HC Deb 22 March 1974 vol 870 cc1555-66
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton)

Before calling the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) I should draw to the attention of the House the fact that it is customary—[Interruption.] I was about to make a comment on the absence of a Minister, but as a Minister has now appeared, I shall call Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles.

2.32 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles (Winchester)

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak for a few moments on the problems of recruitment. Before doing so I express my gratitude for the pier-head jump—he will understand what I mean—that the Minister has made to come here to answer my remarks. I realise that it is probably inconvenient for him, but it might be said that that is an occupational hazard of being First Lord of the Admiralty.

I start from the agreement of hon. Members on both sides of the House that the recruiting figures are very worrying. Although we all have our theories on what are the most prominent factors that affect recruiting, I think we must all agree that the greatest single factor is what the Service man himself thinks about the Service to which he belongs, and what the ex-Service men whose sons and nephews are the recruits of the future think about the Service to which they belonged.

I will mention a few topical events; first, the cause célèbre of my constituent Corporal Foxford of the Royal Hampshire Regiment. I understand that the case is sub judice, pending an appeal against conviction, and I understand the restraints thereby imposed on myself and the Minister. I am grateful that bail has been arranged for Corporal Foxford pending the hearing of the appeal, so that he has had the opportunity of being reunited with his wife in Winchester.

The Minister will understand that there is a much wider issue than the effect that this experience is having on my constituent. The wider issue is whether or not men serving in Northern Ireland, or anywhere else, on what amounts to active service duty should be liable to trial by civil courts. A young corporal going out on patrol duty tonight, or on any other night, in Northern Ireland, is bound to have some misgivings. He will think to himself, "Suppose something goes wrong tonight and there is shooting, I may be liable to civil trial for any action I may take in the heat of the moment." He may be liable to be tried by a court which has never heard a shot fired in anger.

The soldier concerned should know that any investigation of an action taken by him will, in the first instance, be by military people who understand the urgency of military matters—who understand the urgency of being shot at and having to decide whether to shoot back in a confused situation in the middle of the night at a time of extreme personal danger.

The soldiers and NCOs in charge of patrols serving in Northern Ireland, in the nature of things, are young and relatively inexperienced men. They have enormous responsibility and they have to take quickly difficult decisions. In passing, I pay tribute to them for the superlative job that they do.

In Northern Ireland decisions have to be taken at the corporal level, whereas in other circumstances decisions are taken, if not in a more leisurely way, at least by more senior and experienced people.

We have fresh in our minds the case which the Secretary of State reported to the House yesterday of mistaken identity, as a result of which two soldiers in Northern Ireland lost their lives. This raises the whole question of the conditions under which Service men work in Northern Ireland. They are in conditions of danger, and the accommodation is pretty dreadful. I have made visits to them, and it seems to me that the men understand the situation and are amazingly uncomplaining. I am not urging the Minister to say anything about bringing the troops home. I do not support those rather facile suggestions being put round in the Press as being the right way out at all. I am sure that it would be the feeling of the men that they owe it to their comrades who have been killed and maimed and done such hard work in the past three years to stay there and see the job through. Their conditions must be ameliorated to the greatest possible extent.

Before coming to the question of pay it is necessary to say that soldiers and Service men generally realise that pay is not the only issue. They are doing a worthwhile job and they know it. That is the essential point. Nevertheless, their pay for what they do is disgracefully low, as is the pay of all the Services. The Minister will probably point out that the Services pay review is due on 1st April. So it is. I am particularly glad to have this opportunity a few days beforehand, to draw the Minister's attention to Service rates of pay. I hope that he will represent this to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and, through him, to the Cabinet, so that it may be aware that Forces' pay cannot be allowed to run at the level it has run hitherto.

The Services pay review procedure is a fairly lumbering one. It considers pay only every two years, which means that with the present rate of inflation and of wage awards Service men get further behind their industrial counterparts. Further, the payment is made in arrears, because it is on a comparison basis. We cannot go on using soldiers as we are, when a radio report can say with some accuracy, as it did yesterday morning, that a soldier serving in Northern Ireland receives only one-third of the pay that a fit young miner can earn, following the recent settlement.

