HC Deb 20 March 1969 vol 780 cc851-71

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £187,500,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the expense of the pay, &c, of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1970.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart (Beckenham)

Even if it were in order to discuss in detail the operation now taking place in Anguilla, I would feel totally disarmed this evening by the fact that the first man ashore appears to have replied, on being challenged by a British reporter, "I am from Beckenham." I once served in a regiment, and it makes me all the more conscious of the fact that we have men at risk, however ludicrous some people may thing the operation to be.

Some armies have a combat allowance; we do not. I am sure we are all anxious, however, that our forces involved in Anguilla should draw every penny to which they are entitled. I note that an allowance of 2s. 6d. a day is payable to other ranks for arctic or tropical experiments. I would like the Under-Secretary to consider whether this allowance might not be paid to the other ranks taking part in this operation. Clearly this expedition is a tropical one, and clearly it is in the nature of an experiment. I suspect that the lesson we shall draw from this experiment is that it is far less expensive, in blood and in treasure to invade one's friends, particularly if their principal defence is a Napoleonic cannon, than getting into serious conflict with one's enemies. Meanwhile, the experiment continues, and I hope the allowance will be paid.

There is also the colonial survey allowance of up to 9s. a day for officers and up to 4s. a day for other ranks. There has been no dispute about the excellence of the maps we have of Anguilla, but there has been some doubt as to whether Anguilla is a colony or not. Surely establishing whether a place is a colony is a fundamental feature of any colonial survey? Many people believe that our action in Anguilla shows that this island is still legally a colony. I would ask the Under-Secretary to look at this allowance.

There is "hard life" money, which, as hon. Members know, is a military and not a diplomatic allowance. How are our men going to subsist in Anguilla during the next few weeks? Clearly, they have not taken with them more than the most rudimentary sleeping and cooking equipment. That may be perfectly all right for a few days. I know that the Chief of General Staff has been quoted as saying that our forces would be withdrawn in a matter of days or weeks. Can the Minister say how long our forces will remain there, and how they will be supplied and supported? Clearly there is no available accommodation. There is one local hotel, which is unlikely to be sufficient, particularly with the Press of the world there. Perhaps Mr. Webster could put up a few, but his house can hardly—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay)

Order. We cannot pursue the argument of the Anguillan incident too far on this vote.

Mr. Goodhart

I do not want to pursue it too far. It is clear that the troops involved will be entitled to a "hard life" allowance. There is also the question of an entertainment allowance. In the next few weeks, the forces in Anguilla will need to have considerable contact with the local population. I hope that they will soon get on to a basis of playing cricket and cigarette swapping with the local inhabitants. I trust that this will be a "hearts and minds" operation rather than one in which shots are fired. If cigarettes are to be swapped and drinks to be bought, some funds will have to be made available. I hope that this will not come out of the pockets of the men of the Second Parachute Battalion.

The Minister will be aware that for years there has been a feeling in the Army that men put to most inconvenience and with the most family expense often draw less money in allowances than those more comfortably off. There is some justification for this. Earlier, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) talked about Treasury "nit-picking" over naval separation allowances. This is certainly true with the Army. I hope that there is to be a root and branch inquiry into the shape and scope of allowances. We have been told by the Minister of Defence for Administration that there is such an inquiry into the shape of military pay. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, who opened and closed the previous debates, scarcely referred to these studies which have been mentioned by the Secretary of State.

When the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army opened and closed the debates on the Army Estimates, there was scarcely a reference in his speeches to the studies which have been referred to by the Secretary of State. Could the Under-Secretary now tell us how far advanced these studies are, as we on this side, as he knows, have expressed serious misgivings about the timing and nature of this particular concept? We would like to know whether they are likely to emerge from the drawing board stage within the next two years; in other words, before the next election.

I turn now to the pay of the Gurkhas and certain Commonwealth, including colonial, and other troops. We know that, alas, the Government have plans to run down the Gurkha forces to below the level which many people think is an economic one when it comes to the overheads of recruitment, training and posting. But we will be virtually out of the whole of east of Suez by the end of 1971, and little has been said about the arrangements that are to be made for the rundown of those Malays and Chinese who are serving with our forces at the moment in both a military and a civilian capacity.

