ARMED FORCES

HC Deb 08 June 1971 vol 818 cc882-1000

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fortescue.]

4.20 p.m.

The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel)

During the past year we have had many debates on defence. We had the debates on the supplementary White Paper. Then we had the two-day debate on the annual White Paper, in which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister took part. We had the debates on the Armed Forces Bill. We had the three separate Service debates, covering the Army, Navy and Air Force, and there has been a whole range of debates referring to the Army's deployment in Northern Ireland.

Usually when we debate defence matters we concentrate on the broad strategy and the general aims of the Government's defence policy. Inevitably this means that little time can be left to the human element, to discussing the men and women who serve in the Armed Forces and who make a reality of the defence policy set out by the Government. Yet it is on their ability and skill that we depend and rely for the meeting of our defence needs. For this reason I thought I should concentrate mainly this afternoon on recruiting and conditions of service. I wish to talk about the main problems which face us and the steps which we are taking, or intend to take, to attempt to solve the problems of recruitment.

However, before discussing these subjects I should like to take the opportunity to bring the House up to date with the recent N.A.T.O. Ministerial meetings and also to say a word or two about the recent developments in the arms control field. I will add a brief word about the part played by the Services in responding to the requests for help in combating the cholera epidemic amongst refugees now in India.

As a moment or two ago hon. Members raised the question of the possibility of the Ulster Defence Regiment being expanded to include a full-time element, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to refer to this matter in passing. As part of our continuing review of the security forces in Northern Ireland and our wish to improve recruiting to the Ulster Defence Regiment, we are considering the possibility of raising a full-time battalion within the Ulster Defence Regiment. I think the important point to mention in passing is that this would not be a separate force but, like the rest of the Ulster Defence Regiment, would be part of the British Army itself. However, I want to make it clear that I am only mentioning this because it was raised by hon. Members a few moment ago. No decision has been taken, and if it were decided to have such a unit, legislation by this House would be required.

Captain L. P. S. Orr (Down, South)

I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend so early in the debate. I take it that the proposal for, or the possibility of, setting up this permanent unit of the Ulster Defence Regiment does not preclude discussion about dealing with the gap that arises when soldiers have to be withdrawn to garrison, the problem that arises about the gap between soldiers on the one hand and civilian police on the other?

Lord Balniel

No, I do not think this relates to it. The Ulster Defence Regiment is firmly part of the British Army. It is not a paramilitary force which is outside the control of the Secretary of State for Defence.

Turning also to a subject which has been raised in the statement today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, I should like to refer to the part which the Services are playing in helping in the distressed area in India where the East Pakistan refugees are faced with heartrending problems. The Services in recent months have played a vital rôle in helping a number of distressed areas. There has been the work which they did in the floods in East Pakistan, and then the floods in Malaysia, and then the work which they undertook as the aftermath of the fighting in Jordan. Now, in co-operation with the charities, they are embarked on a similar kind of task.

Yesterday a Hercules aircraft left this country carrying a mobile hospital which had been donated by the charity War on Want. Today a VC10 leaves Brize Norton carrying 33,000 1b. of medical supplies which have been donated by Oxfam. Tomorrow another Hercules will leave with more medical supplies, and also tomorrow a VC10 will carry 15 civilian medical personnel, more medical supplies and a 20-bed field hospital donated by the charity War on Want. Service aircraft are also collecting medical supplies tomorrow and later in the week from Geneva, at the request of the World Health Organisation. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said, further airlift capacity will be made available to the World Health Organisation or the consortium of British charities if they need it. Any request from the United Nations, the World Health Organisation or the consortium of British charities for airlift capacity will be considered most sympathetically.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

The Defence Department will agree, I think, that it has received the greatest co-operation from Mr. Frank Sargeant, our Deputy High Commissioner at Dacca, during the time of the flood disaster. Does the hon. Gentleman understand, following the question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) this afternoon, that many of us are very concerned to be assured that there has been no pressure from the Pakistan Government for the withdrawal of Mr. Sargeant? Whereas this may be mainly a Foreign Office affair, I would be grateful if, in winding up, there could be confirmation of the fact that in no way has there been pressure from the Pakistan Government for the withdrawal of Mr. Sargeant.

Lord Balniel

With respect, I think this is a matter which falls completely within the responsibility of the Foreign Office. However, I did hear my right hon. Friend explain that Mr. Sargeant had returned home because of illness through pressure of work, and that he was being replaced immediately. I think that if the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue this matter, it would be more appropriate to put down a Question to the Foreign Secretary.

Referring to the recent progress in N.A.T.O., my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence recently attended the N.A.T.O. Nuclear Planning Group meeting in Germany, the N.A.T.O. Defence Planning Committee in Brussels, and also, in the capacity of chairman, the Eurogroup meeting in Brussels on 27th May. The Eurogroup—that is, most of the European members of N.A.T.O.—concentrated mainly on the implementation of the European Defence Improvement programme which I announced last December. This defence improvement programme is a mixture of force improvements and an extra European contribution to N.A.T.O. infrastructure funds. The whole programme is valued at about 1,000 million dollars over the next five years alone.

At the Eurogroup meeting all the countries which are intending to make force improvements, including the United Kingdom, confirmed that they had now got firm programmes, and the meeting agreed to press ahead as quickly as possible with the implementation of the infrastructure element. Pressing ahead with this infrastructure element will enable N.A.T.O. to proceed with the N.A.T.O. integrated communications system and also with the hardening of the airfields to provide shelter for the aircraft against attack. The United Kingdom will, of course, be contributing its full financial share of £32½ million to the infrastructure programme.

The progress which was made was welcomed by the Defence Planning Committee the next day, and the Committee also welcomed Mr. Laird's reaffirmation of President Nixon's undertaking that, given a similar approach by the allies, the United States would maintain and improve its own forces in Europe and would not reduce them except in the context of reciprocal East-West action. This is a really important pledge from the United States, especially when taken in the light of the understandable congressional pressure which exists for reductions. It does, though, emphasise a theme which I have constantly reiterated, that the European members of N.A.T.O. must continue to contribute our own proper share to the defence of Western Europe.

I turn briefly to the question of arms control and disarmament. I should like first to say something about the question of mutual and balanced force reductions—something which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister described when taking part in our defence debate the other day as being "a very great prize". It is sometimes forgotten that the suggestion for East-West talks on this subject was made originally by N.A.T.O. at a Ministerial meeting in 1968 and was reiterated in the 1970 Ministerial meetings in Rome and Brussels. N.A.T.O. Ministers meeting in Lisbon last week, therefore, welcomed the recent response which we have received from the Soviet leaders. What is now needed is to determine whether common ground exists between N.A.T.O. and the Warsaw Pact countries.

We welcome the steps which were proposed by N.A.T.O. Ministers at Lisbon to intensify exploratory talks and contacts with the Soviet Union and other interested Governments on the basis of the considerations put forward at the Rome Ministerial meeting of May, 1970, covering issues like verification and assurances that vital defence interests are not adversely affected. A further high-level meeting of N.A.T.O. is likely to take place at a fairly early date to consider further steps designed to facilitate a move towards negotiations so soon as may be practicable.

I wish to say a brief word, also, about the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks between the United States and the Soviet Union.

The House will know the immense importance which we attach to the S.A.L. talks. We, therefore, welcome the joint statement which was made by the American and Soviet Governments on 20th May, which said that they have— agreed to concentrate this year on working out an agreement for the limitation of the deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems". They stated also that— together with concluding an agreement to limit anti-ballistic missiles they will agree on certain measures with respect to the limitation of offensive strategic weapons. Throughout the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks, the Americans have taken great care to consult their allies, and we have been kept fully informed throughout the discussions. This process is continuing. The talks will be renewed at Helsinki on 8th July.

I turn now to the question of manpower and conditions of service in our Armed Forces. I am exceedingly pleased to be able to record a marked improvement in recruiting over the past year. Just under 39,000 male other ranks were enlisted. This is the best achievement for four years. Allowing for technical recording adjustments, there was a true increase of 5,000, or 15 per cent., over the previous year's figure. It is particularly encouraging that this improvement has taken place and had its impact on all three Services.

Recruiting now has virtually returned to the level of five years ago, before the effects of the last Government's frequent changes of policy had their full impact. In particular, the recruitment of Army juniors is going well, and applications for commissions in the Royal Navy have shown a striking increase.

