. This, as I have said, applies to all three Services. In the case of the Army it is stated on page 59 that: The recruitment both of cadets and of qualified and registered doctors has declined, and the number of voluntary retirements has risen. This is a pretty bad state of affairs, as I am sure the Under-Secretary will agree. But a year ago the House debated the failure of the Government to honour its pledge to Service doctors and dentists by making revised rates of pay and allowances retrospective to 1st April, 1966, in line with the rest of the Services. The pledge given on that occasion in Cmnd. 2903 referred to Service medical and dental officers: Revised rates of pay which will be effective from 1st April, 1966, will be published separately. There is no doubt whatsoever what that means. That was a clear promise which was quite cynically broken. The Government not only broke that pledge, but also departed from the sensible policy of giving Service doctors a financial advantage over their civilian counterparts. For many years this had been regarded as the only way to attract enough doctors of the right quality into the Services and my right hon. Friend sitting beside me, as a former Secretary of State for War, will remember that this was a most important principle established over a long period. During the debate to which I have referred, I warned the Minister that a decision to remove that important differential would bring dire results. I know that hon. Gentlemen are always aggravated when someone says, "I told you so", but I said: The present state of recruitment of Service doctors … is already grave, and the British Medical Association has warned the Government that they must now expect it to be even worse."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th January, 1967; Vol. 740, c. 56.] The Minister of Defence for Administration, in replying to the debate, showed remarkable complacency and even gave the impression that it was a matter of indifference whether or not recruiting in this field declined—or that was the impression he gave me. He said: A captain, in many cases, will get roughly the same money as a general practitioner of a similar age—about £2,400 per year in total emoluments. A major aged 34 will in future get in total emoluments, £2,909 a year, which is about 12.6 per cent. less than a general practitioner of roughly the same age."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th January, 1967; Vol. 740, c. 69.] I understand that recently registered doctors embarking on general practice in civilian life, young men or young women in their middle twenties are being offered anything upwards of £2,500 a year to a figure that can be as high as £4,500 a year; but the total pay and emoluments of a doctor of comparable age and experience in the Services is under £1,800 a year. I hope I have got the figures right. It is not always easy to get such figures exactly right, but I believe these are accurate, and I have taken the figure for Service doctors from page 100 of the Defence White Paper.

The results of the Government's frugal, ill-advised policy are now clear. There has been, as we warned there would be, a slump in recruiting Army doctors. There has been, as we warned there would be, a rise in voluntary retirements. Doctors, often unable to use their specialised training because of shortages in other fields, are thoroughly disgruntled; and senior medical administration officers of the future will not be there if things continue at the present rate. Attractive terms have been offered to students to attract them as medical cadets, but they are disillusioned with the conditions of service once they have qualified, and this is leading to serious wastage. The scheme was not devised to help the Minister of Health by training doctors at the expense of the Service Vote, but that is what it seems to be doing.

The Services must have enough doctors of the right quality to retain a structure which allows specialists to exercise their skills and makes a Service medical career compare well with conditions in civil life. I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to say something to encourage both serving and prospective Service doctors, and I would ask him, in particular, whether it is proposed to restore the differential where it has ceased to exist or narrowed, or even gone into reverse, in order to make a Service career for doctors more attractive in financial terms.

A brig word about devaluation. The whole House will recognise the difficulty of being scrupulously fair to all members of the forces serving overseas where, devaluation has affected incomes. I know that the problem is not easy. The Minister of Defence for Administration said on 5th March that the only method of dealing with the problem was this rather blunt instrument of local overseas allowance, which was never designed to deal with a matter of this kind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th Mara, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 264.] Can the Minister tell us when it is expected that the full review of local overseas allowances which is now being undertaken will be completed? I hope that it will not take long. On 1st March, the Minister of Defence for Administration recognised the size of the problem and spoke of many complaints, some of which he regarded as justified, which he had received. Letters which some of us on this side of the House have had confirm that there are many complaints and that they seem to be justified. However, I have no wish to exaggerate the problem. I simply ask the Under-Secretary of State to make a further statement to set our minds at rest.

Lastly, I turn to the question of recruiting. It is; impossible for the House to consider and approve Vote 1 without more basic information about the size and structure of the Army envisaged by the Government. It has always been the practice under this Vote to discuss recruiting when the Opposition wish to do so. What size is the Army eventually to be? In using the word "eventually", I am thinking of the middle 1970s. Decisions must have been made, and it is time that we were told what they are. How long is the run-doyn to the figure which has been decided to take? The House cannot judge whether the Government's proposals in Vote 1 make sense if we are not told more about recruiting prospects and targets and their policy on new rates of pay.

Those two matters—recruiting and pay—are inextricably bound up. It is time to put an end to the rumours, contradictions and confusion which bedevil the recruiting question. They are extremely harmful. On 5th March, the Minister of Defence for Administration—I am sorry that he is not here—said that the rundown in the total of forces would be something over 75,000. Later he said: … the total rundown will be of 75,000 men. Then he said that the rundown would be: … rather more than the 75,000 actually announced in July. Later he said: It will be more than 75,000 men."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 264–7.] How many more? Is it not time that we and the Army were told?

It was also perplexing to hear the Minister of Defence for Administration say in the same debate: If we have two battalions of troops in the Persian Gulf on unaccompanied tours of 9 or 12 months, we must have three or four or five more battalions sitting here at home to rotate with them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 253.] He therefore claimed that the saving resulting from the withdrawal of two battalion groups from the Persian Gulf—there are about 5,000 men there now—could be four or five times the number at home. In other words, 25,000 to 30,000 men would be saved by withdrawing a couple of battalion groups from the Persian Gulf.

Applying that remarkable method to the Far East, where, excluding Hong Kong and the Gurkhas, we have between 15,000 and 20,000 men still serving in the Army, withdrawal would save four or five times that number at home, too. It must do; if it applies to the Persian Gulf, it must apply to the Far East. These sums add up to well over 100,000 men in the Army saved by pulling out of the Persian Gulf and the Far East. Perhaps it amounts to 120,000 men, which would leave practically no Army at all. At any rate, the figure is substantially higher than the cuts so far announced.

Is it any wonder that we are perplexed as to what is in the Government's mind? Either my mathematics are awry or the Minister's computer has gone haywire. This sort of confusion and doubts of this kind about the Government's intentions towards the size of the Army, and rumours about even more cuts which may be made, lead to the misconception that recruits are not needed. They are needed, and very badly needed. The Minister can do much to improve the recruiting position, about which he is clearly worried, by clearing up these doubts and frankly explaining the position.

