§ 4.55 p.m.
§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH)My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Your Lordships, I know, are familiar with the objects of the Bill, which have already been fully explained in the debate in another place. I shall therefore at the outset state only briefly the main intention of the Bill, which is to give effect to the undertaking given by the Prime Minister in another place on January 29, that legislation would be introduced to enable certain categories of officers and men with previous experience in the Forces to be recalled for training. The three Services are not, of course, affected by the provisions of this Bill to anything like the same extent in each case. The Admiralty do not propose, under the provisions of this Bill, to call up for training any of their reservists. The Navy is faced with the problem of manning additional ships of the reserve Fleet, and keeping in commission as many ships as possible of the active Fleet. 1074 The Army and the Royal Air Force, on the other hand, are vitally concerned with all the provisions of this Bill. May I in the first place take the Army, and indicate the measure of their man-power interest?
The Army is faced with the problem of strengthenening the active Army, and also of building up its reserve formations. As the House is aware, we intend to have the equivalent of ten divisions in existence by April of this year. In the event of an emergency, these divisions will require certain non-divisional, corps and army supporting arms, and administrative troops which they now lack and which, when supplied, would transform them from a number of separate formations into an Army. To provide these supporting arms and administrative troops, it is proposed to recall up to 115,000 officers and men to be trained to fill these rôles. This proposal has been criticised because it does nothing at this stage to strengthen our formations overseas. I would say to your Lordships however that it is quite wrong to imagine that as a result of the steps that are now proposed the state of readiness of the corps and army troops will not be improved. A proportion of the corps and army units which would be required in the theatres overseas after a mobilisation will receive reservists this year, and as a result such units will undoubtedly be more efficient if they are called on to mobilise. Moreover, it must not be forgotten that our formations over-seas have already begun to be strengthened by the extension from eighteen months to two years of Colour Service by National Service men. The training and efficiency of Anti-Aircraft Command—so vital to the defence of this country-—must also be improved, and it is therefore proposed to recall for training this year up to 40.000 officers and men with previous experience in anti-aircraft units.
It is further necessary to strengthen the reserve divisions, comprising Territorial Army personnel. Recruitment to the Territorial Army has gone steadily forward since it was reopened in 1947. The material is good, I am glad to say, but the numbers will require supplementing in an emergency. Moreover, the flow of National Service men into the Territorial Army after completion of their Colour Service has hardly begun, and the extension of the period" of Colour Service from 1075 eighteen months to two years has automatically had the effect of suspending the intake till April next. The Army's plans for the strengthening of the Territorial Army this summer are based on the recall of some 80,000 officers and men to Territorial Army units.
Turning now to the Royal Air Force, the chief man-power problem to which the present Bill is addressed is the need to train personnel of the control and reporting organisation. To meet this need, up to 10,000 airmen are being recalled, together with a few hundred officers released since the last war. The personnel of the twenty fighter squadrons of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, numbering some 2,300, are also being recalled for periods of refresher training lasting three months. These squadrons will be trained for part of the three months alongside a regular day squadron at a fighter station, and will also complete a period of gunnery training. It is hoped that it will be possible for the remainder of the three months to be spent at the squadron's local airfield. In addition, up to a thousand officers and men who have received training in air crew duties are to be recalled—also for three months—for refresher training, with the object of fitting them for service in an emergency as reinforcements in Fighter Command. A further 200 will be required for up to eighteen months as instructors. It is hoped that the R.A.F.'s requirements for these air crew personnel will be met as far as possible from volunteers.
