§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ 10.1 p.m.
§ The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. G. W. Reynolds)I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Reference was made to the possibility of this legislation in the White Paper of July, 1968, in which we expressed the hope that it might not be necessary to continue; in existence the Army General Reserve At that time, we were carrying out a review of our reserve and general commitments and reluctantly we came to the conclusion that it was necessary to continue the Army General Reserve in being for a further five years.
Quite a large part of today's debate has been concerned with the reserves. In the main, people have lamented the lack of reserves in the Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve. My assumption is that, despite the fact that we are reluctantly bringing this Bill before the House to impose this requirement on certain ex-National Service men for a further five years, there will be little opposition from the official Opposition.
This legislation will be necessary for the next five years to give us the numbers we require, but, as has been announced, with the expansion in the numbers in the TAVR and the creation of various extra individual posts, mainly on the Medical and Pay Corps side in the TAVR, and the expansion of the Regular Army Reserve, we hope that in five years' time we shall be able to dispense with what is, in effect, the last remnant of conscription which operated effectively from 1938 until it was abolished a few years ago.
The call-out liability on which we rely for the Army General Reserve is different from that for the TAVR and Class A 1504 of the Regular Reserve. Class A and the TAVR are liable for call-out when warlike operations are in preparation or progress, whereas the Army General Reserve is liable for call-out only at times of imminent national danger or great emergency. I give the assurance that there will be absolutely no intention of using members of the Army General Reserve other than for a general war in Europe. If that eventuality should happen—and I believe that with the general N.A.T.O. nuclear and conventional deterrents it is most unlikely to happen—generally speaking, we would expect first to call out Section A and the TAVR and perhaps slightly later—and one cannot be certain how the time scale will go—a number of individuals from the Army General Reserve.
The reserve legislation covers all three Services. We are proposing to continue it for the next five years only for members of the Army General Reserve. The requirement is no longer there for the other two Services. There are 168,000 in the Army General reserve and it is perhaps a little unusual that, since we admit we require only 15,000, we should ask the House to continue the liability for all. The difficulty is that there is no way of putting into legislation a definition of the many different ranks and trades to reduce the number to those we require. Nor can we today give an exact description of the trades, ranks and classes of people we might require from the Army General Reserve, because within certain limits requirements change from time to time.
That is one reason why we cannot solve this problem by fixing a later cut off date. All members of the Army General Reserve have a legal liability to inform us of any change of address but only those required to report in an emergency are given travel instructions and warrants and told where to report.
§ Mr. James Scott-Hopkins (Derbyshire, West)How is the figure of 15,000 which the right hon. Gentleman says he wants made up? What is the basis of his calculation?
§ Mr. ReynoldsThe 15,000 are not in formed units. They are 15,000 people required to fill out the order of battle in regular Army units and TAVR units. A large proportion of them—I am 1505 not prepared to give exact numbers for each corps and each part of the Army—are in the medical section. That is why we are increasing the number of Medical Corps posts in the TAVR.
Hon. Members will realise that in peacetime the Medical Corps is quite small. Its prime job is to look after young fit men, few of whom are in hospital at any one time, and when they are in a military hospital overseas most of them seem to be in there for football and sports injuries. As it is a small corps in peacetime the Medical Corps does not have many regular reservists, because the size of its reserve, as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South-West (Mr. Powell) said, is obviously linked to the size of its regular strength.
A considerable number of the others are Pay Corps. There again, a similar problem arises. On mobilisation, one does not know how long Servicemen will be in the field. One cannot say, "Do not worry about their pay, it will all be over soon." One has to have the Pay Corps there to do all the pay work.
Others are in all types of units, but the Medical Corps has the largest numbers. They are all individuals who are required to fill out the units up to a wartime standard. Most of the extra posts we are providing for in the TAVR are not in formed units, but pools of individuals to fill out vacancies in existing units.
I hope that the House will agree to give the Bill a Second Reading. We have been discussing the Army for the whole of today, and my hon. Friend, in moving the Vote A Estimates, has already talked about the Bill. I have no more to say on it, but I shall be pleased to reply to points which hon. Members may raise, if I catch your eye. Mr. Deputy Speaker.
§ Mr. James Allason (Hemel Hempstead)Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many out of the 168,000 had their service extended in 1962 and have already had a rather longer commitment?