I am exceedingly glad to be able to record this improvement at the end of the present Government's first year of office. Nevertheless, we still have a long way to go. No one responsible in defence matters and no one concerned in general terms with this country's ability to meet its defence commitments can look at the manning situation with any scintilla of complacency.

This year's Statement on the Defence Estimates showed that in the long term the steady annual requirement for male other ranks is of the order of 43,000. Later calculations which we have made show that this figure is, if anything, on the low side, but, roughly, the steady-state requirement of our Services is about 43,000 men.

Forty-three thousand is about 10 per cent. above the level which we achieved last year. The continuing upward trends which I have seen in recruiting in the past few weeks, which are not reflected in the figures which I have given, give me hope that we may go some way towards closing the gap. But the gap still exists. Also, it is important to emphasise that merely to top the 43,000 mark just once is not enough. We must achieve an average of 43,000, taking the good years with the bad, in the foreseeable future.

Moreover, one is bound to point out that we are recruiting now in conditions of increasing difficulty. Boys are tending to stay on longer at school, the school leaving age is to be raised, and there is the development of higher education. All these trends are desirable and valuable in themselves, but they create big problems for the Services. In broad terms, they mean that the number of young men available for recruiting is declining.

However, recruiting the men and women whom we need for the Services is only part of the problem.

Mr. John Morris (Aberavon)

Before leaving the subject of the highly satisfactory improvement in recruiting, which we greatly welcome, will not the Minister say that he has been materially assisted by the concept of the military salary introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), the first instalment of which came on 1st April last year, and the second, for single men, on 1st April this year; and will he agree, also, that his best recruiting sergeant is the rising unemployment?

Lord Balniel

I agree that the military salary has been a valuable contribution towards the improved recruiting, but the trouble with right hon. and hon. Members opposite is that, although they may do one good thing, they do 10 bad things. The bad things were their frequent changes of policy, which, without question, had an unfortunate effect on recruiting during their years of office.

The right hon. Gentleman may be right in suggesting that unemployment is an assistance to recruiting, but I must say that all the professional advice which I have been given is that unemployment has very little result on recruiting to the Services. The Services are no longer a form of employment to which a man goes when he cannot get a job in civilian life. In fact, the Services provide some of the best training in this country and also some of the most exhilarating technological work which one can conceivably do. It is not, there for, the impression of those who advise me professionally that unemployment is a major factor.

I was saying that recruiting is only part of the problem. We must persuade the men and women in the Services to stay on, and also, if possible, to prolong a short engagement into a long-term engagement. We need, therefore, to decide what kind of Service engagement structure is likely to produce the required force levels and also the proper internal balance within the Services between age, rank and the different trades.

In the years which followed the ending of National Service, the Services, probably rightly, pinned their faith to long-term engagements of six, nine or 12 years. They felt at that time that this was the only way to keep the Services up to strength after the conscripts had left. Eventually, this policy of insisting on long-term engagements had to be modified, for the simple reason that not enough recruits were coming forward.

For that reason, all the Services now offer to adults shorter engagements of three, four or five years in the non-technical branches. Nor have boy recruits been overlooked. By accepting the main recommendations of Lord Donaldson's Committee, we have given boys the choice, on reaching the age of 18, between confirming their original engagement and shortening it so that they need serve only for a further period of three years plus any balance of uncompleted training. Although it has not attracted much publicity, the acceptance of the recommendations of Lord Donaldson's Committee is a marked advance on the previous position. I think it will be of help to parents, teachers and youth leaders discussing with young boys and girls whether they should enter the Services.

Having pointed to the attractions of the short engagement, I ought to say that from the Services' point of view a long engagement is, on the whole, usually preferable. Long service brings greater experience. It gives a better return on training investment, and it enables the Services to plan much more steadily into the future. When we are extending short-service opportunities in the Forces, we are in no way turning our backs on the long-term Service men; quite the reverse; what we have done is to recognise that men join the Services for a variety of motives and with a variety of career expectations.

The general picture is that the Services have been modernising their engagement structures to try to attract different types of recruit with different wishes—a person who expects a range of options and is not necessarily prepared to take it or leave it when offered a long-term engagement. I am convinced that the policy which we are following and which right hon. Gentlemen when in office also followed is the right policy if we are to get the right number of men into the Services.

Of course, the Services must always have binding engagements, because no military force can function without a binding engagement. But the emphasis is on the voluntary character of our Armed Forces. We want the men who have enlisted voluntarily to continue to serve voluntarily not merely because they are committed for a number of years but because they find the life enjoyable and the work rewarding. If we can achieve this, we shall have done a great deal to improve the Services' standing in the eyes of the public, and this in turn will help recruiting. This process of modernisation of the Services' engagements is not complete and we have been examining various possibilities for further improvements over the past few months.

However, there is one particular problem in manpower which has caused special concern. This is the manning of the medical, dental and nursing services. Despite the improvements from time to time in one or other of the medical services of the Armed Forces, the general recruiting pattern, particularly of qualified doctors and nurses, does not, so far at least, reflect the more encouraging trends which we have seen in other parts of the Services and to which I have referred. This is a matter of great concern.

I have therefore decided to set up an independent committee of inquiry to /Carry out a full-scale review of the arrangements for providing medical, dental and nursing services for the Armed Forces. We have been exceedingly fortunate in that Sir Edmund Compton has agreed to act as chairman, and eminent representatives of the medical, dental and nursing professions are to serve as members. One factor which has an important bearing on the attractions of the medical services for young doctors and dentists is the availability of post-graduate training. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has decided to set up a standing committee to keep under review all matters affecting postgraduate training of these officers and to ensure that the medical services are kept fully informed of developments over the whole of medical and dental training outside the Services. This committee, the chairman of which is Mr. Harold Edwards, an eminent consultant surgeon, and which also includes representatives of the medical and dental professions of course, had its first meeting quite recently.

Dr. Alan Glyn (Windsor)

Would not my noble Friend agree that the shortage of doctors in the Services is not due entirely to the terms of the Services but is to some extent a reflection of the general shortage of doctors throughout the country? All hospitals to my knowledge are under-staffed. Is there not a connection between the two? I welcome the suggestion about postgraduate training, which I am sure will encourage doctors to join the Services.

Lord Balniel

I am grateful for that welcome for the idea of postgraduate training, which I believe would be of great value. I am sure that my hon. Friend is correct. There is, of course, a shortage of doctors throughout the country, but it seems to be right to establish a special and well-qualified committee of inquiry, because the Armed Forces have special problems and I felt that it was right that they should be examined independently of the general Health Services problems.

Mr. James Ramsden (Harrogate)

My noble Friend did not say anything about the attitude of the B.M.A. Has he discussed the matter with the B.M.A., and does he have its full backing and cooperation in this interesting initiative?

Lord Balniel

I have not had a formal representation from the B.M.A., but it has invited me to lunch in a few days' time. I have no reason to suppose that it does not in any way support the setting up of this independent committee. Many of the members of our advisory committees are members of the B.M.A., and their advice is of the utmost value.

Many things go to make up whether a Serviceman is happy. One of the difficulties is separation from his family. There will always be some separation in Service life. Sailors have to go to sea. Soldiers and airmen are called away on operational tours. One has only to look at the strain which the situation in Northern Ireland has imposed on the Army to understand how men have to go on unaccompanied duty at short notice.

The problem must be tackled in two ways. First, we must ensure that separation is reduced to the minimum. The Navy, for which the problem of separation is probably the most serious, has recently reduced the maximum length of ship deployments from 12 to nine months at a stretch and from a total of 18 to 15 months in any 30-month period. It has also reduced unaccompanied shore postings from 15 to 12 months.

Secondly, we must see that everything possible is done to help the family which is separated. This is partly a question of money. Various cash allowances exist for this purpose, and, as announced in the last Defence White Paper, the number of free travel warrants available to married men when separated from their families has been increased. There must also be proper support for families while men are away. Young wives, as we all know, in stations overseas—in Germany, for instance—often have difficulty coping with domestic problems.