May I turn now to the clauses of the Bill itself? Clause 1 details the classes of persons who are liable to be called up in 1951, and describes the services which they may be called upon to perform in the United Kingdom. Regular Army Reserve officers, the Territorial Army Reserve of officers and the emergency commissioned officers at present have no liability for training. The Regular reservists who are being recalled have a liability for training, but only for twelve days in the year, and they have not in fact been called up for such training since the recent war ended. We therefore propose in this Bill to provide for them the same period of training as the reservists with whom they will be serving. The great majority of those being recalled by the Army—Class Z men released under the Armed Forces (Conditions of Service) 1076 Act, 1939—have no training liability. None of the R.A.F. officers and men who are liable to be recalled for fifteen days have a liability for training, except the men of the Air Force Reserve, who, like the Army Reserve, have a liability to do twelve days' training in a year. The officers and men whom it is proposed to call up for three months' or up to eighteen months' training have a liability for continuous training, but for not more than fifteen days in any one year.
The call-up procedure is detailed in Clause 2, and is on lines similar to that worked out for the call-up of National Service men, for training lasting six days or longer during their periods of part-time service under the National Service Acts. There are, however, one or two differences to which I would draw attention. The period of notice has been decreased from thirty to twenty-one days. It will not be possible, in respect of the first periods of training, after the passing of this Bill, to give longer statutory notice than this. Generally speaking, however, those who are recalled later on will get very much longer notice than this. Further, it has to be remembered that, in addition to this statutory notice, all those who are being recalled will have had a warning notice. The warning notice sent by the War Office will have given the month, and in the majority of cases the precise period for which the man will be required for training. The R.A.F., with their rather different requirements, have been able to be even more accommodating, and they offer a choice of dates from which those being called up can indicate which will be most convenient for them.
It is recognised that some of those to be called up may face undue hardship in complying with the call-up for training, and arrangements have been made for applications for exemption on hardship grounds to be considered by special branches that are being set up in the War Office and Air Ministry. Arrangements have similarly been made for applications from those who may be unwilling to comply with their notice, on grounds of conscientious objection, to be considered by one or other of the tribunals which have been set up to deal with such applications for registration as conscientious objectors under the National Service Acts. Men will become aware, on receipt of the warning notice, that it is open to 1077 them to make objection on conscientious grounds. Provision is made in the clause for the punishment of those who fail to respond to a training notice, it being made clear that it will be a defence for anybody who fails to turn up to show that he had applied, on receipt of the warning notice, to be exempted and had not been informed chat his application had been refused. Where a person without reasonable excuse fails to answer a training notice, it is obviously undesirable that such a person should be able to escape his training obligations. Provision has accordingly been made in the clause for the Service authorities to be able to serve another training notice on such a person, should they desire to do so.
Special arrangements, as detailed in Clause 3, have been made for the medical examination of those who are being called up for fifteen days' training. This medical examination will be arranged some weeks before training is due to begin, and those who are found medically unfit will not be required to present themselves for training at all. The system of medical boards—over ninety of them, covering the whole country—set up by the Minister of Labour under the provisions of the National Service Act, 1948, will be used to examine those called up for fifteen days under this Bill. Extra boards will be set up when the necessity arises, and men called up should not experience any real difficulty in attending for medical examination. Considerable thought has also been given to the need for ensuring that those called up for medical examination are given sufficient notice of the date of their examination. During the debates in another place, an assurance was given—an assurance which I wish to reiterate here to-day—that no man will receive less than seven days' notice. As a further safeguard, it has been made clear in the clause that there can be no conviction for failure to comply with the medical notice unless the court is satisfied that the period of notice was reasonable having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
Clause 4 deals with the release of persons called up under the Bill. The maximum period of service for which persons can be held after their arrival at the place of training is detailed in the table in Clause 1, less a reasonable period of travelling time to and from the place 1078 of training. It is recognised that some people who are recalled may turn up late, and provision has been made in this clause to deal with such cases. The Service authorities—in practice the officer in charge of the unit—will have to decide within twenty-four hours of the arrival of the man either to accept him for training or to send him home again. In the latter event, the Service authorities will have to decide whether they wish to call him up for training on another occasion. If so, they will have to serve another notice upon him. Clause 5, in addition to providing for the framing of regulations to cover such matters as the discipline and pay of those called up, provides that persons called up under the Bill will be subject either to the Army Act or the Air Force Act during their period of training, but not when travelling to and from such training.
