§ 17. Mr. Molloyasked the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements have been concluded with the Government 386 of Northern Ireland apropos the costs involved of the presence of British troops to maintain law arid order in that province.
§ Mr. HealeyThe arrangements are those which apply on the rare occasions when the Services are called in similar circumstances to the assistance of the civil power anywhere in the United Kingdom: that is to say, the defence budget will bear the costs of tasks attributable to the preservation of law and order.
§ Mr. MolloyI am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he satisfied with the off-duty accommodation and with the normal welfare facilities which ought to be provided for our troops in Northern Ireland? Second, is he satisfied that the amount of leave, in such a tense situation, is sufficient for our troops?
§ Mr. HealeyNo, Sir; I am not satisfied in either regard, and I spoke at length on these matters in winding up the debate on Monday. I also indicated the steps which Her Majesty's Government are taking, in conjunction with the Government in Northern Ireland, to improve, in particular, the accommodation, which is the greatest single problem at the moment.
§ Mr. LubbockWill the Secretary of State consider one possible way of improving living accommodation for our troops as a matter of urgency; namely, that large caravans, which are best described as mobile homes and could be obtained off the shelf, as it were, could be sent over to Northern Ireland for the use of the troops?
§ Mr. HealeyI said in reply to the debate on Monday that that is one of the possibilities. In fact, it is one of the steps which we envisage taking to deal with the special problem of what I would call operational accommodation in areas where troops are on active riot duties, areas which may change from day to day.
§ 18. Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many troops are currently in Northern Ireland; and how soon it is expected to withdraw them.
§ Mr. HealeySome 9,800 of all three Services, including some 4,900 army personnel and 600 Royal Marines, whose 387 presence is solely due to the present situation in Northern Ireland. These will be withdrawn as and when their presence is no longer required for the maintenance of law and order and the security of the Province.
§ Mr. HamiltonAs these troops are likely to be there for years rather than months, is it not important that their morale should be maintained at a high level, and is that not likely to become increasingly difficult as the months and years go by? Will my hon. Friend read the article in The Times this morning about not only living conditions but the inadequate pay supplement which he has suggested and review it with a view to increasing it?
§ Mr. HealeyI have read the article in The Times today, and I dealt with these very problems at length in my speech on Monday. I should strongly welcome my hon. Friend's support for any increase in the defence budget, but I have not had it absolutely consistently over the last five years.
§ Sir Ian Orr-EwingThe right hon. Gentleman has stated that he was taking a risk in the rundown of the size of our forces. Do not the serious repercussions which have resulted in other theatres as a consequence of this contingency show that they are already at a deplorably low level? As he is planning a further rundown, and as he has no uncommitted reserves at all, will the Secretary of State now cease the rundown until the matter has been reviewed?
§ Mr. HealeyNo, Sir; the hon. Gentleman should know, as I said in the House on Monday, that there has been no repercussion so far on other theatres. I said that if there were a requirement for further forces we might have to draw on forces committed to B.A.O.R. When I came into office in 1964 I found that the level of manning in units in B.A.O.R. under the previous Government was 3,000 lower than it is today because units had been deliberately undermanned in order to provide forces for commitments outside Europe—in the Far East and Middle East.
§ Mr. Scott-HopkinsHow many units has the Secretary of State left in the Strategic Reserve here, and is it true that troops in Germany are now doing 388 riot training in order to be prepared to be committed to Ulster?
§ Mr. HealeyI will not give the figures of men in the Strategic Reserve in this country. No Secretary of State would ever do so. The 3rd Division is complete in the Strategic Reserve at present. The Strategic Reserve as such has hardly been touched so far in the operation, but we are training some companies in Germany in case it is necessary to draw on them to relieve some of the forces now in Northern Ireland when their four-month tour is completed. This is the sort of measure which any provident Government would take; it has many parallels in the activities of the previous Adminisration during their 13 years of power.
§ Mr. McNamaraDoes not my right hon. Friend agree that the rate of withdrawal of British troops from Northern Ireland will depend largely on the degree of peace-keeping which the police forces in Northern Ireland can undertake, and, therefore, what one wants is a speedy implementation of the Hunt Report, and, in particular, that it is desirable that the pressures which are building up in Northern Ireland at the moment to impede or modify that Report should be firmly resisted?
§ Mr. HealeyAs I made clear when I visited Northern Ireland a month ago, it will not be possible to withdraw the troops until the local police are able to take back the responsibilities which they surrendered to the troops some time ago. They will not be able to do that until they are acceptable to all sections of the community in Northern Ireland, and it is the purpose of the Hunt Report to produce a police force of that type. It is not for me to comment on the reception which the Hunt Report has had in Northern Ireland, but I am satisfied that the Government in Northern Ireland recognise, as do the British Government, the urgency of taking early action in carrying out its recommendations.