The Minister of Defence for Administration said on 5th March that it was necessary to continue recruiting at roughly the present rate in order to maintain the balanced Forces required in the next ten years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 266.] But in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) he indicated in col. 267 that the Army would need "slightly under 20,000" recruits a year. How many under 20,000–19,000, 18,000, 17,000 or perhaps 16,000? But in 1967 only 15,440 male adult soldiers were enlisted compared with 19,511 in 1966. We get that information from paragraph 23 on page 60 of the Defence White Paper. According to an Answer to a Question which I asked on 7th February, Army recruiting figures in 1967 fell short of the figures in 1966 by 32,724 man years. To look at the position in terms of man years is a very good way of considering it. Lord Wigg, a great expert on these affairs, always used to do that, sometimes to our embarrassment.

What price 20,000 recruits if the nosedive trend continues? No wonder the Minister of Defence for Administration said very recently in the House: We know we shall want a very large number of men What I am afraid of is that we shall want more than we in fact can get."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 267.] How does that tie up with what he said previously? It seems to me that without doubt the recruiting picture is thoroughly unsatisfactory, and it is not helped by the confusion caused by the Government's many different statements. For example, paragraph 24 on page 60 of the Defence White Paper states: The increase in the number of adults and young soldiers who elected to serve for nine years (as opposed to six years) on enlistment has been maintained. I looked up the figures for nine-year engagements for November and December last year, and they reflected the general slump in recruiting. They were significantly bad in the nine-year category. Only half the number of men were taken on in November, 1967, on nine-year engagements—349—as were taken on in November, 1966, when the figure was 763. Roughly the same applies to December, 1967, when 192 men were recruited on nine-year engagements, under half the figure of 410 in December, 1966. That does not bear out what the White Paper complacently says about these very important nine-year engagements.

I was surprised to read in the White Paper that the aim is to push up the present rates of re-engagement in order to cut the demand for new recruits from civil life". If the Minister of Defence for Administration is worried that he may not get the recruits he wants, how can it be sensible to say in the White Paper that the intention is to cut the demand for new recruits from civil life"? What are we to understand from that?

The Government's recruiting policy is a policy of despair. Such a policy, carried too far, must lead to ill-balanced forces relying too heavily on re-engagements, a distorted promotion structure, a higher proportion of married men and a smaller pool of trained reserves. We need sufficient men of the right quality, ability and enthusiasm as recruits each year. The Army offers diverse opportunities and a wonderful career, and I hope that every opportunity will be taken to get this message across.

I hope that, in the light of these remarks, the Minister will answer a number of questions of which I have given him notice. What size of future Army are the Government planning and what is the timing of the run-down? Rumours are circulating that the Government have already made up their mind to cut the Army to 150,000 or even fewer. If that is so, it is time that we were told the true position so that uncertainty can be removed. What is the target for recruiting this year and what is the target for the next few years? Do the Government expect to reach those targets?

I had intended to ask a number of other questions, but I do not wish to detain the House. I had intended to speak about the disappointing entry figures for Sandhurst and Welbeck, but several of my hon. Friends have important contributions to make. I am informed that the number of applicants coming forward to the Regular Commission Board has been extremely disappointing in recent months. I have also been told that there are shortages in special categories—in addition to the medical services about which I have spoken—such as R.E.M.E. and the Signals. I trust that the Minister will go into these matters. What is the position about trained soldiers buying themselves out? The 1966 figure was very high indeed compared with the figure for 1964. Can the Minister give the figure for 1967, and is this trend causing him concern?

The Service offers, and I am sure will continue to offer, a most rewarding career and way of life and a satisfying career to young men, and women too, who look for variety, travel, adventure and comradeship, and especially to those with scientific or technical leanings. I entirely agree with a recent Army recruiting advertisement which said that recruits would be joining the finest Army in the world. That is still so, even if we are going through a rather bad patch. I trust that the Minister will answer these questions and give the assurances which I have sought.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Lipton (Brixton)

The attendance in the House tonight—six back benchers opposite and four on this side—does not exhibit wild or feverish interest in the £189 million which we are asked to authorise in this Vote.

It is not generally realised that married Servicemen under the age of 21 do not qualify for married quarters. I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy indicated earlier that the matter was being looked into, but the time has come when this position must be regularised. In saying this, I have no desire to make recriminations or to blame one or other of the parties.

Thousands of men in the Services are denied, by the regulations at present in force, the opportunity of a reasonable married life. Although I do not have official figures to support my case, a recent Press report indicated that in the Army there are about 2,350 men not entitled to married quarters because of the age limit, that there are about 1,240 such men in the Navy and about 850 such men in the R.A.F., giving a total of nearly 4,500 men. These soldiers, sailors and airmen are banned from marriage quarters because of their ages.

When I put a Question to the Minister of Defence some time ago asking him to review this regulation I received a curt "No" in a Written Reply. Today some of these men, with their wives and young children, are living in deplorable conditions. A recent report in the News of the World set out some of the conditions in which they are living on a site in Colchester. Apparently the site is owned by the Army and 36 wives are living there in privately-owned caravans. The site, the report stated, is at Reid Hall, Colchester, and the caravans belong to a private firm. The unlucky occupants pay £3 5s. a week, plus 7s. for what is called ground rent and hot water.

On the other side of a wire fence are the Army's married quarters, in which couples are living and paying only £2 4s. a week, and they have central heating. At the caravan site there is a communal washroom with two antiquated boilers, a few large sinks and a rickety old hand wringer which the wives use on a rota system.

I have particulars of a case of a young soldier's wife whose husband is serving in Germany. She is getting £6 6s. a week and, after paying for rent and extras for her caravan, is left with £2 14s. with which to feed and clothe herself and baby. I am told that the conditions in the caravan are very poor; that it is damp, that mould forms on the furniture and that the children suffer from colds and bronchitis. These conditions represent a scandalous state of affairs and I am told that they are causing much resentment and bitterness.

The age limit to qualify for married quarters for officers is 25. People are marrying younger these days but despite this fact of life, the Government, perhaps for reasons of economy, appear to be doing everything they can to discourage young married men from serving in the Forces. If the Government want an Army consisting of only single men, they should say so and, in the process, they might save a lot of money, but it would not be possible to get the recruits we need if we attempted to restrict recruitment to single men.

I will give a few examples of the difficulties under which officers labour. In the R.A.F.—and possibly the same applies to the Army, although I do not have the figures for that Service—the majority of officers enter between the ages of 18 and 23, and about 70 per cent. of them marry before they are 25. No married quarters or hirings are provided before an officer reaches 25. Because no married quarters or hirings are available near their duty stations, some of them must live 12 or more miles away from their stations. Wives of officers cannot take part in the day-to-day social activities of the stations because they live so far away, and if the family has a car, the husband must use it to reach his station. This means that his wife is cut off from all Service social life.