This is a big issue and I know that I would be out of order if I went into details of statistics. I draw the attention of the Minister to Motion No. 2 on the Order Paper headed "Social Justice"—a term frequently upon the lips of hon. Members opposite. It says: That this House, bearing in mind danger, difficulty and unsocial hours"— also a phrase which has been much used in recent months— considers that the pay of all members of the Armed Forces serving in Ulster (or elsewhere on active service) should be raised to a level higher than the new rates payable to miners working underground, as from 1st March". The motion sums up the magnitude of the problem.

I ask the Minister to announce, if he can, that he really has hoisted in this problem and will give an assurance that Forces' pay will be dealt with as a special case—again a topical phrase—if not by the Relativities Board, which seems to be under something of a cloud at the moment, then at least by comparing relativities. A special active service allowance might be possible, paid on the Ministry scale, to those who are on active service in Northern Ireland, whether or not we call it active service. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the words of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) who, when Secretary of State for Defence in the previous Labour Government, said that he felt an obligation to act on behalf of Service men as a whole, who had no union to speak for them. They must not be allowed to fall behind simply because they are not in a position of industrial strength.

I have been speaking mainly of the Army, but the problem of recruitment is common to the other Services. The Navy, too, has its difficulties. Those serving in the Navy may not be on active service, as are the soldiers in Northern Ireland, but there is a point to be considered in terms of anti-social hours. What could be more anti-social than the hours worked by a sailor? Are the duties he fulfils standing on the bridge of a coastal minesweeper in a Channel gale on a Sunday night to be considered as being performed in anti-social hours? They are clearly anti-social hours by any standards and should be dealt with as such, in the same way as the anti-social hours of State employees have been dealt with since the Government came to power.

Anyone serving in the Navy has to some extent a vocation, or he would not do it. Anyone who has served in the Navy knows of the need for modern ships and equipment so that the Navy can feel that its job is not only worth while but that it has the tools to do the job properly. Here, I am referring, topically once again, to HMS "Invincible". Fortunately, the Minister with responsibilities for the Navy is to answer this debate. Will he say something to scotch the rumours in the Press today that HMS "Invincible" may, on completion, be sold to Iran? I hope that this is irresponsible rumour. Perhaps it would help the Minister to be able to scotch it.

I deplore the recent cancellation of the visit to Greece and Chile by the Royal Navy. The Minister will know what effect this has had on recruiting because he will have seen the letters in the Press from ex-Servicemen, the people with such an influence on recruiting. Without being contentious, I ask what the Government hope to gain by such posturing. They pay lip service to the importance of NATO, but it can only be to the detriment of NATO to cancel visits to an important NATO ally—important by virtue of her past and by virtue of her geographical position, out on an exposed flank of NATO, connecting Turkey with the other NATO countries. What can the Government hope to achieve by insulting—that is the only word I can use—the Greek people by cancelling this visit?

Some compensation for sailors spending these anti-social hours at sea comes by way of foreign visits, which are much enjoyed and appreciated. Sailors want their run ashore when they have been doing NATO exercises, or whatever. The dismay and disappointment which must have been in the minds of the ships' companies on "Tiger" and the frigate with her upon hearing the news of this cancellation would have been a very real thing. Possibly one needs to have been in the Services to appreciate the extent of it. This factor is not to be disregarded, and when this news is brought back to Portsmouth, or to whatever port the ship returns, surely it can have only an adverse effect on recruiting. In these important matters the Government should not spoil the work they are doing for the Services by pandering to the idealogical opposition of some Labour Members. I emphasise that this applies only to some of those Labour Members, for not all of them are so silly.

I turn to the subject of the Royal Air Force, which, like the other Services, requires modern and efficient equipment. I can tell the Minister that the Royal Air Force is desperately short of new aircraft. There is a chill in the hearts of those in the RAF who look a little balefully at the history of TSR2. They have harsh memories of the fact that the jig and tools for that aircraft were broken up. I hope that the Minister can assure this "crowded" House this afternoon that there will be no repetition of these events in terms of the MRCA or future equipment for the Royal Air Force, because there is enormous leeway to be made up.