Mr. Carol Mather (Esher)

As my noble Friend has been looking into the problem of travel warrants for separated families, will he consider the problem of men serving in Northern Ireland when they have come from battalions posted in Germany and when their wives are living in Germany? When I was in Northern Ireland recently, this was one of the complaints raised with me. I was told that soldiers based in Britain but serving in Northern Ireland could get a free warrant to visit their families, but that those whose families were in Germany could get a warrant only as far as the United Kingdom and could not get a warrant for the extra bit on to Germany.

Lord Balniel

I know that my hon. Friend has recently visited units in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Army will be devoting much of his speech to the problems of Northern Ireland, and he will make a point of dealing with this matter then.

I was saying that help is often needed by wives who cannot cope with domestic problems when their husbands are away, and this help must come from within the unit itself. This is often the best form of help. The wives of officers have a long tradition of helping in such situations, and I should like to take this opportunity of thanking them for this voluntary work which they do so admirably. However, we are trying to extend the network of family support. The Army's Housing Commandant Organisation, which we announced in the last Defence White Paper, is, I believe, a valuable initiative in this direction. We will watch its progress to see whether it should be developed.

Separation arising from ships being at sea for lengthy periods is one of the main deterrents to re-engagement in the Royal Navy. A similar deterrent to re-engagement in both the Army and the Royal Air Force in Germany is the shortage of married accommodation. I think that every hon. Member who has visited B.A.O.R. and talked to soldiers and airmen there is aware of this problem.

We are, therefore, taking urgent steps to bring about a major improvement in the amount of family accommodation in Germany. Our new married quarter requirements are met by leasing blocks of what are called "multiple hirings", built and financed by private developers. There will be difficulties about getting land and finding developers who will undertake this work, but we are going to keep up strong pressure to avoid any delays.

In Berlin arrangements have been made for the provision of about 300 additional long-term hirings. This should solve the problem of married accommodation there. Whilst these quarters are being built, we shall take on more short-term hirings.

In Germany overall there is a shortage of about 4,300 married quarters. Approval has been given to acquire this number, and arrangements have already been made with private developers for nearly half of them. Agreements covering the balance required will be arranged as quickly as possible.

For the R.A.F. in Germany the married quarter situation has been made worse by the re-equipment of squadrons, which has caused a large build-up in station strengths. To meet the shortfall, authority has been given to acquire over 750 additional long-term hirings, some of which should now become available for occupation.

Our single soldiers in Germany are housed in a variety of accommodation, including some barracks built before the First World War, some during the Hitler era and some of post-war construction. The standards therefore vary widely, and our aim is to achieve a uniform standard more in keeping with present-day needs. This will mean alterations, modernisation, new construction and an extensive, though rather long-term, programme. This is being planned at the moment. The measures I have described indicate the extreme importance we attach to ensuring that the conditions of life of those who serve our country in the Armed Forces, where we can conceivably improve them, should be improved.

Mr. John Morris

The House will welcome the hon. Gentleman's statement with regard to the improvement in the married quarters situation. He has given figures for hirings in Germany, including Berlin. Over what period of time is it proposed to acquire them? Who will finance the cost?

Lord Balniel

The cost in Berlin is financed from the Berlin budget. As I have said, arrangements have been entered into for half the 4,300, and we are making arrangements for the balance to be entered into as soon as possible. I cannot give an accurate answer on the period of time they will take to build, but I repeat that we shall press forward as rapidly as we can. The long-term problem lies in the accommodation for the unmarried soldiers. Progress will be rapid in the provision of married quarters.

I think that the House would like to hear something about the improvements that we have made in the amenities for our troops in Northern Ireland. Their task there is difficult, dangerous and uncongenial. We owe it to them to make their tour of duty as reasonable as possible, but it is no good disguising the fact that for some units living conditions are not good and not easy.

We have arranged to provide travelling libraries, to send more television sets and film projectors, and to provide more funds for the purchase of sports kit and games equipment. Through the courtesy of the B.B.C., requests for and from the troops in the province are now included in the Sunday "Family Favourites" programme. I am also grateful to the Post Office staffs in London and Belfast who have arranged for the speedy installation of additional coin-operated telephone boxes in unit locations. A great deal of use is made of these by the troops telephoning their families at home, and I would like the Post Office to know how greatly this service is appreciated.

We are also considering ways in which very short leave passes of perhaps 24 hours only can be put to the very best use locally. Further, we are looking into the possibility of reducing air fares in order to enable more Servicemen to take slightly longer periods of leave away from Northern Ireland. I should also mention the very valuable co-operation we are receiving from the various voluntary organisations, which do much to contribute to welfare and to the entertainment of the troops on service in Northern Ireland.

But I in no way feel that we have done enough. The measures we have taken so far do no more than contribute to improving the conditions of the troops in Northern Ireland. We must constantly press forward with ideas which will ease their living conditions. But basically, of course, one comes back to the hard fact that real improvement will only be secured when they no longer have to patrol the streets of Belfast and when indiscriminate and mad bombings are a thing of the past.

I returned yesterday from Cyprus. As all hon. Members would agree, a visit to a defence establishment and talking to the soldiers, sailors and airmen there is enormously heartening and is invariably a great pleasure. The range of work which the Services now undertake and the highly professional skills they possess are very remarkable. Whether they are based at home or are at sea, whether they are in Northern Ireland or in the Far East or in Cyprus with the U.N. force, or in Germany, our Servicemen all have tremendous enthusiasm. As this is the last of the four annual Supply Day debates on defence, I end by expressing our support and admiration for the way they do the work that we ask them to do on behalf of this country.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. George Thomson (Dundee, East)

As the hon. Gentleman has said, this is the end of the year's defence season. The Leader of the House asked recently whether the new arrangements for these defence debates were agreeable to the House as a whole. I make it plain that we on this side not only accept the new arrangements but welcome them. They enable a wider spread of debates in time and, therefore, enable us to take account of developments in defence. Today we have been able to hear a first-hand and immediate report from the hon. Gentleman about the N.A.T.O. meeting in Lisbon last week. I think that our only criticism is that the debates are still too crowded. That is a matter for the usual channels and not for the hon. Gentleman or for me. For my part, I regret that, as we are now at the end of the defence season, there is about six months to go before the next defence White Paper is likely to be published. It would have been useful if we could have had a defence debate still in hand for use on the resumption of Parliament after the long Summer Recess.

Mr. Patrick Wall (Haltemprice)

That is a most important point. In the past we had three days—one on each Service—and another day on a special Vote, while in July we invariably had another day or two on defence. Does not the right hon. Gentleman expect another debate on defence in July?

Mr. Thomson

The procedure we have now existed before and we are now on what was normally the last of the defence Supply Days.

The hon. Gentleman's report about the N.A.T.O. meeting made it clear that this is a most important period for the Atlantic alliance. I congratulate Dr. Luns on taking up his post as Secretary-General of N.A.T.O., and at the same time I pay a tribute, which I know will be shared on both sides, to the work which Signor Brosio has done as Secretary-General for a considerable number of years.

Dr. Luns brings to his extremely responsible task at a most important time a long international experience—really quite unprecedented among Foreign Ministers of Western Europe. In addition, he brings qualities of temperament singularly appropriate to the post—qualities of robustness combined with flexibility and with a sense of humour which those of us who have had the good fortune to work with him will always cherish. During his long period as Foreign Minister of the Netherlands, he has had deep experience in East-West relations which will be particularly useful to N.A.T.O. at present.

It has often been said that N.A.T.O. operates in three D's—deterrence, defence if deterrence were to fail, and détente to reduce the burden of deterrence. At different times in the history of N.A.T.O., one element or another of these three has been uppermost in our minds. There is no doubt that in the forefront of our minds now is the possibility of N.A.T.O. contributing to a détente within Europe. I am glad to note that the N.A.T.O. communiqué was unique amongst N.A.T.O. communiqués in being almost entirely devoted to the possibility of better East-West relations.

It was as far back as 1968 that N.A.T.O. itself first proposed to the Warsaw Pact mutual and balanced force reductions. It has taken the Soviet Union a considerable time to respond. Mr. Brezhnev's recent reply came at an interesting period when Senator Mansfield's motion was before the United States Senate. We are bound to conclude that the Soviet Union could have sought to exploit the Congressional pressures but did not choose to do so. Equally, on the S.A.L.T. talks, the Soviet Union could have exploited the Congressional pressures, which I certainly found in Washington when I was there last month, to settle for a partial S.A.L.T. agenda confined to A.B.M. systems. It has not done so, and we have had the welcome development of an agreement on an agenda which covers both offensive and defensive aspects of strategic nuclear weapons.