A case has been brought to my attention of a Royal Air Force pilot who was found medically unfit to fly because, through financial worries, his work suffered. Private accommodation is virtually unobtainable near the duty station at an economic rent, but the Service authorities naturally take up, by means of hirings, all the suitable accommodation which is fairly near the duty station, which means that the younger officers are pushed further and further out, and are then subject to even greater difficulties because of the distance they have to travel.

There is a double handicap here. A man under 25 years of age receives 16s. a day marriage allowance instead of 27s. As soon as he reaches the age of 25 his daily marriage allowance jumps to 27s. He is not paid any disturbance allowance when posted away on a course. A husband away from home, living in the mess, loses his ration allowance of 7s. 5d. a day. If he goes home at weekends he receives no ration allowance for Saturday and Sunday, so he pays double the amount for his food on those two days. These irritations and deprivations are a serious cause of anxiety and unrest.

One officer's wife wrote to me drawing to my notice Article 23 of the Charter of the United Nations, which stipulates equal pay for equal work. Why handicap a 24-year-old officer and give him less pay than a 25-year-old officer is getting for doing exactly the same kind of work? Overseas, there is an additional handicap. Devaluation has made life more difficult. The single element has apparently not yet increased, and even more irritating is the fact that at duty stations like Singapore, Australian troops, irrespective of rank or age, are entitled to full privileges and allowances when married, no matter what their age when they marry.

The point is rightly made by some wives that if husbands are old enough to fight for their country they are old enough to have decent houses for their wives and children, and should not be living like gipsies, as so many unfortunately have to.

That is the only point that I want to make. This is a real grievance and is something which the Service authorities must consider quickly if they want a young Army, Navy or Air Force. If they want young men who are happily married and are bringing up their wives and families, they must alter the present antiquated regulations which govern the allocation of married quarters and other forms of allowance to which a man becomes entitled only after he reaches a certain age. I hope that even if my hon. Friend cannot give a specific assurance tonight he will be able to say that this matter will be considered urgently and not allowed to drift for years to come.

8.34 p.m.

Sir Eric Errington (Aldershot)

I am glad to have the opportunity of saying a few words on Vote 1 of the Army Estimates. I wish that I could agree with what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir. T. Beamish), but I am very worried about a combination of circumstances that seem to me materially to affect Army personnel and their morale.

I feel that there is complete uncertainty about what is going to happen. There is uncertainty among the officers as to how long they will be able to remain in the Service; there is uncertainty amongst the other ranks about what will happen to them and what their rôle will be in 1968 and after. Many of them came into the Service with the idea that they would have a rather exciting and attractive life, including overseas visits, and so on, but it is not working out that way.

The trouble is that they are not given a sufficient number of exercises. I do not refer entirely to military exercises; there is a tendency for there to be an absence of full occupation, which is very bad. These men would far rather have something to do continually than have some military training and then a period of doing nothing. There is little to go for, and because of this I blame the Government for not saying what they are going to do.

Let me give an example of what I mean in respect of the effect on manpower of the rundown. Page 65 of the White Paper says in Paragraph 21: The detailed plans that had been worked out following the reductions announced in the Supplementary Statement on Defence Policy, 1967, are now being revised to take account of the accelerated rundown announced on 16th January 1968. It is not yet possible to be precise about the numbers of those who will be declared redundant in 1968. Paragraph 22 says: The redundancies will, as far as possible, be met by voluntary applications from officers and men in the prescribed age and rank zones, but some compulsory selection will be necessary where there are not sufficient suitable voluntary applications. I remember that when, some time ago, there was a previous cut in the Services, officers thought that it was proper to resign. They did not see much future in the Services, and they voluntarily resigned and found themselves without the terminal grant to which they would have been entitled if they had remained in the Service and had been declared redundant. What temptation is there for an officer, remembering that situation, to resign before he knows what will be the conditions of his being declared redundant?

That is an illustration of the way in which matters are dealt with. I have the privilege to be a member of the Officers' Association, which privilege I honour very much. This Association works for the benefit of all ex-Service officer personnel. It does all that it can—and does it very well—in conjunction with the Ministry of Labour to deal with the redundant or the voluntarily retired officer and this could be a way of reentry into civilian life. I would certainly not advise any officer to retire voluntarily, either finding employment through the Association or otherwise, until he receives a definite promise from the Government as to what they are going to do for him.

Another source of worry to me is this. I ask the question because the other day somebody told me he understood that one of the parachute battalions in Aldershot, where we value them very much because the regiment holds the freedom of our town, was to be turned into a line regiment. I hope it will be denied and denied as clearly as can be, because it is the very negation of what we want. We want more of these exciting things like parachuting for the Services, to get the right sort of officers and men into them.

Once again, it is only rumours we hear, but these rumours could be set at ease and brought to an end if only the Government could make up their mind what it is they want to do and say what it is they want to do. There are rumours now about the dispersal of drums and bands. Is it true that there is to be some contraction of drums and bands in any of the regiments? If that is so, let us be quite certain and know about it. My own personal view is that bands are very fine and very often encourage recruiting and are a great joy to the people who listen to them. But that is neither here nor there: the thing which is so important is that the Government should say as much as they can as clearly as they can and without any delay so as not to leave people uncertain, because uncertainty is absolutely fatal to the Services. I recognise that nobody could have been more steadfast and backed their country as thoroughly as the Services have done, and it is a shame to unsettle them by this failure to give them the information they want.

There is only one other thing I want to refer to and it is a constituency case. Once again, it comes under subhead Z, Appropriations in Aid, Receipts in respect of personnel lent to Government Departments. I thank the Under-Secretary of State very much for some of the help he gives me in personnel matters, and he has been most helpful, but I have an officer whose wife has written to me and said, We were turned out of Ghana at a day's notice and the cost to my husband was £581. Normally I would leave this communication in writing with the Under-Secretary but it is important I should say something about this, because the last case which I had in connection with somebody who had been turned out of Ghana took me three years to settle, and the only way it came finally to a decision was that the Treasury was willing to pay half of the loss. That is absolutely shocking to an officer. After all, the officer in that case as in this one was a member of our Army Service, and he ought to have been backed and his position underwritten by the Service, but apparently the hand of the Treasury first of all withdrew altogether, and finally came forward with only half of what ought to have been paid to him.