A great deal of aid is being made available to both Singapore and Malaysia to tide over the economic problems that are going to follow our withdrawal. I hope that some of this assistance will go to those who have served us so well. Certainly, we shall provoke much ill-will if we turn away these men who have served in the forces without adequate compensation.

It will be within the recollection of this House that, during the closing stages of the debate on the Estimates, the Under-Secretary was exceedingly shy about telling the House of the arrangements that have been made by this Government for home defence in the event of war. The Minister made a brief reference to the fact that the Household Division was to be available along with men in the depots, training organisations and workshops; although my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) pointed out, quite rightly, that in the event of any conflict, however conventional and however limited, these men are going to have jobs of their own to perform. I would like the Under-Secretary to assure the House this evening that all the men involved—and he has referred to them as a considerable number of thousands—will be given some training during the course of the coming year in this home defence rôle.

But surely, many of these men in the workshops and training depots will be deployed far away from the centres that are going to need assistance and perhaps defence if war should break out. The Household Division is presumably available for some defence and assistance in the London area, but what about Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds? Are there any forces earmarked for defence or to render civil assistance if bombs are dropped in these great centres of population in England, let alone in Scotland and Wales? Unless the Under-Secretary can give us assurances on these points, he must not be wholly aggrieved if we on this side of the House think that the statements on home defence which have been made so far are an empty sham.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins (Derbyshire, West)

I want, first, to reinforce what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) about the need to review the rates of pay and allowances of serving soldiers and officers. Not only does the whole concept need reviewing, but also the comparability between one type of allowance and another. For example, why is the additional daily rate of pay for parachutists 7s. 6d., whereas that for those engaged on colonial survey duties 4s., and of those engaged on arctic or tropical experiments 2s. 6d.? Not only does the basis of these allowances need reviewing, but also the comparability between them.

The most important question concerning rates of pay is when we are to hear about the new rates and scales. The subject has been covered ad nauseam in previous debates, and the Under-Secretary of State can be under no illusion as to the necessity of trying to bring forward the report as soon as possible, if only because the uncertainty does not help in recruiting.

According to Appendix I, a second-lieutenant in the Royal Army Dental Corps starts at 35s. 6d. a day, whereas the standard rate of a second-lieutenant is 43s. 6d. Indeed, a dental officer of this rank is paid less than the equivalent rank in the Women's Royal Army Corps and non-nursing officers of Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps. That seems a little strange.

A Royal Army Veterinary Corps lieutenant gets 57s. a day, whereas the standard rate of a lieutenant is 49s. Why should that be the case? Why, indeed, should a veterinary officer get more than an Army Medical Corps officer who is only provisionally registered?

One other small fact which is of importance concerns the Women's Royal Army Corps, to which there are two references under the heading "Rates of pay and allowances of British officers and other ranks". Throughout the rest of the Estimates, there is no mention of where these gallant ladies are employed or what they do. There is no indication of the offices that they fulfil and the functions that they carry out, other than the obvious ones.

Another odd anomaly is that one sees in Vote A that the Women's Royal Army Corps has a strength of 300 officers and 4,000 other ranks. However, when one turns to Appendix II on page 109, one sees that the strength in 1969–70 is to be 285 officers and 3,515 other ranks. Those figures simply do not add up. I wonder why, and I wonder also in relation to Vote A which rate of pay they are receiving. There must be a reason for this. The ratio in the Women's Royal Army Corps between officers and other ranks is rather strange. I see that the Minister is shaking his head; I cannot think why.

Mr. Reynolds

The hon. Member is doing his usual trick in this debate of reading through the pages and asking whatever question comes into his head on whatever figures catches his eye. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

The right hon. Gentleman is renowned for his aggressiveness, but that remark is rather unnecessary. If he thinks I am doing that, the right hon. Gentleman is being excessively offensive. I am asking those questions because I want to know the answers. I am entitled, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, to go through the figures in detail and to ask questions which he will answer, and if he is unable to do so tonight, then he will write to me. I do not do this lightly, for fun. It is difficult to debate in this House when one is mocked in this way by the Under-Secretary. It is the duty of Members of this House to query his Estimates and, if mistakes have been made, to expose them. I do not know if mistakes have been made, probably not.

