Clause 2.—(RECALL OF NATIONAL SERVICE- MEN INTO ARMY SERVICE.)

HC Deb 31 January 1962 vol 652 cc1185-246

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Wigg

I beg to move, in page 2, line 36, at the end to add: or (d) if he is undergoing or has been accepted for—

1. (i) a full-time educational course at a university, college, or comparable institution in the United Kingdom,
2. (ii) a full-time apprenticeship or articled clerkship or full-time instruction in a skilled trade or calling, or
3. (iii) a course of training comparable to any of the foregoing to fit him to join a profession or undertake a skilled occupation".

The wording of this Amendment is similar to that of the Amendments we have already discussed. Of course, the principle is quite different. I can best approach it by explaining my personal attitude to the group of Amendments moved on Clause 1 as compared with similar Amendments on Clause 2.

I was bitterly opposed to Clause 1. I regarded it as unfair. I regarded the introduction of selective service as the most inefficient and unfairest possible way of attempting to solve a military manpower problem from the worst possible angle. Therefore, I was against Clause 1 in principle and in detail.

When it comes to Clause 2, my position is different. I regard the Government's defence policy from 1957 onwards as wholly disastrous. I said so in April, 1957, and before 1957 when, from reports in the Press, one began to sense the way in which Government policy was shaping. It is not part of my duty to go over all the different arguments which I used then and which total up to "I told you so." We are now in the position that we are unable to carry out our obligations to N.A.T.O. We have not the forces which this country pledged its word to maintain on the Continent of Europe. We are incapable of carrying through even limited military operations. The Government pat themselves on the back about Kuwait. The Kuwait operation was tantamount to going to B.O.A.C. and buying 3,000 air tickets. It was successful so long as it was not opposed. Our position on the Asian land mass is quite tenuous and we are in a humiliating position.

I was much interested in a letter written to the Daily Telegraph, last Saturday morning, by the hon. and gallant Member for Arundel and Shoreham (Captain Kerby), quoting from the N.A.T.O. Journal and what it thought about the lamentable position of this country from the defence point of view at the present time. I wish that the hon. and gallant Member were here, because I think that it would be far better if what he said in the Daily Telegraph was said on the Floor of the House on this or some other occasion. It is a fact that, having spent a fantastic amount in terms of money and having imposed on our young men compulsory military service, we are now switching to what is the basic principle of this country at the present time—expediency; that which is convenient is correct. Those are the principles on which we work.

When considering this Clause, I am in roughly the position that I was in in April, 1939, when the Conservative Government at that time, whose guts I hated and whom I despised, introduced compulsory service. I had just come out of the Army and I thought that, because of our lamentable foreign policy and the catastrophic happenings at Munich, compulsory National Service was absolutely essential. I was in a reverse position to some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House. The more I despised the Government's foreign policy, the more sceptical I became of our military policy, and the more I was driven into the position of having to support desperate steps of this kind—unfair, inefficient and uncompromising. I have to adopt the same attitude now, because if I do not, I am brought face to face with the alternative.

It is one thing to break faith and hold men for six months; it is quite another to call men back to the Colours when Parliament has imposed an obligation of 31 years' Reserve service upon them. We are dealing with this category. In Clause 2 we give the Minister power to recall to the Colours young men who have finished their Colour service and now have a Reserve liability of 3½ years. The House of Commons has given the Government that right, and the Government, driven into a corner and faced with the necessity of doing something as a result of having led the House and the country up the garden path on the question of an Army strength of 165,000, have taken this course.

I shall not oppose the Government on the Clause. They have been forced into this position, and although I consider this to be a lousy and dishonest Bill I cannot, in logic, oppose Clause 2, because I cannot face the consequences of asking youg men to serve in units which are under strength. During my service I was at the receiving end of a number of examples where the British Army was called upon to do that, and I should not be honest with myself or the Committee if I agreed to that arrangement. But we must also do the best we can for the young men who have done their two years' service and have gone back into civilian life. Even if we have put down the same Amendments on this Clause as we did on Clause 1 the arguments must be different.

There is yet another difference. The Amendment refers to young men who have the possibility of entering into: a full-time educational course at a university, college, or comparable institution in the United Kingdom". That is in the future; the men have not started their courses. If we impose upon the Secretary of State the obligation of exempting such a category of men who are still serving, we are saying to him, "This is a category with which we must deal as and when the time comes." We are dealing with a possibility under the terms of Clause 1, but with a similar Amendment to this Clause we are dealing with a certainty. If, at the time a man is selected to be recalled under Clause 2, he is actually undergoing or has been accepted for a full-lime course, it should follow that he should not be required to return to military service.

The fact that a man knows for certain, beyond any possibility of a wangle, puts the matter into quite another category. The Secretary of State does not have to search through the files of the Record Office, or send signals to the Command asking for returns of numbers of men who have planned to undergo or who have been accepted for a course of full-time education. In this case, if the Secretary of State calls a man up and that man falls into any of the categories mentioned in the Amendment, the man can say. "I am not a starter, because of this and that." That is the second reason why the Amendment is different from those that we moved on Clause 1.

I tend to look at the matter from the point of view of its effect on the Army, but I realise that I must also have regard to its effect on the nation. We know that National Service is an unsettling business. At the beginning of their National Service many young men will have planned one thing while their parents may have hoped that they would want to do something else. As a result of two years' National Service, with all the stirring up of new interests and mixing with new friends, and with wider horizons, a good deal of travel, and the beneficent results of Army service—and there are some—many young men who started military service with one idea in their minds have quite another at the end of their service, when they are about 20 years old. This means a change of their plans, and a different career.

On the other hand, many young men go into the Army with no settled idea, and when they come out they sometimes find great difficulty in making up their minds what to do, and drift from one job to another. They take up many callings before they finally settle down.

But the category covered by the Amendment consists of those people who, having completed their two years' service, are prepared to make immediate financial sacrifices—to live on pocket money provided by their parents or what money they can gather from jobs they can do—on the one hand, and sacrifice leisure and the pursuit of agreeable hobbies, on the other, in order to further their studies. They are the serious-minded young men, who have done the best they can with their two years' service and are determined to put down roots. They should not be quite arbitrarily picked up from civilian Life and dumped back into the Army without any safeguards.

I appreciate the weaknesses as well as the strength of Army administration. It does its best. It does better than some of its detractors give it credit for. I have always believed that the staff work of the Army must be organised at a very high level in the modern world. But there are occasions when the Record Office, like all other human institutions, is fallible. Mistakes are made.

I wish the right hon. Gentleman's recruiting campaign well. I hope that at the end of the year he will be able to say that he does not need to exercise the powers given to him by the Clause. But let us suppose that things go from bad to worse, from the point of view of the Army. Let us suppose that, by some miracle, the Government manage to overcome the country's economic difficulties—or perhaps I ought to say that the country manages to overcome the economic difficulties imposed by the Government—and, as a result, trade begins to boom and a note of reality once again creeps into the optimistic speeches about recruiting made by hon. Members opposite, including the Secretary of State. Let us suppose that the gap begins to widen.

At the same time, Mr. Khrushchev may happen to make a speech, and the Government may say, very suddenly, "We must call up a number of chaps." A considerable number of men may then be called up. In those circumstances I am not prepared to forsake those young men who, having completed their two years' service and having gone back in civilian life, are shown by the actions they have taken to be serious-minded young men—the salt of the earth and the backbone of the country; the men from whom we will draw our teachers, scientists, accountants and, sometimes, even our doctors. These are the young men who have served their two years in their stride and are beginning to put down roots. I am not prepared to leave them to the tender mercies of the Record Office.

8.0 p.m.

That is why I attach much greater importance to this Amendment in its application to Clause 2 than I did to a similar Amendment as applied to Clause 1. In Clause I we are dealing with a man in the Army who may be retained. Such a man has a chance to "squeal" to his commanding officer and to make his voice heard. He has all the machinery of redress which exists under the powers conferred by the Army Act. But the man who is back in civilian life is out of the running. He does not know what is to happen and suddenly catastrophe strikes in this way.

There is no difficulty, either in principle or for administrative reasons, which would prevent the Secretary of State from accepting this Amendment. I consider that it is a sensible Amendment. I might be expected to say that, but I have consulted others on the point. It is the minimum that we ought to impose on the Government, having in mind the great shortage in the teaching profession and in other professions and occupations for which a planned course of full-time study is necessary.

I hope that the Secretary of State will take a wide view. I hope that he will not look at the matter only from the point of view of the Army. I ask him—he is a kindly man and I am sure that he will—to use his imagination and to look at this matter from the point of view of the man who has done his two years' service, and also from the point of view of the needs and the wider interests of the community as a whole.

I also ask the right hon. Gentleman once again—this is the umpteenth time I have asked him, and I beg his forgiveness if I bore him, but I have to say it again—to bear seriously in mind the accidental, the fortuitous circumstance which may impose these great obligations on young men who happen to have served in the Army, while personnel in the Air Force and the Navy are completely exempt. There are also the 60,000 men who were released from any obligation at all, quite arbitrarily, by the Government. The present Lord Privy Seal, then Minister of Labour, in answer to a statement at the end of Question Time in this House, slipped this through because it was administratively and financially convenient to the Government at that time.

We have talked earlier in the debate about the position in which twins might find themselves. But what about triplets? What about quintuplets? Imagine five sons. One was in the 60,000 and was not called up at all. Two others served in the Navy and Air Force, respectively. One was medically unfit and the fifth went into the Army. They were all of equal intelligence. Let us see what would be their earning capacity at varying stages of their career from November, 1960, over the years. Imagine what a "friend" of the Army would be the fifth son who served and then, after he had come out of the Army, settled down and borrowed money from his other four brothers—or from the savings his parents had been able to accrue as the result of what the other four brothers had been able to do—in order to pursue a career as a teacher. Imagine that after he had been a year in the teaching profession he was suddenly pitched back into the Army for another six months—and this at a time when the Government are depending on good will in order to secure recruits for the Army!

For all those reasons; because of the consequences to individuals, the effect on the Army and on the community as a whole and, not least, in the interests of justice and fair play, I ask the Committee to support this Amendment.

Mr. Shinwell

I regard this Clause as the most vicious part of the Bill. I can understand the idea behind the provision in Clause 1, namely, that because of the possibility of some emergency, and in order to fill gaps in the Service, it is necessary to ask men already serving for a period of two years to allow themselves to be retained for another six months. There may be some logic in that. But I see no logic in this case, nor do I perceive any fairness. Once a man has served his two years and gone into civilian life he is to be hauled hack again to undertake another period of six months' service.

Does the Secretary of State know of any other N.A.T.O. country which has adopted this device? From what the right hon. Gentleman has already said, apparently he is not aware of any such country, and neither am I. Indeed, there are few N.A.T.O. countries which have adopted the two-year period of National Service. I believe that the United States has, but there a selective service system is operated and there are a large number of deferments and exemptions. It is difficult to ascertain what is the method in France; whether the period is a year or 18 months; whether the men are called up in blocks or whether there are a great number of deferments and exemptions. In Belgium I believe the period is 12 months and the same applies to the Netherlands. In the Scandinavian countries associated with N.A.T.O.—Denmark and Sweden—I believe that the period is even shorter. At any rate, none of the N.A.T.O. countries has adopted the device, that once a man has served for a period, whether two years, 18 months or 12 months, he can be recalled—except, of course, in times of crisis and emergency; in short, when the country is likely to be going to war, and men have to be mobilised for that purpose.

In heaven's name, why does the Secretary of State embark on an adventure of this kind? During the Second Reading debate the right hon. Gentleman seemed to imply that he might never make use of this method at all. I understand that that was his position at the time. He thought that there was no need for this provision. He required that some men still serving should be retained for another six months. But the right hon. Gentleman was not quite certain whether he ever intended to use the provisions in this Clause. So the whole position is in the air. It is vague and nebulous.

I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say exactly what he means. First, would he answer a question which I think is very important? Why should young men in this country, who have served their period of National Service, be brought back again to serve for another six months, when no other N.A.T.O. country has adopted this practice? I think that a question which must be answered. I see no reason why burdens should be imposed on the young men of this country which are not imposed on young men in other N.A.T.O. countries, unless there is some exceptional reason for doing so. Because of the Divisions which have taken place this afternoon, and the rejection of some of our proposals regarding remuneration and compensation, it is apparent that the men are to make considerable sacrifices. There is no doubt that if a man who has served his period of National Service is retained for a further six months, hardship and sacrifice is likely to occur.

