When I was so royally interrupted I was about to say that if a Gallup poll, or some other poll, were taken on the matter, the Government might be able to discover accurately how many members of the forces like having their pockets picked, how many do not know and how many find the transaction positively distasteful.

I find it difficult to add to what I have said about pay. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) tried to put into my mouth words which I believe I did not say and which certainly I did not intend to say. I did not say that all the Services like the present position. That would have been an unlikely proposition to put forward. All I said was that I believe that they understand the reasons behind it and the implications of the pay pause policy, as I believe does the country, although it may not like it. I cannot go further than that.

The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) asked some further questions about the Ghurkas. I have noted what they said about the employment of these fine troops on ceremonial duties in London. I am sure that it would give general satisfaction if some of them could be seen in the capital. We will see whether something can be arranged during their stay in this country.

The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) made some comments on the recruitment of nurses. I am glad to say that we are not dissatisfied with this position, although we exact extremely high standards and are as selective as we can be. The figures which he gave for the pay of a nursing private in the Army were slightly misleading when compared with the pay of a nursing orderly in the National Health Service, because the nursing private also gets food, accommodation and all found, whereas the nursing orderly in a civilian occupation has to pay for board and lodging.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for drawing attention to the attractive conditions which we are offering to recruit nurses, and I hope that as a result of his remarks, and the publicity which they may receive, we shall be even more successful in the future.

I have one or two questions which I wish to ask quickly. The first relates to Subhead A of Vote 2. I cannot understand the reference to the Regular Reserve of Officers. On page 29, it is stated:

"The Regular Army Reserve of Officers is divided into three classes."

I assume that in Class II and Class III there must be a fairly substantial number of officers who would come under this heading. Yet on page 30, opposite Regular Reserve Officers, I find, "Nil". I do not understand that. It may mean that all the officers are recruited under the Army Emergency Reserve and come under that heading, but that does not seem a plausible explanation. Perhaps my hon. Friend will comment on that point.

My second question comes under Subhead D, "Territorial Army Works, Buildings and Lands". I hope that my hon. Friend can reassure me that the Army Territorial Service is not buying more land. Goodness knows, it has enough already.

Under Subhead Z, there is a reference to receipts from property sales. It seems madness if, at the same time, they are still buying more land for more buildings. Surely they have enough land in their possession, and there ought to be no additional expenditure under this heading.

I wish to ask some questions about the Reserve Forces and the Territorial Army and Cadet Forces. I have been trying to work through the various categories of reserve personnel, and I should declare a slight interest for I appear to be in the Army General Reserve, which, I understand, is the Reserve with the least obligations. A sum of £20 million is involved.

I wish to ask some specific questions on a subject which may well be covered in this Vote or in Vote 1. Has this Vote any effect on the number of Regular Army personnel who are engaged in the work of preparing camps for the Territorial Army and the Combined Cadet Force?

I have asked this question on previous occasions. I asked it in the debate on the Army Estimates. It is well known that a large number of men of the Regular Army have been employed on the necessary work of putting up tents and generally servicing the Territorial Army. I think that this is not a good thing for the Regular Army to do, and I should like to know whether it is covered by this Vote, and how many men will be engaged on this work this year.

I believe that it is fundamental that men of our Regular Army should not be engaged in these tasks if, at the end of the year, when the Territorial Army season ends, they find themselves not in the right and proper stage of training that they should be. The situation would be very much worse if any of the men in the Strategic Reserve comprised in this Vote engaged in these tasks.

Another question which I have asked before concerns the training of the "Ever-readies". While there is a pool of trained ex-National Service men available from which the "Ever-readies" can be trained there should be no difficulty in the training of the "Ever-readies". I would prefer that they were trained not in the Territorial Army, but on a separate basis, preferably with the units of the Regular Army to which they would be attached if trouble should ever come. Is there any provision in the Vote to give to the "Ever-readies" some extra training over and above Territorial Army training? Is there any provision for the paying of "Ever-readies" for this purpose?

I realise the problem that arises when this pool of ex-National Service men has dried up. The "Ever-readies" then will be simply T.A. trained men. In my opinion, that training, however good it may be, will not be enough for them to fulfil the rôle which they will be called upon to fulfil with the Regular Army. Harm will be done to the Territorial Army unit in the first instance, because men will be instantly whisked away from that unit and they may be called upon to fulfil important rôles with the Regular Army. If their training is not adequate they will not be able to fulfil that rôle properly. Is there provision in the Vote to give these men, particularly those who are not ex-National Service men, other training short of the six months' training that they may well be called upon to undertake? I am thinking of some type of training over and above Territorial Army training.

We have been told that the Territorial Army is to take part in an exercise, to be held in September. Is provision made for that in this Estimate? What is the estimated expenditure that the Government have in mind for this special exercise?

I notice from Subhead D, "Territorial Army Works, Buildings and Lands"—that the figure has gone up from £2,400,000 for 1961–62 to over £3 million this year. This is a substantial increase. I should like to know the reason for it. Strictures have been made in the past on the buildings of the Territorial Army, but I am not making any this evening. Has any study been made of the comparative cost of putting up Territorial Army buildings through private contracts compared with the cost of the Regular Army putting up its own buildings? Is it more expensive pro rata to put up buildings for the Territorial Army than for the Regular Army? Perhaps we may have some explanation of this increase.

Another question is: how does the number of civilians employed on the staff of the Territorial Army compare with the situation pre-war? We are told in the Explanatory Memorandum that the reorganisation of the Territorial Army announced in Cmnd. 1216, is now complete. Since we are back to a fairly normal situation, can we be told whether any comparison has been made between the number of civilians now employed in the Territorial Army—ex-officers and people of that category—and the number pre-war.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) asked me a question on a technicality about the presentation of the figures for the reserve of officers. I shall have to write to him, because I cannot answer him at the moment.

My. hon. Friend also asked me about our land holdings, and why we are still buying land in the United Kingdom. The position is that overall the Department has reduced its land holdings, following the reduction in the size of the Regular Army, and that we are now in the course of releasing about 146,000 acres. Up to the present we have actually given up about 118,000 acres. My hon. Friend will realise that it is necessary from time to time, while allowing some land to go, to acquire other land. We do so only when we have to meet the changing needs of the Army.

For example, new Army information offices are being acquired to help my right hon. Friend with his recruiting drive. We have to buy sites for the provision of married quarters, but they do not amount to a very great acreage. Also we sometimes have to acquire small extensions to existing areas of War Department land, such as the training areas, to enable the Department to concentrate in one location and release land elsewhere.

The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) asked how much assistance would be given to the Territorial Army by the Regular Army during the coming training season. I believe that he has a personal interest in this, having once, as a National Service man, found himself looking after a Territorial Army camp. I appreciate the hon. Member's personal interest. It is impossible at this stage to give him a figure of the actual number of Regulars involved in assisting the Territorial Army in this way, because the arrangements to do this job are made by commands from within their own resources. When they have calculated what they need they make bids to the War Office for any assistance they cannot provide from their own sources within the command, and we have not yet had these bids for the forthcoming year.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is our policy, and we see that this is enforced in the commands, that the number of Regulars used to help in Territorial camps and Territorial Army training is kept to the minimum. This is obviously sensible. On the other hand, it is all part of one Army and one defence force and it is necessary to ensure that the Territorial Army gets its proper training; but where possible, for obvious reasons, we spare the regular manpower.

Will the Minister assure us that no unit of the Strategic Reserve is involved in this work?

I cannot go beyond what I told the hon. Gentleman the other night, that we shall make sure that the primary rôle of the Strategic Reserve is not in any way compromised by it, perhaps in marginal cases, having to undertake this sort of obligation. Its first priority will be to remain available for its primary rôle.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about building costs and whether he was in order in raising this question on this Vote. He certainly is in order and I can assure him that we make a very careful study of all comparable rates of building costs as between our needs for the Territorial Army and the Regular Army and those that prevail in civilian life. We do this continuously.

The explanation for the increase in the provision for building for the Territorial Army this year in this Vote is a rather special one. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman drew attention to it. The position is that the reorganisation of the Territorial Army has thrown up a number of surplus properties—drill halls, and so on—some of which have a high value for purposes of redevelopment. At the same time, a great deal of Territorial Army accommodation and property is out-of-date and needs rebuilding or modernising.

6.30 p.m.

My right hon. Friend and I are determined to ensure that, as appropriations in aid of this Vote will result from Territorial Army property coming up for disposal, the Territorial Army will get its fair share of money available in the defence budget for the rebuilding of premises of which it will get the future benefit. With this in mind we have recently agreed with the Territorial Army Advisory Council a five-year rebuilding programme. After consultation between commands and local Territorial Army Associations, we have put just over £1 million in these Estimates to ensure that a start will be made this year. We are very glad to have been able to do this. We owe it to the Territorial Army to ensure that it gets its fair share of new buildings to replace old property which is being sold.

The hon. Member for Aberavon asked me about the training of "Ever-readies." I cannot say that in this Vote there is provision for any extra training of the "Ever-readies" over and above that which falls under their obligation as members of the T.A. It is, perhaps, worth making this point. I meant to make it in one of our earlier debates about the "Ever-readies" and their training. Hon. Members who have perhaps sometimes felt that, with the arrangements we have made the "Ever-readies" might not be sufficiently highly trained, should remember that the purpose of this reserve is to be called up to join Regular units in time of tension, not in times of actual war.

Implicit in its employment in this way is, I think, a period of time during which the men called up to join the Regular unit would be likely to be living side by side with Regulars during a period of tension, readjusting themselves to the life of a Regular service battalion, having an opportunity to shake down and brush up their individual training, and so on. This is worth bearing in mind, because it obviously will be a useful opportunity of further training for the men of this reserve over and above what they will do with the Territorial Army in the normal way.

This is a very novel doctrine which the Under-Secretary is enunciating. As I understand, the "Ever-readies" were formed because the Government's recruiting programme has broken down. The situation might arise in the immediate future in which Regular units are under strength and the "Ever-readies" would be called up in times of tension—I thought to strengthen the Regular Army. We are now told that the raison d'être is to train them. In times of tension a Regular unit which is under-strength will have enough on its plate without having to train these new recruits.

I know that this is a slight exaggeration of what the Under-Secretary has said. I do not want to indulge in a reductio ad absurdum, but the facts are that we were previously told that this was to be a corps d'elite. We were told that the most careful selection would be made. Some of us questioned whether a fortnight's training was quite enough to equip a man to take his place in a Regular unit. We were told that this would be enough. We are now told, as if there have been second thoughts, that it does not matter very much, because hostilities will not result. We are told that there will be a time of tension and that, therefore, these men can be called up and trained. This constitutes another change of front on the part of the Government.

I readily admit that I am pushing it a little hard. If the Government now think that a fortnight's training is not sufficient—I am inclined to agree with them; I have always had doubts about the proposal from the time I first saw it—they should go away and think again. If a moment of tension comes, clearly the Government will not take the drastic step of calling up the "Ever-readies", because that might even heighten the tension. It will become known that they are being called up. How can the Government be sure that hostilities will not result? The "Ever-readies" are to be called up because hostilities might result. As for the training programme of the "Ever-readies", the Government are to look at the problem as if, although they call them up to put the dummies in the shop window, it is absolutely certain that hostilities will not result.

This is an extremely dangerous doctrine. I have wearied the House on many occasions by referring to the almost perfect mobilisation plan, namely, that which operated in 1914. It was almost perfect in the way it operated. It is true that the rearguard action from Mons was fought by units which contained as high a percentage as 60 per cent. reservists. But they were reservists who were trained. That is why they out-fought the Germans. They had the great merit that they were the product of a long service. Now we are to have the glass topped up not by trained reservists, but by men who have had no training at all and whom it is hoped to train when they get there.

I have listened to the hon. Gentleman with great patience, but he must not say this. All along he has been attributing to me much more than I have said. Now he talks about these men having no training at all. He knows full well the training which an "Ever-ready" will have to undergo as part of his engagement. I merely said, quite by the way, that as and when this reserve is called up there will be an opportunity in the normal course, because of the way these things are likely to happen—it is not certain—for the men to have a period in which to shake down in a Regular unit. I am not saying any more than that. The hon. Gentleman must accept that.