The penalty for inching those called up, or liable to be called up, under this Bill to evade their obligations is provided for in Clause 6, and is a re-statement of the existing law found in the Incitement to Disaffection Act. 1934, so far as that Act applies to persons affected by this Bill. I should make it clear that the inclusion of this clause is not intended to increase in any way the restrictions on freedom of speech. The reason for the inclusion of this clause is quite simple. It seemed desirable, now that we are proposing to recall for training a number of class Z reservists—members of His Majesty's Forces, though frequently not so regarded in the popular mind—substantially to embody in a single statutory provision the existing law relating to the incitement of members of His Majesty's Forces. This does not mean that previous enactments on this subject are repealed. It does mean, however, that where this clause covers the same ground as. or conflicts with, any earlier law, we shall proceed under this clause.
Part II of the Bill protects the civil interests of those who are called up. Clause 7 honours the undertaking given by the Prime Minister that those called up for fifteen days' training under the Bill would be given the same protection against loss of employment or holidays on account of their training as is enjoyed by National Service men summoned for training during their part-time service. Clause 8 applies the provisions of the 1079 Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act, 1950, and thus gives reinstatement rights to persons liable to be called up for periods of three months' training or eighteen months' flying instructor duties under the Bill (as distinct from periods of fifteen days' training) who are called up or who volunteer for such training or duties. The protection afforded by this clause is further extended to those naval officers who volunteer for eighteen months' service after January 29, the date on which the Prime Minister made his statement in another place. This clause will also make it an offence for an employer to dismiss any of these men, before they begin their service, by reason of their liability to be called up or because they have volunteered for service.
Part III of the Bill deals with two quite distinct matters. Clause 11 ensures that if a class Z or comparable reservist is discharged from his reserve obligations in order to join an Auxiliary Force, and is subsequently discharged from that Auxiliary Force, his obligations as a Z reservist will revive. The object of this clause is to ensure that no Z reservist shall evade his obligations in an emergency by joining an Auxiliary Force and thereafter purchase his discharge.
Clause 12 provides that Part I of the Bill (relating to the calling up of persons for training) can be extended, by Order-in-Council, on an Address presented by both Houses, to the years 1952–54. Whether such an extension will, in fact, be necessary cannot be decided at this stage. As my right honourable friend the Minister of Defence explained during the Report stage of the Bill in another place, this measure is, to a large extent, an experiment. We all hope that it will prove a success, and we are taking every step we can to make it so. But it may be that the Government's military advisers will wish to suggest that in the light of our experience this year more should be done. In such circumstances we consider that the wise course is to take powers in the Bill to extend, by Order-in-Council, the present scheme as it stands. Naturally, if it were found in 1952 that a modified scheme was necessary, the Government would introduce a Bill making such changes in the present scheme as were required. In any event, whether the present scheme has to be extended or not, the assurance given by the Minister of 1080 Defence still stands: that anybody who has been called up for training this year will not be called up for training in any subsequent year.
With this rather brief explanation of what is a fairly lengthy and important Bill, I should like to commend the measure to the House. It was said by one of the Front Bench Opposition spokesmen in another place that the Bill had been much improved down there in the course of debate, and there was not much disagreement at the close of it. I hope, therefore, that the Bill as it now stands, having regard to the purpose it has in view, will meet with your Lordships' approval. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough.)
§ 5.15 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READINGMy Lords, I hope the noble Viscount will forgive me for saying that I find myself overtaken by a certain breathlessness as a result of listening to his opening of this debate. But I hope I can sufficiently collect myself to say that His Majesty's Government may rely upon us to support the main purpose of the Bill as a measure devised for the greater defensive efficiency of the country, although at the same time we have our reservations on certain specific points with which I will deal at a later stage. The Bill in its wider aspects has been considerably discussed in our recent debates on defence in general, and, therefore, although I am bound to say that we still regard it as being stamped with the Government's trade mark of "Too little and too late," at the same time we are now determined to approach it from what I may call a Festival of Britain angle; that is, whatever our personal view may be as to its timing or adequacy, at this stage we are determined to give the Government every support in their efforts to bring the experiment to a successful conclusion—for experiment it undoubtedly is. Nevertheless, we shall retain our right to ask for elucidation of points of doubt and, at the same time, to propose Amendments where we consider them desirable.