Surely the hardship is more severe for a man who, having served, returns to civilian life or embarks on a civilian career and is then brought back into the Army. In this matter the right hon. Gentleman should make it quite clear that he has a substantial reason far adopting this expedient. If he has not got one, I think he will have to agree to the Amendment which provides considerable exemptions for certain categories.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) said that he (lid not propose to vote against Clause 2. I should have thought that as we voted against Clause 1 there was an even stronger case for voting against Clause 2. Of course my hon. Friend does not like the Bill at all and would have preferred a more effective system of selective service. Neither do I like the Bill, not because I want selective service or a return to conscription, but because I think that the right hon. Gentleman has as many men as he deserves. We do not want to waste any more men in the Service beyond the numbers available to the right hon. Gentleman.

If the riglht hon. Gentleman cannot accept this Amendment it seems that there is a stronger case for compensation. He and I had a controversy over the matter of pay for National Service men compared with pay for the Regulars. We are at loggerheads, but that is largely attributable to him. I think he must have regretted having sent the communication to me on that subject. I understand that his defence now is that he was dealing with average rates of pay I am not concerned whether they are average rates of pay or what they are. All I know is that there is a disparity and he should remove the disparity.

If he feels it necessary to ask men who have served two years and gone back into civilian life to come back for another six months, he ought to say to them, "We cannot afford to give you the civilian pay you were receiving, that is too much, but we shall see to it that, although you are a National Service man doing another six months, having been brought back to the Service and taken from a career an which you had embarked, you will get the same rate as the Regular alongside whom you serve." That is fair enough.

The Secretary of State knows that in this matter I am a very reasonable person, because I have great confidence in the Army. I have not as much confidence in the innumerable Secretaries of State we have seen before us. I have no malice against the right hon. Gentleman. He is very courteous to hon. Members on this side of the Committee. I have no complaint against him in particular, but the Government have made a frightful blunder over this legislation. As I regard this Clause as the most vicious and vindictive, constituting a considerable hardship and in any event quite unnecessary, I beg the right hon. Gentleman either to withdraw it or to comply with the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley.

8.15 p.m.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to say that this Amendment is unnecessary.

I should have thought that certainly sub-paragraph (ii) ought to be unnecessary in the light of Clause 5, which deals with the reinstatement in civilian employment and refers conditions of the National Service Act, 1948, to this Bill. I should have thought that the question of full-time apprenticeship or articled clerkship or full-time instruction in a skilled trade or calling would be covered by Clause 5. It may be that sub-paragraphs (i) and (iii) may also be covered. There is perhaps a bigger reason than those I have mentioned why this Amendment should be unnecessary, if my right hon. Friend's remarks on Second Reading can be confirmed today. My right hon. Friend said on 27th November: It is possible that we shall never have to operate this second measure, which is solely designed as an insurance against national need during the period of transition from conscription while the Regular Army will be at a low strength. I have good reason for saying this, because of the provisions of Clause 3, which is designed to create a new form of volunteer Reserve within the Territorial Army."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1961, Vol. 650, c. 51.] Of course, we shall be better able to judge of this when we have seen what response there is to the provisions of Clause 3. My case is that the response will be very considerable, and the better it is the less likelihood there will be of this Clause having to be invoked. Probably most of us hope that it will not be invoked because we all prefer the volunteer to the conscript.

Mr. Shinwell

Does not the hon. Member realise that this threat is hanging over the heads of a large number of men?

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

Yes. If the right hon. Gentleman will give me a little time I hope that I can reassure him on that point. Of course this is an obnoxious part of the Clause by which the commitments are intensified. It is not a new commitment because all men who have done their full-time National Service are obliged to do a part-time period on recall. My right hon. Friend had in mind that the likelihood of that power ever being used would be dependent on a proclamation. That is why I welcomed the Bill on Second Reading. My right hon. Friend was quite right in saying that there might be temporary periods of tension when it would be highly undesirable to have a proclamation but when, without a proclamation, we could not say that we were reasonably invoking powers for recalling part-time National Service men.

I hope that such periods of tension will not arise and, secondly, that if they do arise the provisions of Clause 3 will prove so successful that the provision of Clause 2 need never be invoked. Short of a situation arising in which we have to have a proclamation any way—a really serious one with the possibility of a major war developing—there is a lot to be said for having greater facility for calling up. This Bill does not create any new obligation in Clause 2. It merely intensifies the facility with which we can invoke that obligation. To that extent. naturally, we hope that these periods of tension will not arise, but a great deal must depend, first, on the numbers who potentially are capable of being called up under this Clause and, secondly, the number who will have been produced by Clause 3.

My right hon. Friend said on Second Reading that he did not expect to have to consider invoking Clause 2 until 1963 at the earliest. He said that by 1963 about 100,000 National Service men would be eligible for call-up under Clause 2, assuming that it be passed. If there is a continuation of the present trend of Army recruiting on a Regular basis and, in addition, there is a substantial response to Clause 3, I cannot see the likelihood of a great many of those 100,000 National Service men on part-time obligation being called up under the Clause. In fact, short of a general proclamation if a major catastrophe were impending, only a comparatively small fraction of the total would ever be called upon.

If that is so, the Amendment is unnecessary, because within that 100,000 we should be able to ensure, by ordinary administrative means without having to make it a statutory obligation, that we do not call upon the sort of people mentioned in the Amendment. Even if the situation were grave enough to consider calling up people in the categories mentioned in the Amendment but not sufficiently grave to justify a proclamation, I have the impression that the machinery for sorting out hardship cases will be at least as good—I believe that it will be a great deal better—as it ever was in the case of National Service and deferment a few years ago. The machinery which existed then ensured that there was the minimum interference with apprenticeships, university courses, and so on. Nothing that my right hon. Friend has said justifies one in supposing that under this scheme there will be less facility for airing hardships and grievances than there was in the case of applying for deferment from National Service. I think that there will be even greater facility than we dared to hope for.

Mr. Paget

That is not so. It may be true under Clause 1, but the object of Clause 2 is to be able to call men up quickly and quietly in an emergency, the type of emergency in which the Government do not want to create alarm in international relationships. In those circumstances, how can any appeal system work? It has to be done much too quickly. The point of the Amendment is that if the provision were written into the Bill it would take these men off the list.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

Clause 5 (2) meets the point the hon. and learned Member has just made.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas (Leicester, North-East)

I have been following the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) very carefully. Will he make it quite clear whether he is in favour of these exemptions if they are not covered by Clause 5?

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

I accept that there is always a prima facie case for seeing whether anybody indulging in the various activities mentioned in the Amendment should be called up. However, I do not believe that the list of activities in the Amendment is necessarily complete. If it is not complete, as I believe it may not be, it may be found that the Amendment would result, as the Amendments to Clause 1 would have resulted, in greater hardship being suffered by those who are not included in the Amendment.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas

That applies to every exemption.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

Of course it does. I accept that. This is the great danger of trying to make exemptions. One cannot legislate for everybody.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas

The hon. Member must be logical. Is he saying that he is against the exemptions in Clause 5?

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

Certainly not. If the hon. and learned Member is now saying that Clause 5 meets his point, there is no need for the Amendment. That is the point I have been trying to make. I believe that the provisions contained in Clause 5 cover, as far as we can effectively cover them whilst retaining sensible administrative power, the very cases the hon. and learned Member has in mind.

Mr. Mulley

The hon. Member must agree that if it is written into the Bill it removes the element of doubt for a large number of people whom he does not think should be called up. If he is right in his view that additional exemptions mean additional hardship, he should argue that every single ex-National Service man from the Army, Navy and Royal Air Force should be recalled for six months.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

I hope that the hon. Member will not take any argument to its logical absurdity, because that is what he is attempting to do. In this great desire, which the Committee rightly expressed when Clause 1 was being considered and is apparently again expressing on Clause 2, to ensure that the minimum of injustice is caused, there is a real danger of us all losing sight of the real object of the Bill. The real object of the Bill is to ensure that our military strength does not fall dangerously low. If we are to ensure that every possible person who might conceivably suffer the slightest injustice is excluded from the provisions of the Bill, we shall not achieve the object of the Bill.

As I made clear on Second Reading and in our deliberations on Clause 1, greatly as I deplore the fact that we have not been able to get a sufficient number of recruits to avoid the necessity for the whole Bill, once one accepts the fact that a situation exists which demands immediate action—I believe that such a situation does exist and does demand immediate action—we must not do so much to cabin, crib and confine my right hon. Friend as to make it impossible for him to achieve the object of the Bill.

Some years ago I heard the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) round on one of his hon. Friends in the course of a debate on a Service Estimate and say, "What do we want the Armed Forces for? It is not the same as the Welfare State. The object is not to ensure that every possible little injustice is catered for. The object is to ensure that we have efficient armed forces". I entirely agreed with the hon. and learned Member then. I only wish that he were expressing the same sentiments a little more tonight.

It is important that we maintain a proper balance in our minds the whole way through. Clause 5 covers all the points which need covering, if in fact, as I believe was the case, those provisions were adequate when National Service was in full swing. For these reasons, I hope that my right hon. Friend will find it unnecessary to accept the Amendment but will ensure that where-ever possible the machinery which operated when we were calling up people under the National Service Act, 1948, is not only continued but improved.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Ede

It is unfortunate that when we use the words "national service" in the House we almost invariably mean military service in one or other of the Armed Forces of the Crown. I believe that national service is something far wider than that.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recall that the National Service Act, 1948, was passed by a Labour Government.

Mr. Ede

I know it was; I was a supporter of it. I joined the Army on the day I was 17. Every male member of my family was expected to do so, because my maternal grandfather and his two brothers were among the earliest volunteers to join up in 1859. While I do not agree with the hereditary principle in every respect, I think that a conception of national service ought to be inculcated in every family—and something more than mere military service.

We once again get to the question of bodies. The Army wants bodies. But other activities in national life want 'bodies, and if we are to have a real system of national service, we ought to try to ensure that no one form of national service is able to poach on the other forms.

The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) said that the Clause can be operated without a proclamation. Believe me, if it is ever operated, the morning after the first notices go out it will be no secret in this country or in any other country where the Foreign Office may be negotiating and wishes to make a display of force to show that if it does not get its way trouble will follow.

I do not believe that, in some way or other, people called up in this way will appear at barracks and depots without anyone knowing except the persons who go and the non-commissioned officers who are there to receive them. We may be quite certain that if ever the Clause is operated this country will be in a very serious position. There might be an occasion—I do not think it is very likely—when it would be preferable not to issue a proclamation to get something short of 100,000 men, but do not let us think that it will not be known that a serious position has arisen and that friends and foes will not take this action into consideration.

We have always had selective service under every conscription Measure in this country. There have always been long lists of exemptions. On occasion I have opposed certain exemptions. There was the business with regard to school masters. I have always doubted whether it was wise to exempt some of the school masters who were exempted. When I went to the Ministry of Education in 1940, I had to go down to the hon. Gentleman's constituency where two school masters had been exempted from military service because they had said that if only one had stroked Hitler the right way there would have been no emergency. The mothers of the boys going to that grammar school objected to sending their boys there while their husbands were away on military service. Exemption gives rise to all sorts of difficulties, and I think that it ought to be clearly defined and that we ought to be able to justify it.

In the circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman imagines in justification of the Clause, I do not see, unless a clear statement is made beforehand, how young men in the categories mentioned in the Amendment will be certain what their position will be in the event of the Clause being brought into operation. I am not quite sure how the right hon. Gentleman proposes to operate it. I understand that he estimates that there will be 100,000 men liable for service under the Clause. Will he say "All the men whose initials are from A to K will be called up for a start", or "Everybody who is liable will be called up"? He might think that the emergency did not require quite as many as that.

The calling-up of 100,000 men from all sorts of industries and professions will create some difficulty in the industrial and commercial world. We are now dealing in this Amendment with the type of men who in many walks of life are almost certain to be regarded as performing national service better in time of war in their ordinary occupations rather than in the Army. We suggest that these men, who have undertaken and are undergoing training for essential and valuable occupations, should not have their courses of preparation for their life's work interrupted by the operation of Clause 2.