I have not the least desire to be unfair. Indeed, I have said that I am pushing it a little hard.

The hon. Gentleman says that I know full well that they will have to undergo training. What training—a fortnight? What can be done with an enthusiastic young man in a fortnight, which might be as long as a year ago? It might be little more than a memory. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman that a very good unit which happens to be short, let us say, of 50 men and makes them up with "Ever-readies", can take the 50 "Ever-readies" and still be effective. I do not say that that cannot happen. I say that the Government have changed their mind.

No.

If the Secretary of State thought that, he was very hard put for arguments when we were considering the Army Reserve Bill. If he thought this he would have said, "Do not worry about this. We shall be very selective and choose only good material. We shall ensure that it is a corps d'elite, but the training is to be carried out after they are called up". That as what the Under-Secretary has said.

indicated dissent.

The Under-Secretary must not shake his head like that. Of course, he can do so if he wants to, but it has no effect, except that his head may drop off.

If a man has had only a fortnight's training, which may be as long as 50 weeks ago, no one will argue that he is an effective soldier. Of course not. He will not be comparable to the reserves who were called up under Section B in 1914. Nor will he be in any way comparable to the National Service man whose place he is taking and who has "gone through the mill" and is in every way a soldier.

I say this kindly, with great respect, and very sincerely. The Under-Secretary has come along today to break this one because somebody in the War Office has had second thoughts about how this will work and wants to calm public opinion. They want to calm the Army by saying, "Do not worry, boys. When they get in, the Army can perform miracles". The Army can perform miracles, provided that it is not pushed too far.

We have had other announcements from the Government about the change in their manpower targets and the fact that they are examining the question of having a corps of infantry in the constitution of the Army as a whole. We are also promised in the White Paper an examination of the reserve forces. There is a specific undertaking in the Defence White Paper that the whole of the reserve forces will be looked at again and, as I have said, it seems that some rethinking is required. I wish there had been some rethinking before the Army Reserve Bill had been introduced.

If the hon. Gentleman thinks that what I have said is incorrect, or that I am making too much of this, perhaps he will set my mind at rest and relate what I have said to the statement in the Defence White Paper that there is to be a re-examination of the reserve forces.

The amount of money shown under Subhead A of this Vote is to be devoted to new buildings and is an extremely good target. I have heard from all quarters that the amount of building going on both here and overseas has been extremely well received by the Army and that we are now getting to a decent standard, particularly for married quarters. My hon. Friend is to be highly congratulated on this achievement.

I am rather concerned, however, about the figure of £190,000 in Subhead E for works services in aid of work by industry, in which it is stated:

"Provision is made for capital assistance to industry engaged on production on behalf of the War Office… Provision is also included for the maintenance of buildings held as reserve production capacity."

What exactly does this mean? Throughout the Votes reference is made to the money the Army is paying to private industry to do research and development work. I am all for research and development by private industry, where necessary, but it seems that the Army is spending a large amount, perhaps larger than is necessary, and I would like an explanation of this.

On Subhead G, which deals with the purchase of land, although my hon. Friend dealt with this when we considered the previous Vote, I hope that it will only be in times of emergency that land will be purchased, or for rehousing or for new exercises. It would be monstrous if we had the Army buying up more and more land, especially considering the amount of land it already holds—and I refer to good farming and agricultural land in all parts of the country.

We can talk about Army pay from now until Doomsday. While it is very important, the real basis of a contented Army is the assurance the men have of a continuing family life. Good married quarters represent the basis of a good Army.

In Subhead A of this Vote is shown the sum of £462,000, which it is intended should be spent in the next financial year on the provision of married quarters abroad. I suppose that this is an addition to the £1½ million which, it is expected, will be spent on services already started. But I feel that if we are to stabilise the Army abroad—and some hon. Members consider that it should be increased—this figure will also have to be drastically increased.

Last year, I had the opportunity of travelling to Germany to see exactly how the Army of the Rhine was living. In our tour of the various Army camps we saw some of the private accommodation which the soldiers had provided for themselves and I must say, frankly, that the standard was just not good enough for the soldier of today. It is expensive, while not being very good. If the money which is now being spent to supplement the rents of inferior accommodation for the Army abroad were used for the provision of permanent and decent buildings, the type of letter from which I propose to quote would not be received by hon. Members. The Under-Secretary knows about this letter to me because, as a result of it I received a disappointing letter from him.

The letter states:

"I am writing in the hope that perhaps you can help me. My husband has been in the Army for eleven years, and all this time we have been separated. Now my husband is serving in Germany and we want to be together. He has 77 points and he has been told this puts him up the top of the list for married quarters. Yet others seem to get quarters before us. My husband has objected to it, but there is nothing he can do about it. So I thought I would try to do something myself. We have a son of nine and a half. Is there anything we can do? I will be very grateful for your advice."

The Under-Secretary, who has been very kind throughout the whole of this matter and who, I believe, has done his best, explains in his letter to me that married quarters are allotted on a points system which gives credit for rank, length of service, size of family up to three children and the extent to which a family has been separated during the last three years. Here is a family which, apparently, has been losing the benefits—if "benefits" can be used in this context—of eight years' separation.

The Under-Secretary stated:

"… the waiting list is liable to fluctuate as other families with more points come into the garrison and also because families already in Germany must be accommodated first when the husband moves from one station to another."

I fail to see the logic of that, because the accommodation situation in Germany is of no real importance to a serving soldier who is posted from home to a station abroad. He needs married quarters. The only real way to have a contented Army is to offer a real family life with housing facilities which are no worse than these families have enjoyed in this country.

I wish to raise a point on Subhead G, regarding the purchase of land and buildings. I have just returned from a short visit to Sennelager, the all-arms training centre of the Rhine Army, about 25 miles from Bielefeld, in Westphalia. This is very bleak country and, at this time of the year, is extremely cold.

In the middle of this training centre there is a wonderful sports field, with facilities for playing rugby, soccer and other sports. This is of great value to the troops. I imagine that, in the sort of bleak, open country I speak of, it is the only kind of recreation and amusement available to them. While I was there a rumour was circulating among quite high authorities that this recreation field might be handed over to the Germans because of some difficulty over the cost of its upkeep.

If it were handed over to the Germans, who are also training there, the fear was expressed that it might be used as a tank training ground and that the recreational facilities now provided for the troops would be lost. I urge my hon. Friend to look at this and to allay my fears, for it would be a shame if this wonderful field, of about 100 acres, could not be kept for the Army for the period of its stay, which may be very many years indeed. These are the only facilities in the area for recreation.

I am sure that all hon. Members will agree with the comments of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochdale (Mr. McCann') about married quarters. This is the one important aspect of married Army life. We must ensure that Army married quarters are as good as those enjoyed by families in civil life. However, I cannot see any provision in the Estimates for accommodation for the men immediately they come back from overseas. Frequently, when a unit comes back from overseas, a man goes to his unit and his family is split up, possibly going to relatives and remaining there for some time. I know that there is temporary accommodation for this type of case, but I cannot see provision in the Estimates for either improvement or enlargement.

I welcome very much the increased expenditure on married quarters in the hope that the time may come when every soldier who is married gets a married quarter as of right.

I endorse everything that has been said by hon. Members, on both sides, about the need for more married quarters. The Memorandum by the Secretary of State for War confesses the disappointment of his Department this year about the number of married quarters that were put up. Paragraph 71 contains the statement that

"This time last year it was possible to look forward with some confidence to a spurt in the programme for rehousing the Army in modern buildings. … In the event, progress has not been as quick as had been hoped. At home, for example, the boom in building of all kinds has slowed the pace of new work."

I shall not repeat the points I made in the Army Estimates debate, but it is obvious to everyone that housing and accommodation for our soldiers is, like council house building, at the end of the queue as compared with the Clores and the Cottons. Private building has first preference every time and accommodation for the Forces comes very much at the end of the queue.

If I understood aright the Third Report from the Estimates Committee, that Committee was dissatisfied with the explanation proffered by the War Department for the fall in the building programme. The Committee said, in paragraph 35:

"The witness, when asked why only one-third of the planned expenditure for new barracks had taken place this financial year, stated that this was due to delays consequent on pressure of work in the building industry."

Question No. 449 of the evidence on this matter bears out that statement. The question was put:

"Is it not very unusual for plans costing £3 million to come out in the end as an expenditure of only £1 million? "

This was the answer by the official of the War Department:

"It is unusual and it is disappointing."

That sums up the position.

The Estimates Committee stated:

"Your Committee do not consider that the conditions at the time the Estimates were framed differed significantly from those obtaining during the financial year. They therefore believe that the loss of so much as two-thirds of the programme must have been due in part to the Department embarking on an unrealistic programme. At the same time they find it hard to believe that so great a shortfall was due solely to this factor. In any case the Department cannot escape considerable responsibility for the substantial discrepancy disclosed."

I made this point when speaking on the Army Estimates, but if my memory serves me aright, it was not answered. Here is a grave indictment against the War Department. I hope that when the Under-Secretary replies, he will meet it.

In the Estimates Committee, the following question was put by an hon. Member of the House:

"Let me put it this way: are you anticipating next year having to put in a larger Estimate than you had thought this year you would have to because the delay is liable to result in an increase in costs? "

The answer was:

"It will certainly mean we have to spend more money from now onwards than we had expected, as the programme will be to that extent pushed on. Whether it means that we shall spend more money next year I am not sure ".

Can the Under-Secretary clarify that statement of the witness to the Estimates Committee? Whether it means that we shall spend more money next year, I am not sure. It may merely mean that the programme lasts longer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. McCann) said, it is vitally important that when men join the Army they should have every possible opportunity for the continuation of family life. If we are to have a happy and contented Army, ample married quarters are badly needed. I hope that when we discuss the Estimates in future years, horn. Members on either side will not have to read the kind of letter that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale read today complaining about the lack of married quarters. Can the Under-Secretary indicate how many years it will be before everyone who needs and is entitled to a married quarter will be able to have one?

I noticed, as the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) also noticed, that the War Office was purchasing land. Perhaps we can nave an explanation of this. As I understood it, the War Office was selling land to a considerable extent. Like the hon. Member for Cornwall, North, I am concerned that, where possible, good agricultural land should not be used. Perhaps we may have assurances about this.

I wish to put a specific point which possibly the Under-Secretary will not be able to answer tonight because I did not give him notice. Perhaps he will give me an answer later. At Trawsfynydd, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones), a large area of land is held by the War Office. I understand that there have been negotiations for the sale of the land, but they are taking a considerable time. I shall be glad if the Under-Secretary will look into this matter, and I hope that the resale of the land to the farmers can be expedited.

Perhaps I may begin by answering the point raised by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) on the Supplementary Estimate. I did not deal with the point when we were debating Vote A, because it fell under the Supplementary Estimate and I thought that the hon. Member might raise it tonight. As, however, we might not get as far as the Supplementary Estimate and the hon. Member made some fairly serious charges and asked searching questions, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I say a word about it now.

I hope to be able to convince the hon. Member that we are less blameworthy in this matter than the Select Committee implied. As the hon. Member reminded us, the Committee's criticism was based on the fact that in our original Estimates we assessed the likely expenditure on new works services to be started in the United Kingdom during this financial year as just under £3 million, whereas in the Supplementary Estimate we put the figure at £1,070,000, a difference of nearly £2 million. The Committee state that they

"do not consider that the conditions at the time the Estimates were framed "—

that is, in the last half of 1960—

"differed significantly from those obtaining during the financial year."

The Committee concluded that our original Estimate must therefore have represented an unrealistic programme.

It was not until the summer of 1961, however, that my Department began to run into difficulties in placing new contracts for barracks in the United Kingdom. These difficulties could never have been foreseen six or nine months earlier. Barracks are not straightforward things for the building industry to tackle. They are complicated. The builders who might have been available found that there were plenty of simpler jobs ready to hand. They lost interest in our business and, as a result, the tender prices that were being submitted to us rose sharply.