§ Mr. ReynoldsI cannot say offhand, but I will try to get the figure either now or at a later stage.
§ 10.7 p.m.
§ Mr. James Ramsden (Harrogate)This side of the House does not dispute the need for the expansion of the Army General Reserve which the Bill provides, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to clear up one or two points.
A similar Bill was last brought forward in 1963 and, in moving the Second Reading, I said that it might be necessary in another five years to ask for an extension of this reserve. I said:
… much will depend on the military needs of the time and the House will appreciate that these are not easy to forecast five or 10 years ahead.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1963; Vol. 686, c. 132.]Military needs are different from what they were in 1963, because of the Government decision to abandon the home defence element in our reserves. That leads me to ask, first, why it is necessary to retain so many men under this liability and, secondly, of the men retained, why is there a rôle for as many as 15,000.The right hon. Gentleman said that it was not easy to find a cut-off point by which some of the 168,000 men could have been relieved of their liability. I am prepared to accept that, although it surprises me. In the 1963 Act we introduced a cut-off point and relieved large numbers of men of their liability.
I seems surprising that as many as 15,000 men should be needed for the following reason. As far as I can charge my memory, the main rôle of the Army general reservists in 1963 was to bring up to strength those units of the territorial army which had a rôle for civil defence, that is to say, a rôle which no longer exists.
Without giving figures, which perhaps one should not give and which, anyway, one may not remember accurately, it can be said that in 1963 a large slice of the Territorial Army had a rôle similar to that now given to TAVR II, and went to reinforce Rhine Army. Then there was also the Army Emergency Reserve. Broadly speaking, that did what the present voluntary reserves do.
When that rôle had been discharged, left behind was the remainder of the Territorial Army with such men as it had been able to recruit in the normal course of its activities, less such men 1507 as had had to go to B.A.O.R. Those units required for home defence had to be brought up to strength, and quite a number of men were required to do that. This was why, in 1963, the Army General Reserve had to be retained.
Obviously, one was concerned to know about all this in detail, and I remember asking whether many of the somewhat aged reservists between 28 and 31 who had been out of the Army for some time would be required for B.A.O.R. as opposed to home defence. I remember being horrified to hear that some would. However, the total number concerned was nothing like 15,000. I assume, therefore, that this 15,000 requirement stems mainly from the failure to recruit to establishment in TAVR II and that, to the extent that this situation can be rectified, we shall not have to rely on these A-my General Reserve men.
I think that I have made the point. I am not surprised that we need the Act, but I am surprised that we need as many as 15,000. I can only explain it in terms of a failure in TAVR II recruiting.
When this five-year liability runs out, will the numbers in the Regular Reserve and the long-term Reserve into which all Regular reservists go when they have finished all other forms of reserve liability have built up sufficiently to make it unnecessary to provide anything in the form of an Army General Reserve under this Act? In other words, can we be assured that the Act will not have to be extended again?
Would the right hon. Gentleman care to say whether his Department has the addresses of all these men? What will be the method of call-up? To what extent is the Department organised for the business of designating these men and calling them up should the need arise? Can it find them? Does it know who they are, where they are, and in what categories they should go?
§ 10.14 p.m.
§ Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)The Bill has enormous consequences for 15,000 ex-National Servicemen, and I want to protest about its being brought before the House at 10 o'clock at night. This is the Second Reading of an exceedingly important Bill to quite a considerable 1508 section of our people. Many of those who are liable to be called up will regard it, as I do, as a mean, miserable little swindle of a Bill, in view of the fact that both parties stated at the last General Election that there would be no more conscription in peacetime. That was the definite statement of our party and of the party opposite at the last election. I do not think that many young people thought that there would be a little instalment of conscription moved by a Labour Government.
It will be said that there are only 15,000. It depends whether one is in the 15,000. There will be quite a large number of people under the age of 45. Take, for example, a doctor aged 44. He may think that he has finished with the Army for ever. So do other sections of the community who are brought in—teachers, engineers and others who had settled down in life at the age of 44, bringing up a young family, and now find that the clutching hand of the Army has got hold of them again.
What is the reason? It is because the expensive £3 million recruiting campaign has been a flop. So they are trying to gather into the net young and middle-aged men by a Bill which is to be sneaked in and smuggled through the House so that people do not quite understand what is going on. I believe that these 15,000 people will look to us to protect their interests. Instead of this being an innocuous little Bill, I regard it as scandalous, because it affects a small group of people who are not likely to be able to safeguard themselves.