Mr. Rippon

Shocking!

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

I am not a bit surprised by the right hon. Gentleman's rudeness, he is renowned for it, and also for the speed of his talking.

May I now turn to the Gurkhas. The use and deployment of the Gurkhas has been adequately covered, but I wish to reiterate one point. A reduction to 6,000 by 1971 is not viable, bearing in mind the number of people who have to be on leave at one time, because of the length of leave It is possible only to have two-thirds serving and one-third on leave. I would like to know what will be the rate of pay and the travel allowances which will be paid. Travel is relatively simple from Singapore and Malaysia, but from Hong Kong the cost of transportation to officers and other ranks going on leave to Nepal must be considerable, and some arrangements must be made for that. I do not know if such arrangements would come under this Vote, but I imagine so.

The Gurkhas are amongst the finest soldiers that there are, and it is an awful pity that the Secretary of State has decided to reduce the number of these very fine troops to such a pitifully small figure as 6,000—I understand there are now 10,000. This is not a viable number, and I hope that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary will reconsider that.

My next point concerns the Maltese who are enlisted in the Royal Malta Artillery. Do I understand, as in times gone by, they are stationed solely on Malta and do not see service elsewhere, or do they see service elsewhere?

Whereas there is a reduction in the whole level of the Services, the Vote in E (3) to Commonwealth, Colonial and other forces has gone up this year as compared with last year by about £50,000. This represents the payment to the local forces in Gibraltar, and so on. Yet I notice that the Trucial Oman Scouts were to be reduced during the coming year. Perhaps that is not so? I understand that the number of troops in Malta stays constant. Will the hon. Gentleman say why there is that increase in that heading of the Vote?

I come back to the basic point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham, which is that the existing pay and allowances for the Services need a complete review and not just a review of the allowances. We want to know what will be the new situation on pay, and I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to persuade the Secretary of State to do something about this very soon.

8.55 p.m.

Miss Harvie Anderson (Renfrew, East)

I should like to make one or two points concerning Vote 1. Before doing so, I should say that I did not know that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) was going to refer to my hon. and ex-gallant self.

The discrepancy in the ratio between officers and other ranks in the W.R.A.C. ought to be—and I emphasise this—accounted for by the fact that a very high proportion of junior officers are employed on staff appointments. I have been concerned lest the proportion had dropped. I stress the necessity of opening to the W.R.A.C. as many staff appointments as possible and offering a reasonable career on the staff side in this way. That means there will always be a considerable variation from the usual ratio between the numbers of officers and other ranks.

I want to emphasise a point which has already been stressed by many of my hon. Friends: that the hold-up in resolving the problem of pay is a major factor in our bad recruiting record. I hope that the emphasis which has been placed on this point will have got home to the Ministers the necessity of seeing that the position is rectified and that in future no such long period of dubiety should exist with its inevitable adverse consequences on recruiting.

I turn now to overseas allowances, to which reference is made in Section B. I refer mainly to B.A.O.R. It is some months since I had the opportunity of visiting B.A.O.R. but there are several matters which should be mentioned which are too infrequently expressed in this House.

A real problem which, to my mind, is the cause of inevitable added expenditure on transport for the families of servicemen in B.A.O.R. is that married quarters are situated between five and 60 miles from the area in which the husbands are working. I wonder whether proper consideration has been given to the position of a young wife with three small children situated in isolated married quarters in B.A.O.R. whose husband is away all day. She may have to travel anything between five and 60 miles to reach some form of community association. We have not yet been able to afford community centres for these young people. I appreciate and accept the expense involved in building community centres in these areas. Yet I think that here is a social problem of sufficient strength to warrant a great advance in the thinking towards this idea.