One thing that we could have done would have been to go ahead and place the contract notwithstanding the high prices that were quoted. Had we done this, the original Estimate would probably have been vindicated. We should not have built so much, but we should have built it so expensively that we should have just about come out at the original Estimate figure, and the House would have known nothing about it. That, however, would have been thoroughly irresponsible and wrong, as, I am sure, the Committee would agree.

Instead, we reviewed the scope of the services for which the high prices had been quoted and we revised and simplified one project after another so as to bring down the cost and ensure that we got value for money. All this inevitably took time. Thus, the starting of the new projects was, in many cases, delayed by several months, anything from two to eight months. This is very disappointing to my right hon. Friend and to me because we have been most anxious to press on to the best of our ability with the home building programme. But we were not prepared—I do not believe that the Committee would wish us to do so—to carry on irrespective of cost. I think that this puts a slightly different slant on our position in the matter which I hope the Committee will accept.

The explanation which the hon. Gentleman has given seems rather more alarming than the one given to the Estimates Committee. Apparently, an estimate of about £3 million was presented, and, when it was looked at, it was decided that the Department could have what it wanted, under a simplified scheme, for about £1 million. What has happened to the chap who gave the £3 million estimate?

When we receive a price which we regard as unacceptably high, we have sometimes to accept reduced and simplified standards because there is a limit to the finance which can be made available for particular projects. It may happen, after we have gone out to tender on one basis, that the tenders seem likely to be very high. Prices rise. Contracts are subject to variation when prices rise for inevitable reasons. If, as a result of these things, the result seems to come out unacceptably high, it is right that we should have another look. It is only financially responsible to do so.

One can entirely understand that attitude in regard to marginal differences which might even go up to 20 per cent., but here we are dealing with 200 per cent. If one can obtain substantially what one wants for £1 million, I should imagine that one would wish to inquire fairly closely into what was done by the people who set out the previous specifications stating that the requirements could not be met for less than £3 million. It seems a very alarming state of affairs.

We are talking about a programme of considerable size.

£1 million and £3 million?

That is the difference, but the whole programme is very much bigger than that. I will look at the point which the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised, but I hope that he will. on further consideration, feel satisfied with my explanation.

I am glad that we have had an opportunity in Committee today to think about the importance of married quarters. My right hon. Friend is under no illusion about how essential such provision is for the continued good morale of a Regular Army. When speaking about our building programme a year ago, he laid the main stress on the provision of accommodation for married soldiers and their families, and this still remains our top priority job. However, as we have had to point out in the Memorandum, there has been some delay in the provision of building works in overseas stations. We have explained the reasons for that. Apart from this, we are maintaining the rate of progress which we started last year.

The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. McCann) referred to accommodation in Germany. I can tell him that new building of hirings, the type of married quarter which is prevalent in Germany, is going ahead extremely well, but naturally, some of the private accommodation which is the alternative open to a soldier who cannot qualify for a War Department hiring is not as good as we should like to see. Men are allowed to go out and have their wives with them if they can find accommodation, which, of course, has to be passed as satisfactory by the commanding officer. We have to strike a balance in these things, accepting that, if men are to have their families with them in the interests of family unity, the standards will not always be so high as in the quarters which we ourselves have built. The hon. Gentleman quoted from the letter which I wrote to him. I will look at the matter again, but I regret that I cannot hold out much hope, since the decision was based on the points system which we operate, that the answer will be any different from what I was obliged to tell him before.

My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) asked about a sports field in Germany. I shall look into this and write to him, if I may.

The hon. Member for Aberavon and my hon. Friend the Member for Clap-ham (Dr. Alan Glyn) spoke about War Department land. My right hon. Friend and I are anxious not to hold any more land than we need to hold. We do not want to keep land which could otherwise be used for agriculture. We do not buy more land unless we find it essential to do so. I ask the Committee to remember, nevertheless, that this is a small island. Land is short for every sort of purpose and everyone casts envious eyes upon it. The Army needs land for training. If it is to be efficiently trained, a certain minimum amount of land suitable for training areas is and will be essential. We have to keep this in the forefront of our mind, not to speak of married quarters, barracks, and so on. Subject to that, it is our policy, subject also to the needs of other Government Departments, to make available for other uses any surplus land which we hold.

I am familiar with the specific case in Wales to which the hon. Gentleman referred. If he will excuse me, I will not go into it now. I hope to write to him about it very shortly.

Could my hon. Friend refer to the point I raised on Subhead E?

I apologise to my hon. Friend. He asked why it was that in Subhead E there is provision for assistance to outside industry. The reason is that—I am thinking particularly of munitions production—we cannot make everything we need for the Army in our own factories. It is sometimes an economical and sensible arrangement either by sub-contract or in some other way to arrange for the production we need to be done by private industry This, as I understand it, is the explanation of the payments for capital investment. I cannot justify each one in detail now, but I can tell my hon. Friend that in general I am satisfied that this principle of payment in aid of capital resources to be used for our purposes in industry is a sensible one which does give advantage.

I gather from what is said on page 167 that the War Department is holding buildings, presumably factories, in reserve in case it is desired to expand production. Is that what it comes to?

Yes, that may happen. We may have part of a factory, a shop within a factory, or even a section of a shop, and we have to maintain it. Provision must be made for the maintenance of the building in a private concern.

The hon. Gentleman was good enough to refer to one area in Wales. Will he bear in mind that there are other areas which the Armed Forces expect to vacate? I have in mind the area around Pembrey on the Carmarthen coast. I understand that this is to be vacated in the near future. In such a case, does the War Office make any effort to draw to the attention of other Government Departments the fact that such land is being vacated, with the idea of inducing them to establish industries there, particularly in places where the introduction of industry is so vital?

Could my hon. Friend deal with the point which I raised? Is there provision in the Estimates for improving and enlarging accommodation to receive troops when they return from abroad with their families? I cannot find any in the Estimates.

I cannot give my hon. Friend the answer now, but I will write to him and let him know what it is.

In reply to the point raised by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies), when we have land available for disposal, as a matter of policy we offer it to other Government Departments to see whether they are interested in it. The former owners of agricultural land also have rights which, as a matter of policy, are respected. When industrial sites are involved, my right hon. Friend and I consult the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Trade over matters such as those which I think the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

I should like to raise one or two points. First, under Subhead C, I am glad to see that the sum spent on publicity and recruiting services is increasing, but I trust that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will ensure that every penny spent in this way is well spent and that we see some dividends from it. I am sure that the which has been spent already has been of great value in increasing recruitment.

Subhead J causes me anxiety. There is reference to a figure of £783,000 which the Army is paying in compensation for damage. I assume that this must be mostly in the United Kingdom. This is a very large sum, particularly when the number of exercises carried out in this country is not enormous. I should imagine that most of this compensation is paid for wanton damage. We have had cases in my constituency recently where members of Army training units, particularly those on young Junior Leader Regiment courses have gone out on initiative training to various parts of my constituency, especially on Bodmin Moor, and have done wanton damage to old and historic buildings.

My hon. Friend has written to me about this. He has taken the matter up, and I am pleased that it is being dealt with. This has happened time after time. Young soldiers have done an enormous amount of damage. Unfortunately, it is not confined to young soldiers; I wish that it were. I hope that my hon. Friend will keep a close watch on expenditure under Subhead J and will ensure that not a penny is wasted and that the strictest orders are given to commanding officers to the effect that the men under their command should treat civilian property with respect when they come across it in training.

Under Subhead K, there is reference to miscellaneous educational and technical training charges. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on the way that the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst is being run and on the valuable work which is done there. I am disturbed, however, by the figures on page 237 of the Estimates. Apparently, there are 1,029 military and civilian staff at Sandhurst. From memory, I think that there are 800 cadets there. It seems to me that 1,029 people to look after and train 800 or 900 cadets is rather excessive. I hope that my hon. Friend is satisfied that the number of staff there is not excessive and that all is well.

Finally, under Subhead O, may I ask who goes to the National Army Museum at Sandhurst? How many civilians visit it? I am delighted that £3,000 should go to it. I am in favour of keeping it in being, but is there enough publicity about it and do enough people know about it?

I wish to refer to Subhead C, but for entirely different reasons from those of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins). I think that the warning which he gave that money should not be misspent is well justified, since a great deal of money on the publicity services of the Army has been misspent and misapplied.

It is a menacing and sinister fact that the Army, through its publicity services, has flagrantly intervened in Wales in the political debates of the nation. Before supporting the Vote, which, I observe, proposes an increased expenditure of more than £20,000 on the publicity services, I seek an assurance that this practice of political intervention, which is as abhorrent as it is unconstitutional, will cease. In view of the tarnished reputation of France today as a consequence of Army officers meddling mischievously in the politics of the country, we are warned of the dangers of any publicity service embarking on political adventures.

It is well known that we have, most regrettably, in my view, had some Panzer forces in Wales. A great national debate has taken place, and undoubtedly will take place again if they come again. It is to the political issues surrounding this matter to which I wish to draw attention. This would not be the place, nor would it be in order, to argue the merits of their coming. All that I seek to do at this stage is to establish that there is a political issue and then to establish that the Army's publicity services have directly intervened in it. Suffice it to say that there is a great divide on the question throughout the nation.

The Conservative Party and the Government have urged that training facilities in Wales should be given as a military necessity for N.A.T.O. On the other hand, the Labour Party and the Trades Union Congress, at their annual conferences, have made it unequivocally clear that they regard the coming of the Panzers, under officers who supported the unspeakable horrors of the Nazi régime, as an insult to the memory of millions who died to preserve liberty and democracy from the German menace.

I do not wish to develop this point. I merely state that it is a political issue. The Labour Party conference rejected the Government's view. It believed it to be a mockery to suggest that the training of young German soldiers in Wales under ex-Nazi supporters is anything but a most distressing act. Indeed, the conference considered that it is a gross provocation to the peoples of Poland and Eastern Europe, whose memories of the hell of the German occupation can be only too easily evoked.

Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I should be grateful to him if he could show how what he is saying is related to the Vote which we are discussing.

I am obliged, Sir Harry. The Army, through its publicity services, has one job and one job only—to keep right out of political matters.

I now wish to deal with the time prior to the arrival of these Panzer troops and then with when they arrived. It is known that on this occasion, after having first ensured that Welsh journalists, including even those on newspapers with the smallest circulations, were taken to Germany on a softening-up operation, where they were well wined and dined, as a preliminary to the arrival of the Panzers, an Army public relations office was set up as near as could be to the gates of this isolated training camp.

As I said in a letter to The Times, the office

"was manned not only by public relations officers of Western Command, but drew in officers from other commands. It had attached to it at least one civilian public relations officer, a high-ranking officer to serve television and Press photographers, and an ex-journalist noncommissioned officer, not to mention the English-speaking German officers who were readily made available."

What were they there for? We want to know by what right they were there and to what purpose this battery of public relations officers assembled in this isolated spot.

The War Office, after the events that took place there, made a statement through the medium of The Times. The War Office spokesman, as reported in The Times of 11th September, 1961, said:

"… any public relations staff at Castlemartin were there purely for passive reasons—the passing back of information to the powers-that-be. Their job, he said, was not to whip up support of any kind."

That statement by the War Office spokesman was rather belated. What did this battery of public relations officers do? Did they passively sit down in isolated Castlemartin to report on the song of the birds and the nature of the fauna there? Of course not. We all know what occurred.

Many Welsh Members consider that the intervention of the Army public relations officers there was nothing short of disgraceful. That is why I raise the matter now. Far from being passive, they directed an invitation to the Press giving a full schedule of the programme for the Germans while they were in Wales. They indicated the many occasions during the three-week training period when the Press would be given full facilities for interviews and photographs. This they distributed right through the Press in Wales, and in case it was misunderstood they made clear in a circulated statement that it was specifically intended that the Press should be welcome.

How welcome they were was speedily indicated on the day following the arrival of the Germans. Before any of them had been permitted to go out of the camp it was arranged through the Army public relations services that a hand-picked group of German Panzers should be sent to the nearby town under a German officer, with an Army public relations officer, for the exclusive benefit of Press photographers.