I have spoken about the three Services, and I do not wish to leave out the Royal Marines. Rumour has it that the future of the Royal Marines is in some doubt. I hope that the Minister will categorically scotch that rumour now. The Royal Marines have often been regarded as something of an anomaly, but the Minister, both from his constituency interests and his few weeks as Minister, knows that they are not. The Royal Marines are an essential part of the Services. It would be extremely valuable to have from the hon. Gentleman some assurance that the Royal Marines will continue to serve the nation. This will be extremely valuable on the question of recruitment.

If there is anxiety about the future in the minds of Service men and ex-Service men—and indeed, in the minds of parents, schoolmasters and all those who influence recruiting—the Government have only themselves to blame. By issuing forecasts about forthcoming gigantic cuts, whether or not they intend to impose them, the Government tend to strike a chill in the hearts of all those who understand Service matters and who want to further the good of the Services. Gigantic cuts were forecast at the last Labour Party conference and were outlined in the Labour manifesto. In conclusion, I can only say that I hope the Government will experience a deathbed repentance over the extent of these cuts in the same way as they have over some other subjects very recently.

2.54 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Frank Judd)

I am deeply grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) for raising this vital topic in the time which has unexpectedly become available this afternoon. We all know about his distinguished career in the Services and his unrivalled commitment to their interests. We see from the way in which he raised this matter this afternoon that he has lost none of his Service experience in remembering that surprise is sometimes an essential element in attack. I hope that we shall be able to contain his attack in the same good spirit in which he put forward his observations.

I should like first to refer to what the hon. and gallant Member said about Northern Ireland. He will appreciate that the whole issue involving Corporal Foxford is sub judice and that it is impossible for me to comment on the case.

On the wider issue of the responsibilities of Service men in Northern Ireland in general, we on this side of the House, and particularly those of us in Government, recognise the tremendous responsibilities which are placed on our Service men in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. We recognise the point that the hon. and gallant Gentleman made about the heavy responsibilities on young NCOs, and these matters will constantly receive our urgent attention in the vital work that is being done across the Irish Sea. I take the opportunity, because it is the first time that I have had the chance to speak from the Government Dispatch Box, to place on record the warmest tribute to all involved in those exacting circumstances.

I think it will be helpful if I say a few words about recruiting, since that topic was central to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's remarks. He will no doubt have read in HANSARD today the full answer given by my right hon. Friend yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Siliars), who asked how recruiting was going in the three Services. If the House will bear with me, it will be useful to give some detail on this question. The recruiting figures given in HANSARD yesterday show that in 1969–70 recruiting for the Royal Navy and Royal Marines was 5,418, for the Army 20,606, and for the Royal Air Force 8,253. In the following year, 1970–71, the figures were 6,361 for the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, 23,434 for the Army, and 9,094 for the Royal Air Force. In 1971–72 the figures respectively were 9,175, 30,433 and 6,890. In 1972–73 the figures were 9,329, 25,734 and 3,955. In 1973–74 they are estimated to have been 6,500 in the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, 14,600 in the Army and 4,800 in the Royal Air Force. It is perhaps appropriate to note that in 1973, for example, the Royal Air Force figure cannot be compared with normal average annual requirements because the Royal Air Force was in the middle of a manpower economy campaign, which resulted in a reduction of recruiting targets.

It will be seen that the Army experienced some difficulties, though recruiting for the Royal Navy and Royal Marines was slightly less than we could ideally have wished. While all three Services are below their trained requirements in varying degrees, this has not occurred to any serious extent.

It is never easy to establish the precise reasons for variations in recruitment rates. Factors which we believe accounted for the change in 1973 included the raising of the school leaving age, which effectivelly cut off one year's supply of school leavers at a minimum age since we previously recruited from the age of 15. Furthermore, there were a high rate of economic activity, there was the probable effects of the continuing situation in Northern Ireland, and there were the rates of Service pay, which were perhaps less competitive with outside rates than they were in 1972–73. There were other long-term indications in respect of recruitment which were uncertain. In respect of school leavers, we cannot yet be certain how many of them will be inclined to join at 16 rather than at 15.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman raised the question of pay, which is highly relevant to recruiting. He will recognise that pay is a matter for the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body, which is due to report shortly. I cannot anticipate what that body will say, but he will realise that the problems as they exist have been fairly and squarely put before the body and will be taken into account. A constant and vital factor in recruiting is the esteem in which the Armed Forces are held and the extent to which the need for them is recognised by the public as a whole.