One must always be cautious about interpreting the Kremlin, but we are bound to conclude that there must be those in the Soviet Ministry of Defence who argue that they have only to wait for unilateral American reductions and, given the European desire to limit the defence budgets, the Soviet Union would then gain military advantage at no cost. That argument is bound to be being put forward on the other side of the hill.

But one hopes that a wiser view of the Soviet Union's real interest will prevail—that mutual reductions offer real advantage not only to the West but to Eastern Europe as well, and that pushing one's opponents into one-sided reductions produces real risk for Europe as a whole. For example, unbalanced reductions would lead to a lower nuclear threshold and to demands for nuclear arms by non-nuclear members of N.A.T.O. That may not be a development desired by the Soviet Union any more than it is desired in Western Europe.

Having said that, I must draw attention to the fact that the technical problems of mutual and balanced force reductions are formidable. The withdrawal of manpower and armour over a few hundred miles of land does not equal the withdrawal of the same weight of manpower and armour over several thousand miles of sea. The essential concept to which we must cling in these complicated matters is the concept of equality of security; that is, that the reductions agreed in negotiations must not leave either side feeling less secure at the end of the day.

There remains the need to make progress over the Berlin problem as the most immediate task in détente. This is not to erect any precondition by the West but constitutes a simple and sensible test of the earnestness of Soviet intentions and one which would have immediate human benefits for those who live in West or East Berlin. I was in Bonn yesterday and had some conversations there about these problems. I was happy to find a good deal of confidence about the v/ay the Berlin talks are going.

N.A.T.O. communiqués tend, in my experience, to be rather dusty and theological documents, suitable for the kind of textual analysis which we normally apply to utterances of the Kremlin. It is the price we pay for achieving concensus among so many different Governments. However, I commend this communiqué to the House. It bears examination. It is more positive about détente than any of its predecessors, and it commits the alliance to a timetable for progress on Berlin and mutual and balanced force reductions, with the target of achieving a situation in which a constructive conference on European security becomes possible.

For our part, we hope that the Government will not in any way drag their feet in N.A.T.O. over this. We cannot afford to stand pat on the present balance of forces in Europe because the present balance will not last. That is the one thing that is certain in an otherwise uncertain world. The present balance will be changed before too long, either in a balanced or an unbalanced way. The Minister is absolutely right in saying, if I understood him correctly, that the pressures behind the Mansfield Resolution are deep in the present American situation and will persist. Those of us who value our alliance with the United States ought to hope that the United States will have the opportunity to divert resources from its defence budget to securing a more stable and satisfactory social base at home. That is the basis for a constructive American effort in the world at large.

President Nixon brought up some big guns to combat the Mansfield Resolution, but I do not think it passed unnoticed that they were all old guns. The voices of the younger generation were missing in the debate. Now is the time to work hard to convince the Soviet Union and its allies of the mutual advantage to Europe, East and West, of balanced force reductions.

I turn from N.A.T.O. to the important subject of manpower and recruiting. The House will have been glad to hear of the increase in the recruitment figures. I rather regretted that the Minister was not content simply to express satisfaction and take credit for the figures but instead felt that he ought to go on to make some partisan debating points. He put forward the theory that these figures were the result of departing from the frequent changes of policy of the Labour Government. The Government can certainly claim credit for not having frequent changes of policy. They can claim credit for not having any change of policy at all. They have taken advantage of the painful process of adaptation that this side of the House properly faced up to during its period of government, and they have adopted the overall policies in terms of defence budgets that we had come to the conclusion best fitted the economic resources of this country.

The welcome trend in the recruiting figures is due to a number of causes, and I do not wish to take away from whatever contribution the hon. Gentleman, who has accepted special responsibility for this, is entitled to claim. Equally, he conceded that the military salary which was introduced by the Labour Government and carried into its second instalment by the present Government has obviously made some contribution. I am bound to agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris), who intervened earlier, that these recruiting figures cannot be wholly unconnected with the steady rise in the level of unemployment.

For example, the figures for men deciding to remain in the R.A.F. and the Army show sharp increases, and I am bound to think that this must be because of the difficulties men now experience, not being sure that the kind of job they want in civilian life when they leave the Services will be available to them. In view of the Minister's remarks, I cannot resist noting that the only aspect of the Government's overall economic strategy that does seem to have produced positive results has been to do with recruiting for the Armed Services.

I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman when he argues that one of the most effective ways of attracting recruits to the Services is through the concept of the shorter-term engagement. The Army's three-year engagement for soldiers, and shorter-term commissions for all three Services, the Navy's new four-year engagement for long technical branches—all of these, if I understand the figures correctly, show a welcome increase.

I draw basically the same lesson from this as the Minister, that a short, initial term of service, which relies on the attractiveness of the Service to persuade the Serviceman to stay on is likely to be one of the best ways of attracting people to the profession of arms in modern conditions. Incidentally, people who come in for a short term and decide to stay on are the best advertisement to their friends of the benefits of a Service career.

From this side of the House I would like to welcome the additional announcement the Minister made about the committee of inquiry into shortages in the medical and dental branches. I would particularly like to welcome what is said about the efforts that the Government are carrying on to improve the arrangements with regard to separation and to make even better arrangements for the welfare of Service wives. We welcome on this side of the House, what seemed to be a substantial programme of new hirings. All these factors are constructive moves, bound to have a real and helpful effect on the problem of maintaining an adequate level of voluntary recruitment to our Forces.

I turn now to one or two areas in defence policy on which we would like some more information. I hope that the Minister will feel able to give us some details about the arrangements for the defence rundown in the Gulf. Now that the Government have decided, however coyly and quietly, to terminate the treaties in the Gulf and to adhere to the timetable of the last Government, we are overdue some physical details as to what is happening and what is to happen on the ground there. Is our land-based presence in Bahrein to be removed altogether? What arrangements are being made to dispose of the substantial fixed assets in Bahrein? What is to happen at Sharjah? Are we to retain facilities there in relation to the training areas and the ranges? What has been decided about the rôle of the Navy in the Gulf after the withdrawal? I assure my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) that these are not rhetorical questions but real questions seeking information. We will decide our views in the light of that information.

Mr. Mather

The right hon. Gentleman said that the Conservative Government followed the policy laid down by the Labour Government. What was it that made the Labour Government change their mind? They had been intending to stay out there until 1975, but suddenly they changed their mind. Can he explain how this happened?

Mr. Thomson

There is not a great deal of time available and the hon. Gentleman would do better to ask these awkward questions of his right hon. Friend. Why have they changed their mind? They are the Government now. We have answered often enough as to the reasons that made us adopt the policy that we did.

Finally, on the Gulf, what is proposed about naval deployment after termination of the treaties? There was a most alarming report in the newspapers the other day about difficulties between the Royal Navy and the Royal Iranian Navy. I hope that we can be assured that everything is being done to maintain the traditional friendship and co-operation between these two navies. As the Royal Navy withdraws from the Gulf it will be the Royal Iranian Navy which will be the main stabilising force there. Apart from that, we have very valuable overflying rights, as a CENTO ally, with Iran. If this newspaper report has any foundation—there was wild talk about shooting taking place between forces of the Iranians and ourselves—then it would be very worrying indeed.

May I ask the Minister to tell us whether the withdrawal from Singapore continues to go according to the plan and timetable laid down by this side of the House? May we be told whether the married families are coming out at the end of July, as was originally planned?

I would like now to raise a number of detailed points. Can the Government give some information about their reported plans to scrap the ceiling that the Labour Government put on the number of vessels remaining in service with the Royal Navy? There have been reports that the ceiling has now gone. What is not clear, if this is so, is what is to be done with the naval ships concerned.

Are they to remain in service or are they to be put into mothballs? If they are to remain in service we would be fascinated to know where the manpower is coming from to enable that to be done. If they are to be put into mothballs, what is the defence justification for this, and, in any case, what is the cost of it? Having got the cost from the Government, we would be grateful for some information as to what other economies will be made elsewhere to meet the extra cost of this operation, because the Government are operating within a fixed defence ceiling.

