HL Deb 24 March 1927 vol 66 cc778-807

Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion, moved by Lord O'Hagan on Thursday last, for Papers relating to economies to be effected in respect of the Territorial Army.

LORD DENMAN

My Lords, I rise to resume the discussion which took place last week on Lord O'Hagan's Motion in regard to the Territorial Army. Your Lordships will recollect that Lord O'Hagan severely criticised the action of the War Office in the withdrawal of the bounty from the Territorial Army and that the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State, while profuse in expressions of admiration and esteem for the Territorial Army, said nothing to encourage us in the hope that the Secretary of State would reconsider his decision. I am afraid, therefore, that there is little doubt that this cut in the pay will be a severe blow to the Territorial Army to-day. Indeed, as I listened to the speech of the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State, there occurred to my mind the verse of an eighteenth century poet: When first I attempted your pity to move, Why seemed you so deaf to my prayers? Perhaps it was right to dissemble your love, But—why did you kick me downstairs? It is all very well for him to say it was only a slight kick, or unintentional, or that it will not do much damage to the Territorial Army. The recipient of the kick will know best how much damage it has done and is likely to do. There is a general consensus of opinion that this particular blow will do a great deal of harm.

I do not propose to go into detail, but I will briefly summarise what I conceive to be the charge against the War Office in this matter. It is a two-fold charge. In the first place it is said that it will affect recruiting for the Territorial Army and the efficiency of the Force, and in the second place that it was done in a manner which was somewhat discourteous to those responsible for the administration of the Territorial Force and that inadequate time was given to the Territorial Association for discussion and opportunity to lay alternative proposals before the War Office. The matter of recruiting, of course, must be a question of opinion, but those connected with the Territorial Force think the effect on recruiting will be very bad indeed.

Now I will say a word on the question of efficiency. The bounty is given, or was given, only to those men who attended a certain number of parades and attained a certain standard of efficiency. Therefore it gave officers a chance of offering some inducement to their men to become efficient. Now that inducement goes and the efficiency of the Force is likely to suffer accordingly. Originally, I think, the object in giving this bounty was to induce the Territorial Force to accept liability for foreign service. Now the bounty goes, but the liability for foreign service remains. I put it to your Lordships that that is scarcely a fair way of dealing with the Territorial Force. A further object was to compensate men for the out-of-pocket expenses to which they are put in attending drills and so forth. Very often a man attending drills incurs some expense; it may be a train fare or a 'bus fare, something very small no doubt, but it is incurred every time a man attends drill and a great many drills are held during training. It is rather hard that these expenses should come out of a man's pocket. Some units, it is true, are comparatively well off and will not feel the effect of this so much, but others are recruited considerably from the artisan and working classes. It will be extremely difficult for men in those classes to enlist in the Force or remain in the Force without incurring some personal sacrifice which it is scarcely fair or reasonable that we should expect of them.

I will not again traverse the ground or make the point made by my noble friend Lord O'Hagan as to the opportunity given to the Territorial Association or their Council to put forward alternative economies, but alternative economies may, I think, be fairly discussed. My noble friend pointed out that there was a question of standing camps and the possibility of saving money over the water supply of camps and things of that kind. There is another point which I now put forward, and that is the question of brigade staffs. There are 44 Infantry brigades and 14 Artillery brigades, each costing about £1,000 a year. The greater part of them are commanded by officers drawing regular rates of pay. Let me say that I do not imply that these officers are not doing excellent work or are not entitled to the pay they receive, but if a cut is so urgently necessary I suggest it would be better made by reducing the pay of these officers or getting officers to do this work for nothing at all. I believe it would be quite possible to do so. The work might not be so well done, but it might be possible to make a reduction of many thousands of pounds a year in this way.

Then there is a political aspect to this question which I think is worth the attention of your Lordships. The Territorial Force has hitherto been kept entirely outside the maelstrom of Party politics, and I hope it always will be so. It was, as your Lordships will recollect, the creation of a Liberal Government. It has been administered by successive Coalition and Conservative Governments and when the Labour Government was in office, so far as I am aware, they were entirely friendly to it. It is out of the question that the Territorial Force could be used in the case of civil disturbance or a General Strike, for the simple reason that it is a citizen force composed of all Parties in the State, but I do not think the severest critic of the Territorial Force could deny that each Territorial unit—Infantry, Yeomanry or Artillery—is a centre of loyalty and good will in this country to-day. Now, as we all know, there are extremists to-day—and some of them not without influence—who are openly preaching sedition, confiscation, the recrudescence of the General Strike and so forth. I put it to your Lordships: Is it wise when there is all this inflammable material lying about to bring discouragement and disappointment to those men who, often at considerable personal sacrifice, are doing their best to keep these centres of loyalty and good will in being? To have done so—this is an additional charge I bring against the government—appears to me a very grave political blunder.

I am going to say one word as to the responsibility for this decision which the War Office have recently promulgated. In this House there is the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War. I think he is in a peculiarly responsible position because I think I am right in saying that he is the administrative head of the Territorial Force. I have no doubt that the noble Earl has been in a position of considerable difficulty in the matter and I can imagine it has not been a very congenial task to him to have to defend this reduction of pay in your Lordships' House. I did notice, by the way, that there was one ray of hope in the speech which the noble Earl made in this House last week. He said this:— I should like, however, to say that if the abolition of the bounty really has that disastrous effect upon recruiting which the more extreme pessimists predict, then we must take steps to counteract it. I do not know whether any Member of the Government is going to speak this evening, but I would ask whether my noble friend Viscount Peel has anything more to say or can hold out any more hope on that point

I would respectfully urge upon the Government that if they are going to do anything to mitigate the severity of their recent action they should do it quickly, indeed, let them do it at once, Let them do something to restore the confidence which has been so rudely shattered. There is, of course, a Secretary of State for War, and he is more responsible than the noble Lord, Lord Onslow. No doubt he also has been in a difficult position in this matter. But I hope that in future if questions of this kind arise where a political issue is involved—as I claim it is involved in this case—the Secretary of State will not rely entirely upon the advice of his professional colleagues.

