ARMY, AIR FORCE AND NAVAL DISCIPLINE ACTS (CONTINUATION) ORDER 1978

HL Deb 18 May 1978 vol 392 cc481-536

3.19 p.m.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM

My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1978, laid before the House on 24th April, be approved. The purpose of this order is to continue in force the Service Acts for a further year; that is, until 31st August 1979. As I explained in moving the continuation order last year, it was decided that in future the order should be taken at this time of year rather than in the autumn so that its consideration could be linked with the general debates on defence matters which normally take place in the spring.

As your Lordships are aware, the Service Discipline Acts—that is, the Army and Air Force Acts of 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act of 1957—provide, among other things, the basis for discipline in the three Services. Although the principal topic for discussion this afternoon is Armed Forces pay, noble Lords may, of course, also wish to take the opportunity of discussing Service discipline. By way of introduction, I should perhaps say a few words about the implementation of the 1976 Armed Forces Act.

As I said last year, the main changes introduced by the 1976 Act were the extension of the powers of summary punishment available to commanding officers in the Army, the Royal Air Force and the Royal Marines; the establishment of standing civilian courts to deal with civilians who are subject to the Army and Air Force Acts while serving overseas; and the introduction of new powers of punishment, primarily intended to deal with juveniles, for civilians under the jurisdiction of all three Service Discipline Acts. I do not think I need repeat all the details again this year.

These new provisions came into force on 1st July 1977, and so far the new arrangements appear to be working smoothly. It was anticipated that the increase in summary powers would lead to a reduction in the number of courts-martial, and during the limited period in which the provisions have been in operation there has, in fact, been a reduction. However, it would be unwise to come to any firm conclusions on the basis of such a short period. So far there have been fewer than 20 cases referred to the standing civilian courts, and we need a good deal more experience of their workings before they can be properly evaluated. We should be in a much better position to assess the new arrangements by this time next year.

I now turn to the subject of Services pay. I should like to remind the House briefly of the basis for assessing the pay of the Armed Forces, as it is important to understand the somewhat complicated processes and principles involved. The independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body recommends to the Government what they regard as the appropriate comparable levels of pay for the Armed Forces, up to and including the rank of brigadier or equivalent. To these rates are added the X-factor, to cover the balance of advantages and disadvantages between employment in the Armed Forces and in civilian life. The comparable rates plus the X-factor give the military salary. The Review Body is also responsible for recommending charges for food and accommodation, since the military salary concept requires the Serviceman to pay for food and accommodation, as he would expect to do in civilian life.

The normal arrangements have inevitably been disturbed during the period of pay restraint, as the Review Body itself has emphasised in its Seventh Report (Cmnd. 7177). Although the Armed Forces received the maximum pay increase allowed under Rounds 1 and 2, the Review Body has pointed out that the pay policy has borne more heavily on the Armed Forces than on their civilian comparators. The Review Body has calculated that it would now require a 32 per cent. increase, on average, to restore the military salary to full comparability, although the figures vary from rank to rank. The Government accept their recommendations on the levels of the military salary appropriate to April 1978. The Review Body also emphasised that Servicemen should be treated no less favourably in the current round of pay restraint measures than other members of the community, to ensure that their pay did not fall further behind in the coming 12 months.

The Government have been concerned to ensure that the Armed Forces are given a fair deal, taking into account, on the one hand, the Review Body's recommendations and, on the other, the wider national interest reflected in our economic policies. The pay award which the Prime Minister announced on 25th April is exactly that. It gave the Armed Forces an immediate 10 per cent. pay increase, together with an increase in the X-factor within the percentage recommended by the Review Body, which will add a further 3 per cent. in total. This includes a 50 per cent. increase in flying pay, submarine pay, parachute pay, hydrographic pay and diving pay. There were also increases in certain allowances, including a doubling of Northern Ireland pay from 50p to £1 a day, and an increase of about two-thirds in separation pay. Together with a standstill in accommodation charges, the award represents an overall increase of 14 per cent. of the total Forces pay bill.

However, perhaps the most important feature of the award is the firm commitment by the Government to restore the full military salary in two stages by April 1980. I will spell out these two stages carefully, because several noble Lords expressed concern about this in the House on 25th April, and it is important to get it right. On 1st April 1979, the Armed Forces will receive a pay increase which will consist broadly of half the amount required to bring them up to the full military salary for April this year (as detailed in the Review Body's Seventh Report), together—and this is the important point—with whatever amount is required to update the award to April 1979. This will, of course, be the subject of further recommendations in the Review Body's 1979 report.

On 1st April 1980, they will receive the remaining half to bring them up to the full military salary assessed for April this year, together with the appropriate updating between April 1979 and April 1980. The result will be that in April 1980 the Armed Forces will have the full military salary fully updated to the then current levels.

As I have said, this firm forward commitment is perhaps the most important part of the award. But noble Lords should not just dismiss this year's pay increase as trifling, as the following examples will show. Privates will receive from £5.08 to £8.47 extra a week; corporals between £8.10 and £9.45 extra a week, and warrant officers between £10.10 and £14.08 a week. The pay of majors will go up by between £673 and £841 a year, and that of colonels will go up by between £1,057 and £1,325 a year. A naval lieutenant with 6 years' seniority, who is a Sea King observer, will receive a total increase in military salary and flying pay of £1,046, which is 17 per cent. A submarine commander with two years' seniority will receive £1,309 extra a year. All these increases must be looked at against the background that accommodation charges—covering married quarters and single accommodation—are not being increased while the Review Body looks at the basis on which they are calculated.

In conclusion, I repeat that the 14 per cent. pay award this year, plus the firm commitment to restore comparability in two equal stages, to the then current levels, on 1st April 1979 and 1st April 1980, represents a very fair deal for the Armed Forces in the current circumstances, and I am sure that the majority of the people in this country, and the Armed Forces themselves, will recognise it as such.

There have, I know, been disturbing trends in the numbers seeking to leave the Services, and the Government recognise that one of the reasons has been dissatisfaction over pay. I hope—and I know that noble Lords will share this hope—that the immediate pay award and the firm commitment for comparability by 1980 will stop and reverse this trend. My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1978, laid before the House on 24th April, be approved.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

3.29 p.m.

Lord ORR-EWING

My Lords, when we are discussing defence, I think that we are specially fortunate in this House in having many Peers who have served as head of our Armed Forces, or even as Chief of the Defence Staff, and many other Peers who have been Ministers of Defence, such as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, my noble friends Lord Duncan-Sandys, Lord Thorneycroft, Lord Watkinson and Lord Carrington and, of course, until his sad death yesterday, Lord Selwyn-Lloyd. I hope that the House will forgive me if I pay a small tribute to a very remarkable man. Because we are discussing defence, I thought that it was appropriate to say a word about a man who has served in almost every high office in political life, not least as a very distinguished Speaker in another place. I am sure that other people will take the opportunity to pay full justice to someone with such an outstanding Parliamentary record.

Several noble Lords

Hear, hear!

Lord ORR-EWING

When we had our defence debate on 20th April, the Prime Minister had not then announced whether the Government accepted the assessment and recommendation of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. In 1977, the review board seemed to have been leaned on by the Government. The Review Body seemed to have forgotten that their main duty was to report how true comparability might be achieved. On that occasion, the Government gave to the Serviceman something of an Irishman's rise; he had to pay back almost as much in terms of increased rent and food costs as he had received from that rise. This year's report was better and more objective. It recognised that 32 per cent. was now needed to restore full comparability.

In our last debate we asked for an opportunity to debate the award thoroughly and in depth. We have now only five Parliamentary days left before the Whitsun Parliamentary Recess, and there is much legislation still to be considered. This is one of the reasons why we are having a shorter debate today than is justified. On Monday, the Commons will have a vote of censure on the conduct of the Government's defence policy as administered by Mr. Mulley, so our debate today is something of an overture to theirs.

I am sure that noble Lords will agree that a short debate demands short speeches, and a fine example has been set by the Government Front Bench. However, the speeches which are made this afternoon will be hard hitting, because the urgency and seriousness of the subject demand exactly that treatment. We on these Benches will greatly miss the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who had intended to open the debate. We had even considered putting down a Motion and voting upon it. However, as noble Lords will know, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has very close ties with Australia and Sir Robert Menzies. This has meant that he has had to fly to Australia to attend the State funeral of that great man.

In our first debate we pointed out once again that in the face of the growing threat from the USSR and her satellites, the Government were continuing to cut back on defence expenditure, training, equipment and men. We quoted Mr. Mulley—that this year's defence budget was, in real terms, the lowest ever introduced by a Labour Government; these cuts were continuing at a time when our NATO Allies, seeing the same menace, have increased and are increasing their defence expenditure in every field. Now we want to probe, with a series of arguments and questions, why the Government have felt able to give only the 10 per cent. basic, plus 3 per cent. for the X factor and an extra 1 per cent. for rent and food subsidies. To restore fairness, 32 per cent. was needed, but only 14 per cent. has been given. Mr. Callaghan promised that the extra 18 per cent. would be made up by April 1980, in two slices. We have heard today in the opening speech that this is to be made up: presumably by 9 per cent. on 1st April 1979 and the balance on 1st April 1980.

I am still anxious to know, as I think everybody must be, whether the Government will be able fully to honour these plans or whether they have it in mind to find excuses. I should like to know how far behind, unless it is fully indexed—and we have had some assurances about that this afternoon, for which I am grateful—the pay of Servicemen will be by April 1979.

Yesterday it was announced that civilian earnings had increased in the eight months since the start of Phase 3—that is to say, from last August—by 10 per cent. This means that civilian earnings are going up at an annual rate of 15 per cent.; so if one postpones a pay rise for one year, one probably sacrifices 15 per cent. If this rise continues at the same rate, by next April the Serviceman will not be 18 per cent. behind; he will then be 33 per cent. behind—just before the award. On those figures, at that stage and before he receives the award, the Serviceman will be 18 per cent. behind, plus the inflation which has happened, and I have suggested that that 15 per cent. rate of inflation will probably continue until next April.

The Serviceman sees this clearly. That is why there are, so far, no signs of the flow from the Services being staunched. We have received some degree of assurance on this matter, and I hope that we shall receive an even firmer assurance in the winding-up speech.

As the review body has said, it is not possible to judge productivity in the Services. But clearly productivity must have increased, since there are about 10,000 fewer Servicemen; and their task is no less so far as the defence of our country and the commitment to our allies is concerned. Therefore, they are working much longer hours to accomplish the same result, which means that their productivity must have increased. It is sad that they cannot be compensated for this extra work. Much longer, unsocial hours are now having to be worked by our Servicemen.

The House will be interested to compare Servicemen's earnings with miners' earnings. The miners received 10 per cent. overall, and individual productivity deals were then negotiated. We now have the figures relating to their increase in earnings. They are 36½ per cent. Overall—that is, 10 per cent. and 26½ per cent. on productivity. The productivity deal is slightly suspect, because the miners reduced their expected output by something like 20 per cent. before starting to earn the productivity bonus. It is rumoured in the Press that when Lord Edmund-Davies's Committee, which is sitting on the pay and other conditions of service in the police force, reports it will recommend a 30 per cent. pay rise for our police. I very much hope that they get it. I hope that they do not also have to wait for an increase which is phased over two or more years.