As I said in my letter to The Times:

"The hapless German conscripts were given orders to do all the Press photographers asked of them, and, needless to say, Panzers were soon propped up into artificially affectionate poses with local girls."

There is no doubt that the pubertal romanticism of silly, adolescent girls was calculatingly and deliberately stimulated by irresponsible Army publicity officers.

Young and bewildered Aryan blonds who had just set foot in Wales were taken out on this curious escorted tour and were commanded to link with suitable Celtic (teen-agers in Pembroke so that photographs could be taken of the loving welcome being extended by girls who had only just set eyes on them.

The Army public relations officers, in deliberately sponsoring these photographs, put into issue the honour of Welsh women, the overwhelming majority of whom regarded such behaviour with disgust. For what purpose and by what right did the Army public relations services, paid for by the taxapayers of Wales, among others, so traduce our womenfolk?

The Army, in its high pressure enthusiasm to sell Germans as if they were brands of detergents or soap, began to draw in its horns when it was seen what was happening. We saw the situation which arose after people had demonstrated lawfully and with discipline against the arrival of the Panzers. We had some of these teen-age girls outside the camp screaming, "We love Panzers" and jeering at demonstrating South Wales miners. People may agree or disagree on whether the Germans should be there. It is, naturally, a matter which causes profound emotion, but it is no part of the Army's task to try to intervene to sell Germans to Wales.

We give the warning that if there is any further intention on the part of the Army to intervene in this political battle, which will come about once again if there is an attempt to bring Germans into Wales, all of us who think as I do will make quite certain that the Army, as well as the Government's policy, will become involved in a grave political issue. This country has learned to make quite certain that the Army is subordinate to Parliament and is completely insulated and isolated from any political controversies that concern the nation.

I trust, therefore, that we shall have a much more satisfactory reply today than that given by the War Office spokesman who had the impudence to suggest that the rôle of the Army public relations officers was absolutely passive when they embarked on the venture which I have tried to describe.

I should like to support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ponty-pool (Mr. Abse) in his remarkably eloquent speech. I know how close this issue is to his heart. I want to keep within the bounds of order but I think that it will be agreed that it is difficult not to convey the impression that one is anti-German in connection with this matter. I want to put the Committee perfectly at rest on that point by saying that in the last year of my service in the war I spent my whole time with German Luftwaffe forces. I spent a year, day-in-day-out, working in close touch with them. I would point out, in spite of the publicity, that these young Germans who came to South Wales last year had no responsibility for the terrible acts which were perpetrated by their predecessors. They are just victims of the present maelstrom of European and world events.

I rise also to tell the Under-Secretary and the Committee that many Welsh Members feel as strongly about this matter as my hon. Friend has implied and has himself shown. I shall not repeat the evidence which I read in The Times and which my hon. Friend quoted. I was not present in Pembroke that morning. If I had been I should have been proudly marching with hundreds of my constituents. I feel strongly that the money which is being spent on Army publicity, and which we are now asked to increase, should be spent much more wisely than it was spent on that occasion. Calumny has been heaped on many of my constituents. They have been called everything under the sun, but there were among them on that occasion elderly ladies and men, including trade unionists, of the highest character.

And ex-Service men.

Yes, and there was nothing anti-German in their feeling. Naturally, amongst elderly ladies who had lost loved ones in the forces there was some emotion, but this was not an anti-German demonstration. We are not blaming these German troops in any way. We are merely trying to pinpoint the blame on the Army publicity service and the way it acted in this matter.

7.30 p.m.

At the moment, the Foreign Ministers are meeting in Geneva to try to bring about a solution to the problems facing the world. If publicity like this is perpetrated by people in the Army, I believe that it will make it a great deal more difficult for the Government to find a satisfactory solution through their foreign policy. The basic task of the Army publicity service is to bring about peaceful relationships between two entities—in this case, the Panzer forces, which regrettably had to come to Wales, and the Welsh people. If this is what it achieved in what was a peaceful demonstration, then I say that it failed dismally and that its failure is not a happy augury for the future. The Secretary of State must look closely into the way in which this service was used to ensure that there is no repetition of this unfortunate event.

I do not wish to go into the merits of the case, and I appreciate that many hon. Members opposite feel deeply on this subject. I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) that the object of the Army publicity service, whatever one feels about German troops coming here, is to try to ensure smooth relations in what could only have been a very difficult situation. I am sure that the service did its best to make the exercise as smooth as possible and tried to smooth down the objections which arose.

I join with other hon. Members in being glad to see that a larger share is being given to publicity, because we all realise that if we are to get the required number of recruits we must use every form of publicity. The Army publicity service is showing a very new look in its methods of publicity, and I welcome the expenditure for the purpose.

I have one question to put about hospital treatment. In Subhead D hospital charges are referred to. I can understand expenditure to meet the charges of civil hospitals abroad and the Royal Medical College, but I am at a loss to see where our Service men should be treated outside the National Health Service in this country. I can understand that, in some remote parts of the country, the Army might have to use non-National Health Service personnel to treat troops, but I cannot envisage this happening frequently.

I understand that the Army makes no payment for treatment under the National Health Service. I hope that cases of payment for medical treatment are rare. We have a perfectly good State service which should be used on every possible occasion.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) for raising the question of the activity of the publicity services of the Army during the controversial matter of the German troops being trained in Wales. I believe that the man who should be in the dock is the Secretary of State. He has open to him avenues of publicity, both in this Committee and in the country, through which he can advance the views of the Government without using Army publicity services to suit party political aims.

It is a very serious charge that we level against the Government tonight. It is that the Government have deliberately resorted to these underhand means of using the Army publicity service—which was intended to bring recruitment to the forces and to convey an image to the British people of what life in our own Armed Forces is like—to strengthen the Government's political position concern-in e the training of German troops in Wales.

The Army's publicity arrangements were used to cast discredit on the people who demonstrated in Pembrokeshire. Statements emanated from Army officers, and were published in the Welsh Press, which should not have come from those who are in the Armed Forces of the Crown. The charges made against those who took part in the demonstration should have come from the Government Front Bench and not from the people employed in the Army publicity services.

The Secretary of State must realise that he does the Army no good by allowing the publicity services to be used for political ends, for he will create hostility where there is none towards our forces. We realise that tonight we cannot raise the whole question of the training of German troops in Wales, but I say to the right hon. Gentleman that, if he is to follow the same policy with regard to the thousands of Panzer troops who are to be brought to Wales this year, then he can expect trouble both in the House of Commons and in the country—and I for one will do my best to stir trouble up, because I believe that he has no right, on a controversial issue of this sort, to be using the privilege of the Army publicity services to advance a particular political view.

I realise that there are those on both sides of the Committee who believe that German troops ought to train in Wales. I do not share that view, but whether we share it or not, hon. Members on both sides will agree that the right hon. Gentleman has embarked on a very dangerous policy, for the issue is not whether we approve or do not approve of the training of German troops in Wales, but whether we approve or do not approve of the use of the publicity services of the Army to defend Government policy on issues of this kind.

I earnestly hope that the Secretary of State will not underestimate the strength of feeling in the Principality on this matter. The Welsh are a people who believe in hard hitting when there is controversy. We do not mind taking blows as well as giving them, but we like to know whom we are to hit, and we are not accustomed to going for the Army authorities. We debate these issues in this Committee, but, if the right hon. Gentleman pursues this use of the Army publicity services there will be speeches in Wales by Welsh Members criticising individual members of the Armed Forces who make statements on controversial issues. This is surely the last thing that either side of the Committee would want to see.

The debate has been useful in giving an opportunity to the Government to realise that a major blunder was committed on this occasion.

I listened with great interest to the speeches of the hon. Members for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), both of whom objected to the policy of German troops serving in Wales—a policy which the hon. Member for Pontypool said was rejected by the annual conference of the Labour Party. Of course, it was still approved by the Parliamentary Labour Party, as I understand it—

No.

or by the majority of the Parliamentary Labour Party.

Order. We can discuss the publicity matter, but we cannot go into question of policy of one party or another.

I only wished to correct a mis-statement of fact, which I think the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. Coulson) might like to have corrected. In fact, the official Labour Party abstained on that occasion; it did not support it.

If the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is correct, then I am wrong and I apologise, but it is always difficult to know which is the official Labour Party policy.

The hon. Member for Pontypool must excuse us if, on occasions, we are apt to laugh or smile. We are not considering this a humorous subject, as he seems to indicate, but the hon. Gentleman underrates his own powers of oratory if he thinks that there was not at times touches of humour in what he himself was saying. Perhaps he will excuse us for that.

Publicity by the Army publicity services at the time when German troops came to Castlemartin last year was not political interference by the Army publicity services at all. It is well-known to all who have investigated the problem that our troops in Germany in B.A.O.R. would have been put to considerable difficulty in their training routine and in the area available to them for training if these German troops had not been allowed to come to this country.

The hon. Member for Pontypool knows as well as I do that the training facilities for the Army in Germany are very restricted, and that there are also political reasons on the other side, but not of the sort he referred to.

Sennelager, which was refered to by one hon. Gentleman, is leased to the British Government, or to the British Government and one or two other Governments, to train troops there, and, in fact, if German troops had been in Sennelager in large numbers we would have been forced out, along with a number of the forces of our N.A.T.O. allies. That would have meant political pressures from the West German Government to bring the lease to an end, and we would have been in considerable difficulty.

In fact, by allowing German troops to come here we were protecting the interests of our own Army, particularly B.A.O.R., by allowing them to train there—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is now getting rather wide. We cannot talk about the merits of German troops coming here. We can only refer to the publicity in connection with it.

I accept your Ruling, Sir Robert. All I wish to say is that this matter of the use of the Army publicity services was not interference in political matters at all, but was, in fact, protecting the interests of the Army, which is one of the purposes of the publicity services.

Am I to understand that because he considers it politically expedient for the Army, or opportune because it was Government policy, the hon. Gentleman therefore sanctions the use of public funds by the Army publicity services to put across Government policy? Is that what the hon. Member is suggesting? If not, I am sure that I and many others have totally misunderstood his speech. This is a very dangerous doctrine.

I was not suggesting that, and if the hon. Gentleman had been listening carefully, I do not think that he would have thought that I was suggesting that it was politically opportune for the Government to take a particular attitude. T was saying that political pressures might have been brought by the West German Government to force us out of Sennelager, unless we had provided adequate facilities for German forces in this country.

The Committee owes a great debt to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) for raising this matter, in what I thought was the unanswerable case which he made. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. Coulson), who has just intervened, has only further proved the case put by my hon. Friend, because he has suggested—though he did not go as far as this—that the reason why the Government allowed the Army publicity services to engage in the kind of activities in which they did engage was because it was politically expedient because of what was to happen in Germany. If that is the defence of the Government's policy, it seems to make the position even worse, maybe, than it was originally.

Great feeling has been stirred up on this question. I was not able to be there myself, although I would have liked to have been, as I was at another demonstration elsewhere. If I had not been at another demonstration, I should have joined many of my friends from Ebbw Vale. In fact, many of my friends from Ebbw Vale went there, and did their best, despite difficulties caused by others, to prevent a very ugly scene when various missiles were being thrown, and it was one of my friends who said, "Do not be provoked; wait until you see the whites of their eggs." This shows the great restraint that we exercised in such a demonstration.

Very serious feelings were stirred up, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) said, and one of the reasons why it is so regrettable that the Army publicity services should have been used in this way is because of the campaign which has been provoked, in my view, in the most shocking manner, against those who were using their perfectly democratic rights to protest against a policy which they thought was wrong for the country as a whole and for Wales—the decision to bring German troops there at all.

We have had a campaign run by the usual agencies, and, I am sorry to say, backed by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly), suggesting that everybody who demonstrated against the Panzers coming to Wales were Communists and that they were being paid for by Communists. Many of those I know who went there never have been Communists. They paid their own fares to Pembroke, and they wanted to send the bills to the hon. Member for Pembroke and invite him to pay them for having said that they were being paid by Communists. Of course, they were not.