Then there is the Army Council. Certainly there is an impression abroad in the Territorial Force that the Army Council is not very sympathetically disposed towards them. That is a matter of long standing. It dates back before the War. I do not want to go into that again now. It does exist. The Chairman of the Territorial Force Association in his letter to The Times asked: "Does the Army Council want to destroy the Territorial Army?" and he ended a very cogent and reasoned letter by concluding that it did. The noble Earl, Lord Dartmouth, also wrote in The Times of the incredible action of the War Office, and a leading article in The Times spoke of the policy of slights and pinpricks extended towards the Territorial Force. Let me conclude by expressing the hope that, unless the Army Council wish to become thoroughly unpopular, they will refrain from the policy of emasculating the Territorial Force in this country.

LORD HORNE

My Lords, the noble Lord who moved the Motion now under discussion presented for your consideration two main points: first, the manner in which the reductions in the Territorial Army have been introduced; and, in the second place, the effect of those reductions upon the Territorial Army. I think that far too much is being made of the first point. I should be the last man in the world to suggest for one moment that patriotic bodies of loyal citizens like our Territorial Force Association should be treated with anything but the very greatest consideration and respect. I do not think that any responsible Minister or, indeed, any man in his senses would disagree with me. They have done and are doing splendid work, and they deserve every encouragement. But I think we ought to look at the matter in its proper perspective.

What is the status of a Territorial association? The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, whom I am sorry not to see present to-day, has been very justly termed the parent of the Territorial Army, and I can assure your Lordships that he is looked upon very much in that capacity by all of us soldiers who have taken and still take an interest in the Territorial Army and also in the organisation of the Army generally. We have the greatest respect for the work that was done by the noble and learned Viscount, and we wish that he had received greater credit and a greater measure of gratitude for all that he accomplished. When the noble and learned Viscount introduced the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill in the House of Commons on March 4, 1907, he said:— This Bill does not confer any powers directly on the associations, but it provides machinery for designing and transferring powers and duties to them, either at once or by degrees and not necessarily all at the same time, and always subject to revocation if necessary. In short, the military committees of the county associations will be, as it were, incorporated administrative officers acting under the directions of the Army Council. I take it, therefore, that the Territorial associations have no authority by Statute except that which is conferred by the Secretary of State acting through the Army Council.

The duties of the Territorial associations, as I see them, are to organise, to administer and to recruit; but not to decide policy. I submit to your Lordships that it is impossible that they should decide policy without disastrous results. Surely the policy of the Territorial Army is wrapped up in the general policy of national defence. Can we have outside bodies interfering in that? Is it not for the Government to decide and, once the Government has decided, is it not for an organisation in the position of the Territorial associations to support loyally and to the very best of their ability the decisions that have been arrived at by the Government?

Coming now to the second point to which I have referred, the effect of these reductions on the Territorial Army, I would ask for what purpose the Territorial Army exists. Here again I would refer to a speech of Lord Haldane, in which he said:— The Army we propose for the Second Line is not an Army to be used on ordinary occasions. It is to be called on only in time of great emergency. Essentially a Home Defence Force, it will be so organised that, should a time of stress come and the Empire be in danger and the spirit of the people roused to meet the emergency, it may be capable of great expansion. Such was the purpose of the Territorial Army in 1907, and such, I submit, is its purpose to-day. That the Territorial Army was able to fulfil this purpose was proved up to the hilt during the War. Its obligations are, roughly, home defence and a capacity of great expansion.

How best, having regard to the economy that is essential at the moment, can the Territorial Army meet those obligations? Its capacity for home defence has been largely increased by the fact that it is now liable for service overseas. History will tell us that we never have defended and never will defend the British Isles by fighting on our own soil. Our defence lies in fighting elsewhere. The Territorial Army must be capable of rapid and great expansion, and to effect that rapid and great expansion we must have a trained nucleus of sufficient strength to provide the officers, non-commissioned officers and experts who will be required to train and instruct those who join up in the case of emergency and to officer and provide the personnel for the new units that may be created. What we really want are: (1) a force large enough to give training facilities to such a number of officers and non-commissioned officers as would be required immediately on expansion; (2) a sufficiently long period of training for these officers and non-commissioned officers; and (3)—and this is very important—a definite scheme for expansion, well thought out and communicated to those who would have to put it into practice. So far as I know, the third of these requirements is not in existence.

I come now to the question of the bounty. I disagree with a great deal that has been said on this matter. I do not believe that the Territorial soldier that we require ever joined for the bounty. I give him credit for much higher ideals than that. Men joined, in my experience, some of them because they liked soldiering and could not get it in any other way, some from a sense of patriotism or a sense of duty and others for social reasons, but I do not believe that any number of them joined for the bounty, and I feel bound to add that when the bounty was introduced after the War the effect of the £5 at that time was to invite into the ranks of the Territorial Army a certain number of men who were in no way fitted, qualified or suitable for service in that Force and whom it eventually became necessary to get rid of again. I say that the bounty does not attract them, and if you can save money on the bounty it ought to be put into some form of proficiency pay. This point was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe. It is a most important one. We want a large number of highly trained men, and we must encourage them to qualify themselves. A man, to gain the standard of proficiency and efficiency, must spend a certain amount of his own money, and we want to give him proficiency pay in order to recoup him when he is out of pocket.