We believe that the military threat to Western Europe—and, incidentally, to the breakdown of law and order in our own land—is such that we should make these two vital services—our Armed Forces and our police—special cases which are worthy of quicker, prompter and fairer treatment than they are currently receiving. May I ask the Minister whether we can be told anything more about these settlements? Are these settlements copper-bottomed and insured against every contingency? Whatever Governments may say, new economic difficulties may arise. There may be new phases of the prices and incomes policy. I recall that after the university teachers were awarded a pay rise in 1975 the incomes policy began and that they were caught by this Government. Only very recently have they been given a 12 per cent. increase, which again is to be phased over a period of time.

Once again, I urge that if this Government do not feel that they can do justice more quickly to the Services they should make way for a Conservative Government which will do it for them. Margaret Thatcher has said that we shall set this matter right. "The Iron Lady", as the USSR call her, will do it, and she will do it more quickly.

3.38 p.m.

Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE

My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the tribute paid by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, to the noble Lord, Lord Selwyn-Lloyd. One of the most remarkable tributes which has been paid is that of Mrs. Barbara Castle. She pointed out that, after being a controversial Party politician, he became Speaker of the House of Commons, and in a very short space of time became one of the most respected Speakers among many respected Speakers of recent times. This was a remarkable achievement and shows the genuine quality of the man.

If I may turn to the subject of our debate, I shall certainly keep to time because what I have to say can be said very shortly. First, much of the trouble arises from the attitude prevailing in or forced upon the Labour Party. When defence is treated in exactly the same way as everything else, with a Party maintaining that defence must be cut as well as other forms of spending, it seems to me that a fallacy is involved which brings with it great danger. I believe that our defence expenditure should be cut to what is necessary and no more. Nevertheless, having fixed the level of expenditure which is necessary for the defence of the Realm, one cannot say that it can withstand cuts along with all other forms of Government spending. Either it is necessary to have that level of defence or it is not.

This egalitarian cutting all round by the Labour Party brings with it immense dangers. There are some things you cannot cut in other fields: you cannot cut the maintenance of the fabric of your transport system in a country—you must keep it up. You cannot buy less raw material for manufacturing. One could give a whole lot of other instances, but the most important of all is that if your defence spending is set at the right level for the defence of the Realm then it cannot be cut without doing tremendous damage. I said in the last debate, but it will bear repeating, that one of the things we must realise is that our defence policy in the West has been very successful. We are certainly not out of danger and we never shall be, but we have had more than 30 years without a major war, without the catastrophe which could have been confidently predicted from the situation which we were in at the end of the last war.

Having said that, one then comes simply to what is the most important factor about defence. The most important thing about defence, without a doubt, is the soldiers, sailors and airmen who will be required to fight and to stand firm in the event of a war, and their morale and their respect for Parliament and the Government is of enormous importance. If they are always treated as the weak, if they are always subjected to cuts when we have a financial crisis, then they will develop a much understood cynicism about the way the Government regard them.

I think the Government are very much at fault in allowing the Forces' pay to fall so far behind. I am not underestimating the danger of inflation to us all. Of course, it is absolutely essential that we overcome the appalling inflation, and the Government deserve great credit for the degree to which they have overcome it. But in this case we have induced in the Service a degree of cynicism and a degree of strife between the senior officers and the War Office and the Government which we have not seen for a long time. We have had unprecedented demands for interviews with the Prime Minister by the Chiefs of Staff, and when we look at the fact that they are 33 per cent. behind comparability with equivalent jobs in industry one can see why this is. I think the question is as much the attitude which the Serviceman feels the Government have as the actual loss of money.

When we consider the settlement which we have had I think it is not really satisfactory. Perhaps we should accept that it is as far as we could expect the Government to go at this moment, with a tricky inflationary situation. It is not enough, but the promise of comparability by the 1st April 1980 is a tremendous step forward. I must remind the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, that in our last debate he indicated that no Government could possibly index Service pay; that it was not a thing that could happen. But that in fact is what the Prime Minister has promised to do at the 1st April 1980. I am very glad to have the assurance that at that date not only will the faults of the past be rectified but any inflation in between will be taken care of and the full award by the Review Body will be implemented.

That is all very well up to 1980, but what we are really talking about is morale in the Services. The Services will view this with considerable misgivings, and in my view what is needed is long-term indexation. The Government must say that Service pay will be treated as being on an exact level, as it has been, with the civilian pay for the equivalent job and it will be indexed in that way. This is totally necessary and I do not think that it is too expensive. The Government are always "that-a-way" the strong, the well unionised miners or power workers, or whoever it may be. They are always in the lead and they do not fall behind. But if you regard the Services as being essentially important then I think this award would be accepted. I think it would restore morale, provided that we say that this policy will be permanent after 1st April 1980.

3.46 p.m.

The Earl of CORK and ORRERY

My Lords, we have lost a towering Parliamentary figure in Lord Selwyn-Lloyd, and if he had been the holder of high office while a Member of this House no doubt official tributes would have been paid to him. This not being so, I, for one, would like to associate myself with the remarks made already by the two noble Lords who have preceded me, in sadness at his demise. The House will have noted also with sadness and perhaps a sense of shock the passing of that great statesman, Sir Robert Menzies.

In the matter of the Pay Review Body's report I find coming into my head a story that used to be told in India at one time about a British officer who went on leave to Kashmir with his wife and they took a houseboat on the Dal Lake in Srinagar. It was very romantic and beautiful. At the end of his leave he went down the hill by car, leaving his wife behind. Of course that was the usual thing in India then. Before he had gone very far he found a landslide had washed the road away and so he had to return unexpectedly. He found his wife in the arms of a lover who, with great presence of mind, sprang to his feet, dived head-first out of the window and struck out for the distant Himalayas. Afterwards he complained with some indignation at the unfairness and unsporting conduct of the offended husband of shooting at him with a revolver while he was in the water.

The Government seem to be doing precisely that—saying, "Don't shoot at us. We are in the water". Or perhaps not so much in the water as, "Our hands are tied". What they are tied by is the guidelines. Where did these guidelines and this pay policy come from? Was it whispered into the ear of the Prime Minister out of the stillness of the heart of a whirlwind? Was it handed down from Mount Ararat? Did it come by ouija board, perhaps, or automatic writing into the occult intelligence department of the Cabinet Office? The Government themselves are responsible for this policy and it is an axiom of all law that a grown man of right mind is responsible for his actions and that he can foresee their results.

The result of these actions and this policy must have been foreseen by the Government and the corollary axiom then comes into force that they must have intended the result. There is no accident about the fact that the Forces have fallen behind in their pay, and it is a great relief to me, at any rate, and I think to many others, that the Pay Review Body—as has been remarked upon by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing—has come out very strongly on this subject; far more strongly than it did a year ago, when it produced a somewhat wishy-washy report. On this occasion it produced words of considerable strength. For example, it referred to its inability to sec any shadow of justification for treating the Armed Forces any less favourably then firemen. It says: the Armed Forces find it increasingly difficult—and we do also—to accept a situation in which the shortfall continues to increase during the operation of restraint measures that are intended to apply equally to everyone". Undoubtedly the Government have taken these strictures somewhat to heart. But how much? If I understood the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, aright, he is of the opinion that they have given a firm promise that in two years' time comparability will have been restored; that the Armed Forces pay will be indexed—the Prime Minister has given that assurance—and that other increases in pay outside the Services will be taken into account in assessing the new rates of pay. Is this really so? I confess that I am a little less than totally convinced. After the Statement on the report, questions were put to the noble Lord the Leader of the House. He was asked, for example, by my noble friend, Lord Drumalbyn, about the question of comparability or equality with other pay rises outside the Services, and he said: I have assumed that it will go up in stages. However, if there is any doubt about this I shall certainly look at it carefully, but that is my impression and that is the advice I have been given. I am certain that there should be no worry on this at all".—[Official Report, 25/4/78; col. 1639.]

Lord DRUMALBYN

My Lords, if the noble Earl would forgive me, I feel bound to say that I received a letter subsequently from the noble Lord the Leader of the House confirming that it would be indexed.

The Earl of CORK and ORRERY

My Lords, I am delighted to hear that from my noble friend, and I am delighted not to have to pursue that line any further. But there was another question and perhaps I could get a similar reassurance from someone on this. This was a question by my noble friend Lord Hail-sham on the question of indexing. This time the noble Lord, Lord Peart, said: I cannot give a firm assurance on that. It will have to take note of this, and this is something which the Review Body, which will still be sitting, will have to consider".—[col. 1640.] Am I to understand—I hope that I am—from the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, that we ignore it now; that is, it is taken out of the hands of the Review Body and the Prime Minister has in fact given an assurance that the pay will go up to take account not only of pay increases outside the Services but also the rising rate of inflation? If those things are so, I am to some extent reassured, but not entirely, because I know very well that the Armed Forces have been treated in a way in which they would not have been treated if they had had anything like the muscle to deploy which is enjoyed by the trade unions. I do not think anybody on any side of the House will argue with me on that.

I am bound to echo still the words spoken by my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal in the debate on the Statement, when he said: I can only say that the Statement leaves us, on this side of the House, with a profound sense of alarm and despondency, allied to a feeling of shame that Parliament is failing those from whom it demands both devotion and trust".—[Col. 1635.] Therefore: It's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' Tommy fall be'ind, But it's 'Please to walk in front, sir', when there's trouble in the wind. There's trouble in the wind, my lords, there is trouble in the wind. Oh it's Please to walk in front, sir', when there's trouble in the wind". My Lords, there is trouble in the wind. It is howling in the radar aerials of all the world.

3.53 p.m.

Lord SHINWELL

My Lords, it is my intention in the few observations I have to make to exclude anything in the nature of rhetoric or oratory. Only a few weeks ago, in the course of a defence debate on the normal annual White Paper, the subject of pay in the Forces was raised. That could have been avoided if the proposition I made some time ago had been adopted; that is, that we might have two debates, one on the strategy of defence and the other on pay for members of the Forces. However, in the course of the debate to which I have referred the subject of pay was ventilated, and I ventured to make a few observations at that time myself. It is customary when the Forces Discipline Acts come before either House of Parliament, another place and your Lordships' House, to ventilate a variety of topics affecting Servicemen and women. That is hardly necessary nowadays, because substantial changes have occurred as the years have passed by, largely because of the intervention in another place of my noble friend Lord Wigg, who is an authority on that aspect of the subject, and other Members. Very few complaints are made about discipline and the conditions of those in the Services. So we need not trouble very much about that—at least I think not—at this stage.

I have no hesitation in saying—I naturally speak for myself; I wish I could speak for every member of the Party to which I belong—that the utmost effort should be made by the Government of the day, whichever Government of whatever complexion, to provide for our men and women in the Forces the highest range of remuneration and the very best conditions, in accommodation and (this is really a defence observation) equipment. But we have to take into account—we cannot ignore it, much as some people have tried to do —the economic and financial condition in which we find ourselves. Consequently, those of us who are concerned—and I believe that consists of a majority of Members of your Lordships' House and even a majority of those in another place—believe that everything possible should be done, financially and otherwise, to satisfy those in the Forces.