I hope that not only the Under-Secretary but the Secretary of State himself will be prepared to do something about this case. After all, the right hon. Gentleman did say—did he not?—on the television that the only reason why he did not resign was that the forces needed him. Well, if they need him they need him to pay what it costs a man to be seconded to Ghana and to be turned out without notice. I hope that something will be done. The first matter is, however, vitally important because the feeling of the Army is of depression, and they should know exactly what is to happen, when they will face up to anything, as is typical of our Services.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking)

Devaluation has meant a cut in the value of Service pay in B.A.O.R. I asked the Minister a Question about this on 5th March and the reply, which I do not suppose was calculated to do most damage to the Government, showed that a married captain on a certain date would have taken an effective cut of £9 6s. a month and a married corporal one of £5 a month. I hope that the Minister will clarify the Government's intentions, because Servicemen in B.A.O.R., like many other people, know that the pound in their pocket has been devalued. Do the Government intend to restore the value of pay lost to these men?

My first point on allowances concerns the travel allowance payable to Servicemen moving from this country to B.A.O.R. under their own arrangements because they want to take their motor cars. In answer to a Question of mine on 23rd February, the Under-Secretary told me that a Serviceman travelling from the United Kingdom to B.A.O.R. in his own car instead of by official transport … is allowed motor mileage allowance at the rate of 3½d. a mile for the distance from the last place of duty in the United Kingdom to the airport in the United Kingdom which would have been used had the journey been made under official arrangements. No other refund is allowed, because there is a regular air trooping service between the United Kingdom and B.A.O.R. on which seats are available for all personnel posted to Germany and to allow a refund of expenses for journeys arranged privately would mean that public funds would pay twice for the same journey."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1968; Vol. 759, c. 200.] If that is accurate, it shows a curious state of affairs in arranging the Army's movement control, because it implies that aeroplanes wait on airfields to fly to Germany people who never come.

A high proportion of officers, as well as of men and N.C.O.s, travel to B.A.O.R. in their own cars, and to imply that there is over-capacity of means to move them implies a waste of public funds. Examining this situation could lead to an economy and to the recognition that Service men in Germany need motor cars and that their morale would benefit if they had greater assistance to get them there. It is better also that they should take their own cars than that they should buy them there.

I am also concerned about the baggage allowance for children left at boarding school here when their parents have moved to B.A.O.R. In reply to another Question on 23rd February, the Under-Secretary told me that children at boarding school are allowed only the normal accompanied baggage entitlement of 66 lb. weight on chanter flights for temporary visits in the holidays. If so, that also shows that whoever drew up this regulation must be very mean-minded. It ignores the fact that the family's residence has been transferred from this country to B.A.O.R. and that the children will need to take there many things which weigh in total much more than 66 lb., which they should have at their home to enjoy for the holidays—such as books, bicycles and so on. If the Under-Secretary is to defend this arrangement on the ground that no children should have more than 66 lb. of personal belongings, he will not be able to make a very strong case. I hope he will look at this matter again. It seems a stupid point of niggling pseudo-economy which is calculated to disturb the morale of the Service.

Finally, I ask about the disturbance allowance. This, I understand, is £40 per disturbance, and has remained at that figure for 10 years. I do not think it adequate to meet the expenses entailed in disturbances which it is designed to meet. It is very much below the disturbance allowance payable to civil servants in the Foreign Office or the Commonwealth Relations Office when they move from this country overseas. I ask the Under-Secretary to examine this and see whether there is not a need for some revision.

I endorse all that has been said by my hon. Friends about the state of morale in the Army and the prospects for recruiting in future. These are very worrying. Earlier we heard the Under-Secretary who speaks for the Navy accusing hon. Members on this side of the House of wallowing in an atmosphere of gloom. That is not what we are doing. We know that a certain situation exists, and we find it worrying now and particularly worrying for the future. The Government ought to be a great deal more worried about it than they appear to be.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart (Beckenham)

Like my hon. Friends, I turn to the question of allowances. As this is the 50th anniversary of votes for women, I point out to the Under-Secretary an anomaly in the treatment of the sexes which I am sure he will be anxious soon to iron out. Male other ranks receive an allowance of 1s. 6d. while undertaking Arctic and tropical experiments, but female members of the Services who undertake those experiments receive only 1s. 3d. On this 50th anniversary, I am sure that the Under-Secretary will be anxious to see this gross anomaly removed.

I also notice a case of gross discrimination between the Services. Those who play the harmonium at Divine Service for the Royal Air Force or the Royal Navy receive an allowance of 4s. a day when they carry out those duties, but there is no similar allowance for men in the Army. This anomaly should be looked into.

The list of allowances is almost as full of quaint anomalies as the Purchase Tax and Selective Employment Tax pro- visions. Many of the anomalies to which I have referred are trivial, but others are not trivial. For example, there has been a considerable sense of grievance among soldiers who have had to serve abroad unaccompanied in stations where other units have Servicemen who are fortunate enough to be accompanied by their wives and families. Because of the differences in the allowance system, those who are deprived of the presence of their families have often found that they are much worse off than those who are accompanied. This has produced a considerable degree of hard feeling, as I have found in the past in both the Far East and in Aden.

If these were normal times, I should look forward to the early publication of the review of local overseas allowances, and I should be pressing for still further investigations into the whole allowance system. But at this moment, when axes are swinging in every direction, I fear the publication of any review because it seems to me that it is likely only to include a scaling down.

I turn briefly to subhead E of Vote 1. Much has already been said about the folly of slashing the Brigade of Gurkhas, whose distinguished service to the Crown has so often been praised in the House. This evening I shall merely repeat the hope that no final decision on the future of the Brigade will be taken before the General Election and, naturally, our return to office.

Less has been said about the Malays and Chinese enlisted in the British forces abroad. Presumably, the great majority of them are to be thrown away in the next two years. What compensation terms will they receive? So far as I can recall, the House has not yet been told anything about this. Are there plans for an orderly transfer of those who wish to be transferred to the forces of Singapore and Malaysia?

There is also the case of the Trucial Oman Scouts. When and to whom is control of this important force to be handed over? Will British Servicemen continue to serve in the force, or would those who continue to do so be considered white slaves?

I now turn back to this country. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) has referred to the disastrous fall in recruitment of other ranks for the Army. I am also worried about a possible fall in the quality of recruiting. We all like to think that everybody who volunteers for the Army is an adventurous, gallant individual, eager for excitement and anxious to defend Queen and country. That is certainly true of many who come forward. But many also join the Army because they want a quiet, secure life, sitting comfortably in a garrison town so far as they can. I am afraid that one of the effects of the shake-up in the Army will be not only to reduce the numbers but also to scare off those who are anxious for an adventurous career, and will encourage those who merely wish to sit in garrison towns.