Another point which has been emphasised in connection with allowances is that, first, through the results of devaluation and, second, because of the value-added tax which the Germans have imposed, shopping, which was to some extent done in the German shops has become concentrated on the N.A.A.F.I. I wonder how many N.A.A.F.I. shops the Ministers have seen. I am sure that they have seen the bigger and better ones. I do not know whether they have seen the less adequate ones. I am glad to see both Ministers nod their heads. Perhaps they will have some passing male sympathy for these young married women who have to take their children shopping in hopelessly overcrowded conditions. We should recognise the increasing necessity to shop within the N.A.A.F.I. and give serious consideration to the extension of premises, where possible. I think it is possible to do better than we are now doing in certain areas.

My third point—and I am deliberately concentrating on the young woman who is stationed in the B.A.O.R. in circumstances which are strange to her—relates to the shortage of general practitioner doctors. In this connection I refer to Vote 1A where, as far as I can see, there is no distinction which illustrates the number of R.A.M.C. doctors, what the present recruiting rate is, what the payment vis-à-vis the doctor in civilian life is, and what the prospects are of promotion not only within the R.A.M.C. but also as and when a doctor returns to civilian life.

The R.A.M.C. plays a vital part in the lives of married families, because the young woman with her children in Germany is isolated from the sources of comfort, advice and help to which she is accustomed for as long as she is in this country. I think the R.A.M.C. has a special rôle to play, and it is a grave matter that we are as short of general practitioners as we are in Germany.

That leads me to my next point, which relates to the public health service. It is quite clear that where there are a large number of young women with young families there must be some form of public health service. It is equally clear that the Army as such has not developed a service of this kind. I am aware that there are serving in the B.A.O.R. welfare officers who are called S.S.A.F.A. Sisters, but I have represented to the Minister's predecessor my grave doubts about the adequacy of this method of officering the public health service.

I repeat what I have put in writing to the Minister's Department. I think that consideration should be given again to the question of a public health service being developed in Q.A.R.A.N.C. It seems to me that there is here a small section of people who are doing very good welfare work, but who are not under any form of Army discipline, and who have no status beyond that which their usual fine personalities and character demand.

When questions of Amry discipline arise through problems which are dealt with in the public health service field, I am not entirely happy about someone without military discipline, and without status, having to present, to a high level of Army authority, a case which vitally affects a serving soldier. The more I think about this problem the more reasonable it seems to me that the Q.A.R.A.N.C. should give consideration to adopting this branch of the service as part of its own.

The final matter which I wish to raise is that of education. In Appendix 1 there is a reference to the education allowance. I hope that the Ministers will represent to their colleagues that many of our serving soldiers abroad are dependent on boarding schools in this country for the adequate education of their children. This is of the utmost importance because, as is stated clearly in the Appendix, the allowance is paid for the purpose of assisting officers and soldiers who are liable to frequent changes of station, to ensure continuity in education of their children up to the age of 18 years. I hope that the Minister will represent to his colleagues the rôle of vital importance played by a wide range of boarding schools in this country in making possible an adequate education for these children. It seems to me strange to read in the Defence Estimates an item sponsoring private education of that kind, which is what it amounts to, while the same Government are doing their utmost to destroy this facility. The Ministers must represent this in the strongest possible terms to their colleagues and explain the usefulness of the service which is being provided.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. Wall

I want to ask the Under-Secretary about three special units, each with its special traditions, which are referred to on page 83 of Vote 1. The first is the Royal Malta Artillery, which has a fine record. The majority of the unit serves in B.A.O.R., and I would like to know what its future will be. I understand that it will be withdrawn to Malta. Do the Maltese Government intend—I know that the hon. Gentleman is not responsible for this—to maintain an active battalion in Malta? The unit in B.A.O.R. is a very special one and is the only Commonwealth body of troops which forms part of the British Army, so it has a special status. Will we give any assistance, by way of finance or training, to maintain this excellent unit.

The second is the Gibraltar Regiment. It is very important, in a country like Gibraltar which can never be independent because of its size, but which maintains a special relationship with this country, that there should not be two standards for troops on the Rock. The standards of British troops on the Rock are very good. They have magnificent new barracks, which I have seen. The messes, accommodation and recreational facilities are very good. I know that it is not a Regular regiment, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do what he can about its standards—for example, the officers' mess—and will see that the small number of Regulars among the officers and so on receive the same pay and allowances and the same facilities and standards as British troops garrisoned on the Rock.

