HL Deb 16 July 1957 vol 204 cc1222-31

6.59 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

LORD MANCROFT

My Lords, the purpose of this short Bill is to enable he Army Council to decide the periods of Colour service and Reserve service which recruits enlisting in the Regular Army on a 22-year engagement shall be called upon to perform. At present, under Sections 4 and 5 of the Army Act, 1955, there are two types of engagement. First, a Regular recruit may be enlisted or any period up to 12 years, consisting partly of Colour service and partly of Reserve service, or consisting entirely of Colour service.

On the other engagement, which will probably be the more normal type in the future, a recruit enlists on a 22-year engagement, but he has a legal right, under Section 5, to be transferred to the Reserve after three years. He then has to serve in the Reserve for four years, or to transfer to the Reserve after six years when he has to serve in the Reserve for three years. In addition, he can terminate his Colour service at the end of nine years without any Reserve service and he may do so at the end of any further three-year periods. That is the law as it now is.

Her Majesty's Government has decided to alter the terms of engagement in the Regular Army and, under the Bill which is at present before your Lordships' House, the Army Council will have power, by regulations, to decide at what periods a soldier enlisting on a 22-year engagement shall have the option of terminating his Colour service which he shall be called upon to perform. I should make it clear at this stage that a soldier enlisting on a 22-year engagement has a legal right, at present, to terminate his Colour service without any liability to Reserve service at the end of 12 years or any further three-year cycle.

Our intention is that the normal term of engagement in the Regular Army in future will be for 22 years with a probable minimum Colour service of six years instead of three as at present. The main reason for this change is that when we no longer look to National Service men to maintain the strength of the Army, we shall have to look to an all-Regular Army to meet our requirements; we shall be reverting, as your Lordships know, to our ancient tradition of an all-Regular, all-volunteer, Army.

The Army of the future's requirement is for better trained and better equipped men, but as a result of this a smaller number of them. The restoration of stability in an all-Regular Army is an all-important matter and it is the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that a minimum of six years' Colour service, with very few exceptions, will be much more satisfactory than any of the expedients which we have had to call in aid since the war.

I must emphasise that this Bill will not give any authority to alter the conditions of service of a soldier once he has enlisted. At the time of joining, therefore, a soldier will know the periods which he will have to serve and he will know when he will be able to choose to leave the Colours. Again, the Bill gives no authority to alter the terms of service of a soldier who has enlisted under the present terms, even with the soldier's consent. Both these points Her Majesty's Government regard as important, in that the soldier will know exactly where he stands from the time he enlists and will know that his terms of service cannot be altered so long as he is serving.

Her Majesty's Government are anxious to have this legislation placed on the Statute Book at an early date so that recruitment under the new terms can begin on 1st October next. Your Lordships will realise the reason for this urgency. Changing over to a minimum of six years' Colour service will reduce the strength of the Army when the last men who enlist for three years leave the Colours and there are no new three-year men to take their place. This trough will probably be at its lowest in the fourth year following the change, and we are anxious to get it over before the end of 1962 when the last National Service men will be leaving the Colours.

My Lords, I have been talking about the 22-year engagement. I mentioned earlier that there will be a few exceptions to the six-year minimum engagement. As long as National Service lasts, National Service men will be allowed to enlist on a three-year Regular engagement. The Brigade of Guards will also retain their old right to enlist men for three years with the Colours as they did in pre-war days. Experience showed that this shorter period seems to appeal to a certain type of recruit.

There are also certain specialised, but small, categories to whom a three-year engagement is more suitable. For instance, police cadets will be able to enlist in the Royal Military Police on a three-year engagement: certain G.P.O. employees wishing to serve in the Postal Service will also be taken on for three years. In addition, there are certain men required for the Intelligence Corps and the Army Catering Corps who, whilst willing to enlist for three years, would not be prepared to tie themselves for longer periods. But, apart from the National Service category, the numbers involved are small and are not likely to amount to more than one thousand men a year.

I think I have said enough about the general purpose of this short Bill without troubling your Lordships to consider it clause by clause. Your Lordships are well aware of the great importance Her Majesty's Government attach to the switch over from National Service and the urgent need for achieving this change with speed and with success. It is the hope of Her Majesty's Government that this Bill will produce a Regular Army of stability and an Army which the right men will join with the idea of making it their career, and a fine career too. It is with these hopes in mind that I commend the Bill to your Lordships. I beg to move that it now be read a second time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Mancroft.)

7.7 p.m.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, this is a very short Bill, but its importance must not be judged by its length, because it is a fundamental Bill. In the Statement on Defence the decision is taken that National Service shall end in 1960, and that in fact there will be no National Service Army or National Service Air Force probably by the end of 1962. This is one piece of reorganisation being carried through, in order, I take it, to assist in two ways: first, by encouraging enlistment; and secondly, by trying to fit the terms of engagement to suit the needs not merely of the country (those needs are important when it comes to fixing terms of training and relating them to possible stations, and to the duties that the men will have to carry out) but also of the men themselves.