While other rank recruiting has fallen sharply, as my hon. and gallant Friend has pointed out, recruiting for the officer corps gives cause for alarm. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) said, so many people are perplexed about their future in the Army. They have seen their career structure shattered. They are doubtful about the size and the future rôle of the Army. I had always presumed that, in convulsions of major proportions like this hitting the Army, the younger officers best suited to rise to the top would stay on, as would the worst, who would be anxious about their prospects in civil life, and that it would be the broad band of middle officers, uncertain about promotion up to and beyond the rank of colonel, who would be most likely to leave.

What has worried me in the last few months is that so many of the best officers are thinking of leaving the Army, and unless an assurance about the career structure can be given in the nearest future by the Government, this tendency will continue and we shall see the best of our soldiers getting out as fast as they can.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins (Derbyshire, West)

The main theme of these debates on the Army has been the low morale and the lack of confidence in the future. There is still a very good career for young men in the Army and many people will be attracted to it, but they want to know what is to happen and what the pay and career structures are to be.

There is difficulty among the young cadets. My own son is one of them. They are wondering what the future is to be. My son would like to know what Army career is in prospect for him, assuming that he does reasonably well. The young lieutenants, captains and majors also wonder what is to hapen.

Yesterday, I received from my old regiment, the King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry, the instructions stating what is to happen to it in the new Light Division. It was clearly stated that the Light Division will consist of four battalions but will drop to three battalions in 1969. Apparently, no one particular battalion, like that of the Durham Light Infantry or the K.O.Y.L.I., is to be disbanded but, nevertheless, instead of four, there are to be three battalions in the division. There will therefore be redundancy. There will not be enough places in the establishment for every officer and man, so some will have to be retired.

This immediately raises in the ranks the question, "Will it be me?" The tendency could be that the best of our young officers will get out into civil life. On the same theme, about what happens to officers, may I turn to subhead E dealing with the Gurkhas. This regiment is being reduced, and I will not go into the arguments, but I would like to know what will happen to British officers serving with it when it is reduced from its current 12,000 to 6,000. Will these officers be sent back for service at home? Do they have any idea what regiment they will be in—a Light Division, a Royal Rifle Division? It is a difficult transition for these officers—I know because I had to make it after the war. It is extremely difficult and one needs as much notice as possible.

What will happen to Gurkha officers. There are plenty of these who have the Queen's Commission. Presumably they will take their turn and be made redundant. What will they receive as emoluments? What kind of "golden handshake" can they take back to Nepal? What will be the scale of allowances and retirement pay and pension which will be given to these officers and men when they are redundant?

Can the Minister tell us what will happen to the Gurkha families of these men who are made redundant? Will their passages be paid back to Nepal or will they be left in Malaysia? They should be sent back to Nepal.

We have a large recruiting gap to make up and I do not believe that the way in which the Army and the Government are going about filling the gap is correct. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) said that what was wanted was lots of glamorous units. He mentioned the paratroopers who are stationed in Aldershot. This is fine, and it would be absolutely wonderful if the whole Army could consist of paratroopers. There would be no difficulty if we had them, with one or two glamorous cavalry regiments, in filling all the vacancies that existed. One also needs people who can cook and do the rather dreary and less glamorous types of jobs which are very necessary to keep an Army going.

The recruiting campaigns and the posters do not pay enough attention to the real training that can be given in the Army and the fact that after they have served 9 or 12 years in a technical branch or an infantry battalion—or division as it will now be—people can get an enormous amount of technical training, which will help them greatly in their transition from Army to civilian life. I hope that the recruiting campaigns will lay greater emphasis on the fact that this transition can be made much easier. Men can join the unions and get their training and qualifications while serving.

The hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) raised the question of the marriage allowance and the point about soldiers under 21 and officers under 25 not qualifying for it. I hope that he will bear in mind that the purpose of joining the Army is to serve as a soldier, and that the military duties of officers and other ranks should be a prime consideration when considering whether to lower the age limit for marriage allowances. My own feeling is that the officers' age limit of 25 could well be lowered a year or two, but I should not like to see it lowered much further than that, nor would I like to see the other ranks limit lowered very much.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. James Allason (Hemel Hempstead)

If we are to get recruits, we have to have satisfactory pay and conditions of service. The two are inter- connected. If conditions of service are poor, the pay must be that much higher to try and compensate, but it is important to have satisfied soldiers as an advertisement for the Army if we are to have adequate recruiting.

In the same way, the treatment of Servicemen must be good. One example where it was not well carried out occurred last year with the case of Private Parkes. The House will remember the very unusual circumstances. After careful consideration by the Ministry of Defence, with legal advice and administrative advice in favour of his arrest, he was duly arrested. Then the Press began to take an interest, which seemed to alarm the military authorities. The Army has nothing to hide and should be proud of everything that it does. Yet, suddenly, the Secretary of State for Defence intervened personally, taking the law into his own hands and overruling the Army Board, which is the proper body to deal with discipline. He instructed the commanding officer to dismiss the charge against Private Parkes.

It was an extraordinary procedure which, so far, was to Private Parkes' advantage if not to the advantage of everyone else in the Army who was watching this very odd behaviour. However, much worse was to follow for Mr. Parkes, as he became. He left the Service, but was promptly arrested for perjury, and his ultimate fate was much worse than the first. He received far more severe punishment directly as a result of the way in which he was treated by the Service or, more correctly, by the Secretary of State.

For the benefit of the morale of the Service, can we have an assurance that discipline has returned to its proper channels and that the Army Board is now responsible for the discipline of the Army, the Secretary of State having given up trying to intervene in matters which do not concern him?

Next I turn to forces pay. The Government accepted the Grigg Report which lays down that the Services shall have their pay reviewed every two years, with the express intention of seeing how pay has increased in civil life over that period and then bringing up the pay of the forces to compensate for that increase. That is only justice for the Services. After all, they cannot withdraw their labour. All that they can do is to fail to recruit, and the Government find that that is happening.

Instead of continuing with the Grigg process, the Government have referred the possibility of increased pay for the Services which is due round about now to the National Board for Prices and Incomes. I regard that as being in complete conflict with the Grigg principle. Whereas the idea behind the Grigg Report was to bring the pay of the Services up to a level which would compensate for increases in civilian life over the previous two years, the National Board for Prices and Incomes is concerned with how a proposed increase in pay is justified in relation to future productivity.

The Government's action is a complete breach of faith. Even if the Jones Board advises against the proper and fair increase in pay which is due to the Services, I trust that the Government will reject its recommendation.

9.15 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles (Winchester)

From what has been said in the debate about the difficulty of recruiting officers and other ranks, it is apparent that the Government must do everything they can to improve conditions and prospects, and also to improve the public's impression of the Army.