The Minister told us that the majority of these people would be in the Medical Corps. Many of the young doctors affected by this Bill are in areas where the public need them. My constituency is short of doctors. Now a young doctor of 43 or 44 is suddenly faced with the fact that conscription has come again.
I hope that the Bill will be resolutely opposed by those who gave pledges that they were against conscription so that the Government will not be allowed to come along and say, "Only 15,000"—only the people who are not fortunate enough to be in some kind of trade union. The 15,000 are not in one profession. They may be scattered.
§ Mr. William Baxter (West Stirlingshire)Is my hon. Friend aware that although this is a figure of 15,000, it applies to 168,000 people, and there is no guarantee that those 168,000 will not be recruited into the forces?
§ Mr. Emrys HughesOf course. This is a mystery, and it needs to be elucidated by this House if it is worthy of the name "House of Commons".
The fact that a few thousand defenceless people are caught up at this stage may not mean an injustice to the 170,000 or so. But an injustice to 15,000 is an injustice to a very considerable section of the community. If it were 1,500, the injustice would be the same. Why is the Bill necessary? Because the recruiting campaign has been a flop. Over £3 million has been spent on beautiful brochures and periodicals to convince young people that there is a nice life in the Army. Because the recruiting campaign has been a flop, and the young generation is too intelligent to be dragged into the Army, the Government are turning to these unfortunate people who are still in the National Service reserve. They will say, "We did our National Service in our time. What about the young people who have not had any National Service?" I hope that they will all tell their Members of Parliament. Gradually, we will be drawn into the whole mesh of conscription, because as this goes on, it can be extended.
If a young doctor comes along and says that he has more important work to do in his village or town, that he is doing far better work looking after the sick people in a slum area in Glasgow or a sparsely populated agricultural parish in Ayrshire, what will the Government say? When we lift the curtain, this is what we see. I say that these people are far more important in civil life than they would be in the Army of the Rhine.
What about the police? Many of these reservists are in the police force. Does the Minister say that they are more necessary in the Army of the Rhine than in the streets of Glasgow, or in the crime-ridden areas of the country? The policeman on the beat, who may be doing a very good job, and who is needed far more in our towns and cities than in the Army of the Rhine, will be conscripted 1510 and sent to where the Minister says he will not be much wanted anyway.
Underneath the Minister's plausibility there is a grave national scandal. I hope that the Bill will be carefully examined in Committee. In fact, I hope that it will be rejected on Second Reading.
§ 10.21 p.m.
§ Mr. George Younger (Ayr)I question this Measure from a rather different angle. I cannot see how it fits into the Government's defence strategy. As I understand, these reservists will not be called up unless there is a general war.
§ Mr. Emrys HughesOh.
§ Mr. YoungerThat is what we were told by the Minister.
We have also been told by the Minister that in his view there is no possibility of a general war lasting for more than a few hours, I think he said. Suppose that one of these 15,000 men, let alone 168,000 men, is called up. It has to be for a general war which we are told will last for only a short time. Who are these people? We are told that they are doctors. I can see that medical people, because of their profession, can do medical work anywhere, but what about people in the Army Pay Corps? They have not served in the forces for six years, and by the time they are called up they may have been out of the Army for seven, eight, or 10 years.
Anyone who served in the Pay Corps six years ago, and who went back to the Army, would find that everything had changed. All the systems and the forms would be different. Are these reservists, who will receive no training between leaving the Army and being called back in the event of a national emergency lasting for a very short period, to go back without being able to do their work, and without a period of training and familiarisation with the work that they will have to do? This is a rather dubious proposition.
What about the rest of the 168,000 reservists? We are told that probably none of the teeth arm people among them will be called up. I do not know whether this is true. It is possible that some of them will be called up, and if they are, what use will they be in the modern Army? They have not served in the Army for six years. If they were National 1511 Servicemen six years ago, the chances are that they did not use the modern self-loading rifle, but the old-fashioned one. They will be called back for a war lasting three or four days, and they will be presented with a rifle with which they have never trained, and do not know how to fire.