The noble Viscount said that it was the general opinion that the Bill had been greatly improved during its passage through another place, and with that opinion I am in full accord. To take only one example, I refer to, and then dismiss 1081 from further consideration. Clause 6, where the insertion of the words, "maliciously and advisedly" as essential ingredients of the offence of inciting to evasion of duties and liabilities imposed by the Bill when it becomes an Act, has met what would otherwise have been the very formidable and justifiable objections we should have raised to the clause. I have studied with some care the not inconsiderable output of words which accompanied this Bill on its march past the vigilant Members of another place, but, with every desire sincerely to understand the Bill, I still find myself in one great difficulty; I find it impossible to visualise the master plan of the training contemplated. I cannot even yet picture to my own mind what is to be the general appearance of the pattern of the mosaic when all these 200.000 or more individual pieces haw been fitted into it. The obscurity under which I labour has only been increased by the speech in which the Under-Secretary of State for War summed up the debate on the Second Reading in another place, for he there attributed certain priorities of importance which His Majesty's Government attach to the various purposes for which the Bill is designed. He said (it is reported in the House of Commons Hansard of February 26. 1951, under the rather belligerent numbering of Col. 1870):
Quite clearly. one of (he main reasons, if not the main reason, is to bring together the units and formations that, in fact, would be acting together if a very grave international emergency came upon us in the very near future. This is fielding the team. …Now your Lordships will observe that the approach there contemplated does not appear to be merely that of bringing a certain number of units up to, or within sight of, their full strength. He talks about the bringing together of units and formations. Now I have always understood that the lowest formation recognised by the British Army was a division, and, if that be so, it looks as though what was contemplated was not merely unit, nor even merely brigade, but something in the nature of divisional or even corps training. Is that the intention? Is it really considered that the Z reservist, recalled for a period of concentrated training, is going to get the maximum benefit out of it by being involved in the usually ponderous and prolonged manœuvres represented by divisional exercises, especially carried out in the inevitably 1082 artificial conditions which apply to such proceedings in peace time in this country. I can well understand chat operations on some such scale as that would be of great advantage to commanders and staff, but I feel great difficulty in appreciating that they would not be to a very large extent a waste of the time of a reservist recalled for the special purpose of undergoing a fifteen days' intensive refresher course. Again, I am still in some doubt as to whether it is the intention to bring certain formations up to war establishment strength and to ignore the rest. Or is it the intention to devote the main weight of the call-up to summoning men from technical branches? If it be from the technical branches only, it seems to me that it is very difficult to carry out anything on the lines of corps or divisional training when there may be nothing available except two field companies of the Royal Engineers and a detachment of R.E.ME. It will not give a very realistic exercise.The Under-Secretary of State then goes on to his second priority, and he says:
A subsidiary purpose,"—I call attention to that—but still an important one, is not the collective training, not the fielding of the team but the individual training and the benefits which individual men will receive from it.I confess that I am amazed at that being given the second priority in these circumstances—that the individual training should be put in this list below the collective formation training. It seems to me overwhelmingly the most important and the most productive form of training which can result. I cannot help thinking —if I may slightly expand the Minister's metaphor—that what the War Office are trying to do in this matter is to expect men who have not had a bat or ball in their hands since the previous summer to take the field in a county match at Lords without any opportunity of previous practice at the nets. The Minister's third and subsidiary purpose, which he characterises as still important, is the testing out of the machinery of mobilisation. That is, of course, an important aspect. But for whose benefit is it primarily designed, and how far down will the exercise aspect of it extend? Is it to be for the benefit only of those who order and supervise mobilisation, or is it also intended to be of benefit to the commanding officers of units? 