There is another reason why it is essential that this should be done. When we discuss defence in general we have been inclined in recent years, ever since 1957 and the production of the Defence White Paper on that occasion by the noble Lord, Lord Duncan-Sandys, to introduce the subject of the use of nuclear weapons. In my judgment—this may not be accepted by everybody—I consider that manpower is far more important that the possession of nuclear weapons.

The USSR, which is a possible—I will not say probable—enemy capable of aggression, has vast manpower at its disposal. The West also has potentially vast numbers of Servicemen and Servicewomen at its disposal. Unfortunately, we have not taken advantage of that, and consequently in the realm of manpower we have to accept inferiority. If unfortunately a conflict occurred in the West or in the Pacific or elsewhere, it is obvious that manpower would be a primary consideration—not the nuclear weapon or the possible use of the nuclear weapon. We have realised recently, from the dissatisfaction among those in the Forces about their remuneration and conditions and because far too many resignations have taken place, that recruitment in the near and the distant future may be adversely affected and we cannot ignore this subject of pay in the Forces.

I agree with almost every word which the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, and the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, have said. But we have to consider where the money comes from. For example, if we were to accept comparability as between those in the Forces and those in the mining industry or any other section of industry, what is it going to cost—£400 million more? That is a very low estimate. In my opinion to do the job thoroughly and provide satisfaction it would require about £1,000 million. I wish we had the money at our disposal. I must confess that I expressed doubts whether in the course of the next couple of years for which promises have been made we shall be able to afford as large a sum as I have mentioned. I wish we could provide for those in the Forces and guarantee that the money would be available so that they would be satisfied and we should have the requisite manpower in the unfortunate event of some untoward occurrence. So Members of your Lordships' House can understand that as far as I am personally concerned—and I am sure I speak for every member of the Party to which I belong—I am anxious to do the best that is possible for people in the Forces. There can be no question about that.

I come to the machinery at the Government's disposal. If I had my way I would never have appointed a Review Body. When I was at the War Office and at the Ministry of Defence it was brought to my notice that there was some dissatisfaction among those in the Forces. It is true that at that time we still had a vast number of National Service men at our disposal. The number of men and women in the Army itself was over 300,000, consisting of regulars and long service men and women and also the National Servicemen. But on that occasion we had no Review Body. It was the responsibility of the Minister, the head of that Department, to decide what could be done for those in the Forces. I remember the occasion. The advice was placed on my desk; I submitted it to the three Chiefs of Staff and asked their opinion; civil servants were also asked to express an opinion, and naturally the Treasury came into the discussion. One could not possibly ignore the Treasury. Eventually a proposition was made to me that £60 million would be required in order to provide what the people in the Forces would regard as satisfactory. That included also an increase in pensions—the two were combined, pay and pensions.

Because of my previous association with the War Office, not only as Secretary for War but as Financial Secretary to the War Office, when it came before me I cut it down by £5 million or £6 million. What remained?—£55 million. When the Treasury got to know about this they complained at once that it was impossible, and I can remember Hugh Gaitskell, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer, coming to see me at the Ministry. Why should the Chancellor of the Exchequer come to see the Minister of Defence? He was of higher rank, but it so happened that previously he had been a Parliamentary Secretary when I was a Cabinet Minister in my Department, and out of courtesy he came to see me instead of asking me to go to see him. He offered £30 million. I had to reject it at once and I suggested that I take the matter to the Cabinet. It was taken to the Cabinet and the Cabinet decided in favour of the £55 million, largely because of the influence in particular of the late Dr. Addison. I believe his son is a member of this Assembly. Anyhow, that was the decision, and the Treasury had to accept it. I believe it to be the responsibility of the Minister to decide. Naturally he must consult.

But what happened? It was thought better to be in possession of a decision by a review board, an independent board. What happens at the end of the day? The board comes to a decision—it is called a recommendation. It is sent to the Government and the Government, taking into account all the circumstances, decide that they cannot go beyond a certain figure. That is the situation. I do not suggest that we can return to the previous method of ministerial decision, but I do suggest that if there are some doubts and suspicions, which have already been ventilated by the three noble Lords who have spoken, that the Government may either not be willing to provide comparability or be unable to provide it, what is required? I suggest vigilance on the part of those of us—and I hope a large section of the general public—who believe that it is our duty as well as our responsibility to provide the best possible conditions in remuneration and other matters for those in the Services. I think that is all that can be said.

We have argued this matter over and over again and we could go on arguing about it. I hope there will be no more regulations. I should like to add just this. When we had the Defence Debate I ventured to make a suggestion that we might have to return to National Service. As a result of that I have had a great deal of correspondence, some very critical, some in condemnation, some suggesting that I appear to have changed my mind. I have not changed my mind at all. I have never departed from the view that I have held for many years that defence is essential and obviously manpower is required, and the more we have the better. However, I admit that a return to National Service would be unacceptable.

There is a possible alternative. In addition to the regular forces we could build up our reserves. What do we have? We have 6,000 in the TAVR. We have the regular Servicemen with very inadequate training. It is perfunctory, and we accept that. However, I do not believe that that is enough. I stand by what I have said more than once, and I repeat it this afternoon: we must not trouble too much about the nuclear weapons. I do not believe that the Russians care very much about what we want to do as regards the neutron bomb or any other kind of nuclear weapon. They are concerned about manpower. We in the West must not allow ourselves to be in a condition of inferiority.

I utter this warning, based on a careful strategic study of the situation. This is not my own view but the view of those who understand this problem thoroughly, and the books on the strategy are there for noble Lords if they want to avail themselves of them. I am convinced that if war broke out it would not be a nuclear war; it would be a conventional war. If such a war should occur, manpower would be of the highest importance. I hope that those in authority will take note of the observations that I have ventured to make this afternoon.

4.12 p.m.

Viscount BRIDGEMAN

My Lords, I begin by resisting two temptations. The first is to take up the remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, and talk about the connection between discipline and pay. The second is to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, in all the points that he raised, beyond returning the compliment, as I hope I may, and saying that just as he has said that he has agreed with two previous speakers from these Benches, I have found a great measure of agreement, not for the first time, with what the noble Lord himself has said. I should also like to add to the tributes to my noble friend Lord Selwyn-Lloyd and to Sir Robert Menzies, whom I had the privilege of knowing personally.

In the time which I have been allowed I should like to spend a short while trying to see what steps we should take to avoid all of this happening again, because that is really the object that we want to achieve by this debate. After all, it is the last straw that breaks the camel's back, and the last straw is about to break it. However, is it not worth while looking to see what happened when the first straw went on? To do that, we must go back almost to the ages of folklore.

There has always been some idea that the calling of the Serviceman has been as much a vocation as an employment. I heard that view expressed to me in a conversation by so great a man as the late Ernest Bevin. It may have been true at one time, because in the early days when officers did not have to live on their pay and there was no unemployment insurance, troops enlisted just as much to get a roof over their heads and a square meal as for the pay, and so there was some substance in it. The troops would sing on line of march: We are but little children weak, We only get seven bob a week, The more we do the more we may, It makes no difference to our pay". However, the whole subject is very complex and in my experience—and for 18 months I held a position in the War Office with responsibility for pay—it is very difficult, not only for the Army staffs connected with matters of this sort but also for Ministers, to keep in touch with the complexities which arise and which only a small group of civil servants in the Departments and the Treasury understand.

One can and does blame Ministers. As the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell said, Ministers are responsible. However, one can also sympathise with them, because it takes a great deal of knowledge and a certain amount of courage to know enough about the job in hand to take the line that they should. There is really no excuse for all of this, because we are just now having the second round of the same trouble with the police. It starts by giving way on small matters. Then, later on, when the small matters become big ones the gap is so great that people say, as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, did: "What a tremendous bill we have to pay!". It would never have happened if people had watched the small things at the start. The case history of allowances is just as bad, and that is why so much trouble arises when the military salary and the allowances come in.

I wish to refer to the 1957 White Paper which the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has also mentioned. There were three courses which could have been taken after the decision to do away with voluntary service. One was to do everything one could to see that the demand for manpower was met by inducements. Another was to supplement voluntary manpower by some form of National Service or national training. The third, which has been largely followed by the present Government, was to pretend that we have the manpower, when everyone knows that we have not.

Lord WIGG

My Lords, I must protest at what the noble Viscount has said. If ever there was a criticism to be made of the 1957 White Paper—and I have made it—it is that the facts and the figures that were given were phoney. They were not related to the manpower that was needed; they were related to a decision by the civil servants or by the statisticians as regards the numbers they could recruit.

Viscount BRIDGEMAN

I am grateful for that intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. In fact, I omitted part of my speech, which was to say that I was looking forward with great interest to the remarks that I knew the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, would make.

Time is short and I move on to the military salary and the Pay Review Board. Here again I do not think that the Prices and Incomes Board realised the one major factor why Army pay and Army conditions can never be made comparable with those in civil life. That factor is that the Army and the other Forces might at any moment have to go to war, whereas civilian people do not. That is very largely at the root of the trouble and that is why it is impossible, however hard the Pay Board tries—and it has tried in this last Report—to relate conditions for the Services close enough to conditions in civil life, bearing in mind that those conditions must operate whether we are at peace or at war.

As the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, fairly said, the Pay Board is there to recommend. It is not there to negotiate. Have we not reached the time when the Forces must be allowed to appoint their own negotiators? If we think in terms of the Agricultural Wages Board, what would happen if it were suggested that the National Union of Agricultural Workers should be represented by people appointed by the Government and not by themselves? I shall leave the matter there. It is complex and there is no time to discuss it during this debate. I wish that I knew the answer. It is possible that something might be done by allowing the principal personnel officers to appoint their own people to negotiate, so that they do not have to sit back while people appointed by the Government make recommendations. I will close my remarks now because the clock has struck seven minutes and that was my bargain with the usual channels.

Lord WESTBURY

My Lords, I believe that every man and woman in the Armed Forces is still reeling under the insult given to them by the Prime Minister in declining to see the three Chiefs of Staff of the Navy, Army and Air Force to discuss the report of the Pay Review Body prior to its publication. It seems to me that the Government are actively pursuing a policy designed to weaken our Armed Forces. Successive cuts in defence spending have meant that the Army, Navy and Air Force are now equipped with second-rate weapons, establishments have been reduced, reserves have been virtually eliminated and thousands of highly-trained men are leaving the Services because they have been, and still are underpaid and over-stretched.

It is no good the Prime Minister announcing a pay rise of 14 per cent. when, in the same breath, he concedes that it should be 32 per cent. Until our Servicemen are paid a fair wage they will continue to leave—maybe some people want them to leave. Last week the Government gave them further encouragement to go. The Government announced that from 1st April this year retiring Servicemen will be given a 30 per cent. increase in their pensions. Gratuities will also rise by 30 per cent. Quite clearly, it is now to a Serviceman's advantage to leave. If the Government could afford to increase the pensions of those who are leaving by 30 per cent., why cannot they do the same for the pay of those who continue to serve?