There was widespread feeling, and this is the main reason why the Government permitted the Army publicity services to get into this difficulty at all. Perhaps the Government did not realise how deep was the feeling. Perhaps if the Opposition Front Bench had voted against German troops ever coming to this country at all, as the Labour Party conference subsequently voted and declared that to be the official policy of the Labour Party, the Government would have had a better warning, but, even so, they could have discovered the fact that all the official Labour organisations in South Wales had opposed the idea of German troops going there—the Regional Council of the Labour Party, the National Union of Mineworkers and most of the other Labour organisations in Wales, which had opposed it, not on the grounds of race or anti-German feeling, but on the grounds given by my hon. Friends and others in this House when it was debated.

It was certainly not run on racial grounds; indeed, many of those conducting the campaign were among those—

On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Member to describe the campaign against bringing German troops over here?

I was trying to make the point, which I could not make in one sentence—

On a point of order. Is the hon. Member in order in describing the campaign against bringing German troops to this country, as he was doing, by every Labour organisation and disaffected element in South Wales?

I am listening to the hon. Gentleman, who, so far, I think has been trying to relate his arguments to the use of the Army publicity services. If he goes too far, I shall pull him up.

Thank you for your Ruling, Sir Robert.

It was precisely because I was trying to indicate—and this is possibly the most charitable explanation of why the Government got into difficulties—why they allowed the Army publicity services to do what they did. Perhaps they did not understand properly the strength of the division of feeling about it in Wales and elsewhere and did not realise what they were doing. Maybe the Government were misled by the absurd and quite false charges made in some of the newspapers in Wales and elsewhere that this was a Communist stunt; and when my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke lent his support to that kind of charge possibly the Government were further misled.

They should not have been misled. They should have studied the matter and realised that they were using the publicity services in what was an extremely hot political issue, and by so doing caused greater difficulty. One hon. Gentleman opposite, who tried to defend what had happened, said that the publicity services were being used to smooth relations for the German soldiers who came here and to make things easier for them.

If that was so, I can see the justification for it, because all those who were engaged in the campaign protesting against Panzer troops coming here were not saying that they wanted to inflict any personal humiliation or injury on individual German soldiers. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert), who said that that was not part of the campaign. That was part of the misrepresentation of the campaign. If the idea was to smooth relations, there was no need for photographers to do it. There was no need for television cameras. There was no need for advice to be given to the German troops on how they should comport themselves in front of the television cameras. There was no need for all that if the intention was to smooth relations and provide welfare facilities. It was something different from that. All that happened was exploited in a manner which I think the majority of people in Wales regarded as utterly disgraceful.

We are not debating the main issue tonight, but, unfortunately, German troops will again come to Wales. I hope that on the next occasion the Labour Party Front Bench will state its official policy on the (matter. When the next lot of troops come, will the Minister make sure that there is no recurrence of the events which occurred on this occasion in the use of the publicity organisation? Will he give us an assurance that if we have the French paratroops here the scenes we saw in Wales will mot be repeated, with the publicity services being used to provide television programmes and photographers to boost the French paratroops? If the Government want to use their publicity services for welfare purposes, let them do so, but they must not use them for propaganda on an issue which has big and important political complications.

Would the hon. Gentleman agree with what I said earlier, that whether they are French paratroops, German troops, or any other troops visiting this country, the public are interested in them? The public like them to have publicity, and like the various exercises to be publicised, and this, in the long term, is in the interests of the Services throughout the country. The hon. Gentleman went rather wide in his speech, but would not he also agree that by having the Germans here we have done our troops a good service by allowing them the use of ranges in Germany?

I will not go into the hon. Member's second point, because I would be out of order if I did so.

On the first issue, about the public, we are the representatives of the public. That is why we are here. It may be a novel idea to the hon. Gentleman, but that is so. We are the representatives of the public. We are having this debate today because my hon. Friends who represent Welsh constituencies are saying, "This is what we interpret public feeling to have been", and all the evidence that we have had proves it. As I said, every Labour organisation in the Principality has gone on record in this respect, and they represent the overwhelming majority of the people of Wales. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know what the public in Wales think, we have been telling him.

I want to add one or two words to what has been said, not because I consider that the case has not been adequately stated, or that it needs any elaboration of any kind. I take leave to say, I hope without any kind of patronage, that the case has been most admirably and convincingly put, and I join my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) in congratulating and thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and those who supported him, but especially my hon. Friend, for having raised this question and for the way in which he put it.

I intervene for two reasons only. First, because all those who have spoken on this side of the controversy have been Welsh Members, and I want to make the point, which I am sure is well understood, that this is not a purely Welsh grievance. The political neutrality of the Army is essential. It is fundamental to our whole constitution. If we once get the Armed Services, or the police force, or any other body which is under Government control and paid for by public funds intervening in matters of political controversy, then we shall have a situation which is fraught with danger not merely to one side of a political opinion, but to every side of every political opinion that can ever arise in our affairs.

It is, therefore, a matter of fundamental importance not merely that the Army should not be used on one side or other of a question in which there are deep and passionate political differences of opinion, but that it should not even seem as though it were being so used. I am sure that the Committee accepts this as a principle which we can all support, whatever our political views may be.

My second point is that I happened to take an active part in the House of Commons when the question that we cannot discuss now was decided by the House, that is, whether or not this adventure should be accepted. All that I want to say about it—certainly nothing about the merits—is that no question of any kind of racial antagonism or anything of that sort ever existed. We all realise that the young German boys who came to South Wales, and the others who may come at some other time, have no kind of responsibility for all the things that rouse the emotions that lie behind this question. Many of them—I suppose most of them—were not even born when Hitler came to power, and I suppose that some of them were not born even when the war came to an end. No one thinks of causing them any personal embarrassment.

I am not attacking it, defending it, or doing anything about it except stating it. What is involved is a political question on which there are wide differences of opinion, and the point that is being made today is that that being so, what the Army might do in a welfare direction to make things easier, to smooth the path of people who may be reluctant and unwilling guests on our territory, is well done and nobody will object to it. But if it is done in such a way as to encourage people to think that the Government are using the Armed Services and public moneys to take one side as against another on a matter where there are passionate differences of opinion, this ought to be exposed to the Committee, and the Government ought to take particular pains to make absolutely, abundantly, and overwhelmingly clear that they had no such intention, and give a clear undertaking that it will not happen again.

I was opposed to German troops being brought here to be trained. I am not going to enter into any controversy that there may be about it, but the country was divided on the issue. In those circumstances the use by the Government of the Army publicity services to defend the line they took becomes a matter of great delicacy, because, after all, the people who oppose it pay taxes on the same basis as those who support it. The Government have no right to use so delicate an instrument as publicity for the Armed Forces to support their point of view in a domestic political controversy.

The basis of our democracy is that the civilian and not the soldier is responsible for national policy. Once the soldier, the sailor or the airman—or, for that matter, the policeman—appears, as a man in his profession, to be supporting the political action of the Government in connection with a matter of political controversy, it will not be very long before we find that the whole basis of the liberty that has been secured to us by the historic attitude towards our Constitution has been frustrated.

I did not have the advantage of hearing the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), although I was told by a subsequent speaker that it was eloquent. I regret that I was not here to hear it, because whenever I can I always go to hear eloquence. I am not going to get further involved in the controversy than to say that this is a matter of very great importance for our constitutional liberties; it is a supreme test whether or not a Government are really democratic. If the Government are democratic, they stand up for themselves. We know that they get considerably knocked about in these days, but there is not yet any need to call in the Armed Forces to put over their case for doing stupid things.

Time is getting on, and although there are many points that I would have liked to raise, I do not intend to go into any detail on them because we have other Estimates to deal with. Complaint has been made by some of my hon. Friends about the rôle of the War Office publicity men in South Wales. Indeed, very serious charges have been levelled. I do not want to go further into the issue, but in view of the very deep feelings which are held by several of my hon. Friends—and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), who first raised the question—I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to answer the various points that have been made.

I note that under the previous Vote there is an increase in the number of Army information officers from two to fourteen. There may be a causal connection between that Vote and this one. In view of what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), speaking with the authority of a former Home Secretary, that this is an issue of great delicacy, I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us about the rôle performed by the publicity men of the War Office in South Wales in those days in the autumn just prior to the demonstration.

It might suit the convenience of the Committee if I dealt, first, with a few points raised by my hon. Friends and then said a word about the activities of our public relations officers in connection with the visit of the German forces to Wales, which subject has formed the substance of our discussion.

My hon. Friend the Member for Clap-ham (Dr. Alan Glyn) asked about National Health Service expenditure. I can tell him that the expenditure incurred on treatment in civil hospitals is small, and concerns only a few cases where special treatment is required. He also asked about the relationship of the staff at Sandhurst to the number of cadets under instruction. I can assure him that the figure of 1,029 includes staff who look after the estate and also the married quarters. As my hon. Friend will know, both are considerable. The number of instructional staff is much smaller than the number of students, as would be expected.

The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) spoke with great feeling. I recognise the deep sincerity which animated all those hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies and, indeed, English constituencies, who have addressed themselves to the question of the publicity given in connection with the visit of German soldiers to Castlemartin. I respect the feelings expressed by them, and I was glad when the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) went out of his way to affirm—with the support of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman)—that none of these feelings have any connection with, or owe their origin to, any animosity towards the German soldiers involved. I was glad when that point was made.

These soldiers are our allies in N.A.T.O. When we give them facilities in pursuance of our obligations as a N.A.T.O. ally and they come to this country to use our training areas, the Government have a responsibility for doing all they can to see that their position, when training here, is properly understood, is not misrepresented, and does not give rise to incidents.

When there is a danger of misunderstanding, and of the strength of feeling leading to incidents which we would all recognise as undesirable, it is the more necessary that we should do something—as we sought to do in this case—to put the visit of such troops in proper perspective, and to make known to the public what it is all about. These German troops were using our training areas, owned and held by the War Office. To a certain extent they were under our administration. We were responsible for seeing that the public were not misled about the sort of people they were, and why they were there.

Complaints have been made about the way in which our public relations officers carried out their job. Their job is to see that the Press get all the help it wants in connection with its presentation of news to the public and to make available, as far as possible, the material which the Press wants. The visit of the German forces was sponsored by the War Office, and it was quite proper that our public relations officers should help the Press to obtain the material which it obviously needed. This is quite common practice in many aspects of the work of Government Departments today, and it was the clear duty of our officers employed in that connection to help to give the Press these facilities.

Does the hon. Member include in that proposition the suggestion that it was proper for the War Office to spend public money on defending the decision to bring the soldiers here for training? We quite understand that the public relations officers were perfectly justified in their relationship with the Press, but this was a matter in respect of which one side said that there was a wrong political decision, and the other said that there was a right political decision. That is the very thing that is being complained about. I am sorry if the Minister does not appreciate that. It looks as if he has not begun to understand the objection to what was done.

It is difficult to understand where the one exercise—which I think is justified, and which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne would accept—ends, and the other begins. I understand the distinction. I think that we all understand what was meant by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) when he said that this was a delicate matter, so that in the execution it is possible for the distinction to become blurred. I think that the Committee will accept that.

I was proposing to conclude by saying two things, the first in reply to the right hon. Member for South Shields. I think that his argument—I agree that this is a delicate matter—that the Army must not become involved in matters of political controversy can lead one to very far-reaching conclusions which I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman himself would accept. It could lead to the conclusion that the Army could not become involved in the prosecution of a political policy to the point of war, which is absurd.

I do not think that is an exaggeration. One must be careful how far one follows that argument. It could lead to the conclusion that in no sense should public relations officers of any Government Department be allowed to explain anything or any situation to the Press. I mention these things to bring the Committee along with me in realising the real difficulty which here faced us.

I realise the point at issue and the deep feelings in Wales. I hope that if the circumstances arise again, all concerned—I include those who, on some occasions, allowed the strength of their feelings to get the better of them, and, therefore, increased the scope of the job which there was for the public relations people to do—will have learned from what happened, and that we shall have no recurrence either of the events which the public relations personnel had to counter, or of any other trouble of which there has been complaint in the Committee today.