I am sure that my noble friend Lord Lawson, who has been Secretary of State for War, is most interested in this matter from the same points of view as myself. It will be most difficult for the ordinary recruit to pick up this Bill and to understand fully what it all means. It will, of course, be supplemented by regulations, and I hope that before enlistment the recruit will be properly apprised of the regulations which will govern the actual terms of service under this statutory authority. Necessarily, however, the Bill contains a large number of references to other Statutes and the like—always difficult for men to understand. I always protest as much as I can against legislation which depends largely on reference. Nevertheless, I am greatly in favour of the general principle of longer terms for the men when you are going in for Regular enlistment, as distinct from National Service.

The use by the Minister in introducing the Bill, of the term "terms of service" raises another point of vast importance to myself, as an ex-First Lord of the Admiralty, about what is likely to arise out of this in subsequent Parliamentary treatment of new circumstances. When you come to depend upon Regular Forces, and have periods of enlistment settled at different stages of progress or retreat or reaction in your economic circumstances, you may be led into all kinds of difficulties. We ought never to forget the naval trouble at Invergordon. The naval trouble at Invergordon in 1931 was due entirely to the insistence of the Treasury that, when cuts were to be made in the terms; of remuneration to the Naval Service, they were to include cuts in the pre-1925 enlistment men. If there is any one thing a Service man resents more than anything else it is that, for general convenience, there should be a cut in rates of pay or deterioration of his position compared with what he undertook when he signed on. It is absolutely vital that that should be put right, and fast.

We are entering a period of legislation and discussion, in which the Government are going vastly to alter the period of service. When the Minister refers to "terms of service" is he confining himself purely to the period of service, or is he considering, when he goes out to the country to offer to the young man the new career he hopes he will undertake, that there will be no deterioration in rates of pay during that service? If there is to be any reduction in pay rates, will it be applied only to new recruits, and not extend to those who have signed on under these terms? Or shall we be running the danger of having the same kind of actual mutiny as we had in 1931?

It may be said that the position will be vastly different in a period of less inflation; that we have to offer high remuneration now, in times of inflation, to get the voluntary recruits. But if they take on the job under these terms of contract, what most of the men will want to know, I think, is whether these terms will be permanent for the whole of the period of their service. I think that is one of the first bull points the Government have got to make, if that is, in fact, their intention. If we are to get the volunteers required, at a time of high civil employment, high rates of remuneration, and at a period of growing civil superannuation schemes and the like, that will be one of the bull points in inducing men to enter the Services, especially in the skilled trades, and undertake these comparatively long periods of service.

I have heard nothing in the discussions which have taken place so far that has satisfied me that the Government have made up their mind upon this particular issue. I do not wish to interfere in any way with the general basis of the reorganisation, but, as the Minister who was responsible for introducing National Service in 1947, I would say to the Government: I do most earnestly pray that you do not land yourselves in the sort of position in which you will not have complete and satisfactory voluntary forces at your disposal before you have got rid of your National Service. This particular point is, I think, of fundamental importance.

The other point I would raise is this. I have seen vague references to the suggestion that if, at the end of a given period, our defences are not what they ought to be, because there has not been sufficient response to the invitations to enlistment under the new terms and conditions, the Government are taking care to retain the statutory power to require National Service. Is that so, or is it intended at any time, during these pieces of bit-by-bit legislation by reference, to repeal the 1947 Act and any particular Amendments to the 1947 Act? If the Act is kept on the Statute Book you can go all out for your Regular voluntary forces by all means. But first see that you give the conditions that will make a stable contract for the enlisted man, so that you get the number you require of efficient people; and keep as your reserve the fact that you can always call up again under National Service by existing statutory power if there is not sufficient response.

7.15 p.m.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

My Lords, I am in agreement with a good deal of what the noble Viscount who has just sat down said, but I hope he will not mind if I do not follow him on the wider issues which are slightly away from this Bill, because I think there may be another opportunity before the House rises of dealing with some of them. I should like to welcome this Bill in general terms as shortly as I can, but before I welcome it completely I would make two minor criticisms, or perhaps suggestions. The first is that this is, I think, the first time since the new Army Act was passed that we have seen the method by which it is proposed to amend it. If we are going to have separate Bills, instead of the old annual amendments to the Army Act, to deal with each amendment of the Army Act, 1945, we are going to need a breed of orderly sergeants who will need powers far beyond anything I have known. The second point is that I should like, with great respect, to offer a warning to the draftsman who drafted this Explanatory Memorandum. It is becoming as technical as the Bill itself, whereas it was intended, I thought, to explain the substance of the Bill to ordinary people like me.

Having made those two slight criticisms, may I go on to welcome the Bill in general terms? After all, a great deal of the details of this Bill depend on the regulations made under it. I do not complain about that, because I feel that in these fluid times it is necessary for the War Office to have enough freedom to meet the circumstances as they arise and deal with the recruitment problem within the terms of the broad principle which seems to me to be well stated in this Bill: that the standard period of enlistment should be twenty-two years and that the other periods should be variants of it. With that idea I entirely agree. After all, in these days of the modern Army forty years of age is not too old for a man to be still serving. It may have been in the old days, but the old days were different, as many of us know.