Already too many Servicemen have left the Forces. Reductions in establishments, caused by defence cuts, have seriously undermined the strength of the Services. What is more, while the Forces get smaller, their commitments increase. Strike-breaking has been added to the list of duties which we expect our Servicemen to perform. All this has led to overstretch. It has existed for some years now and is getting worse and worse. Frequent tours in Northern Ireland and the months spent fire-fighting have seriously affected training and, therefore, efficiency. But, even worse, the continual disruptions have put appalling strains on the Serviceman's family. Is it surprising that so many middle-rank officers and non-commissioned officers are leaving? So often these are men with specialist skills, who are difficult to replace but who are sought after by industry. Yet the Government's policy encourages them to go.

While we reduce our Forces the threat goes on growing. The Russian Army, Navy and Air Force have never been more powerful then they are today. On the borders of the free world the Soviet Union has massed 20,000 tanks. These tanks are constantly modernised; some are equipped with armour which makes them impervious to anti-tank weapons at present in service in the West. This type of armour was invented in Britain, but it has never been fitted on our tanks. Why not? Chieftains, protected by Chobham armour have been sold abroad.

We should give our Servicemen the best possible equipment that money can buy and we should pay them the wages that the Government themselves admit are fair. To do anything less is to endanger the security of our nation. I cannot believe that the Government wish to undermine our own defences, but they are playing a dangerous game when they try to obtain security so cheaply. I say "God save the Queen and the United Kingdom", because, as sure as day follows night, if the Government continue to pursue this mad policy, our Armed Forces will not be able to.

4.24 p.m.

Lord BOURNE

My Lords, there are two "musts" in the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. One is weapons, which must be of the very best, and the other is morale, which must be high. About a year ago the House of Commons Expenditure Committee reported that our trucks, artillery and that sort of thing were out-of-date. If the RAF do not have the latest machine they will be shot out of the skies; those machines need to be constantly replaced. As regards the Navy, we always say that our naval contribution is the best and the biggest in NATO. I should jolly well hope so. But the fact remains that our building programme includes only two major ships—need I say more?

It is dreadful when married Servicemen of all three Services find their quarters too expensive to live in. I have heard mention of a figure of 18,000 houses being empty because of this. In my opinion, it is dreadful that when a battalion is moved back from Northern Ireland to carry out fire duties and protect our homes, it has to work 100 hours or 110 hours for no overtime whatever. A CO—and I happen to have a paper about this—reckoned that a rifleman with a wife and one child was worst off; he only had £30.74, which is impossible to live on. Surely it must be wrong when 35 per cent. of a battalion is drawing a rent rebate.

Those are the simple reasons why the pay of the Forces should be raised. As I said in the recent debate on defence, we have been a bad ally in NATO these last few years. We have not only weakened the flanks of NATO—Supremo General Haig has said so in his many speeches—but we have cut our own forces wickedly to the point of suffering an outflow of skilled men. It is said that as many as 1,000 officers in the Army and 500 in the RAF are leaving—I could not find the figure for the Navy—and possibly 10,000 men altogether are leaving. Therefore, let us see whether the increase of 14 per cent. will do the trick.

I entirely agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, that the report of the Review Body should be more representative of the workers themselves. The report is coloured by paragraph 23 which says: We also have to consider the evidence that has been put to us on the application to armed forces' pay of the current guidelines with which the Government has asked us to comply in making our recommendations". That colours the whole report. I believe that that quotation is very unfair to the Review Board itself. Paragraph 19 of the report says: It will be obvious that, whether they are implemented in full … or staged, the levels … will soon become out of date". Perhaps I should quote paragraph 38, which says that up-to-date rates of pay: ought to be introduced with effect from that date", and the date they refer to is 1st April 1978. No wonder we are still behind the pay in civilian life.

Observing that the TUC is now discussing free collective bargaining, I fear that the pay of the Armed Forces will automatically drop behind. Quite apart from whether the Government do or do not keep their promises—they have already broken them once; I am not saying there were not very good reasons, but the fact remains that from the Services' point of view they did so—I believe that the Armed Forces will inevitably drop behind, with bad consequences. We shall see in a few months whether the outflow to which I have referred will be stopped.

The question I should like to ask the Government is this. Will the Government, if the 14 per cent. rise fails to staunch the outflow from the Armed Forces, raise their pay, irrespective of other groups, from 14 per cent. to an average of 32 per cent. on 1st April 1979? I ought to explain that in the Army, Navy, and Air Force you do not get your pay until you have served, so the figures of 1st April 1980 is a phoney figure. If the Government raise the pay it will show that they are interested in the future of the Armed Forces. If they do not, it shows that they are not.

4.31 p.m.

Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE

My Lords, I am very proud indeed to have an opportunity of contributing to this important debate. Many important points have been made by people with real knowledge of the Services and their requirements in relation to equipment, about which I probably know nothing at all. However, I am very glad in particular to support the speech made by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, and also that of my Leader, Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, who has given a very good reply regarding what is required by our Services and what they do so admirably and so nobly to protect our country. Indeed, our country does need protecting.

I should like to pay my own tribute to Selwyn Lloyd. I was very honoured and proud when, in another place, he asked me whether I would move his adoption as Speaker. He was a great man. That he should have died is a terrible loss to this country and to your Lordships' House. I felt that I must enter this tribute to him in the short speech that I have undertaken to make today.

When the noble Lord, Lord Winter-bottom, comes to reply I think that he will be in great difficulty. I am looking forward not so much to what he says today, but, when he has reported to the Cabinet, to finding out whether the Cabinet will alter their views with regard to our Services and their equipment. I hope that it will not be too long before we have another debate when we can more forcibly develop the points that we have made.

I promised that I would make a very short speech, and that promise I shall keep. However, there is one thing I really must say. I say thank God! that we have such magnificent Service chiefs, who have the courage to speak out regardless of their own position. I think that they are absolutely magnificent. I support every word they said. I never really like criticising individual people in Parliamentary life, because all of us of course have problems and all of us make mistakes, or have lack of knowledge. But for the Secretary of State for Defence to take the action that he took and say what he said! Well, perhaps I must restrain my language, but honestly, I was simply furious.

I was more furious when I heard that what he said was also supported by the Prime Minister. I have always liked the Prime Minister. I think he is a man of integrity. I do not support his political views, but I think that he is a man of integrity. But on this occasion that he should have supported such a ridiculous speech as was made by the Defence Secretary! Nothing would give me greater pleasure—of course it will not happen because the Government will not do it—than to hear that the Defence Secretary will be asked to resign. If we could get him to resign, we might get on a hit better. Therefore, I hope that it will not be long before we do what we know we ought to do for the Services and, I should like to add, for the police. I am very honoured that this House has listened to me for the short time I have spoken. I look forward to the future when we can do what we ought to do for the Services and for the police.

4.37 p.m.

Earl CATHCART

My Lords, it is especially appropriate that, in debating this Motion to approve the annual Discipline Acts of the three Services, we should discuss in particular the pay and conditions of the Armed Forces, since these important subjects are connected so closely with the morale and well-being of our Servicemen. Indeed, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that every report of the Armed Forces' Pay Review Body deserves a special debate in your Lordships' House quite separate from our annual debate on Defence Estimates, when we normally discuss strategy, detente, equipment and the like.

The Seventh Report of the Review Body is certainly the most comprehensive that they have so far produced. The report clearly identifies that since 1975 Forces' pay has fallen by 32 per cent. behind equivalent earnings in civilian occupations. The noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, has already acknowledged that point quite clearly. I do not believe that the military salary is well understood by the general public as a whole. Indeed, I am often surprised how many people among friends I am talking to still do not realise that an unmarried soldier is required to pay rent for his barrack room bedspace, and pay for all his meals that he gets in the cookhouse. This was of course an essential part of the military salary when it was introduced, but it is largely overlooked and forgotten.

It was most unfortunate, in my opinion, that within 18 months of the military salary being introduced in 1971, it found itself operating under conditions of raging inflation; the very worst conditions under which to get the military salary established and understood. However, in dealing with the Armed Forces' military salaries since 1974, I believe that this Government have committed three serious errors of judgment. The first was by allowing Forces' pay to fall behind that of their civilian counterparts by as much as 32 per cent.

As a result of the massive wage increases in 1974 and 1975 and the resulting inflationary scramble for more wages, the Government have had to impose a statutory pay policy with rigorously applied restraints. I do not believe that under pay restraint measures, which are designed specifically for an industrial situation, the Armed Forces are ever likely to receive a square deal. The Government should have realised that and should not have allowed Forces pay to lag so far behind during the past three years. In the last 12 months of the life of this Government they have undertaken to put the matter right by 1980.

The second error, in my opinion, was not to regard the Armed Forces as a special case, and I would include, as did my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, our police force in that category too. Of course, a group of wage-earners who, like the Armed Forces, cannot earn overtime and who cannot be awarded productivity deals is bound to fall behind unless the Government of the day protect the fair and just comparability of its take-home pay.

As for the award of 14 per cent. this year, I am afraid it is too little and too late, and I am doubtful if we shall ever catch up with full comparability, even by 1980. And taking into account civilian pay rises and productivity deals, 14 per cent. barely makes any inroads into the 32 per cent. which both the Government and the Pay Review Body acknowledge is required. I should have preferred to see a bigger initial slice into that 32 per cent. made this time as the result of the recommendations in the report, because that would have given a far greater upsurge of that confidence about their pay and conditions which is so badly needed in the Armed Forces.

It means, of course, that if full comparability is to be achieved by 1980, as the Prime Minister has promised, and if at the same time Forces pay is to keep pace with civilian pay rises and inflation between now and then—the indexing which the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, has assured us will take place—the Armed Forces will have to receive rises considerably in excess of 14 per cent. both in 1979 and 1980. But on this occasion, the very day after the Prime Minister had announced the 14 per cent. rise, on 25th April, a certain newspaper splashed the headline, "Armed Forces Shatter Pay Policy"; that showed how completely they had misunderstood the military salary and the position into which the Armed Forces had been put, and how totally that newspaper had misunderstood the X-factor and the part that the X-factor must play in the military salary.

If the Prime Minister's assurance means anything, the Services will, as I said, have to receive considerable pay rises each year for the next two years in order to restore comparability. What worries me is whether this situation will continue to be appreciated by the general public, the trade unions and the Press. I am inclined to think that, as we approach 1980, the situation we are discussing today will be forgotten, will lapse, and that unless the Government and the Minister of Defence himself do something about it to keep the need for the restoration of comparability in front of the public, the Government, with the best intentions in the world, will find themselves facing ill-informed opposition.

I have a question for the Minister on a matter which is not the concern of the Pay Review Body and about which I have given him previous notice. My question concerns the local overseas allowance for our Forces in Germany. This is an important allowance which is calculated on the basis of a comparison between the cost of living and the rise in inflation in Germany and that pertaining in this country. It represents 40 per cent. of the take-home pay of a private soldier stationed in Germany; it ensures that while serving in Germany he does not suffer from the very high cost of living in that country and the relatively poor exchange value of the British pound.

At about this time last year it was proposed that because the standards of living of Servicemen in this country, as indeed with all of us, had fallen, Servicemen in Germany should suffer a similar fate, a clear indication of the policy of equal misery for all. The proposal was to reduce the local overseas allowance by 40 per cent. so that it would then represent only 14 per cent. of his take-home pay. Naturally that proposal caused great anxiety to those serving in Germany and in particular to those with hire purchase commitments which they would have to continue paying off for a very considerable period.