One factor to which I wish to refer briefly is the disquiet felt among the older retired officers over their retirement pay and the hardship suffered by widows.

The Prime Minister, in 1964, said: Since vie feel the position is a positive disgrace, we have persistently brought this matter up in the House of Commons and criticised the Government for its meanness. Since the Labour Government have been in power, what have they done about it? A retired major who left the Service in the 1930s has seen the cost of living rise by over 200 per cent. Yet he has only had a rise of some 90 per cent. in his retirement pay. The plight of the older widows is disgraceful, too.

The Army is a tribal organisation, as has been pointed out by a distinguished Field Marshal. The father and son connection—and I am sure the Under Secretary will agree—is a golden thread that runs through the history of the Army and must be retained at all costs. Therefore, perhaps the Minister will tell us the Government's thinking on this special problem.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. James Ramsden (Harrogate)

The Under-Secretary of State has been asked a number of questions and will, no doubt, want plenty of time to give the House his reply. I need not make a long speech in attempting to sum up what has been a short but extremely valuable debate with speeches of a consistently high quality throughout, led off, as we were, by the excellent speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish).

The theme of the debate, which has been referred to by speaker after speaker, has been the general uncertainty which now prevails in the Army as a result of decisions taken by hon. Gentlemen opposite. In all ranks of the Army there is doubt and lack of knowledge about future plans and prospects.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington), who is closely in touch with Service opinion, painted this picture to the House.

The hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) referred to the unsettlement among Service families due to the withdrawal of extra numbers of units from abroad to this country and their stationing in reactivated camps with inadequate accommodation for married families round them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) spoke about the uncertainty abroad on the Government's intentions over local overseas allowances. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) referred to the Brigade of Gurkhas and the uncertainty that prevails there in the absence of positive and final plans by the Government for the future of that body.

We all deplore the fact that the Services should be uncertain about their future. We all hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to allay these fears and anxieties. So far as he can tonight in what he has to say, he will have the House with him, because the last thing that anyone on either side of the House wants is that the morale of the Services should in any way be affected by uncertainty about their future. We await his reply with interest.

Perhaps I might briefly pick up some of the more important questions which have been asked. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes asked for clarification on two important points in connection with the reference of Service pay to the Prices and Incomes Board. When can we expect an announcement by the Board of the award on Service pay, which under the old procedure would have been due on 1st April of this year? We want an assurance that if the Board's determination is announced after 1st April the award will be retrospective to that date.

We also want to know how the criteria to be applied by the Board in its determination of the pay review will differ, if at all, from the Grigg criteria. I raised this point with the Government in an earlier debate. I said that it seemed to me that if the criteria were to be varied because, in the Government's eyes, recruiting may no longer have the same urgency and immediacy, that it did when the Grigg system was first announced, this would be extremely unfair, and would be a breach of what the Services have always regarded as a contractual arrangement. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to reassure us about this.

It is particularly appropriate that the question of Grigg has been raised, because what struck us as a glaring deficiency during the debate before Christmas was that it was not answered by a Service Minister. One understood the reasons for this, but it seemed particularly inappropriate that in a matter of such concern to all the Services it was not possible for the Service point of view, and Service anxieties, to be dealt with and allayed as far as possible by the representative of a Service Ministry.

My hon. and gallant Friend also asked what plans the Government had for remedying the deficiencies in recruiting for the medical services to overcome the shortage of doctors. He asked whether it was proposed to restore the lead which Service rates had over civilian rates, on which was based the hope of being able to maintain an adequate number of doctors in the Service against the pull of civilian life.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will deal with this for two reasons. First, clearly we cannot continue with a shortage of doctors in the Army. If there is a shortage, it produces a danger-our situation. Secondly, because I remember the circumstances in which the scheme which hon. Gentlemen opposite took to pieces was originally introduced. It was brought in on the basis of consultations with, and securing the confidence of, the medical profession, and the leading authorities in it. It was because the Services secured their confidence and got their co-operation that it was possible to introduce a scheme under which doctors came forward in reasonably adequate numbers. The Government's changed attitude to the scheme has destroyed that confidence, and we want to know how it is to be regained.

As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes pointed out, it is clear on the latest figures that the Government cannot be happy with last year's rate of recruitment. The Minister of Defence for Administration said that the Army would need a yearly recruiting rate of about 20,000 men. Last year the Army got about 15,000. I take it—because a number of categories can come into these figures, including 15 to 16-year-old junior soldiers—that the figure in which the Army is mainly interested and which it needs to maintain it at the strength contemplated by the Government is 20,000 male adult soldiers. Thus, in 1967 we were short by about 5,000 on that target. This must be a matter of concern, and the outstanding point to come out of this debate is that the Government must remedy this situation by dispelling the uncertainty which exists about the future rôle and size of the Army. The sooner we have an announcement about what is contemplated, the better. We appreciate that the Under-Secretary will not be able to do this, but it is important that it is done as soon as possible.

The situation in which the Forces find themselves illustrates the dangers of the whole approach to the size and scale of the Services which is inherent in the attitude and policies of the Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) called it a policy of cut first and think later. That describes it well, and the debate has emphasised the uncertainty that such an approach produces. We hope that the Minister will do his best to allay that uncertainty, but we maintain our criticism of the Government and the policies that have brought this uncertainty about.

9.27 p.m.

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

I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) for his personal courtesy in giving me notice of the points he intended to raise. I am even more grateful to him for the way in which he ended his speech—leaving aside the political digs—in which he referred to the career satisfaction of the Army. I have been most impressed when meeting young men in the Army to find that they join for a variety of reasons. Without trying to make a political point or attempting to defend the present pay situation, I have found that they get a great deal of satisfaction out of serving. In other words, pay is not the only reason why people join the Army or the other Services.

I am, therefore, glad for the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman in this connection because it is true that the Army does offer a good career and that there is a stable future for young men in the Army and for those joining it. I am also grateful in the same way to the right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden)—again, leaving political digs aside—who made similar comments. I am sure that remarks of that kind are useful to the Army because they emphasise that the Service offers a good career and express what the Army calls for from officers and men and what it satisfies in them.

On the pay side, perhaps I can first dispose of a matter which requires less explanation than the reference to the Prices and Incomes Board. I refer to the question of local overseas allowances, which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Royal Navy covered earlier, except in one respect. Most hon. Members know that an attempt has been made, as an interim measure, to give overseas rates to compensate for devalue- tion as from 1st March, 1968, except that Service people are to suffer the same 3 per cent. loss of purchasing power as the civilian population. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) emphasised this.