1083 In other words, will only the transmitting sets be concerned, or both the transmitting and the receiving sets? If it is intended that the commanding officers shall derive benefit from it, I would point out that they will not derive it if all that they get in are little groups of technicians, but only if they receive drafts in sufficient numbers to give real authenticity to the test.May I make one earnest appeal to His Majesty's Government on the subject of accommodation for men who are covered by this scheme? I realise—although not every Member of another place seemed to realise—that these fifteen days are not intended as an agreeable holiday for the officers and men concerned, but as a period of strenuous effort. However, those concerned come overnight, as it were, from civilian life, and they are entitled to be housed in reasonably habitable camps and not to have to make do with decaying and derelict shacks. I speak on this matter with some personal bitterness, because only last summer rumour reached me of the camp allotted to a Territorial regiment with which I happen to be somewhat closely concerned. I went down to see the camp, and I discovered it to consist of hutments which appeared to date from the very early days of the war, to have received no repair in the interval and to be constructed of some composition resembling blotting paper which had lost the faculty of absorbing moisture. Moreover, central messing arrangements were in force, so that the regiment had no opportunity of exercising its own cooks under its own supervision. Although this was a mechanised unit, and although the period of camp is, above all, of importance for familiarising men with their vehicles, the hard standings provided for those vehicles were over a mile distant from the so-called living quarters. If it is the policy to discourage Territorials, depress National Service men and disgust Z reservists, there is the infallible recipe.
Reference was made in another place to the desirability of taking the opportunity to exercise staffs in connection with the scheme. Having been a staff officer for some part of both wars, I know very well that the technique—I almost said the mystique—of staff work changes very rapidly, and that it is essential to keep up to date. But why only staff officers? There are thousands of officers 1084 on the Regular Army, Emergency and Territorial Army Reserve to-day who are being just as summarily ignored by the authorities as their predecessors were in the years between the wars. Not a pamphlet, not a lecture, not a demonstration is ever put at their disposal. No official finger is ever lifted to make them feel that they are, or might be, still a valuable national asset. And yet, if the emergency does arise, they are the first people to be called upon to take charge of men who know, just as they themselves know, that they are no longer sufficiently up-to-date to exercise proper command. There, again, in the fourteen years before 1939, I was one of the victims of that Olympian indifference, and I have some idea of what the feelings of those officers are. I know, too, that the Treasury have been inexorably stubborn in dealing with this particular matter. But, after all, the present Secretary of State for War, as we have heard this afternoon, was in another capacity not wholly unsuccessful in extracting considerable sums from the Treasury which perhaps, in the end, produced a less profitable return than a much smaller expenditure in this direction might have realised.
We are still disposed to take the view that amendment to Clause 7 may be desirable. We are not satisfied that, so long as—but only so long as—the particular scheme is in force, it is right that the volunteer should not have at least the same advantage as the National Service man and the Z reservist. Both reason and justice would seem to indicate that he is entitled to certainly not less favourable terms than the other two classes. I do not propose to argue the matter at this stage, for we shall supply an opportunity for a more ample discussion on the point when the Committee stage is reached. Similarly, we are not convinced that it is a right procedure to give power to renew this scheme under Clause 12 from year to year without the possibility of amendment; and here again, we shall put down an Amendment on the Order Paper to omit that clause, with the object of making it compulsory on the Government of the day to reconsider the position each year, to take into account any changes in the system which experience in the interval may indicate and to make their case for it anew. This is an emergency measure and we recognise it as 1085 such, conceived not as a provocation but as a deterrent, as a defence and not as a defiance. But until Goliath shows some signs of attempting to reduce his stature we must do everything we can to give more power to David's elbow. Our purpose is not to incite that truculent and incalculable giant to action, but to restrain him by every reasonable means from the hideous consequences of wantonly abusing his strength.
§ 5.34 p.m.