The third is the Trucial Oman Scouts. This has perhaps the most active rôle of the three, and it has an important task to perform. What is the intention about its future? Is it to provide the basis of the Army of the Federation of the various independent sheikhdoms in the Gulf? If so, when will we relinquish direct responsibility and what connection will we have with the presumably British officers in the Scouts once the Federation is formed? Will they be on contract or on loan to the Federal Government? What connection will we retain with this excellent unit?

9.7 p.m.

Mr. Ramsden

As we have the debate more or less to ourselves on this side, I thought I might take advantage of the fact to give the hon. Gentleman one or two more questions. I will take them at a reasonable speed. Some have already been touched on, and I am sure that we shall get answers from the hon. Gentleman just as good as those which we had from the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, who was very well informed and well served. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be equally well served.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) ingeniously managed to give the Under-Secretary the chance to say anything that he might want to say about the Anguillan operation. I will not follow him on allowances, which was his method of bringing his speech into order, but I greatly admire the way in which the Ministry of Defence has made the most of the possibilities of getting good recruiting publicity from this week's events. I was not surprised, in view of what the Under-Secretary said on the Estimates about the stimulus which a small operation might give recruiting, but the Ministry has done very well out of it. I only hope that it has not got into too much trouble with the Foreign Office. I hope the results will be all that it can expect.

My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) spoke of the Gurkha run-down. There are bound to be problems in connection with the steep run-down of the Brigade of Gurkhas after so many years. For example, there must be problems concerned with welfare and redundancy. Bearing in mind the feelings which hon. Members who are interested in this subject have toward these troops, I trust that the Under-Secretary will comment on the subject.

I had intended to question the hon. Gentleman about the Royal Malta Artillery and the Trucial Scouts but my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) forestalled me. What is the position affecting the Royal Malta Artillery? At one time it sent two companies into the Royal Corps of Transport to do what were then R.A.S.C. duties in B.A.O.R. while the remainder was performing its traditional rôle on the island of Malta. In view of the present recruiting difficulties, has the hon. Gentleman considered retaining these troops in that B.A.O.R. rôle?

Perhaps there is no longer a shortage of manpower in the Royal Corps of Transport and no need to consider inviting the Royal Malta Artillery to continue as a substitute. It should be remembered that it discharged that rôle effectively and that the continued employment of troops of this kind is of benefit to the economy of Malta. This should not be overlooked, particularly at a time when it seems that we shall be encountering recruiting difficulties for some years to come. I will not question the hon. Gentleman about the Trucial Scouts because my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice covered the subject admirably.

In the debate on Vote A we were told about the forthcoming reorganisation of some of the junior soldiers', or boys', units. The Under-Secretary will need no reminding of the importance of these excellent units to recruiting. At a time when the intake of adult recruits from civilian life is not more than about 9,000 a year and when the number of boys being recruited, having matured in young soldiers' units, is about 4,000 a year—I am not certain of the figures, but the percentage is of this order—this matter must be of great significance to the future of Army recruiting.

I was somewhat apprehensive when the Minister spoke about the future reorganisation of these units, and I wondered what effect this might have on recruiting. I hope that the reorganisation will merely be a regrouping or rearrangement of accommodation and that there is no intention, expensive though the training of boys is, to reduce the intake and thereby reduce the proportion of recruits who mature from boys' service and who enter the Army that way. Through this form of recruiting they come into the Army at a time when the competition for their services from industry is perhaps not as fierce as it is later. Difficulties would arise if this source of recruiting were allowed to dry up.