I turn now to the point raised by the Minister with regard to the Services' contribution in the present tragic situation in Bengal. We all welcomed the announcement he made about the contribution by the R.A.F., which is now taking place, to transport needed supplies and men and women to the stricken areas. We particularly welcomed the very good undertaking that he gave that if the United Nations or the World Health Organisation or the British charities need airlift capacity, then, if it is humanly possible, the Government will provide it. That, as I understand it, was the pledge he gave.

I want to raise a rather wider question which is emphasised by the cholera and refugee tragedy in Bengal. This is the need for a really effective United Nations disaster force. I am not talking simply about the need for United Nations funds to co-ordinate relief; I am thinking much more of something that goes beyond that, of the establishment, under United Nations auspices, of an organisation that would have available the physical forces needed to move relief supplies at short notice to stricken areas.

British Forces, as the Minister conceded, mounted a fine combined operation in the recent East Pakistan floods. We now have a new tragedy in that part of the world involving two Commonwealth countries. It would be wholly appropriate if the lead in this matter were to come internationally from the British Government and they were to take an initiative towards the setting up of an effective international disaster organisation which would have earmarked for it logistic forces from the national air forces of the member countries.

The Labour Government committed themselves in principle to earmarking British Forces for United Nations peacekeeping operations. I should like the Government to consider a United Nations disaster organisation which would be able to call on national forces specially trained and equipped for these purposes. The Pakistan tragedy emphasises for many hon. Members on both sides of the House that when these things happen there is first an inevitable delay, then confusion about what is needed, and sometimes, by the time the needs are established, the wrong kind of things are going out. I think that a more effective international organisation with earmarked forces would make a considerable difference to dealing with that kind of crisis.

Finally, I turn to the situation in Northern Ireland with which I understand the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army is to deal in more detail in winding up. It is tragic that this should be the main battlefront on which our troops are engaged. It is tragic that this should be taking place inside the United Kingdom. I do not think that in the postwar period our forces have faced a more difficult task than in Northern Ireland today, nor a task in which they have to show greater restraint in the face of provocation from factions on both sides of the argument there.

The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) earlier today mentioned reports that the Government were proposing the setting up of a permanent battalion of the Ulster Defence Regiment. The Minister confirmed that the Government, although they have taken no decision about the matter, are actively considering this possibility. I do not think that that kind of proposal is likely to contribute constructively to making things better in Northern Ireland. The sooner the Government abandon their consideration of this proposal, the better it will be. The Minister had some indication of the fears and suspicions which are aroused from the brief exchanges which took place this afternoon. However unjustified the fear may be, if the Government were to go ahead with this proposal for a full-time force the fear would persist that it would be a force which, in its composition, was biased towards one community in Northern Ireland and against another. We cannot get away from that as a hard fact.

The purpose of the debate is not to discuss the historic political causes of the Northern Ireland emergency, nor its political solution, even if I had any solution to offer to the Government, but it is legitimate to mention the basic principles which justify the deployment of British troops there. They are, first, that there should be no relaxation of the momentum towards establishing the same equal rights for all citizens in Northern Ireland as are enjoyed throughout the rest of the United Kingdom; secondly, that the responsibility for military policy in Northern Ireland rests clearly and unequivocally with the Government in Whitehall; and, thirdly, that Ministers in London should exercise their responsibility for policy in Northern Ireland, and should be seen to exercise that responsibility for policy.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), when Home Secretary, set an impeccable example of how this difficult task should be undertaken. Without being patron-ising, I do not think that the present Home Secretary can do better than strive to maintain the standards set by my right hon. Friend at that time.

I am sure that many hon. Members on both sides feel, as I do, a sense of frustration and dismay at our inability to make suggestions which might assist towards a solution in Northern Ireland. It is a desperately intractable problem. In such a situation one thing which this House can do is to make it plain to our Service men that they have the support and confidence of Parliament in carrying out their distasteful duties.

The use of military force in support of the civil power has at times in our history evoked strong feelings. One of the troubles in Northern Ireland is that too many on both sides are the prisoners of their memories and emotions. In the modern world, in a situation like that which prevails in Northern Ireland, our soldiers are, in the real sense of the term, the guardians of democracy and of the civilised decencies of life. When violence erupts, it is the professional soldier, professionally trained in that most difficult of skills—the minimum use of force—who prevents much more widespread suffering and loss of life taking place. The British Service man has earned and deserved a worldwide reputation for his skill in the minimum use of force. It includes spectacular episodes, like the confrontation with Indonesia, where, over a considerable period, aggression was restrained over a jungle frontier 1,000 miles long without a bomb ever being dropped, and lighter versions of the same difficult skill, which I remember as Commonwealth Secretary, when the sending in of the Marines not with fixed bayonets but with a band and bugles blowing did more than anything else to calm down an otherwise dangerous situation.

The soldiers in Belfast are doing a dirty and unpleasant job. Yesterday I talked to the commanding officer of one of the battalions. He described how his soldiers were doing an 18-hour day seven days a week—126 hours a week—with no rest or recreation in any meaningful sense of the term. They are separated from their wives and families in addition to the normal separation which they accept as part of their Army service when they have to go abroad. The soldiers are accustomed to roughing it, and often they like roughing it. It is one thing to rough it in challenging and romantic outdoor conditions overseas; it is another to rough it in conditions of urban squalor, washing in the chipped basins of an old-fashioned school, and jeered at by some of the children they are there to protect.

I think that the soldiers get thoroughly browned off at times at some of the critics on both sides of the argument in Northern Ireland who seem more anxious to catch them out than to recognise that the uncontrolled violence which would follow their departure would mean a bloodbath for the whole community in Northern Ireland. The soldiers, deploying controlled force, are the real safeguard for all the sections of the community in Northern Ireland. Perhaps the best contribution that the so-called silent majority of Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland could make to this dreadful problem would be to throw away their silence and give the security forces the support and the information which they need. In any case, in this final debate of this defence season in this Session, the message which should go out from this House is one of trust in the integrity and the professionalism of the Services in Northern Ireland.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall (Haltemprice)

I welcome the strong and wise words of the right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) in the concluding part of his speech when he spoke about Ulster. I very much hope that some of the events he hoped for there will take place. If not, heaven knows what the future holds for that part of the United Kingdom.

I should like to take up three points in the right hon. Gentleman's most interesting speech. The first concerns withdrawal from the Gulf. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be under the misapprehension that defence policy had not changed since he was in Government. I understand that the Foreign Secretary made an offer to the rulers in the Trucial sheikdoms that if they federated British assistance, both military and economic, would be given to them. As yet, we have not had a definite answer to that offer. Should the offer be rejected, I understand that our options are still open and the Government will decide whether to retain troops in that area and, if so, how many. I hope that my hon. Friend will confirm this point when he replies.

The other point which the right hon. Gentleman made under the same general heading concerned the question of a fixed ceiling for defence. We well recall that seven years ago his party fixed a defence ceiling of £2,000 million a year, at 1964 prices, for five years. That was the root cause of all the difficulties which the Labour Government faced in the defence debates in those six years. We on this side of the House have not proposed a fixed ceiling for defence for the next five years. We have merely set a target which we hope to achieve. It is not sacrosanct. I personally hope that it will be exceeded because I believe that in the next five years we should spend slightly more than we are now spending on defence.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the new arrangements for the defence debates. He concluded that, broadly speaking, he was in agreement with the new proposals, although they had certain defects. One defect is that we are having two defence debates on the first day after the return from the recess. I hope that this will not set a precedent which Whips' Offices will follow.

I was caught out by the change in the arrangements for the defence debates. During my 17 years' membership of the House I have always participated in these debates, particularly in the debate on the Navy Estimates. I made my maiden speech from the back benches and my maiden speech from the Opposition Front Bench on that subject. This year I missed that and other Service debates because I assumed, as I think many hon. Members on both sides of the House assumed, that the defence debates would be completed by Easter, and they were not. Unfortunately, I had made arrangements to complete a study of guerrilla warfare in Central Africa after Easter. I was therefore very pleased to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that I might speak on this most important subject as it is the last time that we shall be able to do so in this parliamentary year.