As a result of representations, the Minister of Defence undertook that there would be no cut in the local overseas allowance pending further enquiries and discussions. There is still great anxiety on this question in the Services—in the Royal Air Force in Germany and in the British Army of the Rhine—and I should be most grateful if the Minister would say how those enquiries and discussions have proceeded and what is the final decision in this matter.

4.47 p.m.

Lord WIGG

My Lords, I wish at the outset to join with those who have paid tribute and expressed their sorrow at the passing of the noble Lord, Lord Selwyn-Lloyd. He was an old opponent of mine but an opponent whom I respected and I am indeed sorry that his life has come to an end.

I was glad that the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, reminded the House that what we are debating is the Continuation Order for 1978 of the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts. It might be useful to remind noble Lords of the circumstances in which this procedure was adopted. In 1952—and people may say, "That was a long time ago; forget that and bring yourself up to date", but defence policies and defence procedures take a long time to work out, so 20 years is but the flick of a finger—the situation which then faced the Labour Opposition to the new Conservative Government was the realisation by some of us (certainly by me), that the Army Act, which had to be passed by 1st April each year, presented a first-class opportunity to a vigilant Opposition.

One of the things we had to do, and I certainly played some part in it, was to convince our leaders of the Opposition—which was done by a mixture of a little arm-twisting, a few meetings and some speeches, coupled with the fact that whether they liked it or not it was going to be done—that the occasion presented an opportunity to table large numbers of Amendments. The Act was no less than 100 years out of date. It had survived two wars and it contained such provisions as that making it mandatory for any civilian to take into his home any given number of soldiers, provide them with a couple of pounds of beef, three pounds of bread, four quarts of beer and change the sheets in the morning. That was mandatory under the billeting provisions and there were numerous provisions of that kind. Eventually, the Government succumbed; I remember discussions with the late Mr. Anthony Eden, as he then was, who accepted that the way out was to have a Select Committee.

The Select Committee was born of Party conflict, and it met under the chairmanship of a very wise and good man, who was a Member of this House until his death—the late Lord Spens. As soon as the doors closed, all the Party differences were forgotten. We spent two and half years, labouring through all the Recesses. It was quite a job—with no pleasant visits, but only hard graft—to go through the Army Act, and produce another one which your Lordships would debate each year for five years. Then there would be another Select Committee. When the matter came back to the House on the first debate, there was a great discussion.

I was a very humble participant in the discussion, and I put the formula that I had worked out and that I had come to know as a very humble member of the Armed Regular Forces—lance-corporal, or something like that. We had enough "G" problems. We did not want any more "G" scenarios. What the Army needed was discussion of its "A" and "Q" problems, because whenever the Army had failed, it had never done so because it was short of plans; it was short of jerry calls, short of ammunition, and short of grub. That was what had gone wrong. It had gone wrong ill the Crimea, it had gone wrong in the Boer War, and it had gone wrong at Mons. The troops were all right, but they had no barbed wire. They had no HE. There was no mechanical transport. That was what was wrong. The reason for that was that the Army was run by the aristocratic part of the community, who did not think that providing the rations, or getting the washing done, was a job for gentlemen who had been to Eton. That was left to the products of the "secondary mods"—but there were no "secondary mods" in those days. The idea was that on debates of this kind we would discuss "A" and "Q" problems, and there was no truer "A" problem than that of pay.

The Opposition have decided to have this debate. I would not take part in your Lordships' last Defence debate, because the debate was rubbish. The White Paper is rubbish. The whole defence policy is rubbish, because there is no matching needs with means. I shall try to demonstrate that, as well as what the consequences have been in the past. Your Lordships normally take this kind of matter on the nod, but this time it is to be delayed a little. I am quite willing to come on at the end of the queue. I have been working on my speech for a considerable time, and I intend to make it. Having listened to the debate this afternoon, I should like to refer to some words of Adlai Stevenson. The trouble is that "I am too old to cry, and it hurts too much to laugh". Most of the speeches should have been prefaced by the words "Once upon a time."

The pay of the Armed Forces cannot be discussed in isolation. I should like to remind your Lordships of one or two very simple facts. Let us start with fact number one, which relates to the problem of expenditure on the Armed Forces. Here I have not relied upon my own researches. I do not ask questions of the Defence Department unless I know, roughly, the answers—I am too old a hand for that. However, I wanted to ascertain what was voted on defence expenditure in accurate figures since the end of the last war. Remember, my Lords, that every single penny spent on defence must, by its very nature, be inflationary—and it is inflationary in a particularly vicious way. If there is enough of this money it preempts on scarce skills, and on scarce raw materials, and if it does not involve the modern products of a technological age the consequences are indeed serious.

What have we spent? The figure is £75,687 million since the end of the war. That kind of figure could make the economic situation look a little healthier, could it not? Consider this in relation to North Sea oil revenues. The total sums realised from North Sea oil, at the maximum, will not equal our defence expenditure. So we are dealing here with vast sums. I should like to give one other basic figure. This, too, is a Ministry of Defence figure; not one of mine. The total number of men in the Armed Forces at at 1st January was 323,600.

Think for a moment of the days when manpower and the conditions of service were planned, and planned ahead; when, for example, the old Regular engagement used to be 12 years, partly with the Colours, partly with the reserve. When one wanted a considerable number of men engagements had low Colour service and long reserve service. For example, in the Guards engagements were three years with the Colours, nine with the reserves. Infantry who were to serve abroad would be seven years with the Colours, and five with the reserves. They could be held for an extra year if necessary. That was where the flexibility was contained, within the terms of service.

An officer could not marry and get allowances before he was 30. But of course most of the officers did not need the allowances, because the Army in particular was organised on an aristocratic basis. Most of the officers could not live on their pay. There was no attempt whatever that pay for all ranks should in any way comprise an income. It would not be the act of a gentleman to have to live on his pay; to do so he would be an outsider. That situation had another very serious effect. This was worked out by a Conservative Member of Parliament, who gave his life for his country in the last war. He spotted something. Why, he asked, was it that in the First World War it was not until the end that the men of great ability—the Harringtons and their like; or, in the last war, the Montgomeries—got through? Why do we have to start by being commanded by aristocratic nincompoops, whose major ability is to ride horses? Why?—because in the cavalry, and in the Guards, the average age of the commanding officer was of the order of 39. They were men of great wealth, and the thing was to serve for a few years. They were concerned with the aristocratic cliché of having served in or around London at the good stations. They then retired to manage their estates. In the infantry the average age was 43 or 44. So this meant the same situation; namely, that the senior positions were occupied on the basis of the mere application of the age principle. This involved the cavalrymen, the guardsmen, and the artillery men. The infantry men broke through only after a long period.

Let us look not only at the terms of service as they were operating in 1952, but also at the rates of pay, and see the effect. In 1914 the pay of an infantry man was a shilling a day. It had not changed for 60 years. But what had been added was something of very great importance, and I should think that this possibly involved a member of the Liberal Administration. I say that because there was occasionally a Liberal who had great ability: one was Lord Haldane. His ability was marked by his leaving the Liberal Party and joining the Labour Party. He certainly was not a Tory. The Tory Party has an unblemished and unbroken record of failure in all the Service Departments. If noble Lords doubt that, I should say that it was high-lighted by a very remarkable experience during the war, when they ran through all the Tory Benches in the House of Commons and they appointed a Permanent Secretary, because there was no one else to appoint.

What had been done in 1914 was to introduce a form of proficiency pay—and a quite high rate of proficiency pay. It was sixpence a day Class 1; threepence a day Class 2. But to qualify one had to have not less than three years' service. One must have had a three-year engagement, and must not have served for less than two years, and one must have been able to shoot. Even lance-corporals and bombardiers had to be marksmen, or first-class shots, to be able to get that extra sixpence a day.

What happened? Do not listen to me, my Lords. Read that remarkable book Old Soldiers Never Die. If noble Lords have not read it, they should. It is written by the only ranker Regular soldier Private Frank Richards, of the second battalion The Royal Welch Fusiliers, who went from Mons hack to Mons again without a scratch. His style is that of an Army signaller. He had the good fortune to serve with Robert Graves; this produced a book of enormous merit. On page after page, Richards says that we outshot the Germans. Alternatively, if one wants a more erudite description, one can turn to Correlli Barnett, one of the greatest military historians. He tells in Britain and Her Army that at Mons when von Kluck attacked piecemeal, it was the musketry of the British infantry that stopped the Germans in their tracks. It was the old proficiency pay. I might say that the boys had not been taught to shoot birds on the wing. They knew nothing about shooting pheasant or partridge, except when they did a bit of poaching. But what they did know is that if they became marksmen or first-class shots they got sixpence a day—and that mattered.

Now, the 1914–18 war had not been going for five minutes before a glaring example became very evident. Of course, our aristocratic Army was wedded to the horse, but horse transport had long since been passed by modern armies which had kept themselves up to date. So what happened? The Liberal Administration produced a remarkable jump in pay. They did a staggering thing. They intro- duced pay of six shillings a day for MT drivers; and the effect of this was felt throughout the war. Nothing did more to produce bitterness than that six-bob a day, because there was the ASC driver, living in a comfortable billet with three meals a day and a bed when he got back, driving up to the front line, and the infantry he carried went on and got shot up for a shilling a day. Indeed, there were innumerable law actions after the war by men who thought that they had been "done", who thought they had joined for six shillings a day only to find that they had not.

Then, at the end of the war we had another remarkable occurrence. Again, a Conservative Government had learned a lesson. Army Order 325 was introduced. It introduced a new concept of pay—a tradesman's rate of pay and a non-tradesman's rate of pay. For the non-tradesman, for the first time, proficiency pay was split; that is, the soldier who was dismissed his drill and who had a certificate of education could get threepence a day—therefore the qualification—and he could get another threepence if he became a marksman and was physically efficient. Here, again, there was built into this gift another complete lack of thought. The experience of the First World War and its deficiency of MT drivers caused Army Order 325 to include within it a provision for the giving to a mechanical transport driver of a tradesman's rate of pay. But, of course, in the days when the Army had got few MT drivers and paid six shillings a day, the situation had been transformed. So in fact the mechanisation of the Army was hung up from 1919 onwards because there had been written in this provision for tradesmen, when virtually it meant that any infantrymen who passed an MT test qualified as a tradesman. Again, a form of bitterness because the restrictions were imposed on an establishment basis.

Now we move on. We move on again, if I may say so, to a marvellous happening. All the speakers on the other side of the House talked about equity. In 1925—perhaps we might get the figures exactly right—there was Army Order 367. That was a real red-letter day. What did the Tory Government do? Because of its ossified class nature, the pay of the Armed Forces was linked to that of an agricultural labourer. The rates of pay given by Army Order 325 were, to a Government which was returning to the gold standard, impossible to sustain. They were impossible politically to sustain to the diehard, blue-eyed Tories in another place—and I expect there were a few here. So what did they do? They reduced the rates of pay. We have not heard a word of that today, about that reduction in pay. That brought about the introduction into the Armed Forces of another source of intense bitterness, because in the barrack room you had men sleeping bed by bed, one getting 10 per cent. more than the other. So you had exactly two rates of pay introduced by a Tory Government.