I am in favour of having some reserves. I spoke earlier about the fact that there were no reserves, but if we are to have them, let: us have reserves which will be of some use. I hope that the Minister will tell us precisely what these reservists will be equipped with, and what they will be trained to do during the short war which the Minister of Defence expects. If we can be reassured about that, I shall be happy about supporting the Bill, but if we are not, it seems to me that these 168,000 men will be given bits of paper for four or five years for something which they will never be called upon to do, and if they are they will not be of much use.
§ 10.24 p.m.
§ Mr. William Baxter (West Stirlingshire)Is not this Bill another reason why the people distrust any Government who bring in an Act of Parliament such as this specifically to put people into the Armed Forces, even though they have already served for a period in the Services? These people are being selected as a special group who have to be put on the reserve list to be recalled at any moment. If the principle is good, why should only one group of the community be conscripted?
The principle is bad. Therefore the Government have no right to say this to those who have served the Army for some time on the strict understanding that, once their service was completed, they had discharged their liability to the nation. This is an underhanded method of putting them in chains again. It will have a considerable effect upon the image of the Army.
There is no guarantee that these people will not be conscripted next month or next year, even without a national emergency, despite what the Minister said. Nothing in the Bill says that it will be only in a national emergency. We have been told tonight already of a backlash of people who are not prepared to enter the forces. This may be the thin edge 1512 of the wedge to recruit by conscription——
§ Mr. YoungerThe hon. Member may not be quite clear about this, but these people have a specific commitment which is limited to the fact that they cannot be called out unless there is a general emergency.
§ Mrs. Winifred Ewing (Hamilton)rose—
§ Mr. BaxterA commitment is there at the moment, without the Bill to impose conscription upon them. If what the hon. Gentleman says is true and they are under an obligation to come to the colours in a national emergency, why is the Bill needed? It gives the Minister power to conscript them at any time, not just in a national emergency——
§ Mr. Youngerrose—
§ Mrs. Ewingrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. If the hon. Lady wishes to intervene, her best plan is to let the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter) know by asking to be allowed to do so.
§ Mrs. EwingI tried to do so. Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. YoungerThe hon. Gentleman has not got it right. At present, they can only be called out, even in a national emergency, if this is extended, but they cannot, either now or in future, except in a state of national emergency.
§ Mr. BaxterIf that is so, then it was the hon. Gentleman who misled me, because I thought that the Bill gave the Minister power to conscript anyone who had previously served in the Armed Forces and was now in the reserves——
§ Mrs. EwingIs the hon. Gentleman happy or not with any known definition of a national emergency?
§ Mr. BaxterThat is my difficulty. It only needs the Minister to say that there is a national emergency. There is a national emergency in their minds when people are not prepared to enter the Armed Forces in the ordinary way. Therefore, the Minister will have the power to conscript those who were previously in the Armed Forces.
1513 The Minister said that, in a national emergency, he will take 15,000 men who are probably doctors and pay clerks, but there is nothing here to say that he will not conscript the other 168,000. This is the thin end of the wedge towards conscription and the House should reject it.
§ 10.28 p.m.
§ Mr. James Allason (Hemel Hempstead)I never thought that I would agree with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) on a military matter, but this time he has something. The sole reason for the Bill is the Government's failure to find any other means of meeting this gap. They have abolished the "Ever-readies", who would have provided 15,000 men, they have reduced the Territorial Army, and they have failed in their recruiting for the Regular forces. So the hon. Member has a point.
But I want to draw attention to the particular plight of those National Servicemen who had their full-time service extended in consequence of the emergency in Germany in 1962. The House will remember the reasons for that, but there was a calculated reason—that it was not possible to get the Army up to its full target by 1962 and it was known that there would be a trough at that date at the end of full-time National Service. Unfortunately, it coincided with a period of intense tension in Germany and, most relucantly, the House had to insist that the last National Servicemen serving should be caught and have to do an extra six months with the colours. I am surprised that the Minister does not have the figures.
§ Mr. ReynoldsApparently none is included, because the provision covers only those who left full-time service after 1962.
§ Mr. AllasonI am delighted to hear that, although I cannot reconcile the right hon. Gentleman's assurance with the comment in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum about those.
…who completed their whole-time or part-time service (or equivalent service) after 31st December, 1962…Surely that covers men who were doing their additional National Service, the last of whom left in about January, 1963. They then went on to do part-time service, 1514 and that was reduced by six months in consequence of their having done extra time with the Regulars. However, I am delighted for the right hon. Gentleman's assurance and it means that there will be at least one less Amendment to be dealt with in Committee.