A matter has been worrying me and I question the Under-Secretary about it because of its possible effect on Government policy. It is difficult to get reassurance about this, but perhaps the Under-Secretary can give us reassurance. No one who contemplates the rate at which infantry battalions are being run down can fail to be a little worried, especially if one had connection with the Army in the early sixties when there was much trouble in various parts of the world and units capable of performing an infantry rôle were always short. One cannot forget the experience and the fact that infantry is an arm which is always short. It is true that we are to get a number of infantry battalions, but will there be enough of them? I hope the Under-Secretary can reassure us because one cannot make a judgment about this without knowing about contingency plans, the arms plot and things which he cannot talk about in public. Without that information we cannot judge what margin of safety the Government are allowing and whether they are running it too fine.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might be able to answer in this way: Taking into account that he needs so many battalions for various commitments in B.A.O.R., Cyprus and other garrisons, and that he needs some battalions for public duties, one for the School of Infantry demonstration plan and so forth, is the Army leaving itself with infantry battalions extra to commitments so as to be sure in case calculations go awry and unforeseen emergencies occur? There have been such battalions kept spare, so to speak, in the past—mainly of infantry and sometimes of gunners. Sometimes they have had to be used, and the Government have been thankful that they were available. It would be reassuring if the Under-Secretary could say that the unforeseeable and unforeseen will be taken into account in planning the numbers of infantry battalions likely to be needed in future.

9.18 p.m.

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

One of the abilities required to answer this debate is an enormous speed of writing. It may be that I have not written fast enough to keep up with hon. Members questions, but I shall do my best

In answer to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), the troops in Anguilla will get their share of Vote 1D—£10,765 million—and the Jamaica, West Indies, rate of local overseas allowance. If there is some problem, we shall certainly consider it. The point which seemed to emerge from the hon. Member's badinage about allowances appeared to rest on our reconsidering them. This is one of the things which is being considered by the Prices and Incomes Board. I am sure that after that consideration we shall have a more rational approach to the problem. Many of the allowances listed in the Vote are hardly ever brought into use. I do not know whether the hard-lying allowance was paid. Certainly the allowances to which men are entitled will be paid and if there are difficulties we shall look at them.

I agree very much with what the hon. Gentleman was implying, that the British Army is excellent at hearts and minds campaigns and that it will in Anguilla do this with its usual excellence. I am sure that those concerned will be anxious to do what we are always being asked to do, to render aid to the civil community.] am sure that at least one of the things which will come from this event will be good relations between the people of Anguilla and the British Army.

The very effect of considering a military salary and of having the discussions that we are now having will be for the benefit of the Army, because there will be new people looking at these problems, I am sure sympathetically. The teams that have gone round from the National Board for Prices and Incomes discussing the problems with soldiers and with the Ministry of Defence and everybody else have created a very good impression with the soldiers. In other words, the questions they have asked and the attitude they have shown the soldiers have been thought to be sympathetic and helpful. The whole problem is a tri-service one. We are hopeful that in a few weeks time when the National Board reports we shall not have quite the nagging that is going on from the other side of the House at present.

I was asked by the hon. Gentleman about the scheme for locally employed personnel in Malta, Singapore and Malaysia, and about compensation for redundancy. This is similar to industrial compensation. The terms have been worked out and announced. As far as I know, they are satisfactory to the soldiers concerned, because these are soldiers. I have heard of no discontent about this.

I was asked, too, by the hon. Gentleman about the home defence rôle and the need for training for men in the depots, the Sappers and the Household Division. The Army is extremely good at the types of military operation envisaged by the hon. Gentleman. Everybody mentions our soldiers. They are very well trained indeed for any kind of military operation which is likely to arise. This is the advantage of having a professional Army.

The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) when he was digging out the pieces about allowances was only making a case for rationalisation. A shorter amount of writing in this book, with perhaps greater compensation for those concerned, will emerge. I am grateful to the two hon. Gentlemen for, despite their badinage, implying this.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about the Gurkhas. I have seen Gurkhas recently in Malaysia and Hong Kong. I was very impressed by their morale and by the excellent attitude of their British officers. We have had examples in the House of Members who have served with the Brigade of Gurkhas. I have heard about it theoretically here in the Chamber. Recently I had the opportunity of seeing it for myself in operation. It is excellent. I assure the hon. Gentleman that if there was anything going wrong we should quickly hear in strong and determined terms.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration has three times been to Nepal. I rather envy him. I wish I could join the queue. He has taken a great personal interest in this. When there have been problems—for example, the problem of porterage to East and West Nepal from the places where they are finishing their training—these problems have been considered and the right solution—which is not always a money one, but often is—has been brought into operation. I assure the House that the Gurkhas are satisfied with the conditions which are being provided for them and the transport arrangements have been looked at and improved. The training has been much improved, Things are running smoothly.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

Will the Under-Secretary say a few words about the future of British officers serving with the Gurkhas and of those who would like to go into the Gurkhas next year or the year after?