I can see no reason why this should not be accepted on the ground that they are equipping themselves for a life's work in national service in the occupations which they have chosen. I know that if the right hon. Gentleman has the power to call up their bodies, he will find plenty of military advisers in high ranks in The Army who will want all the bodies they can get. I would have thought, in view of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) said, that the right hon. Gentleman could give some assurance with regard to the form of national service that these men are undertaking when they commit themselves to the courses of study and apprenticeships which are envisaged in the Clause.

I admit that if we got into very serious trouble the right hon. Gentleman would not be able to avoid a proclamation. I am not at all sure that we ought to entrust the Government with the power under this Clause by which the Foreign Office and the military can get the possession of bodies of men when they do not think the issue of a proclamation is necessary. If this means that the Government are so uncertain of their voluntary recruiting after this Bill comes into operation that, merely to fill up the Army in time of peace, the right hon. Gentleman can descend on some of these men and recall them for military service for six months, I think they are adopting a quite wrong policy. If they believe that voluntary recruiting is to be so ineffective when this Bill becomes an Act that they are going to have these huge gaps in the Army that only can justify the calling up of these men in time of peace, I think it is a policy that this Committee should not support.

I hope that I have made it quite clear that, personally, I do not regard military service as other than a proper calling for people who have no conscientious objection to it. The House of Commons has always made elaborate safeguards for people who can prove that they have a genuine conscientious objection to it, but, where they have not, I think that, as I was taught in my own home, preparation for military service ought to be part of a youth's early life.

It should be taken at a time when it does not seriously interfere with his preparation for other forms of national service.

I do not believe that the operation of this Clause will achieve any of the purposes which I have so far heard advanced in support of it. I cannot believe that if the right hon. Gentleman serves notices on any substantial part of 100,000 men, people at home and the people abroad will not regard it as a significant military step, whether to maintain the numbers in the Army in peacetime, or to prepare for an emergency that appears to be just beyond the horizon.

Mr. Profumo

Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I intervened at this stage, because time marches on. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) in his speech on this Amendment talked about the weight which hangs over these men after they have left the Army. I start on this point because I think it would be wrong to imagine that some new threat is created by this Bill. There has, of course, always been, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the obligation of part time National Service during which men could be called back, and so, to that extent, the provision has always been there.

I must be careful neither to delay the Committee too long nor to stray out of order, but the right hon. Gentleman asked why we were doing this. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) to a great extent answered, I think, why we feel it right to have this Clause in the Bill. This is the second stage of the arrangements which we feel it necessary to make in case of an emergency.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) spoke about this Measure as if it were something we were doing to avoid the declaration of a state of emergency, and he quite rightly said that we should not be able to keep that a secret, and that we should not be able to do this in a hole and corner way. I quite accept that.

It might well be that, if in a year's time or so tension developed to such an extent that any Government would feel it necessary to declare a national emergency, all would get called up. The reason for the provision in the Bill is what, when I was at the Colonial Office, used to be called the twilight problem—a situation not a state of emergency but looking as though it might lead to one and where, by extending the deterrent of manpower, a situation between nations which might lead to an actual threat of a shooting war might possibly be avoided. I do not ask the Committee to pronounce on this. I merely mean that we see the possibility that events might so develop that it might be necessary for a short period to call up, not a large number of people, but some, to strengthen the deterrent of manpower in, say, B.A.O.R., for a period, and such an action might well ease tension.

I have explained this particularly because, of course, if recruiting goes well, once we get the 165,000 people and their number mounts, it might be we could meet that problem with the resources we should then have, but we still have got to face the fact that Clause 1 really only buys time. Clause 1 of the Bill allows us in a situation where there is in Europe in the present time to see that B.A.O.R. does not run down during the period of our recruiting. After Clause 1 has come to an end and people are let out of National Service there could well be a build-up of a' period of tension when we might—and here I must be careful not to get out of order, for Clause 3 also comes into this—do what is here provided for in this Clause 2.

I have already said on Second Reading that it may not be necessary to do this, but it is an assurance we want in the Bill, because there might be a national emergency, in which case we might have to call up a lot of people, or there might be a twilight problem, in which case we would not need to call up large numbers.

They would be called up in the categories necessary to fill in what might be called holes or gaps in areas, where tension had built up. This is the explanation of why we should want to do it—

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Mulley (Sheffield, Park)

The Secretary of State should make up his mind. First, he says that there is no new threat, but if there is no new threat he does not need the power. If there is to be an additional means of call-up, he cannot get away with saying that there is no new threat for the ex-National Service man concerned. What, in fact, the right hon. Gentleman has said in his somewhat roundabout way is that people will be called up to make up deficiencies in recruiting.

Mr. Profumo

No—the hon. Member smiles at his hon. Friends as though he had made a point, but I do not think that it is a very good point. There has always been a statutory obligation here. It is nothing new that a National Service man should be asked to accept the obligation to be recalled. What is new is something in Clause 3, which is that if someone finds it a very great burden on his life he can apply to join the Ever-readies and avoid that burden, and be paid handsomely for it.

Perhaps I may now address myself to the Amendment, which would, in effect, give a very wide area of exemption from recall to men undergoing instruction and education. As I explained on 19th December last, I feel unable to accept Amendments exempting particular categories of men on hardship grounds. I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee in going over all that again, but if any hon. Member wishes to refresh his memory on that point he only has to refer to columns 1251 and 1252 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 19th December, 1961, in which I tried to give an explanation. We have also discussed this question in other days on an earlier Clause.

Were a sudden tension to build up, it might be unavoidable to call up men at pretty short notice—a point made by the hon. Member for Dudley himself. Even so, I should like the Committee to know that I am making arrangements for the grant of up to 56 days' postponement to be made in cases of men involved in circumstances of great difficulty, so as to give time for proper investigations to be made.

This is how I would propose to deal with that situation, even in such circumstances. If a man were recalled, it would be possible for him to get 56 days' postponement, during which time the sort of case that the hon. Member for Dudley and other hon. Members have in mind could be investigated. If the situation permitted some advance notice of call-up to be given, warning notices would be sent out containing advice—and one hon. Member asked me to give this undertaking—on how to appeal against recall.

If a man thought that he had solid grounds for exemption from recall—and the type of case we have in this Amendment would certainly qualify for examination—we would immediately consider the case and, if possible, exempt any case which was properly established according to our criteria. I believe that is the only way, and the only practical way to deal with the issue.

Perhaps I should add that if this situation were to arise the same procedures as I have outlined for people wishing to appeal under Clause 1 would apply also under this Clause. A difficult case, based on compassionate or hardship grounds, would be referred to a committee such as I have spoken of—

Mr. Wigg

To whom would the power to grant 56 days' deferment be delegated; to the Officer-in-Charge, Records, or whom?

Mr. Profumo

I am still considering the question of delegated power in detail, but I had it in mind that the Officer-in-Charge, Records would have power to grant the postponement himself. We would send a notice telling the chap, "You are called up, but if you feel you have a solid case you should write to the Officer-in-Charge, Records." The man would not have to go through any complicated War Office machinery. I think that is the only way to guard against something that is in the minds of hon. Members—

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas

A pretty long twilight!

Mr. Profumo

No, I do not think so. If one wants to be fair to people, one must make some such arrangement as this. If someone was granted 56 days' postponement and it took a long time to examine the case, we would have to call up some one else. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would like—

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas

What I have in mind relates to the 165,000, about which the right hon. Gentleman has not yet answered satisfactorily. All this rather goes to indicate that he wants this provision in order to make up the 165,000, which was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) a moment ago. Would the Minister make it absolutely clear whether he proposes to use the provision for that purpose, or merely for emergency purposes?

Mr. Profumo

No. I have made this point clear. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was here on Second Reading. This is not a ruse to try to get over-recruiting. It might well be that we shall reach—and I hope we shall—165,000 men by 1st January, 1963. This is our minimum target, and we must try to build up on that. During the period of build-up after the 165,000 figure has been reached and after the last National Service man has been released after serving his extra six months, if there is a period of twilight one must have the power to supplement one's armed forces until one has reached the proper number which we consider to be commensurate with our obligations. That is why I referred the hon. and learned Gentleman to my Second Reading speech, because I tried on that occasion to elaborate this point.

Mr. Wigg

Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not trying to mislead the Committee? The only thing I can think is that he is trying to work this confidence trick on himself, for the target of 165,000 has gone. We need not discuss it.

Mr. Profumo

Why?

Mr. Wigg

According to the right hon. Gentleman's own statement, it has gone. He said so. It took a little while for him to say so, but he said that the figure he hopes to get by the end of 1962—National Service men and Regulars—is about 170,000. The right hon. Gentleman said that on 19th December last. On Second Reading I pressed him to give hon. Members a figure, but he failed to do so. Now we learn from him that it will be about 170,000. We do not know what the "X" figure will be, and the right hon. Gentleman will simply call up a few more or less so that "X" fits in with the current Army Council view. What is the complaint? Is the complaint made by the Committee of Estimates; that the figure of 15,000 men to be held was not given in the Bill?

Mr. Profumo

The figure of 165,000 men is still and always has been the minimum target for which Her Majesty's Government have been aiming by the beginning of 1963. The figure of 170,000 is the one I tried to give the hon. Member for Dudley as being that which might be in the Army by the end of this year before we let the National Service men out. That is to say, a calculation of the build-up plus National Service men.

In view of the timetable Motion I do not wish to delay the Committee. I am trying to answer the question put by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) who asked what this was for. The answer is that it is in order to have an insurance in case, next year, a situation arose which we could not match by the number of people we had in the Army—that is, without having a national emergency in which case it would be necessary to call up large numbers of men.

If, by that time, we have enough Ever-readies recruited and Regular recruiting is going well I do not believe that this Clause need necessarily come into it. I must choose my words carefully. Anyone in my position and with the responsibilities that I have should have powers should it be necessary to take this action for the security of the country.

Mr. Paget

This is a point which should be made clear. I understand that by January, 1963, the right hon. Gentleman expects to get, by voluntary methods, about 165,000 men and that that is what the trend looks like. The right hon. Gentleman needs 15,000 more than that. That is what I understand the Bill to be about.

Mr. Profumo

Not at all.

Mr. Paget

Then what is the Bill about?

Mr. Profumo

The hon. and learned Gentleman had better wait until he has heard my comments and then make his own speech, because he may, inadvertently muddle the Committee more. I did not say anything about 180,000 men. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will read my Second Reading speech. What I clearly said was this. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman is understanding what I am trying to explain to him. I said nothing about 180,000 men. I merely said that if things go well with 165,000 and a buildup of our regular recruiting, we may never need these.

Mr. Paget

But—

Mr. Profumo

It is no good the hon. and learned Gentleman saying "but". It is perfectly clear. I am answering the Amendment and I wish to address myself to the point that the hon. Member for Dudley made. I suggest that this is the only practical procedure in this situation. The hon. and learned Gentleman ought to listen to this, because it is important from the point of view of the Amendment.

It would be impossible, except in the widest terms, to define those pursuits which could qualify for this sort of exemption. The terms as quoted in the Amendment are so wide as to permit of a very considerable abuse indeed, and I doubt whether a description could be drawn up. There was none in the original National Service Act. There was never an attempt to define these things, and I am satisfied with the wisdom of that decision. Therefore, for all these reasons, I cannot accept the Amendment. I am convinced that the system we have in mind could work perfectly fairly and will safeguard the sort of cases that the hon. Member for Dudley has in mind.

Mr. Paget

May I refer the right hon. Gentleman to what he said during the Committee stage on 7th December: I think we shall have to retain something like 15,000 men all told, the whole way through the next six months."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 7th December, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 1607.] That is not in order to get the 165,000. Without this Bill we shall get that.

Mr. Profumo

I thought for a moment that I was hoist with my own HANSARD, but the hon. and learned Gentleman has not got his brief right. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that what I was saying there related to Clause 1. What I said was that I thought we would probably have to retain about 15,000 people in order to keep, in this year, the number of people in B.A.O.R. at the level which I thought was commensurate with what I believe to be a threat in Europe at this time. All through that period we hope to be building up our regular recruitment.

If we get to 165,000 people, and unless the situation deteriorates still further, then with these National Service men able to come out at the end of their six months extra, we may well be all right for quite a period while we are building up our Regular forces; but if a situation develops, like it did last August, for a short period we might want to call upon some readily trained men, and it might be in those circumstances that we should want to use these people or, what I should very much like to do. we should call on some "Ever-readies" when we have formed this voluntary body.