I would like now to refer to what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Haldane. He seemed to assume that there still existed, on the part of the Regular officer and Regular soldier, an idea that the Territorial was much beneath them. I can assure the noble Viscount that whatever feeling of that sort existed at the commencement of the War had entirely disappeared within two months. I would almost say to the noble Viscount that he shared with us the opinion that the Territorial would take a certain period to qualify himself as an efficient soldier. I think, if I speak from recollection of the rules laid down, it was thought that the Territorial Army would take six months in which to prepare itself. Within two months or so many of those units were fighting on Belgian soil in the first Battle of Ypres, and those reinforcements were not only welcomed, but, I venture to believe, they did much to enable us to get through that very trying period. I stand by the Territorial through thick and thin. I have a very high opinion of him, and I think that the majority of them would say to me, as many of them have said, that any feeling between the Territorial officer and soldier and the Regular officer and soldier that ever did exist, has completely gone to-day. They meet on the best of terms and are true comrades.

There is only one other point to which I am anxious to refer. I do not agree at all with the suggestion that the Director-General of the Territorial Army should have a seat on the Army Council. I do not think it would tend to efficiency. I think, on the other hand, it would tend to a separation of the interests of the Territorial Army and of the Regular Army. What we do require is that the Director-General of the Territorial Army should be brought under the Chief of the Imperial General Staff. This would bring about real co-ordination between the Territorial Army and the Regular Army. Lord Haldane said that the Director-General is under the Adjutant-General. That is not the case. He is under the Under-Secretary of State for War, and so is prevented from direct access to the military members of the Council. That is not a sound arrangement.

LORD TEMPLEMORE

My Lords, this debate comes at a peculiarly inopportune moment after the debate which was initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp. It proves, if proof were needed, that the way of the economist is a difficult one. He asked for economies, but the moment you touch anything in which any one is interested the cry at once goes up that it is a most monstrous proposal, and you should begin saving in some other direction. That is only natural, but all the same I think we owe a debt of gratitude to Lord O'Hagan for raising this question, and I think we should congratulate him upon having raised a debate of such great interest. The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, and a good many of the noble Lords who followed him, have devoted a certain amount of time to the alleged bad treatment, or otherwise, of the Territorial associations by the War Office. I am not going into that matter. It has already been dealt with by my noble friend the Under-Secretary for War.

I propose to devote the few remarks which I intend to make to the vexed question of the abolition of the bounty, and the effect which I think it will have upon the Territorial Army. I do not think that the noble Lord, if he will allow me to say so, or other speakers, have quite done justice to the difficult position in which the War Office was placed. As I understand the position, they suddenly had a demand for certain large economies. The abolition of the bounty means a saving of about £64,000 this year, rising to about £332,000 in a few years' time. How is the money to be saved? Of course the War Office might have said that the Territorial Army is to bear none of this saving at all. In that case I do not really see how they could have raised this sum of money without the abolition or amalgamation of certain Regular Cavalry and Infantry units, which I do not think would have given pleasure to a certain number of noble Lords on this side of the House. Or they might have said that the Territorial Army was to bear its share of the economies.

Various suggestions have been thrown out as to what economies might have been made. Lord O'Hagan had a suggestion to reduce the period for training camps. He said that it was no longer absolutely vetoed by the military advisers. Speaking as a Territorial officer, I say that the Territorial Army would view with dissatisfaction anything of the kind. I do not think the noble Lord is still serving as a Territorial officer, but I can tell him that the period of training is now all too short for the very technical and varied training which the modern soldier has to undergo. Then we had a proposal from the noble Lord who resumed the debate, Lord Denman, that you might either do away with the Brigadiers or get officers to do their work for less pay. The position is that there are, I think, 42 Infantry Brigadiers, 14 C.R.As., and 14 C.R.Es.B. These Brigadiers receive, I believe, £940 per annum, out of which they have to pay the expenses of their office. They are all of the rank of full Colonel, they are highly trained, and I think it is necessary you should have them and should not reduce their pay. If you had retired officers to do their work for less pay, I think the training would suffer. I do not think it would be a good economy.

What economies, then, were to be made? As I see it, the War Office had three courses which they might have taken. They might have abolished or amalgamated the units, or they might have reduced the establishments of Infantry battalions, or they might, as they did, have taken away the bounty. Speaking as a Territorial officer I think the course pursued was the best one, and I do not think that about ten per cent., which is the share which the Territorial Army has to bear of these economies, is an undue proportion to ask from it. As to the effect that this abolition of the bounty is likely to have, about three weeks ago there was a debate in another place on the matter in which a great many officers in close touch with the Territorial Army took part and various opinions were expressed. Some officers were very pessimistic; others went perhaps to the other extreme. But I was exceedingly struck by a speech by the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, Colonel Lambert Ward, in which he said that he did not think this proposal would do much harm, and that, as regards his own unit, he did not think he would lose a single man by it

As some of your Lordships may know, Colonel Lambert Ward commands the Honourable Artillery Company, and it may be said—and I rather agree—that that is not a typical Territorial unit. But the hon. and gallant Member went on to say something else which is much more important. He said that the question whether this reduction was loyally accepted or not depended almost entirely on the attitude of commanding and other officers. In this I heartily agree with him. I belong to a battalion in the Hampshire Infantry Brigade, and I imagine that that, with the other three battalions of the Brigade, is probably a fair specimen of a Territorial Infantry unit. I think that this proposal probably at first will do a certain amount of harm in recruiting and probably more in re-engagement; but I am perfectly convinced, as was said in another place, that the harm that the proposals will do or otherwise depends, as so many things in the Army do depend, on the attitude of the officers. If they go about encouraging their men to think that they have got a grievance against the War Office then the situation will be very serious indeed. If, on the other hand, they do, as I am sure they will do, point out that a man joins the Territorial Army as a patriotic duty, and not for what he can get out of it, then I think the effect will be very largely minimised.