§ LORD CALVERLEYMy Lords, I entirely agree with the remarks which have just fallen from the noble Marquess. I support the Bill, though without any great enthusiasm, because I believe it to be the only way in which we can restrain what the noble Marquess has called the giant—a giant, I trust, with feet of clay. We cannot take risks, and therefore I support the Bill. I do so also because I realise that we in this country can retain our liberties only if we show our strength. But I wish to emphasise that this fifteen days' training can be, as it were, almost a leap in the dark. The noble Marquess calls it a great experiment. I agree, because, if the War Office do not organise very carefully all the waking moments of these Z reservists— most of them veterans from the last war —the call-up will do more harm than good. Speaking as one who had nine townships to look after, as an Army welfare officer in the West Riding of Yorkshire, for nine and a half years, I can tell your Lordships that I have had considerable experience of cases of men who are "browned off" and bewildered. They are bewildered because they do not know what is expected of them. I suggest that the War Office should give some adequate explanation to these men of what is expected of them. Nearly every newspaper in the country has capitalised that bewilderment, and in so doing has created a great amount of gloom and despondency. But I am thankful that since the Prime Minister made his plain announcement on this matter the situation has to some extent changed.
At the same time, while the War Office have plenty of psychiatrists—at any rate, they had during the last war—they have not, I suspect, many psychologists. I do not want to bring in any personalities; I know to whom the noble Marquess was referring when he spoke of "Britain's whipping boy No. 1." I am not going 1086 to blame everything on to the Secretary of State for War. Nevertheless, I should like to feel more confidence that there exist the means for giving these men simple, straightforward facts. Only last week a man of forty came to me and told me that he did not know how he would get on when he got back to his old job after a call-up, for he is not as physically fit to-day as he was in 1945. One could multiply that case by thousands. Therefore. I hope the War Office will give more enlightenment in this matter. I entirely agree with all that the noble Marquess has said on this subject.
I have had to visit many of these camps and I have always looked at the cookhouses, and also at some of the clothing supplied for both men and women—I may add that I had a chaperon with me at the time. There is this matter of clothes. It is now over twelve months since I asked your Lordships to realise that a bale of wool, weighing 3 cwt., required to clothe these men in 1939 cost about £7. To-day that same bale costs over £100, if we can get it. Only to-day, it has been announced that we are going to beg the United States Government, or somebody over there, to give up the stockpiling of wool, so that we can adequately do our duty to these men who are to be called up, because if our soldiers are not respectably dressed it means that they lose self-respect.
The noble Viscount, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, mentioned conscientious objectors. I do not think we shall be troubled very much with the conscientious objector, because these men have already served in the Forces. But in another capacity, sitting on a bench of magistrates, in a prison, I have noticed that there has been a mild epidemic of men wanting to change their religion to Jehovah's Witnesses. To one man I said: "Have you been a soldier? "He said: "Yes." I said: "And you want to change your religion?" "Yes," he replied. I asked, why, but he could give no adequate reason. He said: "I do want to be a Jehovah's Witness." Of course, we could see the reason why. I hope that we shall not have an epidemic of these people making a nuisance of themselves, and I do not think we shall. The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, had something to say about action being "too little, and too late." I would remind this House that this Government have no 1087 reason to apologise for the way in which they have handled these matters during these last two or three years. We set the example for all the Western Powers, including the United States of America, in prolonging something which we detested —conscription. We were the first to introduce it. It was eighteen months and we reduced it to twelve, simply to make the pill more sugar-coated, I presume. Later, we increased it to eighteen months, and then to two years. The United States of America to-day has not made up its mind what it is going to do and how it is going to create the machinery for making its own army.
LORD WINSTARMr. Marshall, the United States Minister of Defence, is asking for twenty-seven months' service.
§ LORD CALVERLEYI agree. I know that Mr. Marshall (as he now is) is asking for twenty-seven months, but has he got it?—No. Twenty-four months' service was introduced here months and months ago, thanks to the leadership of this Government. I am not going to stand in a white sheet with regard to that. We are in the vanguard of every democratic nation of the Western Powers.