Mr. Boyden

I should like to take a little more time to consider that, but I think that they will be treated like any other officer and be able to move around where they wish. But I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

The hon. and gallant Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) asked me a number of questions about the W.R.A.C. I agree that W.R.A.C. staff officers are most acceptable, and that we need as many as we can get. I am sure that the Army shares that opinion. I have met a number of them, and they are always charming and efficient, things that are not always easy to combine.

The reason for the discrepancy between the figures quoted from Vote A and the Appendix is that the Vote permits maximum numbers for the Army and the W.R.A.C., while the Appendix forecasts the likely average numbers for the year. The very fact of the W.R.A.C. officers being in staff appointments means that they do not affect the ratio with other ranks.

I am very sympathetic to one of the points the hon. Lady raised about the position of young married women in married quarters in B.A.O.R. The local units do their best to see that the quarters are as good as they can be, but part of the problem is being in a strange country where there is no English television, for example. This has been discussed many times and the expense has ruled out its provision. Another aspect is that they do not know German. I would make a plea that as many as possible make an effort to learn some sort of German. The Army is excellent at providing courses from which it can be learnt quickly, and knowledge of the language would very much enhance their life in Germany.

Miss Harvie Anderson

If they want to go to class to learn German, they have nowhere to put their children, because of the lack of a community centre. Much more complicated organisation is required to achieve this quite simple thing than at first appears. Some other wife must take the children for the day and so on, and in practice this does not happen. It would be a great help if the provision of such centres could be urged.

Mr. Boyden

I was coming on to this. This was very much borne in on me on my first visit to Germany. The youth organisation is now being set up, and it will help to stimulate the forming of community associations. The provision of accommodation is not normally particularly difficult in the blocks of flats where there are good quarters. A room is usually set aside for community activities; the authorities are pretty good at finding places where people can meet. I agree with the hon. Lady, and we are making progress here.

I want to put in a plug for trying to get the soldiers and their wives to speak German more, because this is one of the keys, though by no means the only key, to good relations. Many of the commanders are excellent at encouraging good relations between the Germans and their soldiers, and are trying to encourage their men and their wives to learn German and to feel more at home. This is more than a matter of the provision of better facilities, although I agree that we must do all we can in that way.

The subject of the N.A.A.F.I. does not arise on Vote 1, but perhaps the Chair will allow me a minute to digress I am shown good and bad N.A.A.F.I.s. There has been a tremendous improvement in the past 18 months to two years, which meets many of the requests made by the hon. Lady.

The hon. Lady also asked me about the comparison between the pay and conditions of doctors in the R.A.M.C. and O.A.R.A.N.C. and those in civilian life. The Defence Department has submitted proposals to the Prices and Incomes Board about this, and so have the B.M.A. We are hopeful that relations between the B.M.A. and the Department will be much improved in the near future. Again I return to what has been said several times in our defence debates: we are waiting for the report. If I did not say anything about it in the debate the other day, it was because it has been said by so many of my colleagues that I thought it was a bit otiose. But I repeat that this is another of the factors which are being considered to get a comparability, so that we can have the full support of the B.M.A. for our doctors' jobs and go ahead.

The hon. Lady made an interesting point about the S.S.A.FA. Sisters and this kind of welfare work. I would be glad to discuss it with her. I do not immediately react favourably to it. I have seen many of the S.S.A.F.A. Sisters in operation and have been impressed by what they do. I have heard no criticism from women, or the families or officers concerned with their activities—indeed. nothing but praise. Perhaps this is too starry an idea, but the hon. Lady is coming to see me on another matter in the near future and perhaps we can extend our discussion to the S.S.A.F.A. Sisters. I will be glad to see what can be done. I hope I do not sound complacent, but I have been impressed by what is done. It is first-class and people who experience the work approve it very much.