A comprehensive on-the-spot review of local overseas allowances is to be carried out as soon as possible and new rates struck; and where we find the interim rate which is now being paid is inadequate, the new rates will be made retrospective to 1st March, 1968. The review will involve a team of experts, including members of the three Services and Treasury experts, visiting a number of countries where Servicemen are stationed and it will, of course, take some time. We shall start with the major stations—Germany first—and issue reports and make the new allowances when each station has been covered.

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

If I might interrupt the hon. Gentleman, he spoke of issuing the reports. Do we understand from that that the material on which the new allowances will be fixed, or at least a summary of that material, will be made public?

Mr. Boyden

Perhaps I let myself into a trap. I should say that the rates will be announced. I could not comment in regard to the reports but I would think the answer is "No". But I should like to look at that.

One of the main themes of hon. and gallant Gentlemen and indeed of a good many of the hon. Members who spoke has been the reference of Service pay to the National Board for Prices and Incomes. I cannot avoid making the point that the Grigg arrangements were, in fact, broken by the party opposite and it does not at all follow that reference to the National Board for Prices and Incomes will not be as good an arrangement, or possibly a better arrangement, than Grigg.

Mr. Ramsden

The Government keep repeating from that side of the House a statement as to what happened in our day about Grigg which is simply not true. The Grigg principle was never breached. In one case those getting an award had the full receipt of it postponed by one year, but the principle of comparability with outside rates in civilian life was never breached and in the following year the award was received in full. This is a very different thing from referring the whole question of Service pay to an outside body.

Mr. Boyden

I do not see that it is any less constructive. I should have thought that referring it to an independent body like the National Board for Prices a id Incomes could be just as good as Grigg and might be better, but I do not think one should prejudge the particular issue. The National Board for Prices and Incomes has a set of criteria by which it will conduct the review. The point was made, and I am sure the Board will accept it, that recruiting is obviously a consideration because there is provision in Cmnd. 3235 for cases like this: … where it is essential in the national interest to secure a change in the distribution of manpower or to prevent a change which would otherwise take place and obviously recruiting is a factor which will be borne in mind.

Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Boyden

No, I cannot give way again. I have many facts to deal with and I cannot give way until I have dealt fully with pay. The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to the criteria of Grigg relating other ranks' earnings to manufacturing earnings and earnings in other industries; and relating officers to executive and administrative grades of the Civil Service. Obviously the Board will consider the matter in relation to its terms of reference. The Secretary of State has put the case for the Services as, if one likes, the general secretary of their trade union and he has emphasised all the points which it is proper for a Minister looking after the Services to emphasise.

The universities accepted a similar reference to the Board. I have not had any criticism on this score from the soldiers whom I have met. Naturally, they are concerned with pay increases, but I have not heard the kind of criticism voiced tonight in pre-judging the fairness or rightness of the Board's ultimate decision.

A further advantage is that the review will be continuous and therefore more regular than was the case under the Grigg formula, by which the review took place every two years. The Government want recruits. There is no reason why the method of referring the matter to the Prices and Incomes Board should not be as fair as any other method of dealing with forces pay. The Board will include a member with special knowledge of the forces. Therefore, from the point of view of consideration, fairness and continuous review, there is no reason why hon. and right hon. Members opposite should prejudge the issue.

The Board is aware of the importance to the Services of an early decision. The Government cannot influence it, but they will take notice of the discussion in the House today and of the fact that everyone wants a decision to be made as soon as possible consistent with a thorough examination of the situation. I do not think that hon. Members opposite do the Army a great service by making too much of their criticism of this reference.

Mr. Goodhew

Surely there is a great difference between the Services and other people whose conditions of employment and pay are normally referred to the Board. People in the Services are under contract. They have signed on for nine years, or whatever the period is. They are in a different position from people who can leave their jobs tomorrow, as the Minister can do if he wishes. I hope that this point is considered by the Board.

Mr. Boyden

I am sure that the Board will take that point into consideration.

One of the keys to this matter is the state of recruitment. Hon. Members opposite have referred to the fact that recruits are not coming in as well as we would want. That is true. They have referred to deficiencies in particular branches. The future size of the Army depends on the review which is now taking place. It is proper that that should be so. The review is being carefully undertaken taking into account the best military advice. Therefore, the Opposition must wait until the review is ready.

My guess on recruits, however, is that we shall need about 15,000 adults plus 4,000 boys per annum. Certainly we require more than that in the coming year. In other words, we need almost as many recruits as we can get. We shall keep up the pressure by advertising and in other ways to get the maximum numbers we can. But I will not be drawn on the absolute future size of the Army.

A very serious point was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes about deficiencies in the Royal Army Medical Corps, in particular, and other arms. These deficiencies in the Royal Army Medical Corps, the Royal Army Dental Corps, the Education Corps and the legal services are in professions where civilians have for many years been difficult to recruit. Hon. Gentlemen say that pay is the key. I met members of the Army Medical Advisory Board to discuss this problem and the fact is that one of the limitations on medical careers in the Army is that doctors do not get as wide an experience as they would wish—

Mr. Powell

But that factor is a constant, and cannot, therefore explain the decline in recruitment.

Mr. Boyden

I do not think that it is a constant, since suggestions were made to deal with this by responsible members of the Board, of which I took note, and I am doing my best to deal with the matter. In that sense, it can be removed from its constancy. The position of consultants in the R.A.M.C. is satisfactory and we get as many as we want. The reason for difficult recruitment in other Corps, like R.E.M.E. and the Signals is exactly the same—the Army is competing with many other people for these skills. [Interruption.] I will throw the 13 years at the right hon. Gentleman if he wants. I make no political point, but this goes back a long time over a period in which nationally we have not emphasised enough getting highly trained and educated people. I am greatly interested in this question. The Robbins Report on University Expansion is one key to this problem. I admit that pay is a difficulty, and the Board will consider the pay of the R.A.M.C. as much as that of anyone else.

As to young married soldiers who are entitled to married quarters, it is difficult to determine in favour of very young men when they know when they join that there must be some priority among claimants for married quarters. The Government's record in the last couple of years in keeping families together is very good. There has been a tremendous drive to accelerate the permanent married quarter building programme and to buy ready-made houses. There is a decided improvement in what is called in the Army the "state of family union". We have had to take on very few caravans or mobile homes. I think that Vote 7 includes provision for mobile homes and it is a small figure, which reflects great credit on the Government.

The conditions referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) are, I presume, on a private caravan site and the families have some option about whether they live there. I should be grateful if he would send me the details about Colchester, because I will investigate it. I know that in one case, after photographers had run havoc around a hut or similar accommodation, a newspaper gave a gross misrepresentation of the conditions in which a young soldier and his wife were living. I will look into the case raised. There were several caravans in my constituency a little while ago and the young married soldiers living there were in good caravans, well looked after and very happy. If we approach a perfect state of society, I have no doubt that I may be able to meet the hon. Member, but I could not hold out much hope at the moment.