I do not like this idea of introducing an Order in Council at the end of twelve months. I feel certain that after the training of these men by trial and error —I hope not too many errors—it is wrong for us simply to be faced with an Order which we have either to accept or reject. I suggest that it would have been better if this Bill had been drawn in line with the Army Act and had been made to operate for twelve months only. Whatever happens, I am ready to lay a wager that, if we have any imagination at all, we shall want to go one better in another twelve months' time in our calling-up plans. I venture to say that we shall have to make amendments. We shall have to learn by experience, and in that regard I am sorry that the Bill is for three years instead of only one year. But that is a pill we have to swallow. Mr. Molotov demands it, and, if Mr. Gromyko supports him, the best thing we can do is accept this Bill in the best possible spirit. I for one propose to do so.
§ 5.45 p.m.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, I should like first to say that I welcome very much, and am grateful for, the statement by 1088 the noble Marquess that, by and large, the general principles and objectives of this Bill are supported by the noble Lords opposite. Therefore there will be a great measure of unity on the matter in this House. I do not wish to say too much upon the controversial remark that this is another example of the Government giving "too little and too late," except that my noble friend who has just sat down is justified in the answer he made to it. Certainly not in my lifetime have any Government in anything like similar circumstances provided either the initiative or the extraordinary measures for defence that the present Government have done in recent years. I would add that the things that really concern the noble Marquess, largely based on his valuable experience and service to the country, show that at least in his memory Governments generally seem to have given great cause for criticism, not, certainly, the Government of the particular colour and objectives to which I have the honour to belong, but others.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER of HILLSBOROUGHApparently the noble Marquess felt that some of the facilities that he would have liked for officers on reserve and the like in the past have been distinctly neglected, and he seemed to imagine that it was a sort of common form or a continuous practice of the Treasury to be ungenerous in matters of that kind. I would say that the remarks of the noble Marquess on those points are worthy of note and should be studied; I have no doubt that the Service authorities will take note of them. I am a little concerned about his question as to what is the master plan for the training objectives in this Bill, and how it fits in. I am quite sure that on reflection he would not want me to say exactly what the master plan is. I can understand the reasons which are exercising his mind. Naturally, we all want to get for our defensive purposes the best possible result from whatever legislation Parliament passes in this respect, but I should have thought that in the present circumstances it would not be possible to mobilise any very large numbers in the manner which he suggested might be necessary.
It is possible to meet both the points that the Parliamentary Secretary to the 1089 War Office indicated. First, I think it will be possible to have the exercises of the top skeleton organisation.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHSkeleton, at the top, and at the same time paying particular attention to what the noble Marquess clearly asks —that is, that in the period of fifteen days these men, given up by their civil life, as never before in this country for such reasons, to attend this training, should have the greatest possible amount of concentrated training in matters from which they have been absent in many cases for four, five or more years. I am quite sure that the military authorities have that matter in mind. I know that that applies largely to the Army: I observe that the noble Marquess had no criticism to offer as to the steps which have been taken by the Royal Air Force to have a lengthy period of training of up to three months and also to arrange for 200 instructors to come back for as long as eighteen months—something which we regard as absolutely vital in order to see that full cadres are mounted for the Air Force that we are also glad to see growing in strength.
As to the testing out of the machinery for mobilisation, I personally have never had actual experience of a mobilisation de novo, certainly not of land forces. Most of my experience as a Service Minister has been with the Navy, and they were already very largely mobilised before I went to the Admiralty in May, 1940. Again I quite see what is in the noble Marquess's mind. He asks: Who is it intended for, and how far down does it go? Having listened to his question, I am afraid all I can say at this stage— and I think I made a reference to it on the occasion of the previous Defence debate—is that the military authorities whom I consulted before I replied to the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, gave me their assurance that, in fact, this scheme would be of very great value, not only to the Forces in general but as a mobilisation exercise. If, before the later stages of the Bill, it is possible to obtain rather more detailed information with regard to the point raised by the noble Marquess, I will certainly try to supplement what I have said in that connection.