Then, as if that was not enough—and here I speak with great personal feeling—there was something else. I noticed some words of the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, about the Armed Forces and the way a Labour Government treats them. In 1931, those who were on the higher rates of pay—and I was one of them—not only found their pay reduced from the old rate to the new but also found their allowances reduced. Our marriage allowance they reduced; our ration allowance they reduced. What did it do? It caused something to happen which has not happened today. It caused a mutiny in the Navy. Why was it done? Was it because there was a shortage of money in the City of London? Not on your nellie! The reason it was done was because a Conservative Government wanted to stay on the gold standard. And Tories come along today and talk about sacrifice in the interests of the Armed Forces. Here again, you had this in the Army. You had rates of pay for those before 1925, and you had rates of pay for those after 1925. You then combined the joint misery in 1931, then you restored it in two dollops of 10 per cent., and then it came back again. Let me move up to the outbreak of the last war. Again, the mismanagement of this problem was crystal clear, as plain as a pikestaff; because the further you were from danger the more you got. That was the working out of Army Order 325; so after the war was over they introduced a star system. Personally, I think that was a tremendous improvement.

The Marquess of LINLITHGOW

My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive my interrupting him. I am very grateful. I have been listening to his speech with great interest. I did not mean to intervene in this debate, and am in fact doing so only as a civilian who fought in the war and many of whose friends, who were not professional soldiers, also fought in the war, a number of them being killed. I think it is most ungenerous of the noble Lord, if I may say so, in the name of those who, like myself, fought in the war—and, as I say, many of them, non-soldiers, were killed and wounded—to try to persuade the House (which, so far as I can see, is what he is trying to do) that the war was won by the noble Lord, the Lance-Corporal Wigg, and his friends and that the Conservatives basically "ducked" the war and had nothing whatsoever to do with helping to win the war. Now, this is not a point that I should like to make in your Lordships' House, but I have in fact been tempted to make it beyond my power to resist by the noble Lord; and it is certainly not a point that I would ever make otherwise. I should like the noble Lord to look up the statistics of the Members of Parliament in the House of Commons between 1945 and 1952 and see who, on the Socialist side, had seen action and who, on the Conservative side, had seen action.

Lord WIGG

I do not mind if the noble Marquess wants to do that piece of research, to bring it out, but what has that to do with the argument? He may be right; he may be absolutely right, and that every single one in the House of Commons was on the Conservative side. Let us take it that that is so. But that is not my case.

The Marquess of LINLITHGOW

My Lords, I am terribly sorry; I have not made my point clear. I really do not think that sacrifice in war is a political point at all and I would just wish that the noble Lord would not make such statements in this House.

Lord WIGG

My Lords, if it is a political point I am going to make it. I do not apologise to anybody for making the speech that I want to make. If anybody does not want to listen, I am sorry; I will go on speaking to myself. I do not mind that; I have not the slightest objection. But I am going to make my speech in my own way, and I am going to say that pay and the handling of pay in the Armed Forces is something very much more than a subjective matter. It is linked with the organisation of the Forces; it is linked with their fighting efficiency; it is linked with the total amount that you spend on defence.

I go further, and I say this to the House, that, whether or not they like it, the Armed Forces of any State is an extension of the society it seeks to serve. It is an extension in the sense that it projects, or should project if it is to be efficient, all the forces that are within the State, and it serves the objects of policy that the State may lay down; and if there is any tension or any error in the formulation of the policies framed upon those principles, it will reveal itself. They did for the Americans in Vietnam; they did for the French in Indo-China, they did for the French in Algeria; and for the French and ourselves at Suez. I am quite prepared to be as generous as any human being; and even if I did not want to be generous, the service of Conservatives in the war and all the rest of it is irrelevant to my argument.

What I am saying now is that the money being spent following the introduction of the 1957 White Paper, which Mr. Macmillan introduced as a political document to save him from the consequences of the Suez disaster, carried with it the consequence that the expenditure that has to be undertaken—which takes between 55 per cent. and 60 per cent. of the whole defence Budget—is of such magnitude that, at the end of the day, you cannot afford to pay for and provide the equipment which is essential to the men in all three Services. Those are the facts.

May I remind your Lordships of the recent utterance by the Chief of the Defence Staff in China which received some notice in the Press? The Soviet Government commented upon it and their representative in London was interviewed by the BBC. I never saw a full report in any newspaper. I got a report myself from the BBC on what this gentleman said right at the end. He said: All the gentlemen in England can sell their trousers and give it to defence but there is nothing you can do ever again to become a first-class military power". That is the fact. If you indulge in expenditure of this magnitude without regard to the consequences, without seeing that the terms of service are such (or that the money is spent in such a way) as to meet the actual needs, then, sooner or later, the consequence, as sure as night follows day, will be that it is going to end in military defeat. It cannot be otherwise as the failures of policy and the means and overwhelming might of the USA were brought to naught in Vietnam, or, again, I repeat, the strength of the French Empire was brought to nothing in Algeria. The resources, never mind how great, did not match up to the need.

Lord BOOTHBY

My Lords, I ask the noble Lord only one question: does he not realise that between 1925 and 1935 we were operating under what was called the "Ten-year rule"—which said that no war was to be expected for 10 years—laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1925? That was Mr. Churchill. During those 10 years, not only the pay of our Armed Forces but the strength of all the Armed Forces, the Navy, the Air Force and the Army, were steadily reduced.

Lord WIGG

My Lords, I entirely agree. I think I have written to this effect. One of the most disastrous decisions taken was the Churchill doctrine of the 10 years. He himself subsequently built his career around the complaints he made about failure to re-arm; whereas, in fact, our weakness had been brought about by Mr. Churchill himself.

I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, will appreciate the point I am making—and I have made it and passed from it—that the Armed Forces of the Crown of this country as in any society—and it is true of the United States—are and must be an extension of the society they serve. The great tragedy has been that between the two wars—and I think it was probably accidental—Britain was, perhaps, the only example in history where a great industrial power, the most (if I may say so) sophisticated democracy in the world, went into the Second World War after suffering decline as a consequence of the First World War and one million casualties, with an army of peasants led by an aristocratic class whose strength was based on the ownership of land—a concept that was dying at the end of the 19th century. That is the basic fact. It was a society that valued spurs above sprockets and it was no accident, therefore, that it could not handle the tank when it came up against a society which had renounced the horse and was utterly utilitarian in its concepts and was prepared to dedicate everything in the State to the strength of its Armed Forces. In a democratic society you cannot behave like that. It is one or the strengths and virtues of democracy: that you are accountable for your actions.

I am saying—and this is what I wanted to lead up to—that all my political life I have said, and I repeat it again today most dogmatically, that I believe the demands of this country need conscription. The abolition of conscription was a political act. Only through the imposition of conscription can you have the kind of Armed Forces you want, and for a very special reason: because the Armed Forces are, again I repeat, an extension of the society they serve. They must therefore have access to the scarce skills which they cannot pay for, never mind how much money is on the table. The only way to get access to those scarce skills is through the organisation of (and it is implicit in) national service. In my judgment, it is no accident that all the EEC countries except ourselves have conscription for the very reason that you cannot get balanced forces. If you try to buy them as they are being bought now, you will fail; whether it is Mrs. Thatcher who does it, Sir Ian Gilmour, or whoever you like. This is one of the reasons why I take no active interest in defence. It is absolute nonsense. The more we spend, the weaker we become economically and we do not correspondingly increase our military power.

My Lords, I do not apologise in the least for having kept you. If I bored anyone, I am sorry. What I have in mind is that at some stage in this country's proceedings, somebody ought to say what I have said—even if it is not popular and even if it makes me unpopular. For that I care very little. I am speaking the truth which is in me. I know this to be the truth; I worked over it, I fought over it; I believe it.

5.18 p.m.

Baroness VICKERS

My Lords, no-one can say that one is bored by a speech by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, but on the other hand I think it was inappropriate for him to spend all the time that he has on this. If he really wanted to bring in all this historical knowledge, he could have put down an Unstarred Question and discussed it. And he has been so inaccurate. One must remember 1916, before conscription was brought in, and the number of people who held the front until that time. If he goes on to want conscription now, then he must remember that he has already complained about cost; and conscription is extremely costly, especially with training young people for temporary periods in the very highly delicate equipment of today. When he compares the difference in wages, he will remember that when he and I were in the other place we got only £600 a year. He linked his remarks with the agricultural workers. Frankly, some people in the Services would be very pleased to have their pay linked with that of the agricultural workers at the present time, for the Services get less than many agricultural workers.

I can perhaps take an independent line because I have never been in the Armed Forces and have never been a Minister; so I can speak more frankly than some noble Lords. I am appalled—and I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Ward of North Tyneside, said in regard to the attitude of the Government. If you read the SSAFA reports, you will see that it is Service families who are now in the poverty trap. This is very unfortunate. I think that the Chiefs of Staff ought to be thanked for warning the Government and not rebuked. I read the headlines in the Press saying, Jim's mischief-makers named"; this was very unfortunate indeed. If he were going to reprove the Chiefs of Staff, surely he could have done so privately and discussed the matter with them. To me that is an unfortunate business and I hope it will not stop the Chiefs of Staffs from speaking their minds, if necessary, in the future.

What I want to discuss is the question of the formation of the Forces Wives' Association. The wives doubt whether Government will keep their promise in regard to pay, and I believe it has been calculated that pay in the Services is 32 per cent. below civilian pay today. So when civilian wages go up, Services' wages will again be left behind when the time comes for the last payment. On 6th June there is to be a rally at Speakers' Corner and the wives will then go to the House of Commons to lobby their MPs. The Association is about 30,000 strong. I feel that it is very unfortunate that the wives are being forced to take this action. I must say I support them in doing so. I hope that the Government will treat them with respect and heed their requests.

In regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, said, I agree with him that the Review Body's hands were tied, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, said, the Government's hands were not tied and they need not accept the recommendations in their entirety. This Review Body has been active since 1971 and it is now 1978. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that other methods should be found.

Since the introduction of the military salary, it would appear that the Services are considered as a homogeneous whole. In fact, of course, the Services are very different indeed. At the present time 1,000 Army officers and 500 RAF officers have resigned. What I want to point out in regard to the differences is that the RAF, for example, have to operate very superior and difficult technological equipment. It needs tremendous training and costs over half a million pounds to train a pilot. Some leave after a short time and take up civilian occupations. So what has happened in the RAF? They have put an embargo on some people's leaving and I know that one person has an embargo of eight years. This is not going to make for a happy service. RAF stations are mostly in remote areas and civilian housing is not available. Service families have to move because they cannot afford rents. They are much more willing to pay mortgages—and in some cases the payments are less than rent—and buy a house of their own There are 6,000 empty RAF houses at the present time. This means, unfortunately, that families live apart, because the husbands have to be on call at the RAF stations and there is severe overwork. This would not be allowed if they were civilians because their trade unions would sec that they were not overworked.