One good thing about missing debates is that we have time to study what our colleagues on both sides of the House have said. Hon. Members will probably agree that when we want to participate in a debate we think much more about our speeches and the dispensing of all the points which we wanted to make but which have been made by preceding speakers. When we have not participated in debates, we can read other Members' speeches with an unjaundiced eye. When I did that it seemed to me that three facts emerged from this year's defence debates.

The first concerned the Opposition's complaint about Conservative attacks on them when they were in office. I believe that the state of the Armed Forces today leaves a lot to be desired. If that is so—and I shall attempt to show that it is so—right hon. and hon. Members opposite must obviously take most of the blame. The present state of the Armed Forces shows that our protests were valid.

Secondly, it seems that the Front Bench speeches this year were much the same as Front Bench speeches over the past five years. They were fairly complacent. They failed to answer many of the positive questions which were asked. If that happens again the Government must expect similar attacks to be made on them as were made on the Labour Party when they were in office.

The third point which emerges from the debates is that the main theme this year has been welfare. The debate on the Army Estimates was dominated by Ulster and welfare. The debate on the Navy Estimates was dominated by welfare and the Royal Naval Detention Quarters. The debate on the Royal Air Force Estimates was dominated by welfare, with a certain amount being said about arms. I feared that today the debate would again be dominated by Ulster, but I am glad to say that that has not yet happened. Ulster is vitally important, but so are the activities of the Armed Forces outside that part of the United Kingdom which are equally or more important.

Having spent 16 years in the Royal Marines, I do not under-estimate the importance of welfare, particularly when it is associated with recruiting, which is vitally important for all three Services. But it is not the only matter of importance. Challenge, comradeship, responsibility and adventure are perhaps the best recruiting agents for the Services, together with, above all, the knowledge that the Services are equipped with the best possible weapons in adequate numbers. It is on that point—hardware—that I wish to concentrate my remarks.

There are serious hardware deficiencies which both parties, when in government, appear to do their best to cover up. They are not always honest with the House. I do not believe that the reason for that is bound up with security. Any potential enemy has only to read Service publications to find out what he wants to know. To illustrate my point, I should like to quote from one such periodical.

I wish first to quote from Michael Chichester's column in the latest May issue of "Navy". I read two short paragraphs. The first states: it now appears clear that is Government, like its predecessor, has no overall plan for the future of the Senior Service, has as yet made no decisions regarding the new ships and weapons which it so urgently needs, and is just as reluctant to increase the naval budget so as to restore the harm done in the past six years. Further on, this point is made to which I hope the House will pay attention because it is valid: It is a sobering and humiliating prospect that unless something is done soon, by 1978 Britain will possess no naval long-range reconnaissance and strike system, the primary antisubmarine weapon of her surface ships will be of Australian design, her torpedoes will be American, and her only surface-to-surface missile French. The Services are far more important than party politics, and the Government must be more open with the House on these important topics.

I should like to illustrate further what I mean and to deal with some of the defence deficiencies in the Royal Navy. I refer first to surface-to-surface weapons. The 1966 White Paper stated: We shall develop a small surface-to-surface guided weapon for use against missile firing ships. The 1967 White Paper said: Extensive studies have been made of the possible ships or weapon systems which the Royal Navy will require as replacements in the Fleet of the middle and late 1970s. The 1968 White Paper said: Studies are in hand to improve the effectiveness of submarine-launched anti-ship missiles. In 1970, the Labour Government's last White Paper said: Studies are on hand on anti-ship guided missile systems. This year, the Conservative Government's White Paper said: Major projects include studies of anti-ship guided missiles, including submarine launched weapons. In other words, five years of studies have resulted in Exocet, a French weapon costing, I understand, £70,000 apiece for which, we are informed by the Press, a £70 million order has been signed between the British and French Governments. I understand that this weapon is not to be built on licence, although components are to be built in this country. Therefore, we have no strategic control over it. I do not suggest that the French would refuse to supply it to us—as some British Governments have refused to supply weapons to other friendly countries—but if it is our only surface-to-surface missile it would be much better if it could be constructed under licence in this country.

But that is not the main point that I wish to make. The range of the Exocet is short—about 20 to 30 miles, probably less. It is therefore excellent for use against fast patrol boats armed with the Soviet-manufactured Styx missile, which has a range of 18 miles. Which is the missile that sank the Israeli destroyer "Eilat". But it is useless against the Soviet missile Shaddock, which has a range of 200 to 300 miles. The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) made this point very strongly on 4th May when he asked what counter the Royal Navy had to this Russian surface-to-surface missile. He received the reply, such as it was, in c.1301, that some of the counters were Sea Slug, Sea Dart, AS 12 and "Ark Royal"—in other words, aircraft carriers.

Sea Slug and Sea Dart are surfact-to-air missiles with a surface-to-surface capability. Their range is a secret, but it is well known that the range of Sea Slug does not exceed 30 miles at the outside and that that of Sea Dart does not exceed 40 miles. What good are those weapons against a ship armed with a surface-to-surface missile with a range of over 200 miles?

AS12—the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) will remember this argument, because we have had it out in the House before—has a range of 7,500 yards. It is a wire-guided missile controlled from a helicopter. Is he really telling the House that this weapon can be of any use against Soviet cruisers and destroyers?

With "Ark Royal", we come to the nub of the problem. We are glad that the Government have decided to run on "Ark Royal" for at least the majority of this decade. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said, she will carry Phantoms, Buccaneers and Gannets. But naval fixed-wing flying training has finished and we have often asked two questions. The first is, who will fly these aircraft while the aircraft carrier remains, and who will fly the vertical or short take-off aircraft which will take over from them—we hope—in later generations? I am referring to vertical take-off aircraft operating from the new cruisers and other ships.

What answer have we had?

Lord Balniel

My hon. Friend has raised this matter with me before, as to who will fly the vertical take-off aircraft. But he has answered it in his own words. He said that "we hope" that they will be operating. As I have explained before, no decision has been taken to operate the vertical take-off aircraft. Evaluation trials have been proceeding, but no firm decision has been taken, so it would be improper of me to answer a hypothetical question.

Mr. Wall

I am very glad that my hon. Friend has made this point since I am coming on to that matter. I maintain that, as we are going to phase out aircraft carriers, during this decade, since the Labour Party, when in power, decided to phase out the aircraft carriers at the end of this year, and since neither party will provide surface-to-surface weapons, this decision should have been taken a long time ago. The Harrier has been in gestation—not in operation—for over ten years. But it has been bought and operated by the American Navy and Marines, while we—the people who produced it—have not been able to finish the trials. There must be something wrong in this.

When asked who would fly these aircraft, the Under-Secretary of State said on 29th October that it was still under review. On the same date, the Minister of State said: When the fixed wing flying task has been completed, the Fleet Air Arm will continue to operate rotary wing aircraft from frigates and larger ships."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th October, 1970; Vol. 805, c. 404–5.] On 19th November, the Minister of State said: What is still under review is a deck backup for the Fleet Air Arm."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1970; Vol. 806, c. 1533.] On 26th November, he said: The question which service would operate them does not therefore arise yet."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 26th November, 1970; Vol. 807, c. 186.] On 8th March this year, the Minister of State, when I asked him who would provide the maintenance and deck crews for the aircraft operating in the remaining one or two aircraft carriers, said that he would let me know, and very kindly wrote to me. He said that presumably both Royal Navy and R.A.F. pilots would operate towards the end of the life of "Ark Royal". It has now been decided that the deck and maintenance crews should be provided by the Royal Navy.

The other question that I asked him in the House was how much experience the R.A.F. pilots who will fly these aircraft will have, since I understand that the R.A.F. has said that it will be one tour in ships, and one only. I cannot—obviously—expect a clear answer to that at the moment, but if the R.A.F. are only to fly one tour from H.M. ships, they will not have any experienced senior officers. Will there be R.A.F. pilot officers with more experienced Royal Naval pilot officers in charge of them? This is in some ways a very good inter-Service operation but it would be very difficult to implement.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Bradford, West)

My hon. Friend and I have an identity of purpose on this point. We had a fairly fruitful debate on the subject on 28th May, just before the recess. With vertical take-off aircraft of the Harrier type, it does not matter quite so much as it did in the past, because the basic skills of take-off and landing, for example, are just the same essentially as they are on land. One does not need the arrester gear, catapults or the mirror landing aid and so on, or the same experience.