I am quite aware that in every unit there is probably a certain percentage of men who join for what they can get out of the Territorial Army, but I do not think they are in the majority. The average man joins the Territorial Army because he thinks he is performing a patriotic duty, and he re-engages because he likes his battalion, and likes the time in camp. In this connection I should like to quote some words of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, who, I see, is not in his place, which he used in the debate on July 22, 1925, when he said that the working classes of this country were much like anybody else, and were moved by patriotism and high feeling. In this I absolutely agree with him, and I think it will be found to be the case in this particular matter.

I should like to refer to one matter which I think is of great importance, and that is the feeling between the War Office, the Regular Army and the Territorials. It has been hinted, and, indeed, I think more than hinted in another place, that the officers of the Regular Army dislike or are indifferent to the Territorial Army. I should like to join the noble and gallant Lord on the Cross Benches (Lord Horne) in saying that I absolutely disagree with that view. When I spoke in this House on December 1 last I said how well I thought the War Office had treated my unit during our last training in camp, in the way they sent people to instruct us. I think, if a feeling of this kind gets about, it does incalculable harm, and I should like to make my strongest protest and say that I do not think any feeling of the kind exists. I am sure that in the War Office there is no feeling of dislike of or indifference towards the Territorial Army. It is recognised now that you have to treat the Territorial Army as a serious Force, and I am quite sure that this is realised not only by the Army Council and the responsible officers in the War Office, but also by the Generals in the Commands and the junior officers of the Army.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

My Lords, while not minimising in the least the very serious effects of this abolition of the bounty, I agree with the noble Lord on the Cross Benches, and I am sufficiently optimistic not to take such a gloomy view of its effects on the Territorial Force and upon recruiting for it as some speakers, and many people outside who have written in the newspapers, have taken. When the bounty was instituted on the reconstitution of the Territorial Force in 1920 many of us doubted the wisdom of it: there had not been a bounty before. In 1922 it was cut down from £5 to £3 and the same fears were expressed that this would have a fatal effect, but nothing very adverse happened. Now that it is going to be taken away altogether I grant that there will be some reaction and it may temporarily affect recruiting, but I do not think that it will for long.

I have been for nearly twenty-seven years closely connected with Volunteers and Territorials, and I can hardly recollect any change during that time that has been brought in by the War Office about which a prophecy has not been made that it would be very detrimental to the Territorial Force. The Force, however, has survived, in spite of it, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, that when you consider that the Regular Army has been cut to the bone we Territorials have got off lightly, seeing that the cut is only £96,000 out of £1,000,000—I believe the total War Office cut comes to £1,000,000. One tenth is not an undue proportion for the Territorial Force to bear in these hard times, when there is not enough money to go round. I agree with some noble Lord who said that if there is money available at any time it would be most advantageous if the War Office could restore the £1 for proficiency pay, which was in existence before the War. If there were money available I am sure it would be well worth the Secretary of State's while to think of it, and, I hope, to put it into practice.

I do not quite agree with a noble Lord who spoke before me who considered that the best way of economising would be cutting down the number of days in camp. We know that the fourteen days in camp is considered to be necessary by the General Staff. But this year we hope that there may be more industrial activity in the country, and it may be more convenient for employers and men to have a shorter period in camp. I believe that the cost of the Territorial Army in camp is £50,000 a day. If you could guarantee the Territorial Army a clear seven or eight days in camp, from Saturday to Saturday—because now there is a lot of time wasted in removing—you would make a good saving in money, and I am not at all sure that the training would suffer very much. However, that is a question for the General Staff.

With regard to the controversy between the War Office and the associations, I have been for many years now the Chairman of an association, and my experience is that the War Office have always treated us very well. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, told us with what great reluctance the Secretary of State and the Army Council had made this cut. Personally, whatever people may write on the subject, I always feel sure that the War Office views the Territorials with the greatest sympathy. The noble and learned Viscount complained also of a want of liaison between the Regulars and the Territorials. I agree with the two previous speakers. In the time that I have been connected with the Territorial Force never have the relations between the two been better. The Artillery and Infantry go into Easter camps and they are welcomed in Aldershot and other places by their kindred units in a way that never happened before the War.

The other point referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Horne, was the question of the Director-General and his position. As he said, some people have proposed that the Director-General should be on the Army Council. I rather think the noble and learned Viscount (Viscount Haldane) expressed approval of that the other night. Personally I agree with Lord Horne as to that. The Directors-General that we have had have always been good friends of the Territorials and have worked very much in sympathy with them and our present one, we all agree, is second to none in the way he has thrown himself into the work of the Territorials. We appreciate very much all the interest he has taken in us. Nevertheless, I was going to suggest what some people will think a heresy and that is that the best way to bring about this liaison between the Territorials and the War Office would be to abolish the office of Director-General altogether.

It sounds a very drastic step but it would short-circuit business. It would save the Director-General's Department. Anything that is brought up to the War Office has to be referred there. I have talked to soldiers in high positions in the country and they have told me that it is not impossible. Instead of the Director-General there would be the associations under the Under Secretary of State, the training would be under the General Staff and certain administration under the Adjutant-General, or whatever the appropriate Department was. I merely throw that out as a suggestion, which no doubt is a very radical one, but perhaps the noble Lord on the Front Bench might consider it. Incidentally I might mention that there would be a saving—I believe a quite considerable saving. I think the total vote for the Territorial Directorate is something over £12,000 a year. You would not save all that, but you would save a considerable amount of it. You would also, I think, get greater efficiency and greater liaison between the two.

What I really got up to say was that my association is prepared to make the best of the situation and to do all it can to make it a success. I have had letters and communications from Commanding Officers to the same effect—that this cut will hit different units in different ways, some more heavily than others; but they are all, I am certain, prepared to do their best to make it a success and will only come and complain if they find that it, has broken down. Personally I have sufficient confidence in the men who compose the Territorial Force to be sanguine that they will, in spite of the loss of £3 a year, continue in the future to give the same public-spirited and loyal service to their country as they have given in the past.