Mr. Lipton

Is any consideration being given, particularly in the case of officers, to reducing the age from 25 to a lower age at which an officer can get married quarters and full allowances?

Mr. Boyden

I take note of the point, but I do not think that I can go further than what I have said.

The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) gave me notice that he is not able to be here at the moment. He asked one or two questions to which I should like to refer. He said that one of the difficulties of attracting people in future will be lack of overseas stations. The Secretary of State made reference to this in the recent 'defence debate. We shall continue to do all we can to have exercises overseas. We have a lot of co-operation from a great many countries in this respect. There will be a great deal of enterprise and adventure in that kind of training. I hope we shall also extend adventure training on an individual or small party scale at home and overseas, and this will help. I hope too that the collaboration with civil authorities overseas as in the Beef Island ex- pedition, to which I have referred in the recent Vote A debate, and military cooperation with the civil community, will also be a big help.

I was grateful to the hon. Member for saying loudly that he hoped that officers will not resign prematurely without their redundancy entitlement. There is a good career for an officer. But if they are in a zone where redundancy is likely I hope they will wait to see what conditions are and get the full redundancy entitlement. One of the difficulties the Government are in—I say this only in part defence of the situation—is that rumours are almost bound to spread when there are bit:, moves of this sort and when consideration is given to cuts, disbandments and amalgamations and things of that sort. I am sure, judging from the tone of the debate today, that hon. Members will not give credence to rumours. If they think there is anything in the rumours perhaps they will check with me.

I cannot say anything about the situation in relation to the paratroopers or the drums and bands. There have been discussions about cuts and I suppose someone has assumed that drums and bands are going, but this is not the intention at all. The whole matter will be very seriously considered in the light of general military arrangements, bearing in mind that military music plays a very important part in the Army scheme of things.

Perhaps at this stage—rather out of sequence—I should refer to the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles) about what he called "the tribal system". I have been very impressed with the strength of the regimental system and the way in which it works both in military spirit and, from my point of view as an Under-Secretary who deals with a great many welfare matters, in welfare matters in a regiment. Sometimes when we are up against regulations and cannot get the money to do certain things, the regimental funds help out in a splendid way. But there is more to it than that. The wives of officers exercise a splendid influence by helping in all ways in often difficult circumstances. It is sometimes suggested to me that other ranks' wives are perhaps a little suspicious of an officer's wife taking action over their particular welfare needs. But I can say without any hesitation that the generality of influence used in this way in the regiments is absolutely splendid and something of which the British Army can be very proud. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point and giving me an opportunity of saying that. If the hon. Member for Aldershot writes to me I shall look very thoroughly into the Ghana case, which he put to me.

The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) raised a number of awkward-sounding points. The matter of cars to Germany and the mileage allowance is rather complicated. He has raised it with me before. I shall look into it further and write to him about it. The position over children's baggage is not so dissimilar from that of civilian airlines. The allowance of 66 lb. is fairly reasonable, and the rest of the luggage can go by sea. Children's books, heavy equipment and that sort of thing can go by sea, although it would not go as quickly as by air.

Mr. Onslow

I understand that there is no specific entitlement to a children's element in the allowance for movement of baggage by sea.

Mr. Boyden

I shall look into that as well. I want to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman. If there appears to be an anomaly I shall see what can be done about it.

The disturbance allowance of £40 has remained for the past 10 years, as the hon. Gentleman said. I cannot at present see much opportunity of doing anything about it.

The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) raised a martial cry on behalf of women. It is well known that women are hardier than men and better able to withstand extremes of heat and cold. Anyway, there is only 3d. in it. One of the things I have been impressed with is the cheerfulness with which soldiers willingly submit themselves as volunteers to walk around rough tracks testing boots, and being soaked for half an hour by artificial rain to simulate conditions of tropical dampness and so on for a very small extra remuneration.

The troops I saw dealing with the foot-and-mouth epidemic, clearing out the cow stalls and so on, were getting a certain amount of extra money. I do not know whether it is called objectionable work money or hard-lying money. I think that it is in the Navy that it is referred to as hard-lying money. Certainly, they earned their extra pence.

I did not know about the harmonium. This also seems to be discrimination where music is concerned.

On the question of unaccompanied service, a new separation allowance for officers and men separated from their families—normally through an emergency—was introduced in April, 1966. They receive 4s. a day extra after a total of a year of separation.

As regards the Malays and Chinese, no new scheme is ready yet, but I hope soon to be able to make an announcement about that.

The hon. Member for Beckenham and the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) raised the question of the Gurkhas. The rundown of Gurkhas is at the rate of 2,000 a year until the force reaches 6,000, but we are still recruiting. We are aiming at recruiting about 300 a year, and are also recruiting up to 20 boys a year whom we send to British Army schools with the hope that some may qualify as candidates for commissions. British officers with the Gurkhas will be dealt with on precisely the same basis as officers elsewhere. An attempt will be made to give them their choice of change of post. I do not know whether the hon. Members are aware that the Gurkhas' pay structure was recently revised, the changes coming into effect on 1st February. Redundant Gurkhas are demobilised in Nepal. Arrangements are made to fly some back. Others have to go by air and train. They are dealt with satisfactorily in that way.

Right hon. and hon. Members have criticised the recruiting figures. But some factors indicate a more satisfactory position than they suggest. For example, using the percentage of discharges by purchase as a criterion, we find that the number of junior soldiers who purchased their discharge in 1967 was a little less than in 1966. The same applies to trained soldiers. In 1966, the percentage of trained soldiers purchasing their discharge was 2.5, while in the year now ended it was 2.3 per cent. I have more figures here but I will write to the hon. Gentleman, as the clock is against me. The number of re-engagements at the six-year stage shows that those who have tasted Army life are satisfied in present circumstances.

I am most grateful to hon. Members opposite who have stressed a point that I was anxious to emphasise in the debate last Wednesday—that the Army is a good career for both officers and men. We want to do all we can to stabilise the position as soon as we can. We must wait for the defence review in order to get the facts right, and in the meantime I endorse what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said—that the Army is a very good career for men of action.

9.58 p.m.

Sir T. Beamish

The hon. Gentleman has done his best to answer many questions, but I cannot say that I am pleased with many of the answers. He ignored one vital matter—whether the recommendation made by the Prices and Incomes Board about Service pay and allowances will definitely apply as from 1st April even if a recommendation is made after 1st April. That is an important question.

Mr. Boyden

I am not in a position to answer it now.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That a sum, not exceeding £186,790,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1969.