§ 7. Sir G. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is aware that the shortfall of trained strength below requirement, at 1st April, 1969, was for the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, 1,600, the Army, 6,000, and the Royal Air Force, 2300, totalling 9,900; if he will now give the corresponding figures of shortfall at 1st April, 1970; and what steps he is taking, without resort to conscription, to prevent further deterioration in recruitment for all three Services.
§ Mr. HattersleyFirm figures for 1st April, 1970, are not yet available.
The estimated shortfall of trained strength below requirement at that date is approximately 3,200 for the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, 4,600 for the Army and 3,200 for the Royal Air Force, totalling 11,000. These figures reflect the disappointingly low level of recruiting in 1968–69. There was, however, an improvement of 20 per cent. overall in the recruitment of male other ranks last year.
§ Sir G. NabarroCan the hon. Gentleman assure the House that the shortage in personnel of 9,900 on 1st April, 1969 and the shortage of approximately 11,000 on 1st April, 1970 both refer to a total establishment for the Armed Forces of the same aggregate figure—or do they relate to different figures?
§ Mr. HattersleyWhat the hon. Gentleman brings out by referring to the levels of establishment against the shortfalls is the fact that acceptance of extra obligations imposes extra strains on the Armed Services, a point which I have been trying to make in supplementary answers arising on other Questions.
§ Mr. BrooksDoes my hon. Friend realise that, while both Front Benches show a remarkable opposition to any 521 thoughts of reintroducing conscription, at least some of us are much alarmed at the implications of the situation in which we have a very low nuclear threshold now in Western Europe, which could put this country in severe danger?
§ Mr. HattersleyThat does not arise directly on this Question, but I assure my hon. Friend that the fears which he expresses are contrary to the changing policies of N.A.T.O., about which my right hon. Friend has spoken on several occasions in the past few months.
§ Mr. RamsdenWill the hon. Gentleman now give a sensible and factual answer to a question which was asked to elicit information and not in a partisan spirit? Will he tell the House what he was asked; namely, whether the establishment against which the shortfalls were calculated in the two years is the same, and what figure it is?
§ Mr. HattersleyIn the first part of my answer I made that clear. The establishments have changed. The point I made on the shortfall figure is that the changed establishment is a function of the obligations which one expects the forces to undertake. The greater the obligations, the greater the implied establishment, and, therefore, the greater the chance of a shortfall.
34. Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total net recruitment to the Armed Forces in 1969; and what further plans he has to improve recruitment in 1970.
§ Mr. HattersleyThe number of recruits joining the Services in 1969 was 33,887. The net number of recruits is not assessed separately since wastage affects the strength of the Services at all stages of engagements.
On the second part of the Question relating to plans to improve recruitment, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) on 4th March.—[Vol. 792, c. 390–1.]
Mr. Edward M. TaylorWhy cannot the Minister give us the figures of net recruitment? This is a simple exercise of counting the number of people who join the forces and the number who have left for various reasons.
§ Mr. HattersleyThe hon. Gentleman seems to think that the figure of net recruitment can be obtained by a simple arithmetic device, but it is a great deal more complicated than he suggests. Having regard to the recruitment changes from time to time and the short-term engagements introduced from time to time, which have been remarkably successful over the last few years, the net engagement figure has no meaning whatever.
§ Mr. Leslie HuckfieldTo help hon. Members opposite with the increased recruitment that their policies would involve and to assist them to try to put a cost on some of their lavish plans for increased defence expenditure, will my hon. Friend confirm that a conscripted Army is cheaper than a volunteer Army?
§ Mr. HattersleyI do not think that is a reasonable assumption to draw from the alternative as between a conscripted and a voluntarily-recruited Army. The real conclusion to draw from the parallel is that we have made no contingency plans for such a conscripted Army because with our policies it would not be necessary.
§ Mr. RipponDoes not the Minister accept that the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) was right when he said that all this talk about conscription by the party opposite is a political gimmick?
§ Mr. HattersleyOne of the things that make me doubt that judgment is that whenever the word is mentioned the right hon. Gentleman leaps to his feet with obvious embarrassment to deny it.