This is as clear as anybody can put it, and I do not think that what the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has said has made any change in the situation compared with what I have said in my speech.

Mr. Mulley

I think that the Minister's speech may at least have done one thing. It may have persuaded my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) that perhaps it will not be so unwise to vote against Clause 2 after all. In what I think we can only call one of the right hon. Gentleman's twilight periods we have him showing extreme reluctance to explain why he will not accept a very simple and reasonable Amendment

9.0 p.m.

In view of the restrictions under which we are debating this Measure, I do not want to go too much into the general position. Already, my hon. and right hon. Friends have exposed the Secretary of State's demand to have this Clause in the Bill for what it is. He asks the House of Commons for unprecedented powers, yet he has been exceedingly evasive in answering the very clear and pointed questions put to him about what it is he wants the powers for and how he will operate them. Although it has been conceded that the categories of persons which the Amendment is designed to exempt are persons who ought to be exempted, since, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), there are other kinds of national service apart from military service, the Secretary of State refuses to put words of this kind in the Bill.

Already, although this may not have been so when the National Service Acts were first formulated, there have been practices whereby people exactly of the kind mentioned in these three categories have been given deferment of Service under call-up. If in the national interest it was thought right, as I think it was right, to defer these people during their training, surely, now that they have already done two years' training, they ought to be allowed to complete their courses of education, training and so forth. It is all very well for the Secretary of State to say that he would not call people up in the middle of the academic year, just before an apprentice was to take a craft examination, and so forth. The fact is that, unless words of this kind are written into the Bill, no one will have any confidence that such things will not be done.

I will be frank with the right hon. Gentleman. We do not trust this Government. We are not satisfied with his statement that he will do this by administrative means. We cannot take at its face value what has been said because we distrust this Government altogether. We can see no reason why, if the words we have suggested are not satisfactory, the Secretary of State, if he intends to exempt these people or not call them up at short notice, should not on Report bring forward a form of words embodying the principle which has been applied by the Ministry of Labour in regard to call-up over the years.

Is the Secretary of State really saying that battalions are short-manned in Germany and, in the event of an emergency, he must call people out of Cambridge University, out of training colleges and out of apprenticeships to man them? Does he really believe today, in his twilight period, that to meet a particular emergency he will have time to call all these people up, give them 56 days in which to appeal, provide for deferment and the rest of it? Is that the sort of situation he has in mind? Surely, all military thinking over the years has laid emphasis on forces in being. Does he think that the people involved here will make the difference between giving security to this country or not?

I thought that the Secretary of State's further remark, when pressed, was thoroughly unsatisfactory. If people do not like it, he says, if the whole of their career is being sacrificed, if they have not got into a training college or if they are not allowed to go to university, having already done their two years, because of this new threat—it is a new threat and it is not the same as the existing situation because otherwise the Clause would not be necessary at all—then they can join the "Ever-Readies" and get £150 a year. Is that his philosophy now?

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) said, this Clause is by far the most vicious part of the Bill. Not only is the Bill and this Clause in particular extremely unfair, but the Government have been so rigid that they will not even allow us to make a marginal improvement in it.

Although, we do not want to take up time with Divisions, in view of the restrictions under which we are placed, I hope very much that, because of the very unsatisfactory reply we have had from the Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley will press the matter to a Division.

Mr. Wigg

I wish to return to what the Secretary of State told us and the figures with which he has tried to bemuse himself and the Committee. Will he look at the Seventh Special Report from the Estimates Committee on the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum to the Army Reserve Bill, which, as I have already told the Committee, was quite fortuitously published on the afternoon of the day the House broke up for the Recess? It contains these words: On 7th December the Secretary of State for War was able to inform the Committee of the whole House that ' something like 15,000 men ' would be retained under Clause 1. Your Committee cannot understand why this information and an estimate of expenditure based upon it was not given in the Memorandum. This was not a Committee composed of hon. Members from this side. There was one Member from this party and the rest were from the party opposite. The Chairman was a distinguished member of the Conservative Party. After hearing the expert witnesses from the Treasury and the War Office, that was the Committee's conclusion. It could not understand it and neither can I could not at the time and I cannot now.

On Second Reading I asked a specific question. Earlier I had gone to the Leader of the House, who received me with great courtesy and kindness, and I raised with him something which still puzzles me. I have a record of what the reserve strengths are. We have spent one day on Second Reading and three days in Committee and we had a debate on the Financial Resolution, but we have never yet been told what the reserve strengths are. I do not understand how anyone can intelligently discuss the organisation and deployment of the reserve forces without knowing what the establishments and strengths are. However, it seems that by some miracle it can be done.

On Second Reading I asked the Secretary of State what those figures were. It would have been arrogant and impertinent if I had asked him to put them in the Bill. I asked what targets he was aiming at but I did not get a reply. On 7th December the Secretary of State said: I have been asked how many men we shall have at the end of 1962, and if the hon. Member for Dudley has done the sum his answer is not quite right. It is not, according to the right hon. Gentleman's argument. If he was holding 15,000 and was going to get 165,000, the answer would be 180,000 and that meant that we needed no explanation because we all knew what the Bill was about. However, he went on to say: We shall have about 170,000 left in the Army at the end of next year, of whom about 10,000 will National Service men."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 7th December, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 1607.] On Second Reading the Secretary of State explained that the Bill was because of the Berlin crisis. However, in the Gracious Speech the Prime Minister gave another explanation. He said that the British Army of the Rhine was out of balance. That is a devastating admission for the Prime Minister of a Conservative Party, because there is a galaxy of military talent on the benches opposite, all its representatives being here today. The Prime Minister said that the British Army of the Rhine, the spear point of defence in a cold war, was out of balance. That did not trouble the Prime Minister. He went off and shot a few birds.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Norman Hulbert)

There is nothing in the Amendment about the Army being out of balance.

Mr. Wigg

No, but that is the reason given by the Prime Minister. I agree that it has nothing to do with the Bill, but that is not my fault but the Prime Minister's. The Prime Minister told us that the reason for the Bill was that the Army was out of balance. I know that it is nonsense, but that is what she said. On Second Reading the Secretary of State said that it was Berlin.

Today the right hon. Gentleman gave another reason. He said that it was to bring the British Army of the Rhine up to strength. I have recited the figures and I will not repeat them. I know that it is out of balance—the Prime Minister told us that—and we also know that the Secretary of State still pins his hopes on his recruiting. However, we know something else. Two months after he ceased to be Minister of Defence, Viscount Head said that the target on which the Army was planning was 182,000 men. We also know that for political reasons they dared not say that to either the Army or the country.

One year after the 1957 White Paper the target was said to be 165,000. Time marches on. The point was reached when there was a gap of 15,000 between the figure that the Army had been planning on and the figure it was to get. The Secretary of State for War wants to keep that knowledge from the Committee. It is a deadly secret. If I dared to mention this figure outside the House of Commons I presume that under the Official Secrets Acts I should find myself in Bow Street.

If this figure of 15,000 is added to the figure which the Government have been saying they want, and which the Select Committee on Estimates got out via the Treasury, we get to the figure of 180,000, which Viscount Head said was the required figure. This was a devastating admission and it meant that in the Conservative Party, which is forever paying lip-service to patriotism, there were at that time some hon. Gentlemen who were concerned about the defence of this country and not merely with what their majority would be at the next by-election.

Times have changed. Only two or three hon. Gentlemen opposite are concerned to challenge the Secretary of State for War, and what the Amendment does is to reveal once again what we all know, that the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations ought to be impeached.

The Temporary Chairman

Order. I hope that the hon. Member will come back to the Amendment.

Mr. Wigg

I have never left it, Sir Norman. If I am out of order, it is only because I am following the Secretary of State for War. If he gives the Committee figures with which he has bemused himself, it is my duty to expose him by referring to what he and the Prime Minister have said. The fact is that on a simple Amendment it suits the right hon. Gentleman to play around with the irrelevant figures of 15,000 and 165,000. I have not made a virtue of my memory. I merely remind the Committee once again that some of us at least can read the right hon. Gentleman's speeches, even though they were made a month ago.

Mr. John Morris (Aberavon)

I am concerned about the Amendment because of the Minister's confusing speech, and perhaps he would clear up two points. Do I understand that this Clause will be used only if what the right hon. Gentleman called a twilight type of crisis occurs? Secondly, is it the case that the Clause will not be used to make up deficiencies in the 165,000, or deficiences in a particular class? To put it another way, if there were no twilight type of crisis, and if the figure fell below 165,000, would this Clause be used?

Mr. Profumo

If the hon. Gentleman reads my speech today in conjunction with my speech on Second Reading he will be under no misapprehension about the scope of the Clause.

9.15 p.m.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas

The trouble with the right hon. Gentleman's statement is that at one stage he gave an answer which I thought clearly showed that the Clause would not be used to make the figure up to 165,000. Unfortunately, in answer to an intervention later, he gave the opposite impression.

My hon. Friend has asked two vital questions which are easy to answer. The right hon. Gentleman could give the answers without taking up much of the Committee's time. All that we want are clear answers. First, will this Clause be used in any circumstances except for providing troops when an emergency occurs by reason of Russian action or action on the other side of the Iron Curtain—what the Minister calls the twilight condition—and, secondly, will it be used to make up the 165,000 in case of deficiency?

Mr. Profumo

I understand what the hon. and learned Member is saying. I have done my best to explain the general circumstances under which we envisage that this Clause might be used. But no Minister, in a passage of a Bill through Parliament, could possibly tie himself specifically to a legal definition. I have done my best to try to help the Committee, but I am not prepared—nor would the hon. and learned Gentleman be—to tie myself to some legalistic definition as to how the Clause may work. I can go no further than I have gone, and when hon. Members read what I have said I am sure that they will be quite happy.

Mr. Mulley

The Minister is asking for quite unprecedented powers in peace time and he should be a little more forthcoming in answering our questions and in giving definite reasons why the Amendment cannot be accepted from the point of view either of its wording or its general principles. If he is not prepared to do that I ask the Committee to divide.

Question put, That those words be there added:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 150, Noes 216.