The Royal Navy, for example, is having difficulty in manning ships. I should be interested to know—and perhaps the noble Lord will tell me when he replies—how HMS "Bulwark", if it is brought out of mothballs, is going to be manned anyhow until they have retired HMS "Ark Royal". It is rumoured in the Navy that it may be necessary to pay off some of the crews of the smaller ships and put them into the larger ones.

I was down in Portsmouth the other day, and previously when I was there I had lunch with the Admiral at the dockyard. This time he said to me, "This is not my house now; we have had to turn it into a naval mess. My wife is allowed to come and sleep with me so many days a month." This is quite absurd. These problems are very unfortunate, because previously wives did a great deal of work for the Navy. There was what was known as a Friendly Wives' Association. They did quite a lot among the Services for charity, ran bazaars and so on. Now this has had to be dropped and so the friendship is disappearing, too. The RAF is the hardest hit at the present time because they cannot get enough pilots or engineers for the next few years. The Royal Navy is not quite so hard hit; it is down 14 per cent. on recruitments, and the Army is down 7 per cent. The Royal Marines come off best with only approximately 20 people fewer than last time. I hope that the noble Lord will look into these points.

May I take this opportunity to thank him for the reply that I have just received following the Defence debate of some months ago. I had inquired about the medical services. He says that categories of personnel have for some time been difficult to recruit into the medical services. This continues to be the case. He adds that it is hoped, however, to see some improvement in the near future. It is over a year since I originally raised this subject, and I should like to know what "the near future" means and what action is actually being taken.

I hope that I have said enough to convince the Government that senior officers will not be debarred by Queen's Regulations from criticising for fear of ruining their own careers. One hopes that after reading this debate the Prime Minister may reconsider and perhaps change his Defence policy. Otherwise my Lords, the "Silent Services" will not be able, because of the need to safeguard this country, to be as silent as they have been in the past.

5.27 p.m.

The Earl of AVON

My Lords, I should like to add my own humble tribute to Lord Selwyn-Lloyd. I was happy to couple him and Sir Robert Menzies as personal friends and friends of my family. I shall value that all my life.

The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, quoted the TAVR figure as being 6,000. He quoted the same figure in the Defence debate. If I may put the record right, it should be 60,000. I remain unconvinced that the Government's implementation of the Review Body's recommendations by 1st April 1980 will halt the flow from the Armed Services and, perhaps more important, will create a climate where people will wish to join the Services. As another noble Lord said, time will tell.

The two facts which interest me in particular are how the present situation was allowed to happen and what steps are being taken to ensure that a similar situation does not occur again. Like the noble Baroness, I would join the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, in querying the use of the Army Forces Pay Review Body. Would the Government be prepared to consider a change in its composition and terms of reference? Their report of 1977 must take some blame for the present situation. The current report makes much better reading.

The problem, as I see it, is that the Review Body have in the past taken into consideration the Government's restraint measures and have adapted their solution to meet Government policy. A pay review body, I believe, should present the case of their protégés to safeguard their protégés. While unions and business communities are twisting and turning in every way to circumvent the restraints—they have increased the "perks", given more overtime, changed their job descriptions, increased their insurance benefits—what happens to the Armed Forces? Their rents have been increased and "ducks and drakes" are played with their ration allowances.

There is an illuminating paragraph in this last review. Paragraph 9 says: The unsatisfactory pay position is made still less tolerable by minor irritations created by the relative deterioration in some of the conditions of service. A simple example illustrates the point: baggage allowances for Servicemen posted overseas on accompanied tours are effectively frozen in cash terms because to increase them would (we have been told) be interpreted as a non-wage benefit which would have to be offset against pay increase". Cannot the Government do something about this? Who has told the Review Body this? Cannot the Prime Minister be told by the Review Body to reverse this decision?

After all, it has been said that the Government are committed to accept the Review Body's recommendations unless there are "clear and compelling reasons" not to do so. Bearing this in mind, and having said already that the Review Body's 1977 report must take some blame for the present situation, I believe that so too must the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence take their fair share. The Government, under the present Prime Minister, seem to have drifted into antagonism against the people in uniform: first the police, then the firemen and now the Armed Forces. As for the Minister of Defence, did he not see that the 1977 report was inadequate? Did he make any representation to the Cabinet for some more leeway in pay? Was he not warned that the terms contained in the report would damage morale? Surely here was a clear and compelling reason for a re-think. I suspect that none of this happened and that ministerial responsibility has hidden under the skirts of the Pay Review Body.

For that reason alone, I should like to see the body's terms of reference changed so that the Minister and his Department, who have the responsibility for the Services, can make representations about conditions, recruiting, morale and so on, and even come up with lively suggestions; for example, tax-free bonuses on reenlistment, a new approach to married quarters and help for mortgages for soldiers who buy houses within 10 miles of their depots. We need some lively initiative, not a heavy analysis of equations. How do you equate a luncheon voucher with having a meal of stew in the field? It must be very difficult!

So much for the references. Regarding its composition, the body acknowledged after its 1977 report that the Armed Services were "disenchanted" with it. I think that perhaps the Armed Services might have used a stronger word. To give confidence to the Serviceman and to produce some of these lively thoughts, could the Board be joined by, say, eight Service personnel—an equal number—with people drawn from each Service, each representing a different rank, from a married airman to an infantry corporal and a bachelor lieutenant in the Navy, with perhaps an Army pay expert there too? They might not get on and they might even produce a minority report; but I am sure that is a suggestion worth persevering with. The Review Body might then become less independent perhaps, but in my view that would be no bad idea. It is too independent at the moment and it needs a closer relationship with the people it is meant to be safeguarding. I think this is essential if it is to be effective in the future.

5.33 p.m.

Viscount MONCKTON of BRENCHLEY

My Lords, first I must apologise for not having been in your Lordships' House at the start of the debate—I was earning my living—and, secondly, I may not be able to stay until the end, for the same reason. May I revert to the question of the alleged "rocket" received by the Chiefs of Staff for having revealed the number of officers putting in their papers or asking so to do. I think it is a bit unfair, when it had already been tabled as a Question in this House in December—a Question to which the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, gave me the Answer today. As we have had the Answer today, and everybody knows that this was a Question asked in Parliament, it does seem rather hard to blame someone because the information was leaked, if it was; it certainly was not leaked to me by the Chiefs of Staff.

Perhaps I might remind the noble Lord that I did ask another question in the very last debate on this subject—I hope the answer will not be leaked, because I would rather have it before it is leaked; that is, how many officers and soldiers are being deferred in their applications for premature retirement? It is not because I hope there are a lot—I pray there are not—but it is a very unhappy unit if people in it are being deferred when they want to leave. In my day there was a system: if you really wanted to keep a key man you went to the Brigadier, and if he was more than "key" you went to the General. Each had the power of delaying his release, but he was not a happy man when his release was delayed.

The points made by my noble friend Lord Avon are extremely relevant on the minor matters of pay, which really hurt people. I do not know whether your Lordships realise that when a soldier goes out into the field on training, the bachelor does not get charged for his rations and, still less, for his accommodation. The married soldier does; and at the same time as there was this minor advance in pay for the Forces the cost of rations went up 20 per cent. I think a lot of people have missed that point: it has gone up from 91 pence to £1.15, but at any rate it is a rise of 20 per cent. And that rise in rations is paid by the married man when he is training in the field. The result is that the single soldier lives for the day he is going to go out on training—as most of us always did—but the married man is no longer so keen or so happy when he is in the field. It is minor irritants of this kind which could easily be put right, I should have thought, without any great hurt being done to the Government's pay policy.

The question of quarters, which was raised by my noble friend Lady Vickers, is also important. The situation referred to is occurring in a very big way, and I hope that the question will be answered. Just take Southern Command. I believe that between 2,000 and 2,500 quarters are empty—I repeat, empty—because it is cheaper for a soldier to take a mortgage, live 200 miles away and commute in to work. This means that men such as the technical quartermaster, the adjutant and the serjeant-major—the key men in a unit—are living well away from barracks and, in the event of an emergency, have to be got in by devious means, because they cannot afford to live in the quarters provided. There are wasted quarters all around the Service stations in the British Isles. Again, I should have thought that was something which could be looked at. Incidentally, they then get paid separation allowance because they are not living, in quarters, so the cost is headed back the other way there.

The Servicemen really, to be honest, do not think they are going to get a fair deal, now or later. They accept what they have got. They cannot believe they are going to get comparability in one or two years' time because they do not think account will be taken of the inflation which will take place during that one or two years. So I hope that this will be looked at. I do not know whether your Lordships read Private Eye but, if so, you will see there this week a cartoon which is relevant. It shows how genuinely this is felt by the Servicemen. There is a picture of a soldier, with an IRA man next to him, saying: "Short of money? Come and do a bit of part-time in the IRA!" It is a pretty nasty joke, but it does show you what the general public think—or at least what Private Eye thinks—and I suppose it is now part of the Establishment. That is what they think about soldiers' pay.

Other minor things are also happening. The 16-year-olds in the Navy who used to be treated in a rather special way, I am told, and were given extra milk and less physical work to do so that their growing would not be stunted, are now doing the full job of an Able Seaman because of shortages. Technicians in all three Services are leaving to join the Civil Service, to do precisely the same job as they were doing in the Armed Services. This seems a hit of a nonsense, when we want to keep those key technicians.

I have been destructive so far, my Lords. I do not mean to be. I believe we must try to persuade people to stay on now rather than push them out, and I should like to know from my own Front Bench what the Conservative policy is for pay in the Forces. Let us hope that I shall hear next week during the debate in another place. Meanwhile, let all of us do our best to make the Servicemen happy and to keep them happy so that they will stay to serve the Crown.

5.38 p.m.

Lord NEWALL

My Lords, I should like to join in the tributes paid to the noble Lord, Lord Selwyn-Lloyd. He was a very great and kind statesman who will obviously be missed greatly in this House. I did not myself know him but I always had a great admiration for him.

We have had some very good speeches this afternoon, probably some of the best we ever have are on defence. Part of the discipline that is enacted in this House while we talk about discipline often means that defence debates are fairly brief. Perhaps we did have one exception this afternoon, but in my regiment we have always had good barrack-room lawyers who were lance-corporals or below.

The Armed Forces Pay Review Body Report, in my opinion, was an open door for the Government. They had an opportunity to give the Forces a fair deal and bring their pay into comparability with that of civilians. In this they have failed miserably. The Forces, pay has lagged behind that of their counterparts for several years, but if the Government do what they say they will do by 1980 they may have caught up. But I must say that this lagging behind in pay must never, ever be allowed to happen again. It is quite iniquitous. The flow of Servicemen leaving the Forces is ever-increasing. It is increasing rapidly, but the Government plumber seems to have the wrong tools, the wrong fittings and the wrong knowledge. Their only answer is that they might mend the tap in two years' time. My Lords, it is too little and too late. The Government plumber is obviously only an odd job man who will probably be on welfare before the end of this year.

I should like to ask the Minister whether he thinks we are truly and honestly keeping our promises to NATO. Ask Servicemen at any level in the Services and you will get a very firm answer that we are not and that they cannot do the job properly.