LORD HEMPHILL

My Lords, I think the result of this debate will be, on the whole, satisfactory to the Territorials, because they will be relieved of one great fear, which was that the Army Council and Ministers were not entirely in favour of volunteers and were not prepared to assist and support them. If a feeling gets abroad that that is not the case it will be a great advantage. The two points that appear to me to stand out of this debate are, first, the rather abrupt method in which the associations have been treated by the War Office, and, secondly, the question as to whether there was any necessity to make a cut in the very meagre allowance already made to the Territorial Force. There is also a question whether the Territorial Force was not the last body to which you should have gone in order to economise. I belong to the County of London Association, having been a member of that body since its institution. We have always more or less been struggling for money, sometimes we have had it and sometimes we have not, but we have gone on and have been very successful. The County of London is the largest of the associations and I am afraid it is a body that does not agree with the suggestion that has been made about the bounty. They deplore its abolition very much.

I would like to point out to your Lordships that the members of the County of London Territorial Association, in common I think with the members of other Territorial associations, are economists. The association is composed chiefly of people who are greatly interested in reducing taxation, whether they be military or whether they be civil members. They are all employed in some business or profession and I do not think you could get a body which would more economically administer the money that is entrusted to it. For economical administration I do not think you will find any organisation better than the various Territorial associations throughout the country. If, therefore, they complain there must be some ground for their complaint.

With regard to the shortness of the notice I think it is sufficient to say that the first intimation the Chairman of our association got was when he was invited on February 17 to attend a meeting by the courtesy of the Council of the County Associations. On the 23rd he received a telegram from the War Office by means of which the notice vas sent out summoning the associations. Then on March 2, which was after the cut had been put into force, the Chairman of the association, Mr. Holland Martin, a distinguished banker, wrote at the request of the association a letter of which I propose to read two paragraphs:— At the special meeting referred to I was authorised to acquaint you with the opinion unanimously held and strongly expressed that some intimation of proposals of such vital and far-reaching consequence should, if only in courtesy, have been communicated to this association which administers one tenth of the Territorial Army of the country, at the same time that they were notified to the Council. I was also expressly requested by the meeting, to point out in the most emphatic manner possible that though my association realises that no effective protest can be made now that an Army Order has been issued against the decision to abolish the bounty in the case of men enlisting or reengaging, this decision cannot but have a most detrimental and prejudicial effect upon the units administered by this association. It is in the opinion of my association not only unfair to serving personnel, but will seriously hamper Commanding Officers in their efforts to obtain further recruits for their units. In these circumstances my association feels that a serious obstacle has been placed in the way of recruiting and keeping units up to strength for which duties county associations are by Statute held responsible. That is the view of the County of London Association, which consists of 145 members, including the Mayors of Metropolitan Boroughs, and it expresses very considerably the feeling of the Territorials in London.

It is important that we should realise the position of the Territorials. I do not think, in spite of the speech made by the noble and gallant Lord and by other members here, that the position of the Territorials is quite sufficiently appreciated, but it is no doubt appreciated by the Government and it was a great source of satisfaction to hear the words that were spoken by the Secretary of State for War in the House of Commons when he said:— I can assure the Committee that I am not going to take any risk of permanent harm to the Territorial Army, which is our second line of defence. It is the line from which in the last event, in the event of a great national crisis, additional troops would have to be raised and raised in their own Divisions, not as drafts for the Regular Army but as the sole means of increasing the Fighting Forces of the Crown. The Government have no intention of doing anything which will interfere, obviously and permanently, with recruiting. Those words are very important. They reiterate the policy of past Governments and declare the policy of the present Government with regard to such an important Force as the Territorial Army.

If it is the Force that is going to protect the country when the Regular Army is used for other purposes—and the Regular Army is very small at the present time with about 140,000 men and a very small Reserve behind it—then surely the Territorial Army ought to have more consideration devoted to it by the War Office than at present. Take the establishment of the War Office. It costs £869,000 and out of that the Territorial staff costs £13,000. Yet that is the Force which you have got to rely upon in case of emergency. The noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State expressed grief that he had to propose the cut at all on the Territorials. But his Committee was instituted for the purpose of making a reduction. It had nothing else before it and of course it had to make it. The point is whether you should cut down the very small amount of money you already give.

THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF ONSLOW)

The duty of the Committee to which my noble friend refers was to examine into all possible reductions and to report to the Army Council. It was the Government that took the decision.

LORD HEMPHILL

I agree. Perhaps I misinterpreted the noble Earl. I said it was only with regard to the Territorial Army that his Committee was sitting. It was not sitting to consider the finances of the whole Army or anything else, but only a reduction in the Territorial Army. My point is that it is undesirable to make a reduction at all in the Territorial Army because it has such a small amount of money to deal with. This bounty was given for purposes of efficiency. Nobody got it unless he was efficient, and you take away the inducement which encouraged men to be efficient. I would impress upon the Government that they must do something to encourage the associations and to encourage efficiency. If I might make a suggestion I would say that—no doubt they cannot see their way to reinstate the bounty—they might make a grant to each Territorial association to be used, as these associations think fit, in order to encourage efficiency. I hope the noble Viscount will be able to give the Territorial Army some assurance with regard to that point.

LORD SWANSEA

My Lords, I would not venture to intrude in this debate if I did not think that recent experience of the Territorial Force might be of some value. I have had twenty-six years in various branches of the Territorial Force—live years in the old Volunteers, sixteen years in the Yeomanry, and five years in the Infantry. I know something about recruiting for I also had the privilege of re-raising a Territorial battalion after the War and was commanding it at the time when the bounty was reduced. I know something, then, of the effect of the reduction of bounties already existing. I also had served, since the start of the Territorial Force Associations until three years ago, on the Territorial Association of the County of Glamorgan, which has expressed its opinion that this cut in the bounty is bound to have disastrous effects upon recruiting. I know, from my personal experience, that at the time of the reduction from £5 to £3 the men did feel it very much indeed, not because they joined for the bounty but because they felt it was in some way a slight upon them. As a Commanding Officer I know that the bounty is certainly extremely valuable because it is the only hold you have over the men to make them make themselves efficient. It is a mistake to call it a bounty; it is proficiency pay. I hope there always will be some form of proficiency pay in the Territorial Army.