Division No. 56.]	AYES	[9.16 p.m.
Ainsley, William	Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Beaney, Alan
Albu, Austen	Awbery, Stan	Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)	Bence, Cyril
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)	Holt, Arthur	Randall, Harry
Benson, Sir George	Hoy, James H.	Redhead, E. C.
Blackburn, F.	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Reynolds, G. W.
Blyton, William	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Rhodes, H.
Boardman, H.	Hunter, A. E.	Robertson, John (Paisley)
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S.W.)	Hynd, John (Attercliffe)	Robinson, Kenneth (St.Pancras.N.)
Bowles, Frank	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)	Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Boyden, James	Irving, Sydney (Dartford)	Ross, William
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.	Janner, Sir Barnett	Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)	Jeger, George	Short, Edward
Cliffe, Michael	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Collick, Percy	Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Kenyon, Clifford	Skeffington, Arthur
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Davies, Harold (Leek)	King, Dr. Horace	Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)	Lawson, George	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Deer, George	Lee, Frederick (Newton)	Snow, Julian
Delargy, Hugh	Loughlin, Charles	Sorensen, R. W.
Dempsey, James	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Diamond, John	MacColl, James	Spriggs, Leslie
Dodds, Norman	McInnes, James	Steele, Thomas
Donnelly, Desmond	McKay, John (Wallsend)	Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.	McLeavy, Frank	Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Swain, Thomas
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)	Mapp, Charles	Swingler, Stephen
Finch, Harold	Mason, Roy	Symonds, J. B.
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)	Mellish, R. J.	Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Millan, Bruce	Thornton, Ernest
Forman, J. C.	Milne, Edward	Timmons, John
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Mitchison, G. R.	Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh	Monslow, Walter	Wade, Donald
Galpern, Sir Myer	Moody, A. S.	Wainwright, Edwin
Ginsburg, David	Morris, John	Watkins, Tudor
Gourlay, Harry	Mulley, Frederick	Whitlock, William
Greenwood, Anthony	Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)	Wigg, George
Grey, Charles	Oram, A. E.	Wilkins, W. A.
Griffiths, David (Bother Valley)	Oswald, Thomas	Willey, Frederick
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	Owen, Will	Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.	Padley, W. E.	Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)	Paget, R. T.	Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)	Parker, John	Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Hamilton, William (west Fife)	Pavitt, Laurence	Winterbottom, R. E.
Hannan, William	Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)	Woof, Robert
Hayman, F. H.	Peart, Frederick	Wyatt, Woodrow
Herbison, Miss Margaret	Pentland, Norman	Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Hll, J. (Midlothian)	Prentice, R. E.
Hilton, A. V.	Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Holman, Percy	Probert, Arthur	Mr. McCaan and Mr. Ifor Davies.
NOES
Agnew, Sir Peter	Channon, H. P. G.	Gilmour, Sir John
Allason, James	Chataway, Christopher	Glover, Sir Douglas
Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian	Chichester-Clark, R.	Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Arbuthnot, John	Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)	Godber, J. B.
Atkins, Humphrey	Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)	Goodtrart, Philip
Barlow, Sir John	Collard, Richard	Gower, Raymond
Barter, John	Cooke, Robert	Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Batsford, Brian	Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.	Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)	Cordie, John	Green, Alan
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Corfield, F. V.	Gresham Cooke, R.
Bell, Ronald	Costain, A. P.	Gurden, Harold
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)	Craddock, Sir Beresford	Hall, John (Wycombe)
Berkeley, Humphry	Curran, Charles	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Currie, G. B. H.	Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Biffen, John	Dance, James	Harvey, Sir Arthur vere (Macclesf'd)
Biggs-Davison, John	d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Bingham, R. M.	Deedes, W. F.	Harvie Anderson, Miss
Bishop, F. P.	de Ferranti, Basil	Hay, John
Bourne-Arton, A.	Digby, Simon Wingfield	Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Boyle, Sir Edward	Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.	Hendry, Forbes
Braine, Bernard	Drayson, G. B.	Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Bromley-Davenport.Lt.-Col.SirWalter	du Cann, Edward	Hill, Dr. Rt. Hn. Charles (Luton)
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry	Duncan, Sir James	Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Brooman-White, R.	Elliot, capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)	Elliott, R. W.(Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)	Hirst, Geoffrey
Browne, Percy (Torrington)	Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn	Hobson, John
Bryan, Paul	Farr, John	Hocking, Philip N.
Buck, Antony	Fell, Anthony	Holland, Philip
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric	Finlay, Graeme	Hollingworth, John
Burden, F. A.	Fisher, Nigel	Hornby, R. P.
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)	Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)	Hughes-Young, Michael
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)	Gibson-Wait, David	Hutchison, Michael Clark

Iremonger, T. L.	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Skeet, T. H. H.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Orr-Ewing, C. Ian	Smithers, Peter
James, David	Osborn, John (Hallam)	Spearman, Sir Alexander
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)	Page, John (Harrow, West)	Speir, Rupert
Jennings, J. C.	Page, Graham (Crosby)	Stanley, Hon. Richard
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)	Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)	Stevens, Geoffrey
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Partridge, E.	Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey	Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Kaberry, Sir Donald	Peel, John	Storey, Sir Samuel
Kerby, Capt. Henry	Percival, Ian	Studholme, Sir Henry
Kerr, Sir Hamilton	Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth	Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Kershaw, Anthony	Pilkington, Sir Richard	Talbot, John E.
Kirk, Peter	Pitman, Sir James	Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Kitson, Timothy	Pitt, Miss Edith	Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Leavey, J. A.	Pott, Percivall	Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Powell, Rt- Hon. J. Enoch	Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Prior, J. M. L.	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Linstead, Sir Hugh	Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho	Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Loveys, Walter H.	Profumo, Rt. Hon. John	Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Proudfoot, Wilfred	Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
MacArthur, Ian	Pym, Francis	Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
McLaren, Martin	Ramsden, James	Turner, Colin
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia	Rawlinson, Peter	Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)	Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin	Tweedsmuir, Lady
McMaster, Stanley R.	Rees, Hugh	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Maddan, Martin	Rees-Davies, W. R.	Vane, W. M. F.
Maginnis, John E.	Renton, David	Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Maitland, Sir John	Ridley, Hon. Nicholas	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Marshall, Douglas	Ridsdale, Julian	Walker, Peter
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)	Rippon, Geoffrey	Wall, Patrick
Mawby, Ray	Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)	Ward, Dame Irene
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.)	Webster, David
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.	Roots, William	Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Mills, Stratton	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Montgomery, Fergus	Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)	Woodhouse, C. M.
More, Jasper (Ludlow)	Russell, Ronald	Woollam, John
Morrison, John	Scott-Hopkins, James	Worsley, Marcus
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles	Sharples, Richard
Neave, Airey	Shaw, M.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard	Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn	Mr. Whitelaw and
		Mr. Michael Hamilton.

Mr. Reynolds

I beg to move, in page 2, line 36 at the end to add: (4) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to give to any persons to be recalled under this section as much notice as possible having regard to the nature of the emergency necessitating the recall and where time allows any person so recalled shall be informed that he may appeal against the recall on the grounds that it would inflict serious hardship on himself or on some other person or that it would cause undue inconvenience to some service or business of national importance and where it is not possible to provide time for such an appeal before recall then such person on recall shall be informed that he can apply for release on these grounds. The Committee must realise that, due to the operation of the guillotine Motion and the timetable to which we must adhere, our proceedings have rather more than a certain element of farce about them. The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary must realise that they are being enabled to get away with refusals to give information and with the provision of a type of information which the Committee would never be prepared to accept because of the guillotine Motion and the timetable with which we are forced to comply.

We have had a complete change round—although the Secretary of State intervened and denied it—of the reasons for the provisions in Clause 2. During the Second Reading debate and during earlier debates on this matter my hon. Friends and myself were given the impression that the provisions in this Clause were primarily for use in an emergency. Now the right hon. Gentleman has given the impression to many of us that these provisions would be needed, or might be needed, irrespective of any question of an emergency—primarily during the so-called twilight period—in order to retain B.A.O.R. at something like reasonable strength.

From that concept, as well as because of the possibility of recalls under the provisions in Clause 2 in the case of an emergency, we come to this Amendment, which proposes that the Secretary of State shall give to any person to be recalled as much notice as possible having regard to the nature of the emergency. One visualises that if suddenly something occurred like the situation in Kuwait there would not be much time to give notice. On the other hand, in a situation of gradually increasing tension such as that which resulted in the erection of the wall between East and West Berlin, a fair amount of notice could be given. The wall was built over a long period of time. One realises that it is difficult, if not impossible, to lay down any set period of notice to be provided for persons liable for recall. But one—

Sir D. Glover

Would not it be true to say that in the case of the Berlin situation the tension grew rapidly and that the erection of the wall represented a solidification of it?

Mr. Reynolds

The actual erection of the wall came rapidly. Despite the plans that had been made, our intelligence did not seem to inform the Government, or, if the Government were informed, they were not prepared to do anything about it. But I think that everyone would agree that the increase in tension—due to the proposed peace treaty with D.D.R. and others—did build up over a period of several months and so the Government would have had a fair amount of warning that it might be necessary to use provisions such as are contained in this Clause. It is true that, in the event, the wall was built suddenly.

9.30 p.m.

We are in a position in which the Secretary of State will know in about twelve to fifteen months' time when the possibility of the use of this Clause might come into operation. He will be able to find out the various classes of groups of men of which there is likely to be a shortage in B.A.O.R. or in other units in various parts of the world. I should have thought it possible from the information available to the Secretary of State to be able to be fairly certain, if not of the various classes or trades who need to be recalled, of the trade groups and classes and regiments where it would not be necessary to recall anyone. If it is not possible for the Secretary of State to agree that a longer period of notice can be given, I wonder if he can inform the Committee if it would be possible to put some of the 100,000 men liable for recall under the provisions of this Clause in a position to know that it is extremely unlikely that they will be called upon.

Surely the Secretary of State knows that there are certain classes within the various regiments of which there is a full complement provided for either by Regular soldiers or under Clause 3. Would it not be possible to inform those of the 100,000 concerned that the type of job they did in their National Service is such that it is extremely unlikely that they would be recalled under Clause 2? On the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman will know that in certain trades in the Army there is a definite shortage and that he has not in the "Ever-Ready" reserve a sufficient number of those men if there were a building up of tension in Central Europe or anything like the Kuwait affair. Then certain classes would be called back under Clause 2. The computers must be there and he can put the cards through to find what particular types of trade, infantry gunners and so on, are required and what men would be required in certain foreseeable emergencies as worked out by his staff.

If he cannot accept the Amendment, I should have thought some system could be worked out to put as many as possible of the 100,000 out of their misery by giving them some degree of certainty that they will not be needed, for he must know that it would not be necessary to call on their services. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) referred to the fact that we as a Committee had had very little information about the Reserves and on other aspects affecting the provisions we are discussing. The Secretary of State said that certain information had been sent to C.-in-C.s of overseas bases. I presume that that information gave those officers certain ideas of the type of men who would be retained under Clause 1 and some idea so that they could warn men under their command under the provisions of Clause 2. He should not only assure those of the 100,000 men who may be affected but also find some way of informing the Committee of the various types of men most likely to be involved under the provisions of Clause 2.

Mr. Bellenger

I wonder why my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds), in moving this Amendment, referred only to military emergencies. It has been known that the Army can be utilised in strikes and other national emergencies which have nothing to do with military matters. I remember that when I was Secretary of State soon after the war quite often for various reasons the Army was used on occasions of civil emergency. I can well visualise, especially with the Government we now have, that it might be considered necessary to call up, say, the Royal Engineers to run certain civil services of the country.

I view with grave suspicion not only Clause 1 but the other powers Parliament is being asked to give the Government on assumptions which, to my mind, are not entirely correct. If there were an emergency sufficient to warrant calling out the Reserves without a proclamation, the Opposition would not deny the Government the means of defending this country. We did not deny the Government the means of doing so during the last war.

If the Government were to call up reservists under the Clause for purposes other than a military emergency sufficiently grave to warrant calling out the reserves without a Proclamation, most of my hon. Friends would be very loth to grant the Government the powers they seek under the Clause. These powers are far wider than many of us imagined they would be. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North devoted most of his speech to military emergencies, but I believe these powers are much wider than that.

The whole question of the military reserves ought to be put on a more permanent basis than what is provided for in the Clause. It can last only for about three or three-and-a-half years, during which time the National Service men who are leaving the Army will be liable to be called up. As time goes on the powers we are granting will fade away by effluxion of time, as the lawyers say.

I hope that my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite will urge the Government to take more permanent steps to build up our military reserves to deal with the grave emergencies which they envisage under the Clause. The Government say that they cannot call up more than 60,000 of the reservists. If the emergency were serious enough to call out ex-National Service men, they would probably need more than 60,000. Indeed, I go so far as to say that it would need a Proclamation. 1 do not believe that we should call out men without a Proclamation. A Proclamation impresses on the country the urgency and gravity of the situation which makes it necessary to call up the men.

The Government have other military reserves. There is no reason why they should not expand them. They can come to Parliament with their Estimates every year and say, "We think that the balance of the Army is such that we ought to have a trained reserve properly paid which can be called out in an emergency", in just the same way as the reserves have been called up before. I remember quite well, as many Members of the House will remember, the occasion when our reserves were called out before the war in connection with Shanghai.

Mr. Wigg

The question of the effectiveness of reserves does not depend on whether they are paid or how much they are paid. It depends upon the last date of registration. Experience has shown that it is difficult to contact reservists. The Secretary of State could tell us about this, because I am sure that exercises have been carried out. The General Reserve is composed of men who have completed their service with the colours and have gone through their three-and-a-half years reserve service. They are liable to recall. The general power runs out in June, 1964. There are about 800,000 of them. I am willing to bet a modest sum that, if an attempt were made to call up those men, it would be found that probably as many as 75 per cent. of them had changed their addresses.

Before the war there was Class A, for which a man received an extra 1s. or 1s, 6d. a day. He registered in order to get the 1s. or 1s. 6d. There was Class B—the one-year men. They would do likewise. They were under a penal requirement to register. If they did not register they could be declared deserters, with all the consequences flowing from that.

My right hon. Friend will realise that one of the consequences of that kind of registration—this is the effective point—was that in the man's pocket he had a postal order for 5s. to buy a meal, and a railway warrant to take him to a definite point, and at that point there were a rifle and a complete kit with his number on it. The result was that within a few hours of recall those men were an effective fighting force. Under the present arrangement, there will be nothing of the sort.