May I continue briefly along the same theme? There are the leaks of information about the numbers leaving the Forces, which were raised by several noble Lords this afternoon. These would never have happened if the Government had been more open and frank in their dealings with the Forces. My noble friend Lord Avon mentioned the word "confidence", and I agree entirely with his views. There is a distinct lack of confidence in the Government by the Services, and I, personally, am very glad indeed that the Service chiefs agreed to release the information—which they had every right to do—about the numbers leaving the Forces. The public had a definite right to know. It should not be a matter of politics. As my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery said, there is something in the wind. My noble friend Lady Ward also made this point. No wonder that, with such a terrific lack of confidence and an inability to get their points across, the bogey of trade unions often arises. Some time ago in your Lordships' House I mentioned what the German Forces do. They have a federation which looks after their interests. It is not a union, and the Services do not want one, but they need something better than the strained relations with the present Minister. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, suggested that a remedy was required, and perhaps that should be looked into more deeply.

The confidence that one needs stems from actions taken over a long period of time. The manner of dealing with pay problems is, perhaps, only one matter Lack of equipment, cannibalisation of vehicles and severe restriction on the use of tanks, ships and 'planes certainly never instils confidence in the people who are training to defend their country. Two years ago, I visited our Forces in Germany and I have recently been fortunate enough to visit NATO in order to be updated in their views. I talked to many of the Servicemen, who said then that they felt they were second-class soldiers on NATO exercises, because most of our allies had better equipment and some of it was British made. Obviously, the position is considerably worse now.

It does not help confidence if wives are told not to speak to the Press; and my noble friend Lady Vickers spoke about the part that the wives are playing. It was surely very poor judgment to try to shut them up, which can only incite them to speak out more loudly, as they will do. They are doing an excellent job. The Service chiefs, also, should be able to speak to politicians, and perhaps the House of Lords Defence Study Group has helped to break down the communications barrier in the past two years by getting Army, Navy and Air Force people to speak to politicians. Because of insufficient pay, the men in the Forces are leaving and applying to leave the Services in droves. The Navy is worried about how to man its ships, the Royal Air Force is worried about how to fly and service its 'planes, and the Army is worried about how to drive its tanks, so it puts them in mothballs.

The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, mentioned manpower, and I agree wholeheartedly with what he said. But numbers alone tell only half the story. Many of those leaving are technicians and experts, who have taken many years to train. This is something which the Government should do something about right now. These men can probably earn almost double in civilian life. My noble friend Lord Westbury mentioned the loss of manpower, and my noble friend Lord Monckton of Brenchley talked about the deferments, which is a very worrying point indeed. I wonder who has been advising the Minister of Defence about feelings in the Services. Normally, a wink is as good as a nod on these occasions; that is all that is required. But for all the winking that is being done, the Minister has only nodded. Perhaps he needs a little bell on his hat, so that he will wake up to what is going on in the Forces at the present time.

Look, my Lords, at the 18 per cent. which the power workers are getting. In his opening speech, the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, mentioned the scale of pay of a private soldier. But a private soldier on Scale A, Class 4, Band 1, now gets an increase of only £1.77 a week, which will not stop him from leaving. A captain of two years—a man with considerable experience—will now get an increase of only £5.65 a week. That is ridiculous, and it certainly will not stop him from applying to leave. The latest figures of Servicemen leaving are quite horrific and show a marked increase on the already gloomy figures.

We all know about the productivity deals that are going on in civilian life in order to give workers more money. To my mind, many of them appear to be totally bogus. The Forces cannot get a productivity deal. Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example. In an armoured regiment which has recently been restructured, the old establishment was 47 tanks. The new establishment is 74 tanks. The manpower in that regiment has decreased by one man and, with tank numbers going up by 27, the same men handle 55 per cent. more equipment. This is surely worthy of a productivity deal, but they cannot get one; it is not allowed. That kind of thing is not catered for in the new pay deal. My noble friend Lord Cathcart mentioned this, along with the injustices of the local overseas allowance, which is a very sore point in Germany, and I totally ally myself with him in his question to the Government.

Various charges have been mentioned this afternoon. Accommodation charges may have been frozen, but the food charges increased again on 1st May and have gone up 243 per cent. since 1973—a most enormous increase. The recent cost of living figures show that the increase is 10 per cent. over the last eight months, which is equal to 15 per cent. over a year. This immediately wipes out the 14 per cent. increase for the Forces and, once again, they fall way behind until April 1979, when something may happen. The chairman of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body said on 26th April that pay restraint measures designed for industry could not be fairly applied to the Armed Forces, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, reiterated this point. Parity with their civilian counterparts in 1980 is ludicrous and much too late, and will not prevent Servicemen from leaving. The final date should be 1979, and a much larger increase should have been given this year. Full parity should be achieved by April 1979.

The Government know that, at best, they may have a 50/50 chance of winning the next Election, but I do not think that they will be governing in 1980. They are passing the buck. No doubt, the Forces will be very glad, but some of them cannot wait and are leaving, and that is what we have to face. Comparability has not been restored and the Government know this. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord who speaks for the Government whether he agrees that comparability has not been restored, and, if he does agree, will he say why it has not been restored? The Forces all feel that they are being asked to provide their services on the "never-never"—never catch up, and never get a fair deal. The Conservatives will certainly give the Forces a fair deal. They recognise, as the public does, that the Services do a tremendous job, often under great hardship, and they need the backing of their leaders in Government. As Mrs. Thatcher has often said, they will get the backing of the Conservative Party.

5.48 p.m.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM

My Lords, I am glad that the House has taken the opportunity of using our annual debate on the Armed Forces Discipline Order to discuss a problem which concerns us all very deeply. Perhaps this annual event provides an opportunity for exercising the vigilance which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Wigg. I am certain that the debate has been valuable, and it has underlined once again, with the facts available, the fears expressed by noble Lords in our earlier debate in April. This debate is of particular value, because we are not talking on the basis of hypotheses; we are talking on the basis of facts as we know them and as they have been put before us by the Pay Review Body.

Of the speeches that have been made, I think that the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, really asked the key question in our discussion: how can we avoid this situation arising again? We cannot solve it by fighting a Party war or a class war. We can solve it only by applying our intelligence to the solution of problems which we all know exist and which we all believe must he solved. To that end, today's debate is of substantial value.

Various noble Lords questioned the role and value of the Pay Body. I would not. I think that they have done a remarkable job. In their first report they achieved comparability, but then—I am not making a Party political point but am just stating the problem—inflation and economic difficulties occurred. The Conservative Administration of the day introduced a pay policy and, because of the inflexibility of the system, the pay of the Armed Forces dropped behind, as usual, in 1973–74. Comparability was restored in 1975, but again, because of inflexibility, the pay of the Armed Forces slipped behind civilian pay awards. However, that is not the fault of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. As the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, pointed out, the slippage is mainly the result of a combination of inflation and inflexibility as to the way in which the pay of the Armed Forces is calculated, presented and carried out.

An interesting point was made—again by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and touched upon also by the noble Lord, Lord Newall, who spoke from the Conservative Front Bench—as to whether the negotiations should be left to the Government alone. The independent body proposes; the Government disposes. If I understood correctly the point made by the noble Viscount, he suggested that professional negotiators might he appointed.

Viscount BRIDGEMAN

My Lords, I did not suggest that professional negotiators should be appointed, although it is quite likely that that might be the right course. I said that I thought the principal personnel officers might have the task of appointing the negotiators.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM

My Lords, this is an interesting point: it may be one way whereby greater flexibility could be achieved. It is also another way whereby the minor irritants which were mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Avon, and other speakers might be more rapidly removed. As was rightly said, compared with the total expenditure the sums of money relating to baggage allowance are so minuscule that a more rapid method to solve these problems ought to be available to us.

Having said that, may I answer one or two of the questions which were put to me, one of the most important relating to the local overseas allowance. As the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, said, this is causing very severe worry, particularly in BAOR. The position is that speculation existed about a possible reduction in the rates of local overseas allowance payable in Germany, but the Ministry of Defence made it clear in a message to BAOR and the Royal Air Force in Germany last October that there would be no change in the rates payable of LOA, except those arising from fluctuations in the exchange rates, for the next 12 months—that is to say, until October of this year.

The situation is being looked at. Noble Lords may wish to question whoever may be sitting on the Front Bench, as time passes, on this subject. I know that there is a wish that the local overseas allowance should bear a greater similarity to the foreign service allowance of the Foreign Office, but the role of the two allowances is different and I believe that the harmonisation of the two is not easy.

Although I cannot give a satisfactory answer, may I also refer to the growth in the number of requests for premature voluntary release. It is interesting to note that the number of people requesting release does not bear any relationship to the number of people leaving. Applications for premature voluntary release are made, but they do not tie individuals; and if circumstances improve the request for premature voluntary release is, in many cases, withdrawn. If we look at the figures for 1977–78, which are the best that I can provide today for your Lordships, we see that 334 trained officers in the Royal Navy applied for premature release but that only 265 left; that in the Army, 908 applied for premature release and 689 left; and that in the Royal Air Force, 778 applied for premature release and 414 left. Let us hope that the Government have got their sums right. The suggestion has been made that in response to the Pay Body's proposals we have given too little and too late.

Baroness VICKERS

My Lords, may I ask the Minister how many have had an embargo placed upon them?

Lord WINTERBOTTOM

My Lords, if I may, I shall write to the noble Baroness or will deal with this point in a Written Answer. I have put this question today to my advisers, but it has been difficult to obtain figures in such a short time. I know that it is a matter of importance and I shall ensure that the facts are made known to the House. We are in a position to watch what is happening by means of the vigilance which has been mentioned by noble Lords.

All that I can do with firmness is to repeat what I said earlier. On 1st April 1979, the Armed Forces will receive a pay increase which will consist, broadly, of half the amount required to bring them up to the full military salary at April of this year, together with whatever amount is required to update the award to April 1979. This will be subject to the recommendations of the Pay Review Body. On 1st April 1980, again I repeat that the Armed Forces will receive the remaining half to bring them up to the full military salary, assessed for April of this year, together with the appropriate upgradings.

The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, suggested that the sums required might be so great that they would not be available. To achieve 14 per cent., the figure for this year is approximately £167 million, which is a substantial sum. When it is compared, however, with the total military budget the sum is not large. Therefore, the fear expressed by at least one noble Lord that the resources will not be available and that the Government's undertakings are therefore suspect is not correct. This is a firm undertaking, and the resources required are not so great that the undertaking will be broken. I am not making a Party political point when I refer to the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Monckton of Brenchley: that he hopes that his own Party, on the assumption that they win the General Election, will give a clear statement of their policy. I expect that we shall hear what that policy is when a major debate takes place on the subject next week in the other place.

I cannot bring to mind any other major point which has been made by noble Lords. However, if I find that I have missed any important point, naturally I shall write to the noble Lord in question. May I take the opportunity that this debate gives—it is customary to do so but it is no less deeply felt—to pay a tribute to the Armed Forces who, despite the situation which concerns noble Lords, have continued to serve their country with the firmness of purpose which we expect of them. They undertake many diverse and varied rôles—often very dangerous—and I am sure that the House will join with me in recording our gratitude for their professionalism and dedication to duty.

On Question, Motion agreed to.