Here it might be relevant to take up a matter to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred towards the end of his speech. He seemed to suggest that statements which had been made by the new Government were likely adversely to affect recruiting for the Services. I counter that argument by saying that in our view one of the problems which confront us is that defence policy under the previous administration was allowed to drift for too long without being clearly defined.

Our objective is at the first possible moment to make a clear statement to this House, to the nation and to the Services about the rôle and commitment of the Services into the future as we see that rôle and commitment so that Service men and those contemplating service will know what is expected of them and will be able to look to the future with a sense of security and with certainty about what is planned. That is our overriding objective.

My own objective, with special responsibility for the Navy—it is shared by my other departmental colleagues—is to see a first-class Navy fulfilling a clearly drawn up programme which has been determined within the context of this overall review.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles

On the immediate issue of pay, the Government have been able to intervene above the norm, so to speak, in granting certain pay settlements. Will they consider intervening above whatever may be the technical report of the Pay Review Body in the circumstances that we are discussing today?

Mr. Judd

The hon. and gallant Gentleman will recognise that we have to wait and see what are the recommendations of the review body before we can make statements of that kind. We know that there has been a thorough investigation, and, obviously, the Government will take very seriously whatever is proposed by the review body as soon as it reports. Its report can be expected in the near future.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman commented on a number of other matters which it is appropriate to mention. He referred to the Royal Air Force. Obviously, I cannot speak for my departmental colleague who has responsibility for the RAF, but what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said will be put clearly to my colleague, who no doubt will take it into account.

I am, though, in a position to comment on the Royal Marines. Over the past few years I have had opportunity to look at their work at first hand—their work abroad, their training in this country, and their exemplary work in Northern Ireland. In my view, they are an exemplary body of men. I wish to put on record my feeling that in the context of Service policy generally we need pace setters and centres of excellence. I believe that Royal Marines have been pace setters. They have set standards and provided a centre of excellence within the general work of our Services. These are matters which will be very much in the minds of Ministers in the months ahead.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman also referred to "Invincible". The new Government intend to make their own decisions in their own way about defence policy. They will not be influenced by ill-informed speculative comment in the Press, especially those quarters of the Press which I suspect the hon. and gallant Gentleman quoted. If one looks to those sources over recent years, one can see very quickly with how much authority their observations should be treated.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman also referred to the new Government's policy towards Greece and Chile and participation within NATO. I take this opportunity to state unequivocally and clearly where I believe we stand. We believe that our defence forces in this country and the NATO alliance exist to defend freedom and democracy as we understand it in this country. We believe that when we look round the world the principles of freedom and democracy as we take them for granted here are under a good deal of pressure from varying directions. We are anxious to avoid unnecessarily providing certificates of endorsement to regimes which, by the way they conduct their political affairs, are contrary to everything stated in, for example, the preamble to the North Atlantic Treaty as to the basic quality of the community that we are trying to defend.

I am sure that on reflection the hon. and gallant Gentleman will realise that the Government's unwavering and unswerving commitment to the principles of freedom and democracy lie behind their decision to take the kind of action that has so far been taken.

I also point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, because it is a point that we must bear in mind, that when looking to the effectiveness of alliances we cannot altogether discount the impact, on the outward effectiveness of an alliance as a whole, of preoccupation amongst some parts of that alliance with keeping themselves in power by methods which, by no stretch of the imagination, could be regarded as being in accord with the principles of democracy.

I conclude by again thanking the hon. and gallant Gentleman for what he has done this afternoon in taking this early opportunity to discuss the interests of the Armed Services which, I know, are dear to his heart. I assure him that the new administration has them equally close at heart at all times. Indeed, the whole purpose of the review announced in the House yesterday is to ensure that in future months and years we do not work from a piecemeal, pragmatic, arbitrary pattern with no logic necessarily behind it, but that we have a thorough and comprehensive look at the rôle that we have allotted to our Armed Services and the commitments that we have to fulfil, so that, having done that, we can offer to the men of the Services and to those contemplating entry absolute certainty about what will be expected of them in future.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Three o'clock.