National Service (Hansard, 6 June 1956)

21. Mr. Yates
asked the Minister of Defence if he has considered the recent announcement of the Soviet Government of their intention to reduce their armed forces by 1,200,000; and, if, in view of this further lessening of international tension, Her Majesty's Government will make a similar gesture especially favouring a speedy ending of compulsory National Service.

§ The Minister of Defence (Sir Walter Monckton)
I would refer to the reply which I gave on 30th May to the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. D. Howell).

Mr. Yates
Do not those replies mean that the Government are not considering any further reduction in the Armed Forces beyond what was decided upon before Russia made this announcement? In view of the fact that this reduction of 1,200,000 is the largest reduction that has ever been proposed, is not it worthy of a gesture which would meet the situation and lead us nearer to disarmament?

§ Sir W. Monckton
The first thing I would say is that, as I pointed out on 30th May, we are already engaged on a substantial reduction of our Armed Forces. Next I said, and I say again, that I do not think it would be right to make any further gesture or move now until we have ascertained the effect of the changes—we hope, changes in recruitment and prolongation of engagements.

§ 25. Mr. Hunter
asked the Minister of Defence whether he will take steps to abolish the call-up of National Service men for the fifteen days' annual training.

§ Sir W. Monckton
The policy of Her Majesty's Government remains as set out in the White Paper on National Service, Cmd. 9608.

§ Mr. Hunter
Arising out of that reply, will the Minister give serious consideration to the whole question of the dislocation of family life, industry and commerce, and also the financial expense to the nation? Is it worth retaining this period of fifteen clays' annual training?

§ Sir W. Monckton
It is important that we should not give up the annual training period—it is twenty days rather than fifteen—because it has certainly been found to be necessary in some Services.

§ Mr. Shinwell
Is the Minister aware that only the other day his colleague, the Minister of Labour and National Service, stated from that Bench that it was no longer the policy of the Government to continue National Service for the original purpose of training large bodies of reserves? If that is so, what is the purpose of retaining the fifteen days' training period? Is the Minister aware that most of the time occupied by the men concerned is completely wasted?

§ Sir W. Monckton
It is quite clearly essential that we should be able to get hold of a certain number of them. For instance, in the case of the Royal Navy, linguists and communication specialists are called up for a period. The Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force do not find it necessary to call up so many as the Army do, but as matters stand at present the Army needs these reservists to be available.

§ Mr. Shinwell
Will the Minister be good enough to make some investigation into this matter? Is it not clear that he is not completely informed upon the matter, and that he might have some consultations with his right hon. Friends in the Service Departments? The whole matter is a waste of time.

§ Sir W. Monckton
I am always grateful to the right hon. Gentleman when he informs me of things about which I am inadequately informed. I will certainly take his advice and consult my colleagues.