All the speeches which have preceded mine in this debate have been on cuts that might be made by the Department of the Secretary of State for War. I wish to make the point, which has already been admitted in this House, in the debate on National Expenditure, by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, that the Services of the country are already cut below the safe point. It is the system of insisting upon cuts which is bringing danger to the Territorial Force. The Secretary of State, in another place, said that he was faced with a dilemma. He had to cut the Territorial Army by a large amount last year and he was faced with a problem of finding substitute cuts for the present year. He also said it might be necessary in another year to make a further cut by way of reduction of establishment. The Secretary of State is rather in the position, if I might put it in a rather homely simile, of an under-gardener who has an order to do some pruning, which I am perfectly certain he must feel is pruning dangerously near the lowest bud. He knows that, if he is going to prune next year below that bud, he is going to destroy the plant altogether. Meanwhile, the garden in which this valuable plant exists is being choked by plants put in during the War, which are throwing up suckers in all directions and choking out valuable plants. A mention was made in the debate on Expenditure of these new Ministries. There is a plant—let us call it the Ministeria nigra. There is another plant called the Ministeria transportia which might have the common name of the Creeping Traveller's joy. Then there is Ministeria operanda sanguinea. These plants, I think, do not require a knife, they require a spade.

It was said in the course of the debate by the noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, that there was no greater fallacy than to do sums when you were discussing questions of economy. Well, if you did not do sums in business you would very soon have to put up the shutters. The Marquess of Salisbury also deprecated the use of figures, but he did use a certain number of figures which showed that some of the increases were due to the extra work falling on staffs. He referred to the increased percentages which had to be put on for the cost of living and so on. Although he deprecated the use of figures I think he used figures which rather made one think that if it took one man to multiply ten by ten it might take ten men to multiply ten by 100. In business we have had a very large amount of extra work, which is due to insurance and that sort of thing, put on staffs and if the staffs of businesses were increased the businesses would no longer exist. I have taken out some figures, but I will not weary your Lordships with them except to this extent. I have taken out the figures for the last pre-War year, 1913–14, as compared with the last complete year 1925–26, which include Supplementary Estimates, and I find that the Army has increased by 57 per cent., the Navy has increased by 24 per cent., and the Territorial Army has increased by 17 per cent.

VISCOUNT PEEL

Is that increase in cost or in numbers?

LORD SWANSEA

Those are estimates of cost. The Navy stands very low, but the Territorial Force is a long way the lowest. If you compare these with the increase in the same period in what are now called the Social Services—for comparison I have excluded the War Pensions and also the large coal mining subsidy—you will find the increase in the Social Services comes to 189 per cent. So you see the Social Services have increased out of all proportion to the Active Services. When it comes to business it is the back areas which should be cut and not the front line. I remember at the end of the War, when I was commanding a battalion, that another battalion before going into line had a draft of 150 bakers sent from Rouen, the bakery having been taken over by women. I mention that to show that when it comes to real business it is the back areas and not the front line or the support line which has to be cut.

At the last General Election there was no demand at all for economy which would affect the Services. There was a very urgent demand for economy in what may be called superfluous bureaucracy. Three main items stood out at the last General Election. One was the demand for freedom from the tyranny of trade unions, the second that there should be freedom from superfluous bureaucracy, and the third that there should be freedom from Communism. I think it will be a very unpopular thing, this cut in the Active Services as against a cut in the Social Services. There is an increasing amount of responsible opinion in this country which looks to this Government to make its cuts in the right place, and which thinks that if this Government cannot do it no Government ever will be able to do it. It is a very disturbing line of thought, and I hope that whatever may be done proficiency pay will be retained and cuts made in the Social Services instead. I put it to His Majesty's Government that they would receive better value for their money if, instead of cutting a bounty which is given to men to make themselves efficient in the service of their country, they cut the bounty so lavishly given for doing nothing at all.

THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL)

My Lords, there is a certain irony, as my noble friend Lord Templemore observed, in the fact that this debate on the Territorials should be intertwined, as it were, with the general economy debate. We received in the general debate on Expenditure very fine exhortations from such eminent members of the House as the Earl of Oxford and Earl Beauchamp recommending us with all their force and vehemence to make reductions, not in the Social Services as my noble friend suggests but especially in the Defence Services. I thought that when this debate came on the controversial swords of these two eminent men would have leapt from their scabbards to avenge any insult put upon the Government for having tried in some respects to reduce expenditure. But alas! they are silent, they are not even here, and the Government have to bear the burden of economy alone.

I must say that the moment any economy of any kind is suggested, any reduction of Expenditure, we have had in a two days' debate hardly anybody, except one or two like my noble friend behind me, to support the Government. The Government alone have to bear the burden and the odium of any practical application of those sentiments of which we hear so much and which are so freely dispensed in this House and elsewhere. I will be very brief, as time is running out, but I wish to say a few words—because in this matter I have a good deal of personal experience—on the suspected attitude of the War Office to the Territorial Force. Unfortunately, running through this debate there has been suspicion—suspicion reflected in letters sent to newspapers and in other ways—that there is some curious dark hostility between the War Office and the Territorial Force. There was before the War, I will not say hostility but a very different condition of things. I never resented it. I will not say the Territorials were treated as if they were very inferior. I felt as a Territorial that the Regulars regarded us—no doubt justly in their eyes—as mere amateurs. I was a Commanding Officer at the time when War broke out and I did regret what happened then.