The hon. Lady twitted us about boarding education. I shall not go into the pros and cons of the great argument about public schools—I do not think she wants me to. But I assure her that, wherever an officer or other rank wants to send a child to boarding school in England, this is encouraged. We have been encouraging soldiers to leave their children in boarding schools because very often this is the best solution. It is a difficult decision for parents, especially for mothers with girls who, perhaps, particularly want to go with them, although very often it is probably more in the interest of the girls to go to boarding schools. We do all we can to encourage parents to make the best choice in the interests of the children.

Perhaps I may be allowed to expand a little on something which no one else has mentioned in the debate. We have been trying to make special efforts to improve the education of mentally handicapped children of officers and other ranks. This is a specially difficult problem. Places are in short supply in local authority schools. Just as we have difficulties with housing, so sometimes we have difficulties with local education authorities in finding places for Service children who are mentally or physically handicapped.

Mr. Ramsden

Is this because of the general shortage of such places?

Mr. Boyden

Yes. It is because of the general shortage. An added difficulty for Service parents is, of course, that they are not quite sure whether it is better to leave a handicapped child behind or whether it is better to have it with them. The position exaggerates the ever present problem of looking after handicapped children properly. I have seen distressing cases where the mothers have come home with their handicapped children, leaving the fathers behind at the Service station, in order to give the maximum attention to the children. We have been doing our best to get over this and improve the situation.

The estimate shows a diminution in the amount of money for this problem, and this is why I particularly wanted to mention it. It represents no diminution in effort. The explanation is that the estimate last year was a bit too high for reality. It has been reduced but that in no way represents a decline in our attempts to meet the needs.

The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) asked three questions. The first concerned the Royal Malta Artillery. There is an R.T.C. Squadron in B.A.O.R. The Maltese Regiment will go to Malta in February 1970 and the Maltese, I think, are going to continue at least part of them. They will pass from our control in October, 1970.

The hon. Gentleman then referred to the Gibraltar Regiment. I am grateful for his remarks. I hope to visit Gibraltar fairly soon—I have not been there—and will bear in mind what he said and see what needs to be done on the lines of his suggestion.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman raised the question of the Trucial Oman Scouts. As the House probably knows, General Willoughby has been there fairly recently and is looking for their advice on the future organisation of the Scouts and the whole situation in the area. It is the British hope that the Trucial Oman Scouts will form the basis of a Federal Army. There is a difficulty about the local force as opposed to the federal force, but the Trucial Oman Scouts have had an increase in pay and General Willoughby is trying to sort out the problem to the best advantage of the seven emirates as a whole.

I was asked a question about apprentices and boy soldiers by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden). I am grateful to him for the tone of his remarks on the training given to the boys themselves, quite apart from their value to the Army. Very many more parents would wish their sons to go to apprentice colleges or junior leader training regiments if they knew the effect it had on the boys—the good education and training and the good career it gives them afterwards. I have seldom been moved so much as by some of the occasions I have experienced in seeing some of the boys' units and the effect it has on young men. I find it difficult to find the right words, but it has an effect in turning them into good citizens with initiative and an approach to life they would not have had if they had missed the Army. I am sure everybody here would support me in this.

As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, the Miller Report on boys' training is a little out of date. We have been considering it and the review of the recommendations that have been carried out in the Miller Report coincides very neatly with the need to concentrate boys' training to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred. Perhaps some improvements could be made here.

An example of the concentration namely, the closing of Carlisle and the concentration at Arborfield—which is a pity from the point of view of the North but good from the point of view of the Army—is the sort of situation which arises and which we are examining. We will report these changes to the House; we are not yet quite ready with our plans. It involves an improving of the facilities, bringing them more up to date—although they are very good already—and also economising. I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman it will have no adverse effect at all on the training of the boys. We very much hope to get more than we are at the moment, although we are doing fairly well. I can give an absolute assurance on that.

As far as the final request is concerned, which he put to me very reasonably, about the spare capacity and capability with the infantry battalions, I can give him the assurance that certainly unforeseen emergencies are taken into consideration in the arms plot and the present strength of the infantry battalions. I cannot spell this out in detail, as he obviously appreciated.

Resolved, That a sum, not exceeding £187,500,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the expense of the pay, &c, of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1970