The only other comment of a broader nature I would make is to remind your Lordships that if we are going to produce a complete career for the Regular soldier, we have to see that once he is discharged from the Army at forty he gets worthwhile employment for another twenty years. I think that point has to be made every time a discussion of this sort takes place. I am very glad indeed to see, as was the noble Viscount opposite, that in this Bill existing rights are preserved. I am sure it is right. I would add only one comment, and that is that the more we preserve existing rights, the more untidy and complicated terms of service we get. None the less, there is only one way to deal with existing rights, and that is to offer in substitution some right which is better than the one they had before. If you can do that and clear up differentials in terms of service with soldiers serving side by side, so much the better, but that is the only condition on which you can do it.

Lastly, I should like to make one reference to the provision later in the Bill—I think it is in Clause 15—by which soldiers or officers who go on courses of instruction are to be held to serve for a certain period afterwards. That is, I think, an entirely proper provision from the point of view of the taxpayer. It replaces the old honourable undertaking which was often asked for—I was asked for it. I think this is a better form than the old honourable undertaking. I see no reason why the taxpayer should pay for people to go on expensive courses if they leave the Service directly afterwards before the Government have had the benefit of it. I am not quite clear whether, under the Bill, it is possible to relieve of his obligation an officer or a soldier who went on a course under these conditions, supposing that the circumstances in his private life changed radically from what they were when he accepted the obligation. That is a point which I have no doubt can be, and will be, dealt with in regulations, but I do not see it in the Bill. I would express the hope, with some confidence, that there are arrangements for dealing leniently with those who accepted the obligation in good faith and whose conditions changed. With those words, which at this late hour I have made as few as possible, I would support the Second Reading of the Bill.

7.21 p.m.

LORD LAWSON

My Lords, I wish to say just two or three words. I agree with my noble friend and with the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, that the Bill is a good one. On the point of the restoration of the long service, I must say that I should have been happier if it had been delayed, because there is an indefiniteness about the general policy that is rather disturbing. So far as I car see, it is all dependent upon what happens, to the National Service. Even that, as my noble friend pointed out, is rather indefinite, and if I have a word to say at all to the Government about this matter it is that when they get the Bill, it will be a good thing to have for use when necessary but I certainly would put it into cold storage until the policy of the Government on this matter is much more definite. Upon these matters generally upon conditions of service and what is going to happen, I think it would be much wiser to put this Bill into cold storage until such time as the necessity arises for some definite action to be taken.

7.23 p.m.

LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL

My Lords, there is just one point I should like to put to my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill. It arises from the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, with regard to those making the Army a life career. It used to be possible for a soldier to continue—I think "continue" is the technical word—his service after twenty-one years, as it was then. I wonder whether under this Bill it will be possible for a soldier to go on serving, as it used to be, year after year, after he has completed his twenty-two years with the Colours: that is to say, he may serve whole time with the Colours and continue serving afterwards. This is a useful advantage for men who want to make the Army their entire career. I join in hoping that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.

7.24 p.m.

LORD MANCROFT

My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for the friendly way in which you have greeted this Bill. With regard to two or three points which have been raised, notably the last point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stratheden and Campbell, and the point about courses which was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, I would say that those relate to matters of detail and are of a technical nature. I will look carefully into the possibility of their being dealt with in regulations. Your Lordships have rightly drawn attention to the fact that this Bill really marches with other matters. It is only a "conditions of enlistment" Bill, not a "conditions of service" Bill. That does not alter the fact that points which the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, mentioned are points of importance and must be taken into consideration when we are dealing with this Bill. We shall discuss this subject in greater detail on the 31st of this month when we deal with the Army Estimates, so I will not go into detail now, much as I should like to do so.

I do not deny that these matters—conditions of service, pay, recruiting, uniform, separation and all the things which go with them—must be taken into consideration with this Bill. I should like to reassure the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, that the Bill is an encouragement to enlistment and not an encouragement to mutiny. I wholly agree with him that it is not an easy Bill for the recruit to understand, but I can promise the House that by the time that this Bill is in the recruit's hands in the form of recruiting propaganda it will have been translated into good English.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

Would the noble Lord give some assurance about keeping powers with regard to National Service for use if the others fail?

LORD MANCROFT

I have made no attempt to deal with that, for I was proposing to deal with it in the debate on the Estimates. It does not really come within the terms of this Bill. I should like to give the noble Viscount an accurate answer rather than one just off the cuff.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I think we should have a Committee stage on this Bill, and I would suggest that the noble Lord might give me an answer then.

LORD MANCROFT

I will consider that.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

It is rather fundamental before you make a new structure in place of the old that you make quite sure you are not going to get rid of your old reserve.

LORD MANCROFT

I will certainly look into that matter.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.