§ Mr. RipponWill the Secretary of State agree that the total manpower available to him is far less than it was in 1964, and will he agree that in those circumstances he ought to halt the rundown of the forces and take immediate steps to restore the Territorial Army as the second line of reserves?
§ Mr. HealeyNo, Sir, I do not, because although the total is somewhat smaller than it was in 1964—I think it is about 10 per cent. smaller—our commitments have already been reduced by 30 per cent. and will have been reduced by about 50 per cent. when the rundown is complete.
§ Mr. RipponWill the right hon. Gentleman stop prating about 3,000 more?
§ Mr. Scott-HopkinsIn view of the unsatisfactory replies, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.
§ 27. Mr. Molloyasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will give an assurance that the special contingent of British troops will remain in Northern Ireland until guarantees of equality and civil liberties for all subjects in the province are achieved and all forms of discriminatory practices are made illegal by the Government of Northern Ireland.
§ Mr. HealeyThe additional troops will be withdrawn from their present special duties in Belfast and Londonderry when their presence is no longer required for the maintenance of law and order. There will continue to be a permanent garrison in Northern Ireland, the size of which will have to be reviewed.
§ Mr. MolloyI am grateful for the latter part of that reply. May I put it to my right hon. Friend that I hope that he will not take too much notice of some of the criticisms made of British troops by that curious alleged Christian called Paisley and of some of the bizarre utterances from what I believe are termed "Unionist Conservative" Members of this House who have contributed so much, by negligence of their duty to see that civil rights were established in Northern Ireland, to the present situation? Will my right hon. Friend therefore not allow British troops to be denigrated by Tories opposite?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Long supplementary questions prevent other hon. Members from asking questions.
§ Mr. HealeyIf I may say so to my hon. Friend, I think that the whole tenor of the debate last Monday showed that there is the deepest admiration on both sides of the House, and, I think, in all 390 quarters, for the behaviour of our troops in Northern Ireland in what are some of the most difficult situations they have ever had to operate in.
§ Mr. Chichester-ClarkAs a strong defender of the British troops in Northern Ireland, I suggest that the Secretary of State might consider paying the fare of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) to Northern Ireland where he might not only perhaps encourage some British troops but see all aspects of this delicate controversy and thereafter refrain from putting such myopic and sometimes dangerous questions?
§ Mr. HealeyI do not know whether I am really intended to answer the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) but perhaps I may take the opportunity to apologise for misleading the House in an answer earlier. Five of the nine battalions of the 3rd Division are in Northern Ireland, contrary to statements made by hon. Members opposite.
§ Sir Ian Orr-EwingThe Secretary of State made a categorical statement that no troops in the 3rd Division had been touched. We knew this to be another deceit——
§ Sir Ian Orr-EwingIt was. I do not withdraw. This statement was made half an hour ago.
§ Mr. John LeeOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the use of the word "deceit" in that context cannot be parliamentary.
§ Sir Ian Orr-EwingI withdraw "deceit" and use "cheated".
§ Mr. HealeyIf I had had any intention of misleading the House I would not have corrected my earlier statement. I think that the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) must be overexcited, because he has forgotten that he himself said that there were no troops left in Britain at all. I have just pointed out that four battalions of the 3rd Division are still on this side of the Irish Sea.
§ 30. Mr. Goodhartasked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for issuing additional anti-riot equipment to the soldiers carrying out internal security duties in Northern Ireland.
§ Mr. HealeyNone at present.
§ Mr. GoodhartAs the Army is almost entirely dependent on C.S. gas for riot control, does the right hon. Gentleman intend to develop or purchase any more sophisticated anti-riot weapons for the future?
§ Mr. HealeyWhat the hon. Gentleman states is not at all the case. The C.S. gas is used only when other methods are inappropriate and when the alternative to using it is the use of batons or bullets, which, in one or two cases, has unfortunately proved to be necessary. The forces in Northern Ireland have a full range of sophisticated equipment, and I cannot think of anywhere in the world where so few troops are dealing with riots on such a large scale with so little damage to human life.
§ Sir Ian Orr-EwingHave the paratroops sent to Northern Ireland been trained in anti-riot practices? Will the right hon. Gentleman perhaps consider making another apology to the House, because he said that no troops had been withdrawn from B.A.O.R.? Surely the parachute troops are committed to B.A.O.R. but are now serving in Northern Ireland.
§ Mr. HealeyThe Parachute Brigade is not committed to B.A.O.R., as I have said on many occasions. The hon. Gentleman is wrong again.
§ Sir Ian Orr-EwingWell, to N.A.T.O.