Mr. Bellenger

My hon. Friend reinforces the point I was trying to make, though I did not go into those details. I can well imagine that what he says is correct. After all, the Regular Army reservists before the war were reliable people. They were volunteers, and they recognised their duty to the country. incidentally, they were paid a very small retainer for observing that duty. In 1914 the reservists were the men who flocked to the Army as soon as the Proclamation was issued and were the backbone of the expeditionary force sent to France.

All I am saying is that I look with a certain amount of suspicion on the haphazard, happy-go-lucky method which the Government are using to enable them, if they wish, to call up 60,000 men far purposes which may not necessarily constitute what my hon. Friends and I or, indeed, many hon. Members opposite would consider to be a grave military emergency.

The Government had far better get down to a long-term policy of providing a well-trained and well-paid reserve upon which they can rely in an emergency. Let us suppose there was a grave emergency, that the country was in grave danger of perhaps not starvation but limitation of food imports. such emergencies occurred just after the war, and time and time again as Secretary of State for War I was asked to produce trained personnel to supplement what civil forces were available.

I must not today give away what were, I suppose, Cabinet secrets in those days. But I and some military advisers viewed with a certain amount of apprehension the use of troops in order to do what really amounted to maintaining the country's supplies but what many of my hon. Friends might call "breaking strikes". However, I hold no particular views about that. If the country is in danger, either internally or externally, we must mobilise all the resources we can to maintain not only law and order but the vital supplies for the people, who have a very small margin in food reserves.

Consequently, I support any effort to enable the Government to carry on the essential services, which they must do, in defence either against some external enemy or against possible internal disorder. However, the Secretary of State had better get down to considering this problem—he is concerned mainly, of course, with the military problem—of reserves on a far longer-term basis than he suggests in the Bill. My hon. Friend said that the Bill can last only three or four years, but with his long period of military service, he knows how many can dodge the issue if they want to.

We hope that if the Bill is passed the young people will do their duty, as in the main they always have done, but I do not think that we can organise our defence in the haphazard way the Government are proposing in the Bill. All I ask is that the Secretary of State, when he conies to us after the Defence White Paper is issued next month and when he brings his Estimates to the House will come clean with us—as one Patronage Secretary of the Conservative Party was asked to do on one occasion—and simply say, I want this, and "I want that. I ask the House to give me this power and authority for these reasons." All that the right hon. Gentleman is doing in the Bill, and particularly in this Clause, is saying "Give me a blank cheque for up to 60,000 men."

9.45 p.m.

Sir D. Glover

I had no intention of intervening in the debate at this stage, but I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) for his clear appreciation of the rôle of the military in aid of the civil power. It ill lies in the mouth of any hon. Members on the Opposition benches to talk about calling out the Army in aid of the civil power when the record of the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a very distinguished member was so very much worse than that of the Government which I support.

I think I am right in saying that, whereas since 1951 the Army has never been called out in aid of the civil power to deal with strikes or to keep merchandise flowing, the record of the right hon. Gentleman's Government was by no means beyond blemish in this regard. I am not saying that the conditions were not different then, but for him to say that to put this power in the hands of the present Government was a danger, when the record lies in his mouth as to what happened when his party was in power, really is a little too much to take.

I agree that on the question of the reserves we face a Yong-term problem, because the question of calling up and recalling National Service men is something which is bound to run out, as the right hon. Gentleman said, in the next three or four years' time. But the whole purpose of the Bill is to give the Secretary of State, whose record on recruiting has been outstanding, the opportunity of securing—which I believe he will succeed in doing—the number of men he will require in the long term for the Regular Army. Therefore, the problem will solve itself if he is successful. I do not think that we are helping the cause to talk at too great length about calling up all sorts of people who are in very little danger of being called up, thus creating an atmosphere of too much alarm. We are dealing with a very short-term problem, a very tightly-knit problem, which will cause—I will be honest—a good deal of unfairness to small sections of the population, but, if it solves the problem that the nation needs to solve, I believe that in the national interest, we ought to support it. If my right hon. Friend is successful in getting the long-term soldiers, as the right hon. Gentleman said and as the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) knows, this problem will solve itself.

Mr. Loughlin

I want to get it on record that, irrespective of what the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) has just said, if the Armed Forces of this country are used for the purpose of strike-breaking, there will be a substantial volume of opinion on this side of the Committee that will oppose it to the fullest extent.

In the circumstances in which we are discussing this Measure, when, as a result of their policies, there has been the precipitation of vast industrial unrest in this country, it ill becomes the right hon. Gentleman to make a speech of this kind. I reiterate that if this Government, through the various policies which it has pursued, precipitated a head-on clash with the trade unions, and in consequence there was industrial unrest, if this Government then attempts to utilise the Armed Forces for the suppression of the freedom and the rights of the industrial workers who take strike action, there will be substantial opposition from This side of the Committee and more substantial opposition from the trade unions outside.

Mr. Ramsden

It would probably be best, at any rate in the first place, to address myself to the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds), who asked for two things. He asked us, if we were to accept the Amendment, to make it a statutory obligation to give as much notice as possible to men subject to this Clause and to allow the possibility of appeal against recall on the grounds of serious hardship.

My right hon. Friend has considerable sympathy with the objects of this Amendment, and, in fact, as I think he has already made clear, he does regard it as incumbent on him to carry out a great deal of it, but there is difficulty about doing so by statutory means. My right hon. Friend always would give as much notice as possible, but, as the Committee will appreciate, my right hon. Friend cannot command the circumstances in which a recall might be forced on us. In fact, it would probably not be my right hon. Friend who would determine the period of notice so much as the circumstances attending some build-up of tension, which might put him under notice to do what would have become a necessity.

My right hon. Friend has already described the arrangements we shall be making for cases of hardship and the general basis on which we shall attempt to deal witch these, subject to the time factor, and he has already described how we should seek to inform those men who might be recalled of the facilities which would be available to them for representing their circumstances. I am afraid, however, that I cannot accept that we should be obliged to transform these undertakings into statutory form. There would be some real difficulties about so doing.

I think the Committee will appreciate that a statutory provision providing for the giving of as much notice as possible would inevitably leave the door wide oven to men sent notices of recall to say why we ought to have given them more notice. This would be argued and inevitably there would be litigation, and in the result it might nullify the powers of recall in Clause 2, because by the time such oases had been tested in the courts the emergency leading to recall and starting the whole process off might well be over. Again—and I think that the hon. Member for Islington, North was conscious of this difficulty and referred to it—how is one to prove in a court of law that as much notice as possible has been given to a man? I think these are real difficulties, and there is the further point that a statutory provision making it necessary to inform a man of a right of appeal is something which, although there are plenty of opportunities under Army law for appeals to be made, seems unprecedented.

I hope I have said enough to convince the Committee that, while we are in sympathy with the objects of this Amendment, statutory provision on these lines is undesirable as it would certainly be prolific of litigation and consequent delay and would, in fact, defeat the purpose of the Clause. I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw his Amendment.

He asked me a specific question, namely, would my right hon. Friend be able to say that he could at some time put out of suspense people, or at any rate some of the people, who might be subject to the possibility of recall under Clause 2? I am not in a position to give any such undertaking at the present time. We cannot say what form an emergency might take, and it would be unwise, having sought these powers, to limit the possibilities open to the Government under this Clause.

The right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) rather misunderstood our specific reason for seeking these powers from the House when he referred to the possibility of a call up for civil emergency. The specific reason is that there may be an occasion when men are needed but when, owing to the circum stances of the time, it would be inappropriate to issue a proclamation. My right hon. Friend has already enlarged on that on Second Reading. There might be times when it would be better, without the increase in international tension and anxiety attendant upon all the business of a proclamation in this House, to have more men, and the Bill provides the methods to meet that kind of situation.

The right hon. Gentleman advised me right hon. Friend to consider the build up of what he called a better reserve—a long-term reserve. As he will know from his experience in office, we have such a reserve, but it is limited in its application. There are some circumstances in which it cannot be used without proclamation, and without embodiment. The Territorial Army is an example. It is to meet circumstances in which those limitations apply but where there is still the need for men that these provisions have been introduced. I hope that what I have said will go some way towards reassuring the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Bellenger

But does the hon. Gentleman admit that if there were a double emergency—a civil emergency concurrently with a military one—the Government could use those powers in order to call up the reserve for civil purposes?

Mr. Ramsden

I am reluctant to go further than I already have done. We have explained the purpose of this power and there have been other precedents. I think that the right hon. Gentleman understands the situation, and I hope that he will not press me further on it now.

Mr. Ede

The Under-Secretary of State talks about an emergency, but the Clause contains no reference to emergency. If we pass the Clause, the Minister estimates that he could call up 100,000 men. That means that his military advisers would know that he could get that number of men. I am not prepared to leave the right hon. Gentleman's military advisers in a position in which, without any reason being given to the House, they can get 100,000 men into the Army, even if only for six months.

That is the position the House faces on this Clause. The Secretary of State does not have to make an Order that has to be confirmed by either an affirmative or negative Resolution. He merely says, "The Adjutant-General says he must have 100,000 men, and I have sent out notices to 100,000 men"—or fewer—"to tell them to come up". That is a power quite unprecedented in our history, and it really cuts away all the safeguards that have protected the civilian population from the ambitions of the military advisers of the War Office.

Mr. Paget

First, we have been told that this power could be used in a civil emergency in order to get additional strike—breakers—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Of course the right hon. Gentleman could call up people under this Clause as strike breakers, if he dared, but, frankly, I do not take this very seriously because it is something that I am certain that a Conservative Government would never dare to do. So do not let us be too anxious about it.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke-on-Trent, South)

Is that so?

Mr. Paget

Times have changed—so has the Army.

Mrs. Harriet Slater (Stoke-on-Trent, North)

The Tories have not.

Mr. Paget

Yes, but I must come to the Amendment. I am told by the Financial Secretary that the Amendment could cause legal delays which would stop this provision becoming operative. The Amendment states that …the Secretary of State … shall … give … as much notice as possible having regard to the nature of the emergency necessitating the recall and where time allows any person so recalled shall be informed that he may appeal … I can assure the Financial Secretary that terms of that sort occurred in dozens of Acts during the war. There are many still on the Statute Book. Such terms would cause the courts no difficulty or delays. At any rate, are those delays conceivably comparable with the delays which have been offered by the Secretary of State When he says that anyone who thinks that he has grounds for appeal can have his recall postponed for 56 days, even if that involves calling up someone else?

Mr. Profumo

I did not say that if anyone thinks he has a case for appeal he can have 56 days' postponement. I did not say that at all. I would not say that sort of thing. I referred to any case that could be substantiated. I was referring to a case where it was agreed—or where the officer in charge of records agreed—that there could be a postponement if one was warranted.

Mr. Paget

Then just what is the position? Who judges the case? If the case is a good one we have an undertaking that the man will not be called up. The position is an interim one. If, in other words, there is a case which a man believes in, then until it is judged it has to be assumed in his favour. Therefore, if this undertaking means anything at all, it means that people who do not like it have the option to hold it up for 56 days. After saying that, to proceed to say that it will not cause delays is almost farcical.

I am not going to ask the Committee to divide on the Amendment partly because of the question of time but really more because I no longer regard it as adequate. What we were led to understand—what was explained to us—was that this provision was something which probably would never have to be used and which existed for emergency purposes. But there was this liability; that it could not be brought into operation without there being a declaration of emergency—and a declaration of emergency amounted to mobilisation. We have Napoleon's word for it that mobilisation means war and that, of course, is something which is extremely dangerous.

Clause 2 was explained on Second Reading as being something required in an emergency. Therefore, with the utmost care, I drafted the Amendment to prevent there being any immediate delay so that the Government could have its people without having to give more notice than necessary. But I no longer believe this, for what has emerged today is that at present we have between 205,000 and 210,000 men in the Army. By April what will the number be? My hon. Friend can probably give a precise answer, but I venture to think that it will be over 190,000. At that point we are asked to operate Clause 1 in order to retain more men. That is not to keep to the 165,000; it is to keep it way above 165,000 because the Government know that under present commitments it has got to be above 165,000. Without this Bill the Army would never drop below 165,000. By January, 1963, that will be the figure without this Bill at all. The purpose of this Bill is to keep the number above 165,000.