As regards accommodation, I must say that I have a great deal of sympathy for 1090 the noble Marquess in regard to his experience of last year. However, it is not a very easy matter to arrange at such a time as we are living in, when so much accommodation has been diverted from military use and many camps have perhaps been turned over as temporary housing accommodation for the civil population, and when the kind of camps and ancillary accommodation attached thereto have been diverted to other purposes, partly in connection with military requirements and partly in support of the general drive in the nation in production for export. But I hope that, in a mobilisation of this kind, which turns what would be a comparatively small annual training exercise into a very substantial exercise, the authorities will be able to take note especially of the long distances between the hard standings for motor vehicles and the actual place of accommodation of the troops required to handle those vehicles. I am sure that the Minister of Defence will take note of what the noble Marquess has said in regard to the condition of the sleeping and feeding accommodation of the troops. I should hope that it would be made entirely satisfactory for its purpose.
It looks as if we are going to have more discussion in Committee on Clause 7. The noble Marquess again noticed the terms of that clause. I can only say that there seems to be a division of opinion here. The noble Marquess is recognised in this House as a great supporter of the Territorial Army. He has been exceedingly interested in it and has done his best to make it go well. But there seems to be a difference of opinion between the noble Marquess and some of those who act as a sort of general council of the Territorial Army. I am sure the noble Marquess has read what was said in another place about the anxiety in those quarters which are responsible for organising voluntary Territorial units, that nothing should be done by some sort of requirement in a Statute which would interfere with this very satisfactory understanding that the Territorial authorities have, certainly with the great majority of employers, and with their confidence that there will be no risk at all to the voluntary Territorial Forces by reason of the fact that they are not specifically included in the Statute as being entitled to the same protection from Clause 7 as is given to Class Z and Class G men. That matter will have to be 1091 resolved on Committee stage, but at the moment I should not like the noble Marquess to think that I am saying, on behalf of the Government, that we propose to differ in any way from the opinion that His Majesty's Ministers expressed in the earlier discussions on the Bill in another place.
I would ask the noble Marquess and his friends to consider before we come to the Committee stage whether they cannot revise their opinion upon the deletion of Clause 12. We are placed in a very difficult situation. We cannot tell exactly what is going to happen or exactly what is required for next year. It may well be that we shall be required to act very quickly in any further steps that we take in the matter. If so, then the power to deal with it by Order in Council would be preferable to going through all the work of drafting a new Bill, involving a considerable amount of time in both Houses of Parliament. It would be a pity to do that when a short Order in Council renewing the present legislation could be taken through in a short time. Indeed, it is a question of making provision on the same lines as both Houses of Parliament approve this year. Such an Order must be passed by affirmative Resolution of both Houses, and they can then deal with the situation.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHI agree that there is that point about it. But if it involved a fundamental amendment, perhaps it would be possible to come to some accommodation. It would not be the first time that accommodation had been arranged on such a matter. I agree with the noble Marquess that this is an emergency measure, and I very much liked his language in regard to its purpose—what it was and what it was not—and I am grateful to him for stating the case and his point of view so clearly.
Coming to the points raised by my noble friend Lord Calverley, I will look into the matter of clothing. No one can deny the difficulty in the supply of raw materials, but I have no need to cast gloom and despondency on those who are —
§ LORD CALVERLEYMay I just ask whether my noble friend also realises that 1092 the Americans are now giving Japan more cotton and less to us, and that as a result our men may not be able to be provided with even a shirt?
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHI am sure that the point about the allocation of raw materials is one of great substance indeed. The Commodity Groups have been set up in the United States, and at the head of our team we have a member of your Lordships' House, who I am sure is doing what he can, with the support of the Government, to see that we receive equitable treatment in this matter. However, the noble Lord is fully entitled to raise this vital question of clothing, and I am sure that arrangements have been made to see that the objects of this Bill are not frustrated in any way by the situation there. I am grateful for the reception which has been given to the Bill in your Lordships' House, and I am sure that when we reach the Committee stage we shall be able to get the measure through with proper and adequate debate.
§ On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.