§ 10.31 p.m.
§ Mr. ReynoldsWith the leave of the House, I will answer the points raised during the debate.
Like the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) I am under the impression that a certain number of the men to whom he referred would be included in this provision. However, I have checked the matter—I shall check it again between now and the next stage of the Bill, to be certain—and I am informed that the Bill applies only to those who completed their full-time service after December, 1962 and that it may not draw in any of the men to whom the hon. Gentleman referred and who did an extra six months' service.
§ Mr. AllasonWhat about those who did part-time service?
§ Mr. ReynoldsI will check on this also, before the Committee stage, to make absolutely sure of the facts.
I hope that hon. Members will give the Bill a Second Reading, despite the views of my two hon. Friends below the Gangway. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) made great play with the fact that I had said that a large number—indeed, the biggest single number—of people affected were those in the Royal Army Medical Corps. He had the impression that they were all doctors. The vast majority of them are medical and nursing orderlies and all types of other medical technicians.
This is one reason why it is difficult to try to select a later cut-off point, since only a few of certain grades exist and if we used a different cut-off point we would find that we were cutting into the trades and ranks we want.
§ Mr Emrys HughesAre not all these medical personnel needed in our hospitals? Is it really necessary to take them from our hospitals and put them in B.A.O.R.?
§ Mr. ReynoldsThat is so.
I was asked how the whole arrangement would work. As the Explanatory 1515 and Financial Memorandum explains, we need
… about eight million civilians in record offices …and this need will continue. It also gives the cost involved.To answer the questions that I have been asked about the individuals who are involved, whether medical or other personnel, we try to retain on the list for recall to the colours people who are doing jobs in civilian life similar to those they did when they were doing their national service. Probably a medical assistant during National Service is today serving in the National Health Service. He is now capable of doing a similar job with the R.A.M.C. It is better to have that type of person recalled than somebody who was acting as a medical assistant during his national service but has since been a bricklayer.
§ Mr. Emrys HughesIs that really so?
§ Mr. ReynoldsI am sure that if my hon. Friend needed medical treatment in the circumstances in which these people must work, he would rather be attended to by somebody who had come straight from a hospital than somebody who had been laying bricks for the last few years.
§ Mr. Emrys HughesThat makes my position stronger. There are people in civilian hospitals who need the help of trained medical personnel more than those in the Army of the Rhine. Could my right hon. Friend answer the point I made about the police? Are not police needed more in this country than in the Army of the Rhine?
§ Mr. ReynoldsI thought that the constituency of my hon. Friend was as free of crime as he believes it is of potential Army recruits.
I am talking of a situation of imminent danger and grave emergency in Europe which threatens this country. Imagine what would happen if we allowed this reserve to drop and there was a requirement to bring B.A.O.R. and other services up to strength. It would be the duty of the Government to bring in an Order giving them immediate power to call up the numbers required. We believe that it is far better to have people we know we would be likely to require in the Army General Reserve, thus enabling us to 1516 keep their records up to date for a further period of five years and to enable us to inform those likely to be required and give them travel instructions, rather than relying at the last minute on emergency legislation.
In the unlikely event of the situation arising that we shall need these men, we think it better to keep the records up to date and make sure that the reservists are aware of their responsibilities.
§ Mr. W. BaxterWhy does my right hon. Friend not approach them on a voluntary basis and see if they are prepared to do this without having to recruit in this way?
§ Mr. ReynoldsWith the extra posts we are providing, which were announced three months ago, in the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve, we are writing to these people to ask them if they would like to join TAVR if their particular rank and trade is required. In July, 1968 we informed the House in the Defence White Paper that we hoped it would not be necessary to continue this legislation. Unfortunately, we have discovered that it is necessary. The present legislation, giving this responsibility to 168,000 men and many thousands of others, expires in June next. We are asking it to be continued for 168,000, for five years.