As one who, so far, has lived all his life in South Wales, I am most disappointed with the reply of the Under-Secretary. Obviously—I say this with all respect—the hon. Gentleman has not come within a thousand miles of appreciating the shock which was felt in South Wales when this propaganda for the Armed Forces occurred before the German troops arrived in our dear country.

I headed a deputation from South Wales which attended the War Office before the German troops arrived. The deputation represented at least a quarter of a million organised workers in South Wales. We drew attention to the miserable, wretched attempts being made to create, by propaganda from the War Office, the necessary congenial atmosphere in which these youngsters could be received.

Let me repeat what my hon. Friends have said already. We have nothing against the German people as a people. In fact, within a short distance of where these Panzer lads were brought we have a considerable number of Germans engaged as miners, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). So let us disabuse our minds of that idea. I speak as one who has vivid memories of two world wars. I have no inkling of who was responsible for them, but that is not a question which we may discuss on this occasion.

Can the War Office appreciate that we object profoundly to the fact that the resources of the State, backed by the Government, should be used for nothing more than sheer, misleading propaganda? It may interest the War Office to know that this propaganda did far more harm than good. We object to that, and if what we have heard is the answer of the War Office and the Government, I am sorry that I shall have to counter it by saying that if any visitation of the same kind is conducted in the manner in which the last one was, the War Office will realise that it has been playing the fool and that the people of Wales resent it. I hope that from what has been said in this debate the War Office will learn how foolish it has been.

I think that the Under-Secretary has left the matter in a rather unsatisfactory state. He referred several times to the deep feeling which he said he understood there was in Wales. But I think that the most important part of his remarks revealed that he has misunderstood the grave constitutional problem which is involved. I should like to discuss this problem removed from the particular instance which has given rise to this short debate and to direct the attention of the Committee to other possible circumstances where a similar situation might arise which would have nothing to do with the visit of German troops.

Consider the proposed visit by a force of French paratroopers. It is beginning to give rise to serious arguments as to the political desirability of such a visit taking place at the present time, because all political discussion is related to place and time. I admire the people of France as much as anyone in the Committee and many of my friends take the same view about France and the French people. But they have expressed serious doubt about the wisdom of the forthcoming visit. If the Army were to use public relations officers, as was hinted by the Under-Secretary, for the same purpose as in the past—to put this visit in the best possible light in the eyes of the public—they would be instructing Army officers to interfere directly in a political disagreement which existed at the time. That, constitutionally, would be completely illegitimate, and I submit that it is not in the best interests of our Armed Forces.

I agree with the Under-Secretary about the dividing line being one which roust be investigated carefully in each case. Nobody could dissent from what is a commonsense view. But I submit that equally it is the duty of the Minister to decide where is the dividing lime. This is a political matter of the greatest delicacy and no one can deputise for the Minister. What disturbed me about the reply of the Under-Secretary was that he seemed to show little understanding of the essential constitutional provision that the policy of the Government which is implemented through the Army must be defended in the House of Commons by the Minister, and must not and cannot be defended by public relations officers in the service of the Army. It is the hon. Gentleman's job to convince those who disagree with the policy at the time that the Government's policy is correct.

We have been told that the number of these officers will be increased, and I welcome that. I am in favour of everything that can be done to make our forces appear in the proper light in the eyes of the nation. But it would be doing a disservice to that purpose, and make it far more difficult for many of us to justify the increased expenditure of public money in this respect, if there were the slightest doubt that some of that money would be spent in justifying the domestic political or foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The hon. Gentleman must seriously address himself to that point. It is not enough for him to say that the dividing lime is a difficult one. The only solution is for him and the Department, where there is the slightest danger of doubt that Army officers may be interfering in a political argument and trying to make propaganda for the political view of the Government of the day, to instruct them to desist, and to order them to confine themselves only to the essential task of Army public relations officers, which is to encourage a good appearance of our Services in the public eye. He must see to it that controversial political matters relating to home or foreign policy are not put on their shoulders.

The Under-Secretary and his Department should not underestimate the significance of this matter. In my constituency, and in many neighbouring constituencies, there is always a very real feeling that the Armed Forces must not only be, but must be seen to be, completely and utterly neutral politically. People in my part of the country are always keen to support the recruiting campaigns, and great harm would be done to the Department's aims if those people had any doubt about that principle of the neutrality of the Armed Forces in political matters.

I apologise to my hon. Friend for not being able to be present at one stage of this debate, but I understand that he replied to my point about Sandhurst. I would ask him to give the assurance I sought about compensation for losses, damage, etc. under Subhead J; and to reject the theory put forward by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) in so far as it applies to our own forces. If that theory were to be carried to its logical conclusion, one could say that political controversy has arisen already over conscription, and other matters. The job of the Army publicity services job is to put forward the Army in the best possible light—

I said so. I was very careful to say that, because I want to make it quite clear that I fully support the work of the information officers in making a success of our recruiting campaign. What I had in mind were matters of international policy and political controversy.

Then the hon. Member's enthusiasm ran away with him.

The Minister rather overstated his case when he argued that this action was necessary in order to keep the Press informed. I can quite understand that the publicity section was entitled to give the Press some facts about the arrival of the German troops, the time of their arrival, and their numbers, but what my hon. Friends from South Wales objected to was the propaganda slant that was used, apparently with the assistance of the publicity department.

Can one believe that our Press needs all this help from the publicity department of the War Office? This was a human story in which Fleet Street, the B.B.C., the I.T.V. and, so I understand, the German Press agencies, too, were interested. Does the Minister suggest that the people who earn their living by writing stories of that kind needed the assistance of the War Office? I submit that this is a case where the War Office publicity department has been a little too zealous, and I hope that now that this has been impressed on the Minister, the result will be that the publicity department will not take over functions that properly belong to the Press, the B.B.C. and I.T.V.

I am sorry that the Under-Secretary could not go a little further to meet me. I am extremely suspicious of all public relations officers, whether they support a Government, a local authority, or some commercial firm. They seem to be able to dress up the naked truth so attractively that some limit should be put on their activities. The proper place for dealing with disputes of the kind that have been referred to is the Treasury Bench.

The Committee should remember what happened this afternoon. The Prime Minister said, "I want to make a statement, Sir," and then told us that the Home Secretary, in addition to being responsible for the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, is to devote his energies to settling quarrels between two Cabinet Ministers whose interests in an acute matter might be slightly different—

Order. The right hon. Gentleman has tremendous Parliamentary experience, and I suggest he is going a little wide.

I am speaking in illustration of what can be done, Dr. King. The Secretary of State for War could have said at the Dispatch Box, "Sir, I should like to make a statement." He would have had just the same opportunity for amazing the House as had the Prime Minister this afternoon.

It is not the duty of public relations officers to defend the Government in matters of political controversy. It may be their duty to explain a policy that has been agreed and is no longer a matter of political controversy—although, even there, they should step with very great care. I regret that we did not get a recognition tonight that the key to our democratic freedom is that members of the Government have to defend themselves in matters where acute political controversy has arisen. Such controversy arose in this case, and I hope that the trouble that resulted will be a sufficient warning to Governments not to try to repeat such action too often.

In Subhead A there is a reference to terminal grants and gratuities to officers. Is my hon. Friend still paying what was known as the gratuity to the "golden bowler" officers? I imagine that most of the officers referred to have left the forces and that this payment no longer applies.

In Subhead B there is a reference to the commutation of retired pay of officers. As my hon. Friend knows. I hold very strong views about this. I do not like his right hon. Friend being the judge in his own case, which is what happens. If a retired officer puts in an application to commute his pension or part of his pension for some commercial purposes, the case goes before my right hon. Friend, who decides it on the advice given by his Department. It might be that the decision is to the detriment of the retired officer or other rank, particularly the retired officer. This has happened not once, but twice, in my constituency; the officer concerned was refused permission to commute his pension. I do not pretend to be a business expert, but I could see no reason why those applications were turned down.

The Secretary of State for War told me at the time that one of the officers wanted to invest in what was a nonviable project. How can he possibly judge that? How does he know the conditions in Cornwall or in Scotland or in Wales, for example? I hope that my hon. Friend will advise the Secretary of State to set up an independent board or at least to have an independent chairman, preferably an industrialist with wide experience, to give him commercial business advice whether a project in which a retired officer is interested for commutation purposes is a worthwhile project. The position as it stands is very unsatisfactory. The amount involved is £1,900,000, which is a vast sum. I do not rely on my right hon. Friend's judgment being always 100 per cent. right. Even if he is 1 per cent. wrong, then 1 per cent. of the retired officers are being very hardly treated, because this decision could make all the difference in the world.

Subhead D and Subhead G deal with rewards, and I wish to refer, in particular, to holders of the Victoria Cross. I am not certain how many Victoria Cross awards were made to Gurkha troops during the last war and previously, but I think that there were about thirty-six. Is the £100 a year, which is paid to the holders of the Victoria Cross, paid to the retired Gurkha officers or troops who are living in Nepal? If so, how is it paid? How is it paid to those living in outlying villages? Do they receive the full benefit of it?

Does Subhead D, with its reference to rewards to officers, include those whom in the last war we knew as Gurkha officers, equivalent to Viceroy-commissioned officers? Or do they come under Subhead G? It probably will not make much difference, but I should like an assurance on that point.

I wish to put to my right hon. Friend a question about pensions, particularly the pensions of retired officers and officers' widows and families. My hon. Friend realises that I feel extremely strongly about the present position of some retired officers and of some officers' widows. Some of these officers served for a long time. Many of these widows are living in my constituency on a pittance. These officers' widows, particularly widows of officers who died before 1958, are in a parlous condition. I hope that my hon. Friend will pay the greatest attention to the pleas made by my hon. Friends and myself and, indeed, by hon. Members from both sides of the Committee on this point. It is not good enough for him to say, "This is a non-contributory pension. In the old days there was not one at all. The officer did not expect to get a pension; he was just given a buckshee payment."

Some of these women—majors', colonels' and brigadiers' wives as well as the wives of other ranks—whose husbands had retired and then died before 1958, are living in dire penury in many places in this country; unfortunately, I have some in my division.

I am also concerned about the financial position of the retired officers, particularly those retired officers on the earlier rates of pay which were cut in 1929 and not fully restored in 1932. These officers are a long way behind in comparison with the officers who retired between 1958 and 1962. I know that they are now old and that there are few of them, and that may be why my hon. Friend does not worry about them any more. I certainly hope that he will do his utmost to persuade the Chancellor to look very quickly at this matter and that he himself will try to get through a Supplementary Estimate coming under Vote 10 to pay higher pensions to these people.

I must pay tribute to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who made this point earlier in the debate on the Army Estimates, although I shall not be as outspoken as he was. I agree in spirit with what he said, that these widows and officers who retired away back in the 1920s and 1930s are not getting a fair deal from the Government. I trust that this position will be put right as a matter of urgency, otherwise I shall find it very difficult to know what to do about it.

I am sure that all hon. Members will agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) has just said about pensions. I should like to reinforce a point that I made the other day. Apart from the equity of it, I do not think that hon. Members on either side would dispute the fact that these people are entitled to decent pensions, after having served perhaps 30 or 40 years. They should have their pension upgraded so that they can have a reasonable standard of living.

A much more important point is that this is one of the worst recruiting factors we can have. No man will go into the Army if be thinks that his widow in 30 or 40 years' time is likely to suffer conditions that these widows are suffering today. My hon. Friend would do very well to press the Chancellor on this matter if he really wants to make the Army an attractive career. I would warm him, moreover, that the Army has now to Compete with commercial undertakings offering very much better pensions on retirement than those of the Army. He must have some sort of regard for these people who have served the country well and who deserve a decent standard of life.

In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins), who asked about the so-called "golden bowler" scheme, I can tell him that payments are still being made under this scheme. I shall have to write to him about the details.