We all know what a great man Earl Kitchener was, but he had not great experience of the administration of the War Office and I think he was totally ignorant of the Territorial Force. We found our organisation, which had been carefully built up by years and years of work, set aside as if it was of no importance—although on it a new Army could easily have been built up—and a wholly rival organisation competing with us. I speak as a very humble Colonel of a Yeomanry Regiment. I was deliberately hampered in everything I did because I had to meet the competition of a new Army. I could not even get nails for my horses because they were wanted for the new Army, started in competition, when one might well have been founded on the existing organisation. But of course, as the noble Lord who speaks with so much authority has said, the War has changed all that.

I can bear testimony because for three years from the beginning of 1922 I was Under-Secretary of the War Office, in the same position as my noble friend, and I was also Chairman of the Reconstruction Committee which had the duty of building up the whole Territorial Force from the start. Accordingly I am very familiar with all the details and with the attitude of eminent soldiers towards them. I can only say that we received every help, kindness and assistance from the leading soldiers. Their position was that they regarded the Territorial Force as an integral part of the Defence Forces of this country, and I met with none of that depreciation and suspicion that has been alluded to, during all the years that I was in the War Office. After all, the test is: What was done? First of all, as everbody knows, the Territorial Force accepted the obligation for foreign service. They were advanced from the Third Line to the Second Line and, if they went abroad, they were to go, not as drafts, but as units. These things were all assented to and promoted by the eminent soldiers on the Army Council, and it seems to me ludicrous to suggest any feeling of suspicion or depreciation among those great soldiers towards the Territorial Force. So much for that feeling, which, as I say, is non-existent.

Since I am dealing with the War Office organisation, let me add that I have always been strongly opposed to the plan of putting the Director-General on the Army Council, for two very good reasons. The principal reason is that it entirely cuts through the whole organisation of the Army Council to have one man representing the Territorials, another dealing with armaments, another, the Quartermaster-General, dealing with supplies and another, the Adjutant-General, dealing with discipline. You would have a man representing Territorials and Territorials alone, opposed, as it were, to the other members of the Army Council. He would be bound merely to represent particular views on the Army Council, and would not have, as he would otherwise have, the whole interest and support of the other members. I am equally opposed, if I may say so, to the abolition of the Director-General, because, after all, he is the officer to whom the Territorial Force look as an administrator and to whom they can go when they are in difficulty. I should be very sorry if that post were abolished.

I understand that the suggestion has arisen that the Territorial associations have been treated in this matter with some lack of kindness or courtesy. It has reduced itself, I think, to a question of manners rather than anything more substantial. But I do wish to correct an error of the noble Lord, Lord Hemphill, about the Committee of which Lord Onslow was Chairman. That Committee had not to make any sort of decisions as to reductions in the Territorial Force. They had only to examine the question beforehand, so as to be ready, if anything happened, to say what sort of reductions could possibly be made and in what order they could be made so as to do the least injury to the Territorial Force itself. There was nothing decided and, in consequence, nothing to put before the Territorial associations. I am bound to say, looking at the whole business—and I have done so very carefully—as an outsider, that it seems to me that the influence exercised by the Territorial associations was very considerable. I admit that they had rather a short period in which to discuss these matters, but my noble friend has explained—and anybody who knows how Estimates are prepared will sympathise with the War Office—that it was not until a late stage that it was possible to say what economies would be necessary. The associations had considerable influence, and I understand that it was owing to the pressure that they exercised and to appreciation of their arguments by the Secretary of State that any question of the reduction of establishments was put aside. It is impossible for them to suggest that they were flouted and that their views did not receive attention, because in this most important respect, the reduction of establishments, their views were fully met by the Secretary of State.

I have listened very carefully to all the suggestions made. When an economy has to be made everybody has his own economy, everybody says that the suggestions made are directed to the wrong place and that the economy should be made somewhere else. That seems to be a kind of natural law of debates on economy. I have seen all that has been said in another place and in this House, and I will only observe that no two noble Lords and no two Members of Parliament seem to have agreed upon the economy that should be made. If you had had a Committee of these Peers and Members, they would not have agreed for months on the particular economies to be made. I will not go through them, because my noble friend has dealt with them most severely, but supposing that an economy had been suggested in the form of telescoping the two London Divisions and saving £114,000, it is easy to imagine the just indignation with which noble Lords would have risen in this House and asked us to do anything but reduce establishments and telescope Divisions. They would have said: "Take away the bounty if you like, but leave the two great London Divisions intact." That would have been the sort of criticism that we should have heard.

The fact is that all the suggestions made by the county associations and others have been fully examined by the War Office, but all of them, I think, except those terrible suggestions for crushing Divisions together and reducing units, have been shown to be insufficient, because those who made them do not realise that we must have economies which can be realised during three or four years and be set against the large increase of expenditure that will gradually accrue on account of the using up of materials and munitions during the next few years. No economy operating only for one year was of any value. I, for one, as an ex-Territorial—at present, I am afraid, I am only an honorary Colonel of Territorials—am glad that it has not been necessary to cut down these units, but is possible to leave them intact, so that it is possible to say that in these times of difficulty the Territorial Army has not been in any way injured or altered. Assuming that economy was necessary—and we all know that some reduction of Expenditure had to be made—we had to find the reduction that would do the least harm. It has been pointed out that there was no injustice as between the Territorials and the Regular Army. I congratulate the War Office, indeed, since they had to make these reductions, on having so nicely balanced them between the Estimates for the Regular Army and for the Territorials, and on the way in which the money taken over was not lost to the Territorials but was returned to them in another way which, we hope, will make them as efficient as, or more efficient than, they were before.

