Oral Answers to Questions — Armed Forces – in the House of Commons am 12:00 am ar 13 Awst 1947.
asked the Minister of Defence (1) to what extent the proposal to have 700,000 men stationed in this country on 31st March, 1948, will involve an increase in the accommodation required; and to what extent this will involve outlay in works service or further requisitioning of civilian accommodation;
(2) to what extent the proposal to effect by 31st March, 1948, a net reduction of more than 200,000 men now serving in overseas stations will increase the number of those stationed at home; and for what purposes they will be used.
On present plans there will be a net reduction in the strength of the Armed Forces in this country by 31st March next. My hon. Friend will appreciate that there is accordingly no likelihood that any increase in accommodation will be required.
Does my right hon. Friend's answer mean that there are at present over 700,000 men in the Forces stationed in this country?
Yes, Sir. That can be deduced from the figures which were given on 23rd July.
Is my right hon. Friend yet in a position to state the amount of land occupied for training of all the Forces, and can he give any indication when the promised White Paper on this subject will be available?
I could not give it this morning.
How many of these 700,000 men, or over, are at home at the moment engaged in training and how many of them are not doing anything at all?
Will the Minister give an assurance that as many of these men as can be spared will spend the next few weeks working on the land?
A request has been made already for people from the Forces to help with the harvest and that is being granted. In regard to the Question by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan) the percentages can be given, but I have not got them with me this morning.
Will everything possible be done to ensure that Polish workers are employed on the land?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has not answered the latter part of Question No. 20, which asked "for what purposes they will be used?" Can he say whether he is satisfied that there is a useful purpose which they perform, and which will be performed, by all the men who are stationed at home?
I am aware of that, but there will be a further answer, I think, to a later Question.
Is the Minister aware that a regulation is now in force which will prevent people in the Forces from working on the land because they were not agricultural labourers before they joined up? Will he look into that, because there are people who wish to work on the land, but who cannot get agricultural leave, although they are waiting about with nothing to do?
I will certainly look into the hon. Member's suggestion.
In view of the fact that there has been an appeal to education authorities in Scotland to free children for the potato harvest, will the answer given by my right hon. Friend enable these troops to be used for the potato harvest and prevent children from being taken from the schools?
We are allowing men from the Forces to engage in harvest operations, but I think that the use of soldiers will largely be a matter for the Minister of Agriculture.
On the general issue, can we have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that he will not be panicked by the economic crisis into a reduction of the Armed Forces below the safety level?
asked the Minister of Defence for what purposes it is necessary now to maintain 700,000 men and women under arms in Great Britain.
The Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force have now reverted to their normal peacetime practice of keeping the bulk of their strength in the United Kingdom and its adjacent waters. The Army, in addition to maintaining its operational, administrative and training base in the United Kingdom, has a considerable range of duties to perform in connection with clearing defence areas, removing ammunition dumps, dealing with ordnance, supply and other depots, etc.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that, now that these figures have been disclosed, there is widespread anxiety in this country that there is a very considerable wastage of manpower in the Armed Forces at home? Will he seriously review the situation, and does he not think that it is about time that this Parliament should be informed of the composition of these Forces in terms of the three Services?
In regard to the first point, as my hon. Friend knows, we have had manpower committees sitting, and we should welcome evidence from any Members of Parliament of specific instances of wastage to be passed to the committees to be examined in detail, and we hope that will be done. As regards the question of breakdown, I should have to look at that more carefully.
Would my right hon. Friend consider concentrating the bulk of these Forces into clearly defined military areas, thus freeing land and buildings in various parts of the country?
Is my right hon. Friend aware that one regulation makes it impossible for hon. Members of this House to make effective representations to the committees, as no effective information is disclosed to the House on which such representation could be made? Will he now state the number of men in the three Armed Forces at present in the United Kingdom, because on that information very strong representations could be made to the manpower committees?
I have not that information with me this morning, because it does not actually arise upon this Question. I have already said that rather more than half of the home strength referred to previously would be in the Navy and the Air Force.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the House yesterday, the Secretary of State for War stated that the manpower economy committees were not concerned with immediate economy in manpower, but rather with the long-term problem, and, in view of that, will he suggest that the manpower committees in their deliberations should consider the urgent need for securing economy in the Armed Forces now?
There is not any doubt at all that one of the important functions of the committees is to examine methods, staffs and targets for the long-term problem, and there is every reason why anyone who has any evidence of wastage in any particular instance should bring the evidence to the appropriate committee, who, I am sure, will examine it at once.
asked the Minister of Defence (1), how many of the 750,000 men, approximately, in the forces who are at present serving at home belong to the Royal Navy, the Army and the R.A.F., respectively; and how many of the 707,000 estimated to be serving at home on 31st March, 1948, he estimates will belong then to the Royal Navy, the Army and the R.A.F., respectively;
(2) whether he will state, for each of the three Services, what is the respective percentage of men now serving at home, undergoing training, on the teaching or permanent staff of training establishments or units, in ships, units or formations which belong to the home establishment for other than training or administrative reasons, on administrative duties connected with the supply and maintenance of equipment, other than headquarter's personnel, and on headquarters above unit level.
I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the statement which I made in replying to the Debate on the Adjournment on Monday last, in which I gave the maximum information I prudently could.
Cannot the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter, at any rate, between now and the time when Parliament next meets, and does he not realise that much of the doubt and opposition to him is due to the fact that we have had far too little information upon which we can make up our minds?
We must be, at least, one of the first two countries in the world which give the most information, and we do not get anything like the same information from other countries.
May I ask what proportion of these Forces are on the Continent, or are those Forces included in the figures of those in the British Isles?
That was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week. In the redistribution plan for bringing men home from abroad, the figure of approximately 300,000 will include the German occupation Forces.
Will my right hon. Friend give the break-down figures, and let us know how many women there are in the Armed Forces, because many people think that a woman in the Forces is wasted?
Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many of the complaints which we have heard in the House this morning and outside in the country about the number of men banging about doing nothing would be completely obviated if the right hon. Gentleman would give special attention to maintaining an adequate inflow of new weapons and keeping the Army and the other Services up to date?
There is always a great difficulty with priorities in this matter. The main thing we have had to do has been to speed up our production for export and civilian purposes, and, for the time being, we have had to live on the fat of the accumulated war supplies.
Can my right hon. Friend say whether any of the 700,000 men now held in the Forces are being kept because of a strict adherence to the age and service principle of the release scheme?
I should not say so, in broad terms. There may be some cases of that kind in the Army, but certainly not in the other Services. In our general review of the situation, we are examining the question whether that will not have to be altered.
Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider giving some of the information asked for in Question No. 24, even though he cannot give all the information, because, even if we got some of the information for the Army only, I think it would help hon. Members of this House and the people in the country to have some slight understanding of what all these men are required for?
I will look into that matter. There have been certain security reasons advanced to me, which I have accepted, but I will certainly look into it again.