My hon. Friend also raised the question of our practice when we receive applications from other ranks or from officers in receipt of other rank pensions for the commutation of those pensions, and he felt that, by holding the discretion in his own hands, my right hon. Friend was too much a judge in his owe cause. This matter has been raised many times with us, but after reconsideration we are convinced that, in the interests of all concerned, our practice is the best that can be devised. Those charged with the task of scrutinising the applications are widely experienced in this task, because of the very nature of their job. They have to look at a great number of such applications. We must bear in mind our responsibility to the pensioner concerned, who is to some extent putting himself at a hazard if he transfers his annual or monthly payment into a capital sum which he may lose. I will draw my hon. Friend's remarks to my right hon. Friend's attention, but I cannot hold out any great hope that this question, which has often been raised before, can be solved any differently.

My hon. Friend says that these applications are considered by experts, presumably in the War Office. Does he mean experts who come in from the business world and have experience in business and commerce, or are they excellent, first-class people in the Civil Service?

They are first-class men who have the common sense which is necessary for an assessment of the risks we have to assess. I do not claim to be a great expert, but I review numbers of these cases which are raised with me by hon. Members. I am satisfied that very fair consideration is given and that the practice is a good one.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North asked about the position of Gurkhas holding the V.C. One officer and one other rank who hold the V.C. are serving with the British Brigade of Gurkhas in Nepal and receive an annuity of £100 from the War Office. Other Gurkha holders of the Victoria Cross who have left the British Army or transferred to the Indian Army still receive a pension from Indian funds.

Is my hon. Friend saying that Gurkhas who have received the V.C. and who have retired and returned to Nepal are not paid by Her Majesty's Government and do not receive the £100, but receive a paltry sum from the Indian Government, which my hon. Friend knows as well as I do is a mere pittance? Is that what my hon. Friend is saying?

I shall have to go further into the details. This is the advice I have received. It may be that if the payment is transferred in this way it gets more expeditiously to the recipient. I will write to my hon. Friend about the details.

Will my hon. Friend give us an assurance that the amount they finally receive in Nepal is the equivalent of what they would receive if it had been paid direct by the British Government?

I take my hon. Friend's point. I will certainly look into it.

On the question of officers' retired pay, I cannot go as far as my hon. Friends would like me to go. My hon. Friends know that pensions increases have been introduced from time to time to relieve hardship caused to existing pensioners by severe falls in money values. The last such Measure had effect from 1st August, 1959. Because these are special Measures to relieve hardship, pensions increases are related to those who need them most—incapacitated pensioners, child pensioners, widows over 40, other widows with dependants, and pensioners reaching the age of 60. This means that Army pensioners, like other public service pensioners, do not qualify for pensions increases before the age of 60, unless they were invalided out or are permanently unfit for full-time employment.

It has been felt by the Government that the taxpayer should not have to find the money for helping pensioners who may reasonably be expected, and be still able, to help themselves. I cannot give an undertaking to go further than this. The answer—my hon. Friends know that this is the policy of the Government—is to ensure that we do not get inflation and do not get a position where the value of pensions is eroded. It would be wrong if we were to treat Service pensioners in isolation. They are in the same position as all public service pensioners and, indeed, as the many others who live on fixed incomes.

8.45 p.m.

As I said in reply to similar points which were raised in the Estimates debate the other night, we are keeping this matter under constant review, but I am afraid I cannot go any further in any statement of the Government's intention or practice at the moment.

I can never understand why always it is the poorest and weakest who can rescue the Government from inflation.

I hope that my hon. Friend will look at the position of the widows whose case has been submitted by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and myself. I hope that he will give an assurance that he will look once again at the position of the widows of officers and other ranks who retired prior to 1958. I can assure him, from the depths of my heart, that many of them are in a terrible plight.

I wish that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench would realise occasionally that because a thing has been done many times there is no reason why—in the changed circumstances of today, about which they are frequently so eloquent—traditional policy should not be changed.

Of course, if the Government do something for these people they must do it for someone else. I can think of other people for whom it should be done. If I pleaded for them I should be told that the Government must also deal with the people for whom the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) pleaded and, if that were done, the most terrible disaster would overtake the country, galloping inflation would be started, the additional pensions would lead these people into an extravagant way of life and, before we knew where we were, our export-import balance would be further disturbed and final disaster would overtake us and all the things for which we stand.

I just do not believe it. It is astonishing the way in which members of the Government can look at themselves in the mirror and say, "This is a picture which should be hung at the academy as an example of genius and sympathy"—which can never express itself in actual practice. It is deplorable that we should have received the sort of answer to which we were just subjected.

As for the Gurkhas and the V.C., all I can say is that I hope that the service rendered to this country by the Gurkhas will never be thought less of than when they were still in the British Commonwealth. I recollect once hearing the Government upbraded because they had brought some Gurkha troops into Greece during the last war. I said at that time, "All I can say as an old soldier is that in a tight corner I would sooner be there with a Gurkha than with a Greek."

In recent years, the Government have got into the habit of issuing many of these Supplementary Estimates. When the discussions of the Army Estimates are over, the House is in such a state of exhaustion that it does not have the opportunity of examining the Supplementary Estimates with the care that they deserve.

Five million pounds is a quite substantial sum and the fact that this Supplementary Estimate is issued, as it were, as a footnote, as a supplement, to the other Estimates shows the weakness of this Committee system. I shall not enter into the argument for the extension of Committee administration, but this is an example of £5 million being rushed through at the tag end of a tiring week when the House does not have the opportunity to examine it with the care and meticulous attention that it deserves.

In a few weeks' time, the benches opposite will be crowded with hon. Members asking about the financial crisis and the heavy burden of Government expenditure. Today, however, is one of the opportunities to examine one of the Supplementary Estimates. When all the Supplementary Estimates from the different Departments are added up, they amount to a considerable sum.

I should like to examine the Army Supplementary Estimate in detail, but I turn to ask an important question on Vote 4, Subhead E, "Research and Experimental Establishments". We find that the original estimate of £6,035,000 has gone up to £6,435,000, an increase of £400,000 in one year. I should be much obliged if the Under-Secretary of State would tell us something about this mysterious and rather innocuous looking item. Six and a half million pounds is a substantial sum. Can the Under-Secretary break it down a little? Can he tell us, for example, whether it includes the research and experimental establishments at Porton, near Salisbury Plain? If so, what is the reason for the additional expenditure of £400,000?

I ask this question because when these establishments were under the Ministry of Supply, I was a member of a deputation of Members, from both sides, of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee which visited the Porton Microbiological Station, near Salisbury. The purpose of that experimental and research station was to carry out research into biological and microbiological war. We found it an extensive and expensive establishment, costing a considerable amount of money. We were told there that it dealt with all the possibilities of manufacturing the different kinds of viruses and toxins which might be used in the event of biological warfare in the future.

I remember being alarmed at the time that there were 160 scientists employed in this branch of research and thinking that they would be far better employed doing something which might be of greater advantage to humanity. The Committee will recall that there was a considerable number of Questions following the investigations by that deputation, and that the Government's defence was that it was necessary to do research into biological warfare so that we could defend ourselves against possible biological attack by somebody else.

I do not want to go into a great deal of descriptive detail now, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will say whether the Porton Establishment is included under this mysterious heading, "Research and Experimental Establishments". It used to be under the Ministry of Supply and it was transferred to the War Office. Does it come under this subhead, the Estimate for which has gone up by £400,000 during the year? If so, what is the explanation of the rise?

The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) complains that we do not devote enough time to the examination of Supplementary Estimates. It was to make sure that the House, through at least one of its agencies, should devote more examination to Supplementary Estimates that the recent procedure by which they go before the Estimates Committee was introduced. On an earlier Vote I referred to some of the comments which had come from the Estimates Committee on this Supplementary Estimate.

The hon. Gentleman asks about an increase in the provision for civilians at research establishments. I cannot tell him in detail whether this is attributable to increases in pay or increases in numbers, but, in general, under Vote 4, the increased provision this year is attributable to increases in pay. I should be safe in telling the hon. Gentleman that that is the principal reason for the increase to which he has drawn attention.

It is worth saying in regard to this Supplementary Estimate that the original Estimate was for about £500 million. The Supplementary Estimate is for £5 million, representing a rise of 1 per cent. This is due largely to pay and price increases which came upon us since the original Estimate was prepared and which have necessitated the bringing forward of this Supplementary Estimate.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State does not really mean what he appears to say, that because it is only a 1 per cent. rise it is not to be frowned upon, and that a sum of £5 million can be disregarded as of no great importance. I am sure that he did not mean that. I believe that he is just as worried about these miscalculations and rises, over which we have no control, as I am, and I am sure that he will do his best to ensure that they are kept to the very minimum in the future. A sum of £5 million is equally disturbing whether it be a 1 per cent., ½per cent. or 10 per cent. rise.

With respect, my hon. Friend has misunderstood. I am not talking about the rise. Naturally, we are all as concerned as he is to see the rate of rise in Government expenditure moderated. I was referring to the degree of accuracy possible in estimating, which is different. A margin of error of 1 per cent., no matter what sum my hon. Friend likes to take, but particularly with a sum of about £500 million, is not, I believe, bad. However, we should try to improve our estimating.

The Under-Secretary of State has not attempted to answer my question about an item for £6,435,000. Where are the establishments? Do they include the Porton Establishment? For what are we voting this £6 million?

The Question is—

Sir William, I have asked a definite question concerning an item of £6 million, which is a huge sum, yet the Minister sits there and does not attempt to give me an answer. Surely I am entitled to ask whether he can justify this £6 million. What is it for?

I told the hon. Gentleman what the increased provision was for. I cannot go into detail on these establishments with him tonight, for reasons which he very well understands.

That does not satisfy me. I have asked: what are these establishments? I do not ask the hon. Gentleman to go into detail. Is the Porton Establishment included?

Porton is certainly included among them.

Could the hon. Gentleman—

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that we are only discussing a Supplementary Estimate.

Before you came back into the Chair, Sir William, I suggested that, in view of the increased demand that public expenditure should not be excessive, these Supplementary Estimates should be meticulously examined. I have had great difficulty in dragging an anwer out of the Minister about this item. However, I have dragged out of him at last the fact that the Porton Establishment is included. Can he say what other establishments are included?

The Committee will note that, while the Army Estimates for the year show a net increase of £21,780,990, the Estimate in respect of the Royal Ordnance Factories shows a net decrease of £227,000. One would expect that, since the Army Estimates show an increase of this order, the Estimate for the Royal Ordnance Factories would also show an increase. I am endeavouring to discover why this is. Apart from the sum in respect of pay, this is the only Estimate which shows a decrease.

If I may declare my interest, there is a Royal Ordnance factory in my constituency at Pembrey. There are many workmen employed in that factory who are drawn from my constituency and from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George), which is the neighbouring constituency. When we saw that the Estimate for the coming year is lower than last year's we at once concluded that this might be partly due to the fact that we had recently been told that 500 workmen employed in the factory are to be made redundant between now and the end of May.

We have had the opportunity, for which we are grateful, of discussing this matter very fully with the Secretary of State and putting our views to him. He was not able to grant our request that notices already served or to be served on the workmen should be withdrawn and that they should be kept in employment. We were told quite courteously that the reason why they were redundant or were to be withdrawn between now and the middle of the summer was that the work was tapering off and coming to an end. The right hon. Gentleman has promised to look into the submissions and considerations which we put before him about the future.

I should like to say a few words not only about this Royal Ordnance factory but about other similar factories. They have rendered a great service to the nation in peace and war and I would claim that the Royal Ordnance factory at Pembrey has rendered signal service. I remember the First World War when the Ordnance factory was established there and thousands of men and women were employed. Their services were required by the nation but at the end of the war the factory was closed and demolished and the area was left to bear the burden of the fact that the services and the houses had been built to meet the requirements of the population which was largely employed in the factory and suddenly the whole place was closed down leaving behind tremendous problems of unemployment. When I first became a Member of Parliament, nearly 80 per cent. of the population there were unemployed. We protested at the time but it was to no avail.