The only point left, I think, is the question of the effect of the abolition of the bounty upon recruiting, and on that we have had, as naturally we expected, a very great difference of opinion. The Colonel of my own unit had very melancholy feelings about it. It is natural that it should be so, and I am bound to say also—I am speaking more particularly from the country side rather than from the town side—that any alteration in terms or allowances or so on, is always bad for the Territorial Force, because it upsets a little, it is a change, and the agricultural mind does not move rapidly in the matter of change. When an alteration is made they generally use language about the War Office which it would not be proper for me to repeat in this House. I entirely agree, however, with what the noble Lord said about recruiting—the motives which induce men to enlist—and if I may speak from my own experience, I should say that while at first some slight shock will be caused by the change, very soon everybody will accommodate themselves to the new conditions. Knowing the influence of Territorial officers, if they throw themselves into the matter and say to their men: "This sacrifice has been called for by the general conditions of the country; you are reasonable and intelligent men, and I am sure you will assist, play up to and work for the Government," then I am not very much afraid about anything which may happen to the Territorial Force.

There are just two points more. I was asked whether I could make any statement about any arrangement for proficiency pay, or something in lieu of the bounty. I am not in a position to make any statement, but I know that the question of proficiency pay is occupying the attention of the Secretary of State. I also know very well that there is no part of his duty to which the Secretary of State is more devoted than the question of the Territorial Army, and I do not honestly think—and this may be a comfort to my noble friend who introduced the debate, which has ranged very widely and most thoroughly canvassed the whole question of the Force—that there is introduced any real question of any risk or danger for the Territorial Force. It has shown not only that it has such a number of powerful spokesmen and supporters in this House and in another place, but that it has, as it were, now established itself deep in the national consciousness, and that the people of this country realise that they have in the Territorial Force a magnificent asset. Even if there were destroyers at the War Office, and people were animated by the sort of motive attributed to my noble friend the Under-Secretary for War, I do not think that that would much avail, because the feeling of the country for the Territorials is so strong that it would, I am sure, easily overpower any machinations of my noble friend Lord Onslow, and the country would recognise the vast importance of the Territorial Force to the safety of the country.

LORD O'HAGAN

My Lords, before I ask leave to withdraw my Motion I should like to pay a tribute to the manner in which my noble friend has dealt with this question to-night. He is an old Parliamentary hand, and I only wish that I had that power of placing matters before your Lordships' House which he has displayed in dealing with my Motion. He made great play on the subject of the economy debate which took place in this House two days ago. He also occupied a certain amount of time in dealing with a subject which, I venture to think, in the minds of most who have taken part in this debate, is a matter to which too much attention has not been paid. That is with regard to the suggested antagonism between the Regular Army and Regular officers at the War Office and the Territorial Army. I think those of us who have been concerned with the Territorial Army since the War are well aware of the fact that, whether or not something of the sort existed before the War, since the War we have received the greatest possible help from Regular officers up and down the country, and from those serving at the War Office. I should like to say one word with regard to the speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Horne. If I may respectfully say so, I should like to emphasise how much those of us who are concerned with the Territorial Army welcome the very clear and encouraging speech which he made this evening. I think it will be a source of strength to many of us who are concerned in raising the Territorial Army if his speech can be quoted up and down the country, to show the position which in his opinion the Territorial Force does and should hold in the country.

My noble friend who spoke last has told us that he is unable to make a statement to-night with regard to the suggestion, put forward not only by myself but by many noble Lords in the course of the debate, as to the possibility of a grant in some form of proficiency pay. I can only hope that the Secretary of State, who he tells us is considering the matter at the present time, will be able to see his way to grant some form of proficiency pay on the lines which have been suggested. But if anything of this sort is to be done I would urge most emphatically upon the Under-Secretary of State that it should be done at once, or at the earliest possible moment. I do not wish at this late hour to go into many of the topics which I feel very tempted to go into, as a result of the speech of Lord Peel, but I would urge that, as a real practical outcome of this debate, if as is clear some form of proficiency pay is still engaging the attention of the Secretary of State—I would urge, with all the emphasis I can, on behalf I think I might almost say of the Council of the Associations, that it should be dealt with quickly and at once. Whatever may be the result of the withdrawal of the bounty on recruiting, whatever may be the outcome of the way in which this matter and the associations have been treated, a great deal of the ill-effects, and of the criticisms that have been made up and down the country, will be mitigated if, in the event of anything being done in this direction, it is done at the earliest possible moment.

I can only conclude by saying that the remark made by Lord Lucan, with regard to the attitude of his association towards the carrying on of their duties expresses precisely the attitude which I am convinced every association up and down the country takes in this matter. It is that however much you may feel justified, as I still feel justified, in saying that resentment is felt by the associations at the way in which they have been treated in this matter, the Government may rest assured that, so far as the associations are concerned, they will do their utmost to fulfil the duties that Parliament has placed upon them. I can only hope, as another outcome of this discussion, that my noble friend and the War Office will see their way to correct the impression—which they have told us is a misapprehension—that has arisen as a result of the way the matter has been conducted, that the associations will not be taken into counsel in dealing with important questions such as these concerning the Territorial Army in future.

As we all know, under the Act under which these associations were created they were definitely given the duty of advising the Secretary of State on this matter, and I would suggest that, when he is faced with the necessity of dealing with matters of the complexity and importance of the reductions that are proposed to be effected this year, he should not wait and give only twelve days to consider a matter of this kind, but the broad lines and principles upon which economies are in future to be effected should be arrived at in consultation with the county associations. In that way—and it is perfectly possible to do it, as I am sure my noble friend would admit—you would not give the impression that has been given to the associations, and which has been given expression to in the Press and elsewhere. I can only hope that this debate has been of some use, and that it will lead to two practical results—(1) a closer relation and consultation between the county associations, whether through the Central Council or more directly, and the War Office, and (2) and more immediately, that the Secretary of State and the Government will see their way to give some form of proficiency pay to Territorials serving at the present time.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.