So it could make sense—I am sympathetic to my hon. Friend, as I always am—to have a proportion of the squadron crews as naval officers to make sure that there is naval experience, but we should have the economic and logistic advantage of the flying training and backup being provided by the R.A.F.

Mr. Wall

I have always been in favour of both the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force operating planes from H.M. ships—aircraft carriers or other forms of ship. But if fixed wing training is to stop in the Royal Navy, that puts a complete stopper on any future fixed wing flying by Royal Naval pilots, because they will not be coming through the sausage machine and will therefore not be available.

Therefore, unless something is done about this and a definite decision made in future, the vertical take-off aircraft which are being deployed in the Fleet are bound to be flown by the Royal Air Force. That is an extraordinary decision, which I believe will not work. And I think that naval opinion will back me up.

I apologise for boring the House by mentioning these lists of replies, but it is important to note how many times certain questions have been asked and how long certain decisions seems to have been delayed. To return to my list, on 4th May, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, in the debate on the Navy Estimates, said: … the Fleet Air Arm hopes that there will be Harriers in the Fleet and that it will fly them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1971; Vol. 816, c. 1299.] On 28th May, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson), first, how we counter the surface-to-surface missiles of the Soviets, the Streia with a range of 100 miles, or the Shaddock with a range of 200 to 300 miles, and second what happens after the aircraft carriers have been phased out. In other words, he asked the same question that I am asking today.

He was told at the end of that debate first, Shore based aircraft for maritime operations will be provided by the R.A.F…. From what bases? What priority will the R.A.F. give to the protection of shipping and maritime operations, and with what aircraft? If we are talking about the South Atlantic and the Indian Ocean, which are our main trading routes today, I suggest that there are no bases from which existing aircraft can operate, with the possible exception of Nimrod, unless my right hon. Friend is thinking of having bases on the continent of Southern Africa.

On the question of vertical take-off aircraft, my hon. Friend got the reply that V.S.T.O.L. aircraft … would obviously be valuable and would complement shore-based aircraft and the ships' own weapon systems. To put it crudely, that is absolute rubbish. Without vertical or short take-off aircraft, the Fleet of the future would be unable to defend itself.

Winding up the debate on 28th May, the Under-Secretary of State said: We are, naturally, concerned to establish whether the costs of deploying aircraft of the V.S.T.O.L. type would be commensurate with the return which would be obtained from such an investment, measured in terms of operational capability compared with meeting the task with shore based aircraft"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th May, 1971; Vol. 818, c. 769, 770–1.] To put it crudely again, this is Civil Service claptrap. We have few bases, few aircraft, the R.A.F. are bound to give a low priority to maritime protection, and even in the future the M.R.C.A., if it is ever built, will not have sufficient range to perform this task. Unless the Fleet of the future can carry an aircraft or a surface missile, it will be annihilated. Every naval officer knows this. It is time the Government of the day faced up to it.

So much for aircraft carriers. What about submarines? We have some excellent submarines, but only three of them of the Polaris variety are available now that the fourth is being refitted. I remind my right hon. Friend of the pressure that we exerted when we were in opposition for a fifth Polaris submarine to be built to make the deterrent credible. We may have to choose between going for a fifth Polaris submarine or Poseidon. One or other will be needed if the deterrent is to remain credible.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) said: The prime need for the Navy is to shift the emphasise of the shape and structure of the Fleet towards submarines"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1971; Vol. 816, c. 1201.] I am sure he is right. He advocated the building of more Hunter Killer submarines, but he was unfortunately not able to do much about that when in Government. When we were in opposition we made the same case, though it was difficult for the Labour Government to make strides forward in this connection because of the devaluation crisis with which they were faced. However, I gather that nothing has been done since we returned to power.

Originally, the programme was for one new Hunter Killer a year. The Labour Government lengthened that time-scale to one every 18 months. I gather that that schedule is being maintained. Is that time-scale to continue? Are our words in opposition to be meaningful, now that we are in office?

Perhaps the Government feel that their first task must be properly to arm the existing four Polaris, nine Hunter Killer and 27 conventional submarines with something better than the conventional Mk. 8 torpedo which started life in the 'thirties. At least I can congratulate my right hon. Friend for having obtained £50 million from the Treasury for research and development and for giving priority to the Mk. 24 torpedo. I urge him to conduct further studies, if I cannot urge him to seek more expenditure, and to consider what the hon. Member for Sutton said about the need for a submarine-launched air flight missile. This type of missile appeared and disappeared in various White Papers published by the Labour Government. So far we have heard nothing more about it. It costs £25 million to build a submarine. It must be provided with the most modern weapons, and this is particularly true of the hunter killer.

I can sum up my remarks so far by saying that during this decade the Service looks like having only one aircraft carrier, no long-range, shore-based aircraft, possibly no V.S.T.O.L. at sea and, therefore, no answer to the Soviet long-range guided missiles. All our submarines are equipped with slow, semi-obsolete torpedos. In other words, we have fine ships but poor weapons, and are contemplating throwing away the Fleet Air Arm before developing a surface to surface missile.

I say that we have fine ships, but do we? Compare the ships that we are building with their counterparts in other navies. Our "Devonshires", guided missile destroyers, are armed with one sea slug and the Type 42 with one Sea Dart. The U.S.S. "Bainbridge", on the other hand, is armed with two Terriers, while the Soviet "Kresta", "Kynda", "Kashin" and "Krupny" are all armed with double-ended guided weapons. In other words, because their vessels are armed at each end, they can take on at least two targets at once. Our ships can engage only one target at a time. I thought that we had learned our lesson from the last war about the need to engage two, if not four, targets simultaneously.

Our "Bristol", of 5,650 tons, is the biggest guided missile destroyer we have under construction. She has one Sea Dart, two 40 mm anti-aircraft guns, one 4.5 in. Ikara and Limbo as antisubmarine weapons, and one helicopter carrying anti-submarine torpedos. Compared with that, the "Vladivostok", of 6,000 tons, carries two Shaddock missile launchers, two GOA surface to air missile launchers, four 57 mm anti-aircraft guns for anti-submarine operations, two 12-barrelled and four six-barrelled launchers, 10 torpedo tubes and a helicopter. If it came to a fight, in which ship would the Minister rather find himself? In other words, on very much the same hull, the Russians are carrying twice the armament. This is not only a question of expense but one of design.

On the question of expense, I echo the plea that was made during the last debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) when she asked what had happened to the fast patrol boats in which we used to lead the world. She pointed out that we had only two left and that they were both in reserve. She was told by the Minister that the trials of three boats bought as target towers from Vospers were now taking place but an order for further vessels was probably not worthwhile. Meanwhile, the Russians are going ahead with their "Osas' and "Komars" and are selling them to small navies throughout the world.

I will not delay the House by considering at length the question of hovercraft and hydrofoils. I would like to be told, however, what we are doing on this score. A great deal of experimentation work into hovercraft and hydrofoils is taking place in the United States, not to mention the Italian, French and other navies. This development might prove the answer to the fast submarine for anti-submarine purposes.

I have detained the House sufficiently long without spending much time on the remaining Services. My right hon. Friend will have heard me refer in the past to the need of the Army for modern tactical nuclear weapons. The doctrine of a flexible response, which is now the N.A.T.O. doctrine, must depend on the credibility of tactical nuclear weapons.

We now have the 8 in. howitzer, which is to be tracked and Honest John. Production of the Honest John in the United States has ceased and it is being replaced by Lance. The ranges are 68 miles for Lance as against 23 miles for the Honest John, and Lance has a crew of six whereas Honest John has a crew of 12. Lance has inertial guidance as against free flight, and has a mobile and air-dropping capability. It will be in full production this year. What will the Government do to re-equip B.A.O.R. with modern tactical weapons in the years to come?

When we come to consider the question of support, the Harrier is undoubtedly the best aircraft in the world. It is now being operated in B.A.O.R., though its mobility will not be fully exploited without a medium-lift helicopter for the supply of fuel and missiles. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) emphasised this in our last debate when he said that he understood that orders for the Chinook or Sikorsky 53 would be made shortly. I do not believe that that has been confirmed. May we be reassured on this point today? My hon. Friend also suggested that if these helicopters were to be ordered, they should be ordered from European countries where they are being built under licence from the Americans rather than from the U.S.A. direct, but he had no answer.