The right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) said that he could not believe that this number was required. Of the 15,000 required, the majority are required for B.A.O.R. Pretty well all are required to fill vacancies in Regular and TAVR units. If we were fully recruited for TAVR and the Regular Army, we would not require anything like so many, but there would not be enough regular reservists because the Regular Reserve is still building up. The Long-term Reserve started only in 1964 and now has 3,000 in it. It is composed of those who have finished their Regular service and Regular Reserve liability. The 3,000 include many who have purchased their discharge from Regular service; they still have this reserve liability. It will build up to 24,000 men by 1978. The reserve for which the right hon. Gentleman was responsible is gradually building up, but it will take time to build up to substantial numbers.
I regret the necessity of bringing the Bill before the House, but we can see no 1517 other way of getting our units up to strength in the event of war, or preparation for war, in Europe. We shall see that the Bill is administered as fairly as possible. If hon. Members will put more detailed questions, I will try to answer them.
§ Mr. YoungerWill the right hon. Gentleman answer the point I made, what can be done in a short period?
§ Mr. ReynoldsI thought that I had answered that. I admit that it is not possible in every case, but by keeping a record of individuals we try to make sure that an individual can, so to speak, keep his hand in in the particular job he has in civilian life as well as having done it in his military service. It does not apply to every case. I admit that straight away.
| Division No. 117.] | AYES | [10.42 p.m. |
| Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) | Forrester, John | Morris, John (Aberavon) |
| Beaney, Alan | Freeson, Reginald | Oakes, Gordon |
| Bence, Cyril | Grey, Charles (Durham) | Ogden, Eric |
| Bishop, E. S. | Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) | O'Malley, Brian |
| Blackburn, F. | Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) | Oram, Albert E. |
| Blenkinsop, Arthur | Hannan, William | Orbach, Maurice |
| Booth, Albert | Hooley, Frank | Oswald, Thomas |
| Boyden, James | Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) | Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn) |
| Brooks, Edwin | Hoy, James | Palmer, Arthur |
| Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. | Huckfield, Leslie | Parkyn, Brian (Bedford) |
| Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) | Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) | Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) |
| Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury) | Hughes, Roy (Newport) | Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred |
| Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) | Hunter, Adam | Pentland, Norman |
| Cant, R. B. | Hynd, John | Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.) |
| Carmichael, Neil | Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) | Probert, Arthur |
| Coe, Denis | Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) | Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W. |
| Coleman, Donald | Judd, Frank | Rhodes, Geoffrey |
| Cullen, Mrs. Alice | Lawson, George | Ross, Rt. Hn. William |
| Dalyell, Tam | Leadbitter, Ted | Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.) |
| Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.) | Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton) | Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) |
| Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) | Lomas, Kenneth | Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich) |
| Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) | Loughlin, Charles | Spriggs, Leslie |
| de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey | McBride, Neil | Steel, David (Roxburgh) |
| Dempsey, James | McCann, John | Tinn, James |
| Dewar, Donald | MacColl, James | Urwin, T. W. |
| Dobson, Ray | ||
| Doig, Peter | Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty) | Varley, Eric C. |
| Driberg, Tom | Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) | Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley) |
| Dunn, James A. | Mackie, John | Walker, Harold (Doncaster) |
| Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) | McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) | Watkins, David (Consett) |
| Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) | McNamara, J. Kevin | Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor) |
| Eadie, Alex | Matron, Peter (Preston, S.) | Wellbeloved, James |
| Edwards, William (Merioneth) | Manuel, Archie | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Ellis, John | Marks, Kenneth | Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch) |
| Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) | Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard | Williams, Clifford (Abertillery) |
| Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) | Millan, Bruce | Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A. |
| Faulds, Andrew | Milne, Edward (Blyth) | |
| Fernyhough, E. | Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Fitch, Alan (Wigan) | Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) | Mr. Joseph Harper and |
| Ford, Ben | Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) | Mr. Concannon. |
| NOES | ||
| Ewing, Mrs. Winifred | ||
| TELLERS FOR THE NOES: | ||
| Mr. Emrys Hughes and | ||
| Mr. William Baxter. |
§ Bill accordingly read a Second time.
§ Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).
1518§ In so far as it is possible, we try to do that. The others have done full-time service—National Service of varying amounts. They will have jobs to fill in, some of them at home, some overseas. We want to replace them as quickly as we possibly can. I expect the actual requirement of 15,000 to gradually drop over the five-year period as we replace them with either Regular reservists building up now or with TAVR individuals.
§ I should be only too pleased to answer further questions in detail during later stages of the Bill. I hope that the Bill will now be given a Second Reading.
§ Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 114, Noes 1.