When war again became imminent it was found that the site of the old Ordnance factory was a suitable one for a new Ordnance factory. It was suitable also for other kinds of industry. I used to put the point to the then Minister of Supply that when the Government brought a Royal Ordance factory, and particularly an explosives factory, to a site it made it difficult to get other industries to take over a neighbouring site. It so happens that this is one of the best industrial sites available in west Wales, with a main railway and a main road each side of it and port facilities nearby. When the Government use a site of this kind for a Royal Ordnance factory they should accept responsibility for the consequence that if that factory is there industrialists ail ways think twice of building a factory next door to it.

In this case a neighbouring site was taken over about the same time, at the outbreak of the Second World War, by the Air Ministry to be used as a station for one of our allied air forces. It has been empty for some time but it is being reactivated in connection with R.A.F. operations. The area is known as "Kidwelly Flats". As the Under-Secretary knows, the name in itself denotes that the area is a phenomenon in the mountainous topography of Wales. It is the best site we have. As I have said, the War Office took over part of that splendid site and now the Royal Air Force is to reactivate the other part, a matter which has been the subject of controversy with the local authorities and which has been settled by the decision of independent people who conducted an inquiry.

We are, therefore, very disturbed to find that, in am area like ours, the Royal Ordnance factory, which has served the country so well and has such a splendid team, is to be closed. I have had long experience of industrial relations, and I can say that the industrial relations in this factory have been a model to every other factory in the country. There is no dispute about that. It has had a wonderful team, which has worked hard and effectively, giving splendid service to the nation.

Now, 500 men are to be turned out in an area which has for a long time been plagued by unemployment and is far from being out of the wood yet. We regret that. We are told that it cannot be helped and that the work of the factory is coming to an end. We understand that the Government must, from time to time, renew their policy, and that the future of the Royal Ordinance factories is being considered. But these factories are national property. We are voting public money for them. The Under-Secretary of State knows that if as is proposed, there are changes in defence, work at these factories may come to an end.

Have the Government considered, or will they consider, whether these factories, if and when they become unnecessary for purposes of armaments or explosives, cannot be regarded as valuable national property to be kept by the Government for civilian use? I speak as a layman, but I understand from my hon. Friends who are expert in these matters that it would be very easy to use the factory at Pembrey with its equipment, its staff and "know how", in order to produce goods for civilian purposes, and that it would not be a very big job, nor very expensive, to make other kinds of chemicals instead of explosives. I am told that with very little adaptation of equipment and with the skill of the men it could be used to produce fertilisers.

I had the privilege of being Colonial Secretary, and have visited Commonwealth countries and many others. The poorer countries of the world are crying out for fertilisers. Will the Under-Secretary of State ask the Government to bear in mind that if, at any time, the Royal Ordnance factories are not required for production for the Armed Forces, they have a responsibility to find, if they can, alternative work, including civilian production? I hope that they will not do again what was done before—turn men out, destroy the premises, leave the site derelict, and, what is far worse, leave a derelict community. That has happened before.

9.15 p.m.

I am putting the case frankly, because the men believe it. The Government are not the only people engaged here: there are other people. Therefore, I ask the questions that have been put to me by the men. I hope that this factory will not be prevented from making use of its equipment, and the "know-how" and experience of its men, just because if all this were put to civilian use, it would be competing with very powerful vested interests.

I do not want to mention any names, but the position was put very frankly to me, just as it was put many years ago. These are some of the points I want to raise with the Under-Secretary, and I know that my hon. Friends want to raise others. I am very sorry for these 500 men, who are being declared redundant. Many of them have rendered very great service to the nation by working in Royal Ordnance factories with their skill and know-how. Many of them have been turned out at over 50 years of age. One of the problems that we have all over the country, but particularly in South Wales, is that when men are 50 or over and lose their jobs, it is very difficult to provide other work for them and to get other industries to take them on.

I hope that the War Office will realise that among these 500 men there will be many in this middle-aged group who will find it very difficult to find another job in another industry. After yeans of service to the nation, they deserve consideration from and protection by the Government, and I hope that care will be taken of them.

When the Government consider whether all the existing Royal Ordnance factories are to be kept or whether any can now be disposed of, I hope that consideration will be given to the social implications of where they economise. Where they stop factories and whom they make redundant. I hope that some consideration will be given to whether, in a given area where a factory is affected and men have to be withdrawn, it will be difficult or easy for those affected to find alternative employment.

I hope that the Under-Secretary and his right hon. Friend will consider these questions. I hope they will copy what the Labour Government did after 1945. I hope that, sometimes, when the hon. Gentleman visits South Wales—I do not know whether he ever does—he will visit Bridgend. I hope that if and when the Ordnance factory is no longer required, it will be possible, by collaboration with the Board of Trade and other Government Departments, to transform part of it into an ordinary factory, rather than pull it down, as was done in some places at the end of the First World War.

I hope that all these things will be borne in mind. Millions of pounds of public money have been put into these factories, which are splendid works, structurally and in every other way. They can be used for civilian purposes. Perhaps this Government have an objection to public ownership, but at least they will not carry their objection so far as to deny that a factory and equipment which under public ownership can manufacture and provide explosives, cannot, equally under public ownership, provide goods for civilian use. It could be done, and I hope that this will be borne in mind. I thought that it was my duty to my constituents to refer to these men, most of whom I know, and many of whom formerly worked in coal mines and did very good work there.

These are the communities which in the years gone by suffered from being used when the nation required them, and being discarded when the nation thought that they were no longer necessary. I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to what has been said today when they reconsider the use of the Royal Ordnance factories, particularly the one at Pembrey.

Can my hon. Friend say anything about the fact that in the 1961–62 Estimates provision was made for one graduate apprentice, and this year that provision does not appear to have been made? Indeed, no provision appears to have been made for apprentices. Has any provision been made for Commonwealth countries which have their own Armed Forces to send people here for training in the Royal Ordnance factories?

Secondly, I suppose that raw materials for the factories are included under the heading of "Manufactures, modifications and repairs", in Appendix I. If this is not the case, I cannot see where provision is made for supplying raw materials to enable the factories to produce me various things they do produce. Perhaps my horn. Friend can explain this point to the Committee.

I reinforce what my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) said about Royal Ordnance factories in general, and about the Royal Ordnance factory at Pembrey in particular. They have given signal service for many years. Although, as my right hon. Friend said, the factory at Pembrey is in his constituency, many of my constituents are employed there.

This factory has been running down for a considerable time. My right hon. Friend referred to the great anxiety felt about the 500 redundancies in this factory, and the fact that the whole future of the factory is in the balance, and, I might add, in a precarious balance. A few weeks ago we saw the Secretary of State for War about this. He informed us that the notices could not be withdrawn, and we realised from what he said then, and it is obvious, that this whole matter involves Government policy, and that in the end it will be a Cabinet decision.

We understand that, but for goodness' sake let us have a decision one way or the other. The Government have taken an unconscionable time to decide what to do, and the consequences have been very serious. We have been told that one firm has been deterred from establishing a factory in Pembrey because the Royal Ordnance factory is occupying part of the factory premises. In addition, this factory is near one of the best industrial sites in the whole of South Wales—Kidwelly Flats. It is on the site which was considered for the steel mill which was subsequently established in Llanwern, in Monmouthshire.

Let us have a decision one way or the other, and let us have it soon, so that these premises may be converted to civilian use and the whole area may be developed industrially. After all, the Government have a direct and definite responsibility from which they cannot escape—I do not suggest that they wish to do so—for these men who have served the country well for many years.

I therefore ask the Minister to be a little more explicit. If he cannot give us an undertaking one way or the other tonight, will he ask his right hon. Friend to expedite his decision and thereafter consult his colleagues in the Government, especially the President of the Board of Trade, to ensure that these men will not be told, "We do not want this factory any more. We are very grateful to these men who have rendered great service to the country, but there it is. We wash our hands of it"?

We want from the Government an undertaking that their responsibilities to these men will be fulfilled, and that if the factory is to be abandoned by the Government it will be taken over as soon as possible and made available for industrial use.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) asked why we had no provision for graduate apprentices under Royal Ordnance factory salaries this year, and why we had only one last year. As far as I know, the position is that the graduate apprentice is a rather rare kind of apprentice on a salary. As for our employment of ordinary industrial apprentices, I have asked about this when visiting Royal Ordnance factories and I can assure my hon. Friend that we are doing more than our share of training apprentices. I shall have to make special inquiries in order to answer my hon. Friend's point about Commonwealth apprentices.

My hon. Friend also asked me whether the raw materials used by the factories were included under the heading of manufactures, on page 9. I can assure him that they are.

The right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) raised the question of Royal Ordnance factories in general, and the one at Pembrey in particular. The right hon. Gentleman asked me why, in a year where there was an increase in the Army Estimates, there was a decrease in the Estimates for Royal Ordnance factories. I can best explain the position by giving him the picture of our War Office expenditure over the last two years and the next two years.

At present, there is a peak in expenditure on the building aspect of our activities—works, married quarters, barracks, and so on—but in respect of the Royal Ordnance factories, which deal with equipment, the peak will not come for another year or two, although, as my right hon. Friend said, the upward turn is beginning. We are approaching the end of a rather slack period in the activity of Royal Ordnance factories. That is the explanation. We can look forward to a measure of improvement as the re-equipment programme gets under way and becomes the main aspect of our expenditure, replacing in this respect the building programme.

The right hon. Gentleman said that it had been suggested to him that the decline in the activity of the factories had a more sinister significance, and that they were not going to get a fair share of the work. I deny that. What is known as the "preferred source" policy—that is, the policy declared previously by the Government by which Royal Ordnance factories receive Government equipment work, subject to delivery dates and the design rights of firms—still stands. The right hon. Gentleman can reassure anybody who may have cast doubts upon that, and I hope that he will take the opportunity to do so.

9.30 p.m.

Coming specifically to Pembrey, I have been in touch with my right hon. Friend over this matter and have discussed it with him since he met hon. Members. The position is difficult. There is a plentiful supply of T.N.T., which is what the factory produces. It is stuff which will keep, so that further production presents a difficulty. At present, the workers at Pembrey are employed in breaking down ammunition, work which is a hangover from the last war and part of the tidying-up process. That, of course, will eventually come to an end and I cannot visualise any improvement in the position. It is not, therefore, easy to define the future for this factory.

I will give an undertaking to draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend what was said by the hon. Member for Carmarthen and ask him to do what he can to hasten a decision in the matter. I can assure the right hon. Member for Llanelly that we shall consider with the greatest care the question of the future of employees who may be affected by any further run-down in Royal Ordnance factories. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall consider, if and when the time comes, possible alternative civilian uses for the Royal Ordnance factory at Pembrey, or any other factory which is similarly affected. We always examine the local employment prospects.

We have recently been in touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and with the Board of Trade. I cannot say anything further at the moment, but I will convey to my right hon. Friend what has been said during this debate and we will seek to clear the air as soon as possible in order to arrive at a position where we can give a decision, and show to those concerned a little more clearly where the future lies.

I wish to put two points to my hon. Friend. I wish to draw attention to the astronomical sum paid out for munitions and I should like to know the proportion of arms, munitions and guns bought in this country and abroad. For clothing and textiles there is a figure of £14,600,000. In the Estimate the figure is only £7 million for clothing and presumably the other £7 million is for textiles. I should like my hon. Friend to explain how the figure for textiles is arrived at.

I cannot give my hon. Friend the exact breakdown of purchases of guns, small arms, and equipment. Some of them are purchased from overseas when we find them particularly suitable. For example, the 105 mm. pack howitzer from Italy is the best weapon we have been able to find for its particular purpose. But I am advised that overseas purchases do not form a large proportion of the total. The answer, therefore, is that these are mainly purchases made at home—and, of course, my hon. Friend will not overlook the fact that there are also considerable sales overseas.

My hon. Friend also remarked on the sum of £14,600,000 for clothing and textiles, but he will no doubt remember that we are engaged in re-equiping the Army with Service dress, which explains the rather larger clothing element in the Vote as compared with the normal expenditure.