It seems that when we have not got anybody to keep for another six months, this Clause comes into operation. If that be so, this Amendment is nothing like good enough. Far more notice should be given. The men concerned should have a far clearer right to notice than we contemplate here. If people are to be recalled, not for an emergency, but in order to keep the numbers up, they should have much wider rights. But that is not what we have been led to expect until today.

Mr. Wigg

I would not have intervened in this debate but for the way that it has developed. I must say that the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) amazed me a little. He clearly believed what he said, which makes all the more incredible the suggestion that anybody should seek to use the Armed Forces of the Crown for strike breaking.

Consider what is involved. The Secretary of State has at his disposal Sections A, B. D, F, G and Categories I, IIA, JIB and III. He has about 200,000 part-time National Service men, and we know from the statement of the Secretary of State that this category will go down to 100,000 in 1963. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to turn to page 31 of the Army Estimates for 1961–62. Ail the details are there.

Why does the Secretary of State for War want to use this class which he is organising so that he can call them out without proclamation? He does not want an enemy power at a moment of great tension to know what he is doing. Why should 'he surreptitiously want to use this group far strike breaking when he has all these and other categories which are organised and much more highly trained? I should have thought it was absolutely unmitigated nonsense to make any such suggestion, if the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw will forgive me—and I am being polite when I say that.

When we come to the right hon. Gentleman's reply it seems to me that he made his point about the organisation of men under Clause 2 on Second Reading. He there told us: The authorities concerned would have power to grant immediate postponement in exceptional circumstances … "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 51.] He was kind enough, in answer to me today, to say that this would be done by the Officer-in-Charge, Records. This is what I understand, although he may, as it were, delegate the power, perhaps, to brigade commanders or district commanders. He will have to work it out.

It is clear that this particular category is not really to deal with an emergency at all. Let us look at the timetable. The group covered by Clause I will, as it were, move beyond the scope of the Clause by May, 1963, will it not? The last man to complete his two years will go out in November next. So that, if the last man out has to serve an extra six months, he will have gone out by May, 1963. It is goodbye to Clause 1 then. But the last man out, if he is not called up under Clause 1, has a liability up to May, 1966.

What the Bill is doing, therefore, is to put the future organisation and strengthening of the army, as it were, on to Clause 2. At any time during the next 3½ years after November, 1962, these chaps can be called back. The figure in 1963, so the Secretary of State tells us, will have sunk from 200,000 down to 100,000, and each month that goes by the number gets smaller and smaller. That is another reason why my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw was wrong. It is a dwindling number.

What the Committee will have no time to discuss, owing to the timetable, is, given this policy, what happens when we come to May, 1966? This, of course, is the major crime of the Bill. It is to get the Government out of a very difficult situation, but it switches us over on to a reserve policy which in essence is very short-term. It cannot go beyond 3½ years. I can only assume that this is the work of the Prime Minister, the most brilliant this country has ever produced. He has said to himself, "Whoever is Prime Minister on that date, it will not be me". This is what he is leaving behind. Someone else will have to tackle this. By that time, there will be very few fish swimming in the pool.

This is one of the reasons why on Clause 1 I moved to introduce a bounty for the chaps retained. I think it essential, in order to keep the Army at its best, to ensure that people leaving the Army go out in the best possible frame of mind. Otherwise, if they go out with a strong grievance, they will for the rest of their lives do their best to see that the Army is painted in a bad way. I hoped that I should be able to move another Amendment on this Clause to do exactly the same. The arguments are different, and I can do it in another way now.

There is a difference here. The Secretary of State recognises this. I must make the point at this stage, if my hon. Friends wish to divide.

Mr. Reynolds

On the next one.

Mr. Ellis Smith

Let us have a Division.

Mr. Wigg

The Secretary of State himself recognises the difference between a man caught by Clause 2 and a man caught by Clause 1. On Second Reading, he told us that he proposes to give a chap caught by Clause 2 at any time in the next 3½ years a bounty of £20. I beg his pardon. He calls it a gratuity. It will add up to £20, and the chap who gets it will not mind whether it is called a gratuity or a bounty. I should have been out of order if I had tried to do it previously, but I will put it now. This is what disposes of nine-tenths of the right hon. Gentleman's argument about his scepticism in, as it were, handing out money to those required to do something for which they have not volunteered. They will get £20.

My answer to him on that point is that this is not enough. It is a completely different situation, not that of an emergency but a matter of foundation. I support the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton because it is the foundation of what is to be the permanent reserve policy of the Government and their successors.

10.15 p.m.

It is for that fundamental reason that before we leave this matter the Secretary of State should tell us, or give us the date by which we shall be told, who are to be the authorities to whom these chaps will be able to appeal when they get their call-up notices. Because it is a dwindling number, until the number becomes very small indeed, it is vital that these men should know what the machinery is and the permanent form which it will take. We were not told on Second Reading and we have not been told tonight. I am wilting to forgo any rights I may have about moving the next Amendment if, by answering that question, the right hon. Gentleman will indicate that he is thinking beyond the expenditure of the difficult situation created by his own policies.

Mr. Profumo

I do not want to prevent the hon. Member from talking out his own Amendment. The machinery is as I outlined to the Committee when we discussed Clause 1.

Mr. Wigg

That means that the right hon. Gentleman does not mean what he said earlier when he said that the authorities concerned would be the officers in charge of records. Is that correct or not?

Mr. Profumo

The authorities who immediately authorise that a man need not report for duty while his case is being considered will, I hope, be the officers in charge of records—I do not want to tie myself—but it will still go through the machinery of quickly going straight to the War Office under the procedure which I have outlined in connection with Clause 1.

Mr. Reynolds

We have not had satisfactory replies on this Amendment, but several of my hon. Friends and I wish to get on to an Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), which we are to discuss next, and which we consider of great importance. That being the case, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

The Chairman

Is it the Committee's pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn?

Mr. Ellis Smith

No.

Amendment negatived.

The Chairman

I call the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) to move the Amendment in page 2, line 36, at end add: (4) Any person recalled under this section shall receive, as a member of the Territorial Army or of the reserve forces, a bounty of a sum equivalent to one hundred days' pay at the rate at which he was paid on the last day of his full-time service, authorised by an order made under section eleven of the Auxiliary Forces Act, 1953, or of section eleven of the Army Reserve Act, 1950, as the case may be. I think that it would be convenient to discuss also the Amendment in Clause 3, page 3, line 34, at end add: (7) On the making of an agreement under this section the Secretary of State shall pay a bounty of one hundred and fify pounds to the volunteer, and a further bounty of fifty pounds on his recall; such bounties to be authorised by an order made under section eleven of the Auxiliary Forces Act, 1953.

Mr. Wigg

With respect, Sir William, as the hour is late and the case for the Amendment to Clause 2 is somewhat different from the case for the Amendment to Clause 3, would I be abusing your kindness if I ask leave to move only the first Amendment? I would be able to move it formally and then move the second Amendment tomorrow under the timetable of the Guillotine which deals with Clause 3.

The Chairman

No. I am afraid that that would not be possible, because the second Amendment has not been selected. It would have been possible to discuss it with the first Amendment which has been selected, and which I have called.

Mr. Wigg

I cannot be press-ganged into moving an Amendment that I do not want to move.

The Chairman

There is no question of that. The Amendment which has been selected, and which I have called, is the first Amendment. I merely said, as was stated on the provisional list of the selection of Amendments, that it would be possible to discuss the two Amendments together. There will not, however, be a Division on the second Amendment.

Mr. Wigg

I do not want a Division on the second Amendment. I want to move the first Amendment now and leave the second one until tomorrow, and then discuss it on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman

I am sorry that I am not making myself clear. The second Amendment, which is on tomorrow's business, has not been selected and will not be called. Had he or any other Member of the Committee wished to discuss the second Amendment now with the Amendment that I have called, he would have been able to do so, but no Division will take place on the second Amendment. I now return to the first Amendment and call the hon. Member to move it.

Mr. Wigg

With respect, Sir William, I should not be honest if I did not say that what you said originally was crystal clear. I invite the attention of the Chair to the fact that since a previous occupant of the Chair ruled that the two Amendments had to be moved together, the Government in an arbitrary way have fixed a Guillotine. I suggest that the Guillotine operates in such a way that the first Amendment can be moved tonight, and the second one tomorrow. It is the only fair and beneficent part of the guillotine Motion. I want to move the first Amendment now and discuss the second Amendment tomorrow. I trust that you will accept that the Guillotine has made a substantial difference.

The Chairman

The hon. Member will find himself in some difficulty, because the discussion and Division on the first Amendment will take place tonight, and tomorrow the second Amendment will not be selected to be moved. There may be an opportunity tomorrow, on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, for the hon. Member to make his speech relating to the second Amendment.

To avoid any misunderstanding, may I now make it clear to the Committee that if a Division is required on the first Amendment I must have an opportunity of putting the Question before half-past Ten.

Mr. Profumo

if the hon. Gentleman does decide to move the Amendment, may I, in the interests of time, say that I shall not accept it.

Mr. Wigg

I beg to move, in page 2, line 36, at the end to add: (4) Any person recalled under this section shall receive, as a member of the Territorial Army or of the reserve forces, a bounty of a sum equivalent to one hundred days' pay at the rate at which he was paid on the last day of his full-time service, authorised by an order made under section eleven of the Auxiliary Forces Act, 1953, or of section eleven of the Army Reserve Act, 1950, as the case may be. I was optimistic so far as the Chair was concerned, but my optimism did not go so far as to expect that the present Administration would accept anything quite as intelligent as the words on the Order Paper. I am sure that in the course of four minutes and 50 seconds I would not be expected to give all the reasons for the Amendment. They have, in part, been made out on Clause 1. As I have already said, however, there is a major difference between Clauses 1 and 2, inasmuch as, during the Second Reading debate, the Secretary of State accepted the principle upon which the Amendment is based, namely, that a gratuity—I use the word that the right hon. Gentleman so obviously prefers—should be given to those men who are recalled to the Colours under the Clause.

The Secretary of State has named a figure of £20, tax-free. I take the view that the figure should be flexible, and should amount to 100 days' pay at the rate ruling at the time the man leaves the Colours. In view of the fact that the numbers would be tending to fall off, I thought that this would make no

great charge upon the Exchequer, but if the Secretary of State quarrels about my 100 days since he accepted the principle of the Amendment during the Second Reading debate, I am quite willing for him to try to fix a figure somewhere between his £20 and my 100 days' pay. I regard the offer of £20 as mean. It is in accordance with the tradition of the Government to give only to those who have. The poor soldier who has completed his two years' service and has narrowly escaped being recalled receives £20, while the Surtax payers receive their £84 million. That is on the principle that we have never had it so good.

When the soldiers are being called back I hope that they will sometimes reflect upon the way in which that principle works out in practice. If the Secretary of State is satisfied with the position, and the serried ranks behind him—who have appeared for the first time just before we go home, having hitherto shown their interest in this Bill, which is of such vital importance for the nation, by their almost complete absence from the House—are also satisfied, I have no more to say, except to press the Amendment to a Division.

Question put, That those words be there added:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 153, Noes 224.

