HC Deb 27 October 1965 vol 718 cc149-51
36. Mr. Murton

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for discussing with the Council of Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations the reorganisation of the Territorial Army.

The Deputy Secretary of State for Defence and Minister of Defence for the Army (Mr. Fred Mulley)

Discussions between the Council and the Ministry of Defence have been going on for over two months within the framework of my right hon. Friend's statement to the House on 29th July and the subsequent joint statement issued following my right hon. Friend's meeting with the Chairman of the Territorial Army Council on 12th August.

Mr. Murton

Is it not a fact that there have been some delays in the discussions? Will the right hon. Member bear in mind the serious disquiet which is reported to be felt by the Territorial Army Council, and which is shared by many hon. Members, at the lack of a home defence element in the proposed scheme? Will he reconsider this scheme, with a view to incorporating a home defence element in it?

Mr. Mulley

As my right hon. Friends and I have said many times, we are anxious to have the maximum consultation with the Territorial Army Council and Associations within the framework that has been described, which was accepted by them on 12th August. As to the question of home or civil defence, at this stage I cannot add to my right hon. Friend's statement to the House on 29th July. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will make a statement when the current review of home defence is completed.

Mr. Crawshaw

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people in the country who have certain information on this matter of reorganisation view it as destruction rather than as reorganisation? Will he take into account the possibility of ensuring that his advisers in this matter have at least some knowledge of the Territorial Army?

Mr. Mulley

I am sure that my hon. Friend does not wish to make an attack upon the Regular Army advisers involved. I am paid to be in this House and to be attacked in it, but I very much resent any attacks on the military or civil advisers to any Minister, since Ministers must take responsibility. My right hon. Friend and I do so.

Sir T. Beamish

As the Minister knows, the Opposition are very critical both of the timing and the contents of the outlined proposals so far made. Can he tell the House, first, when the detailed proposals will be available in a White Paper and, secondly, whether we may have an assurance that no irrevocable decision will be made about the pattern and rôle of the Reserve Forces until these detailed proposals, and, far more important, the principles underlying them, have been debated in this House?

Mr. Mulley

It has already been made clear that no irrevocable decision can be taken, because legislation will be needed to make any alterations in the present pattern of the Territorial Army. As to timing, my right hon. Friend made an interim statement before the House rose, in response to a great deal of speculation which was causing concern in the Territorial Army—there was some anxiety that the position should be clarified—and also in response to many requests by both Front Bench and back bench Members that a statement should be made before we rose for the Recess. We hope to get a White Paper out in November or early December, but to some extent progress has been held up because of the need to confer as fully as possible, on the order of battle and similar matters, with the Territorial Army Council and Associations. This has involved a few weeks' delay in publishing the White Paper, in order that we may go into these questions with the Council.