§ 3. Mr. Murrayasked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the number of commissioned officers, non-commissioned officers and other ranks in the Territorial Army at the latest convenient date.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. G. W. Reynolds)On 31st December, 1964 there were 9,001 officers, 37,950 warrant officers and non-commissioned officers and 62,222 private soldiers in the Territorial Army.
§ Mr. MurrayWhile thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether 1688 he is aware that the cost of these men in the last year was £35 million? Does he not think, in the light of that fact, that a review of the Territorial Army ought to move a little more quickly? Can he say whether the ratio of officers to men in the Territorial Army is as high as, or higher than, that of the Regular Army?
§ Mr. ReynoldsI am fully aware of the cost of the Territorial Army. My right hon. Friend and I have said in the debates which we have had this year that the defence review of the whole of the commitments of the Defence Services is proceeding, and the Territorial Army will in due course be dealt with as part of that defence review. There is a higher ratio of officers to men, but to a certain extent the Territorial Army is on a peacetime cadre on which its war-time strength would be based, and this necessitates a higher ratio of officers and senior N.C.O.s.
§ Mr. GoodhartDoes the Minister want more recruits for the Territorial Army? If he does, will he consider asking his right hon. Friend occasionally to say a kind word about the valuable contribution which the Reserve Forces make?
§ Mr. ReynoldsNeither the Territorial Army nor the T.A.E.R. are at present up to the permitted recruiting strength, but I understand that at present recruits are still coming in at quite an acceptable rate and that under present plans there is a need for them in the rôle which they have to fill. I have spoken from the Box on the subject, and my right hon. Friend and I in visiting T.A. units since October have been very pleased to see the high standard of spirit and of training which they have and the keenness of all the men involved.
§ Mr. TurtonWill the Minister bear in mind that the delay in reaching a decision and the rumours put out in the Press are having a very damaging effect on recruiting in the Territorial Army? Before he reaches his decision, whatever it is, will he bear in mind the important part which the Territorial Army plays both in reinforcing the Regular Army and in taking its share of civil defence, as well as in aiding recruiting for the Regular Army?
§ Mr. ReynoldsMy right hon. Friend has no responsibility for the rumours which appear in the Press. There have been so many that soon there will be no other permutations on which correspondents will be able to base their articles. As for the defence review, no decisions have yet been taken in respect of the Territorial Army. They will be announced in due course and we have given a pledge to consult officers of the Council of Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations in due course.
§ Mr. CrawshawDoes the Minister agree that despite the criticisms which are made about the Territorial Army, the money spent on the Territorial Army in the past has brought one of the best returns in Service expenditure?
§ Mr. ReynoldsAs far as its present rôle is concerned, I do not think that anyone on the Treasury Bench has any criticism of the Territorial Army. What we are looking at is the rôle of all our defence forces, including the Territorial Army.
§ 18. Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy with regard to the reorganisation of the Territorial Army.
§ 54. Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Defence what investigations are being conducted into the rôle and cost of the Territorial Army.
§ 71. Rear-Admiral Morgan Gilesasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now make a further statement about the future of the Territorial Army.
§ The Deputy-Secretary of State and Minister of Defence for the Army (Mr. Frederick Mulley)I am not yet able to add to the statement made in the debate on the Army Estimates by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. The rôle of the Territorial Army forms part of the current defence review and the question of its organisation must be linked with this.
§ Mr. TilneyHas the right hon. Gentleman noted the alarm of all ranks, especially on Merseyside—always quite a good recruiting area—caused by newspaper articles saying that the Government intend to abolish the Territorial Army? Since the Territorial Army expects a change 1690 of rôle and organisation, will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is the ideal body for raising a reserve force of disciplined men, for which there will always be a need?
§ Mr. MulleyAs my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said, we are concerned that this delay must cause concern to keen Territorial soldiers, but it is inevitable that in such a review there will be speculation in the Press, for which I and my Department have no responsibility. We shall hope to carry the Territorial Council and the Associations with us in any reorganisation that becomes necessary as a result of the review.
§ Mr. HamiltonWill my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, while in no way denigrating the work that the Territorial Army might have done, or is doing, if the review reveals that our economic pace cannot sustain the Territorial Army at its existing level he will not hesitate to prune it drastically?
§ Dante Irene WardI hope not.
§ Mr. MulleyI think that my hon. Friend can be satisfied that the outcome of the defence review will be such as to relate our military needs with our practicable expenditure.
§ Mr. RidsdaleWith all this talk of reviews, is it the Labour Government's policy to carry out the Army order, "Advance in review order. By the left—slow march"?
§ Mr. GoodhartWill the right hon. Gentleman remember that much of the alarm caused by this review stems from suspicion that Ministers are more interested in making some financial gesture rather than in the strength and health of the reserve forces themselves? Will he make a separate statement about the future of the Territorial Army before the Summer Recess?
§ Mr. MulleyI cannot give any undertaking as to date. It would surely be nonsense to suggest that the Territorial Army is not part of the defence forces of the Crown which are the subject of the review. Quite clearly, decisions affecting the reserve forces must be inter-related 1691 with decision affecting other aspects of commitments and forces.
As to intention, we made it quite clear in the White Paper that we wanted to reorganise the reserve forces more in accordance with military needs as we see them. It was in this context that we on this side had the courage to make the first call up of the "Ever-Readies."