Division No. 57.]	AYES	[10.28 p.m.
Ainsley, William	Finch, Harold	Jeger, George
Albu, Austen	Fitch, Alan	Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Fletcher, Eric	Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Allen, Scholcfield (Crewe)	Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)	Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Awbery, Stan	Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Kelley, Richard
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)	Forman, J. C.	Kenyon, Clifford
Beaney, Alan	Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	King, Dr. Horace
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.	Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh	Lawson, George
Bence, Cyril	Galpern, Sir Myer	Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)	Ginsburg, David	Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Benson, Sir George	Gourlay, Harry	Loughlin, Charles
Blackburn, F.	Greenwood, Anthony	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Blyton, William	Grey, Charles	McCann, John
Boardman, H.	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	MacColl, James
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S.W.)	Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	McInnes, James
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)	Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.	McLeavy, Frank
Bowles, Frank	Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)	MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.	Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Hannan, William	Manuel, A, C,
Cliffe, Michael	Hayman, F. H.	Mapp, Charles
Collick, Percy	Herbison, Miss Margaret	Mason, Roy
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Hill, J. (Midlothian)	Mellish, R. J.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Hilton, A. V.	Mendelson, J. J.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Holman, Percy	Millan, Bruce
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)	Holt, Arthur	Milne, Edward
Deer, George	Hoy, James H.	Mitchison, G. R.
Delargy, Hugh	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Moody, A. S.
Dempsey, James	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Morris, John
Diamond, John	Hunter, A. E.	Mulley, Frederick
Donnelly, Desmond	Hynd, John (Attercliffe)	Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)	Oram, A. E.
Fernyhough, E.	Janner, Sir Barnett	Oswald, Thomas
Owen, Will	Silverman, Julius (Aston)	Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Padley, W. E.	Skeffington, Arthur	Wade, Donald
Paget, R. T.	Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)	Wainwright, Edwin
Parker, John	Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)	Warbey, William
Pavitt, Laurence	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)	Watkins, Tudor
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)	Snow, Julian	Whitlock, William
Pentland, Norman	Sorensen, R. W.	Wigg, George
Prentice, R. E.	Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank	Wilkins, W. A.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)	Spriggs, Leslie	Willey, Frederick
Probert, Arthur	Steele, Thomas	Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Randall, Harry	Stewart, Michael (Fulham)	Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Redhead, E. C.	Stonehouse, John	Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Reynolds, G. W.	Strachey, Rt. Hon. John	Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Rhodes, H.	Swingler, Stephen	Winterbottom, R. E.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	Symonds, J. B.	Woof, Robert
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)	Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)	Wyatt, Woodrow
Robertson, John (Paisley)	Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)	Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)	Thornton, Ernest
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)	Thorpe, Jeremy	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Ross, William	Timmons, John	Mr, Short and Mr. Irving.
NOES
Agnew, Sir Peter	Gibson-Watt, David	MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)
Allason, James	Gilmour, Sir John	McMaster, Stanley R.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian	Glover, Sir Douglas	Maddan, Martin
Arbuthnot, John	Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)	Maginnis, John E.
Barlow, Sir John	Godber, J. B.	Maitland, Sir John
Barter, John	Goodhart, Philip	Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Batsford, Brian	Gower, Raymond	Marshall, Douglas
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)	Grant, Rt. Hon. William	Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Berkeley, Humphry	Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.	Mawby, Ray
Biffen, John	Green, Alan	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Biggs-Davison, John	Gresham Cooke, R.	Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Bingham, R. M.	Gurden, Harold	Mills, Stratton
Bishop, F. P.	Hall, John (Wycombe)	Montgomery, Fergus
Black, Sir Cyril	Harris, Frederick (Croydon, N.W.)	More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Bourne-Arton, A.	Harris, Reader (Heston)	Morrison, John
Boyle, Sir Edward	Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)	Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Braine, Bernard	Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)	Neave, Airey
Brewis, John	Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)	Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter	Harvie Anderson, Miss	Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry	Hastings, Stephen	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Brooman-White, R.	Hay, John	Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)	Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel	Osborn, John (Hallam)
Buck, Antony	Hendry, Forbes	Page, John (Harrow, West)
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric	Hicks Beach, Ma). W.	Page, Graham (Crosby)
Burden, F. A.	Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)	Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)	Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)	Partridge, E.
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)	Hirst, Geoffrey	Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)	Hobson, John	Percival, Ian
Channon, H. P. G.	Hocking, Philip N.	Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Chataway, Christopher	Holland, Philip	Pitman, Sir James
Chichester-Clark, R.	Hollingworth, John	Pitt, Miss Edith
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)	Hornby, R. P.	Pott, Percivall
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)	Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John	Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Collard, Richard	Hughes-Young, Michael	Prior, J. M. L.
Cooke, Robert	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Cooper, A. E.	Iremonger, T. L.	Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Proudfoot, Wilfred
Corfield, F. V.	Jackson, John	Pym, Francis
Costain, A. P.	James, David	Ramsden, James
Coulson, Michael	Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)	Rawlinson, Peter
Craddock, Sir Beresford	Jennings, J. C.	Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver	Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)	Rees, Hugh
Curran, Charles	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Currie, G. B. H.	Johnson Smith, Geoffrey	Renton, David
Dance, James	Kaberry, Sir Donald	Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Kerans, Cdr. J. S.	Ridsdale, Julian
Deedes, W. F.	Kerr, Sir Hamilton	Rippon, Geoffrey
de Ferranti, Basil	Kershaw, Anthony	Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.)
Digby, Simon Wingfield	Kirk, Peter	Roots, William
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.	Kitson, Timothy	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Drayson, G. B.	Leavey, J. A.	Russell, Ronald
du Cann, Edward	Leburn, Gilmour	Scott-Hopkins, James
Duncan, Sir James	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Sharples, Richard
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Shaw, M.
Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-uponTyne, N.)	Lilley, F. J. P.	Shepherd, William
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn	Linstead, Sir Hugh	Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn
Farr, John	Litchfield, Capt. John	Skeet, T. H. H.
Fell, Anthony	Loveys, Walter H.	Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)
Finlay, Graeme	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Smithers, Peter
Fisher, Nigel	MacArthur, Ian	Spearman, Sir Alexander
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	McLaren, Martin	Speir, Rupert
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)	McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia	Stanley, Hon. Richard

Stevens, Geoffrey	Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)	Wall, Patrick
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)	Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter	Ward, Dame Irene
Stoddart-Scott, Col, Sir Malcolm	Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin	Webster, David
Storey, Sir Samuel	Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)	Whitelaw, William
Studholme, Sir Henry	Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Cordon	Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)	Turner, Colin	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Talbot, John E.	Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.	Woodhouse, C. M.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)	Tweedsmuir, Lady	Woollam, John
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)	van Straubenzee, W. R.	Worsley, Marcus
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)	Vane, W. M. F.	Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)	Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Temple, John M.	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)	Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)	Mr. Peel and
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)	Walker, Peter	Mr. Michael Hamilton.

It being after half-past Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question necessary to complete the Proceedings on Clause 2.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 222, Noes 151.

Division No. 58.]	AYES	[10.38 p.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Allason, James	Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)	MacArthur, Ian
Amery, Rt- Hon. Julian	Gibson-Wart, David	McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Arbuthnot, John	Gilmour, Sir John	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs.)
Barlow, Sir John	Glover, Sir Douglas	MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)
Barter, John	Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)	McMaster, Stanley R.
Batsford, Brian	Godber, J. B.	Maddan, Martin
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)	Goodhart, Philip	Maginnis, John E.
Berkeley, Humphry	Gower, Raymond	Maitland, Sir John
Biffen, John	Grant, Rt. Hon. William	Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Biggs-Davison, John	Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.	Marshall, Douglas
Bingham, R. M.	Green, Alan	Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Bishop, F. P.	Gresham Cooke, R.	Mawby, Ray
Black, Sir Cyril	Gurden, Harold	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Bourne-Arton, A.	Hall, John (Wycombe)	Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.
Boyle, Sir Edward	Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)	Mills, Stratton
Braine, Bernard	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)	Montgomery, Fergus
Brewis, John	Harris, Reader (Heston)	More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.- Col. Sir Walter	Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)	Morrison, John
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry	Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)	Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Brooman-White, R.	Harvie Anderson, Miss	Neave, Airey
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)	Hastings, Stephen	Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Buck, Antony	Hay, John	Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric	Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Burden, F. A.	Hendry, Forbes	Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)	Hicks Beach, Maj. W.	Osborn, John (Hallam)
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)	Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)	Page, John (Harrow, West)
Channon, H. P. G.	Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)	Page, Graham (Crosby)
Chataway, Christopher	Hirst, Geoffrey	Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Chichester-Clark, R.	Hobson, John	Partridge, E.
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)	Hocking, Philip N.	Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)	Holland, Philip	Peel, John
Collard, Richard	Holllingworth, John	Percival, Ian
Cooke, Robert	Hornby, R. P.	Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Cooper, A. E.	Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John	Pitman, Sir James
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.	Hughes-Young, Michael	Pitt, Miss Edith
Corfield, F. V.	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Pott, Percivall
Costain, A. P.	Iremonger, T. L.	Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Coulson, Michael	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Prior, J. M. L.
Craddock, Sir Beresford	Jackson, John	Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver	James, David	Proudfoot, Wilfred
Curran, Charles	Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)	Pym, Francis
Currie, G. B. H.	Jennings, J. C.	Ramsden, James
Dance, James	Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)	Rawlinson, Peter
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Deedes, W. F.	Johnson Smith, Geoffrey	Rees, Hugh
de Ferranti, Basil	Kaberry, Sir Donald	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Digby, Simon Wingfield	Kerans, Cdr. J. S.	Renton, David
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.	Kerr, Sir Hamilton	Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Drayson, G. B.	Kershaw, Anthony	Ridsdale, Julian
du Cann, Edward	Kirk, Peter	Rippon, Geoffrey
Duncan, Sir James	Kitson, Timothy	Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Leavey, J. A.	Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.)
Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)	Leburn, Gilmour	Roots, William
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Fair, John	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Russell, Ronald
Fell, Anthony	Linstead, Sir Hugh	Scott-Hopkins, James
Finlay, Graeme	Litchfield, Capt. John	Sharples, Richard
Fisher, Nigel	Loveys, Walter H.	Shaw, M.
Shepherd, William	Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn	Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)	Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Skeet, T. H. H.	Temple, John M.	Walker, Peter
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)	Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)	Wall, Patrick
Smithers, Peter	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)	Ward, Dame Irene
Speir, Rupert	Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)	Webster, David
Stanley, Hon. Richard	Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter	Whitelaw, William
Stevens, Geoffrey	Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin	Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)	Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm	Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Cordon	woodhouse, C. M.
Storey, Sir Samuel	Turner, Colin	Woollam, John
Studholme, Sir Henry	Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.	Worsley, Marcus
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)	Tweedsmuir, Lady	Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Talbot, John E.	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)	Vane, W. M. F.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)	Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John	Mr. Gordon Campbell and
		Mr. McLaren.
NOES
Ainsley, William	Hayman, F. H.	Pentland, Norman
Albu, Austen	Herbison, Miss Margaret	Prentice, R. E.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Hill, J. (Midlothian)	Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Hilton, A. V.	Probert, Arthur
Awbery, Stan	Holman, Percy	Randall, Harry
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)	Holt, Arthur	Readhead, E. C.
Beaney, Alan	Hoy, James H.	Reynolds, G. W.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Rhodes, H.
Bence, Cyril	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)	Hunter, A. E.	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Benson, Sir George	Hynd, John (Attercliffe)	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Blackburn, F.	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)	Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Blyton, William	Janner, Sir Barnett	Ross, William
Boardman, H.	Jeger, George	Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Skeffington, Arthur
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)	Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)	Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Bowles, Frank	Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)	Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Braddook, Mrs. E. M.	Kelley, Richard	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Kenyon, Clifford	Snow, Julian
Cliffe, Michael	King, Dr. Horace	Sorensen, R. W.
Collick, Percy	Lawson, George	Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Lee, Frederick (Newton)	Spriggs, Leslie
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)	Steele, Thomas
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Loughlin, Charles	Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Stonehouse, John
Deer, George	McCann, John	Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Delargy, Hugh	MacColl, James	Swingler, Stephen
Dempsey, James	McInnes, James	Symonds, J. B.
Diamond, John	McLeavey, Frank	Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Donnelly, Desmond	MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)	Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Thornton, Ernest
Fernyhough, E.	Manuel, A. C.	Thorpe, Jeremy
Finch, Harold	Mapp, Charles	Timmons, John
Fitch, Alan	Mason, Roy	Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Fletcher, Eric	Mellish, R. J.	Wade, Donald
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)	Mendelson, J. J.	Wainwright, Edwin
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Millan, Bruce	Warbey, William
Forman, J. C.	Milne, Edward	Watkins, Tudor
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Mitchison, G. R.	Whitlock, William
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh	Moody, A. S.	Wilkins, W. A.
Galpern, Sir Myer	Morris, John	Willey, Frederick
Ginsburg, David	Mulley, Frederick	Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Gourlay, Harry	Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)	Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Greenwood, Anthony	Oram, A. E.	Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Grey, Charles	Oswald, Thomas	Wilson, Rt. Hon, Harold (Huyton)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Owen, Will	Winterbottom, R. E.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	Padley, W. E.	Woof, Robert
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.	Paget, R. T.	Wyatt, Woodrow
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)	Parker, John	Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)	Pavitt, Laurence
Hannan, William	Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
		Mr. Short and Mr. Irving.

Then The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.