Now that B.A.O.R: is almost wholly equipped with the Chieftain, which is probably the best tank in the world, what thought is being given to the next generation of tanks? Are we to have a European-designed one? Are we co-operating with the Germans or French in a post-Chieftain European venture? I hope that we are, and I certainly hope that we will be given information on this point. Unfortunately, we have not been very successful in selling the Chieftain to other countries, excellent though it is.

We do not seem to have sold Chieftain except I understand to Iran but have sold Centurion, but there has been a Press report that ammunition for Centurions bought some years ago by Middle East countries is now not only in short supply but is restricted and will not be available in quantity for several years. Is this true? If it is not true, the report should be denied. This is the kind of thing that makes countries refrain from buying British weapons.

My only point on the R.A.F. is the lack of long-range strike reconnaissance aircraft. The TSR2 initiated by a previous Conservative Government was cancelled. The Fill was substituted, and that was cancelled, and now we are told that our whole future depends on the MRCA. I am sure that it will be a first-class aircraft, but I repeat what I have said many times to the House, that the range of the MRCA is said to be about half that of the TSR2. It is questionable whether this is enough for the European theatre. It certainly is not enough for carrying out the rôle now given to the R.A.F. of protecting shipping in the maritime regions of the world. I understand that the final decision on the MRCA will be made this year. I know this aircraft is a compromise between the requirements of three nations, and I hope that something can be done about the range. This is the strike reconaissance aircraft on which the R.A.F. will depend in the 1980s; it must be right; and I suggest again that the present design range is far too short.

To sum up, we have a missile gap which cannot be filled because we have not sufficient long-range aicraft or bases from which they can operate and because we have not developed—I think rightly—a surface-to-surface missile. We have excellent submarines, but inefficient weapons to use from them. Should it ever come to the test, the Army deterrent will be not be credible unless the Army is rearmed with modern tactical nuclear weapons, and the R.A.F. must have a long-range strike reconnaissance aircraft.

I am not suggesting that these deficiencies are the fault of my right hon. and hon. Friends, who have only just assumed office. I regret the complacency which we have heard from the Labour Ministers for six years and which is being echoed from the Opposition Front Bench this year. I detect what has been termed the dead hand of the Treasury, which all Ministers fell, but I am sure the Service Ministers appreciate that they must fight for the hardware which is essential for defending this country. We shall expect answers to these questions by next year. This will be regarded by the Services as the test of the Government. The Services are looking carefully at what will happen during the next few months, but I have complete confidence that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues will respond to this challenge.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. Roy Hattersley (Birmingham, Sparkbrook)

I rise to make a brief speech about one specific aspect of defence policy, which was touched on briefly by the Minister and which I hope will be touched on in more detail by the Under-Secretary when he winds up, and that is the rôle of the Army in Northern Ireland, and, more particularly, the potential political pressures exerted on the Army in Northern Ireland.

By the Army I mean both the Regular Army and the Ulster Defence Regiment. When two years ago the Army first went on to the streets of Londonderry and Belfast some things were already clear. The first was that it was obviously the duty of the British Army to preserve law and order, life and property in what was and will remain part of the United Kingdom. The second was that the Army would behave with a dignity and discipline of which we should all be proud, and that has been confirmed over and over again during the last two years. It was equally obvious that the Army would make occasional mistakes and receive a degree of criticism disproportionate to those mistakes. I will not weary the House with examples of the criticisms that were received during my years as Minister of Defence. They have come from both sides in the Northern Ireland dispute and not least from some of the most radical figures in Northern Irish politics who were most vocal in their demands that the Army should go into Londonderry and Belfast in July and August of 1969. I believe that the Army is capable of demonstrating the almost invariable invalidity of those criticisms, and showing that without its presence in Northern Ireland we should have had a holocaust of unimaginable proportions.

What now concerns me is a growing political pressure of another sort on the Army. I do not think it will be possible for the Under-Secretary of State to say that that pressure either does not or might not exist, but I hope it will be possible for him to say that that pressure will be resisted. If he says that, I will accept it unequivocally and at once. By political pressure I mean this. Over the last two years there has been a growing desperation in the Unionist Party in Northern Ireland, which is overtly political to a degree which I have not known in any other political organisation in any part of the world during the 20 years I have been involved in politics.

Senior Ministers of the Stormont Government freely talk about what must be done to preserve their Government in office, as if this were the total and only obligation facing the people and the Government of Northern Ireland. In the last six months we have heard continually and publicly the comment that unless the Army does this thing or that thing the Stormont Government cannot survive. This was particularly so three months ago during the week of what was described as the I.R.A. funeral, when, to some embarrassment and against the law of the United Kingdom, men who had been shot by the British Army whilst performing a lawless and deplorable act were buried with considerable pomp, and the Army was unable to intervene. At that time it was openly said in Northern Ireland that if the Army let such an event pass again the Government could not survive.

I am strongly in favour of Mr. Faulkner and his Government surviving. I see no virtue in Mr. Faulkner and his Government other than that what might come after would almost certainly be a good deal worse. Notwithstanding that qualified support, I want him to survive. But it is impossible for the Army to tailor its tactics and strategy to make sure that he does. By its tactics and strategy I mean the insistence which I suspect is being heard more and more in the Joint Security Committee that the Army takes what is called an increasingly tough line.

We know that we shall be told by the Under-Secretary of State that the Army remains under the control of the Government in Whitehall and that the decisions on how the Army conducts itself will be taken by the Ministry of Defence and by Her Majesty's Government here in Britain. I want the Under-Secretary of State to assure us that, whilst those decisions are in fact and in law taken by the Government here in Whitehall, they will be taken as a result of what seems practical and sensible in terms of a military operation and not in terms of what seems necessary as a public relations demonstration to prove that the new Government of Northern Ireland are a good deal more tough on terrorism than their predecessors. That is not only necessary in military terms but for the future survival of a law-abiding Northern Ireland.

If the Army is to succeed in what it must do in Northern Ireland, it can only do so by maintaining what it has at this moment, the confidence of 95 per cent. of the law-abiding people of the six counties. It is essential, therefore, that on occasions the Army does not and cannot pursue the terrorists, urban guerrillas, thugs and assassins, whose presence we all deplore and whose swift demise we all hope for, with the rigour and determination which could be applied were the Army operating in a different context. The Army cannot afford to alienate even a small proportion of the law-abiding majority of the people in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will give a categorical assurance that the Army, which I believe wants to operate on a sensible and moderate basis, will not be subject to the pressures which are building up but which it is easy for the Under-Secretary of State to say will be resisted and must be resisted.

My second point concerning the Ulster Defence Regiment is in a sense identical to the one I have made about the Regular Army. The Ulster Defence Regiment worked because it achieved a great deal of support amongst the people of Northern Ireland. It achieved that support because it was thought of, at least in the minority community, as being the necessary concomitant to the abolition of the Special Constabulary. It had that support amongst the frightened minority because of the conscious steps we took to centralise arms, to ensure that the regiment was not in any way related to what had gone before, to ensure that the regiment recruited as many Catholics as reasonably possible—and I, as I believe the present Minister has done, went out of my way to encourage Catholics to join—as a demonstration of the multi-religious nature of that organisation and as an assurance that that, together with its control from Whitehall, would ensure that it was not a weapon of sectarianism.

A good deal of the confidence that has been achieved amongst the minority and the majority communities in Northern Ireland could easily be dissipated if that body again becomes an instrument for political decisions. To take an example, during the last eighteen months there have continually been attempts to establish a ceiling for that regiment's recruitment in no way related to how many men could be recruited and how many could be put on the streets, but related to what would make some people feel was a demonstration of toughness by the British Government—not X thousand, which was a reasonable prospect, but X plus Y thousand, which sounded a nice large number related to the size of the B Specials which have been abolished, but not related to a realistic appraisal of what needed to be done and what could be done.

I hope the Under-Secretary of State will give an assurance that that sort of decision—in a sense a detail but in another sense crucial—will be taken according to operational merits rather than according to what seems to be acceptable to the Government of Northern Ireland and what makes them feel more politically secure as opposed to the Province feeling fundamentally more secure.

This brings me to my last point which concerns the Regular battalion. The confidence of the minority community in Northern Ireland, which is crucial if we are to make progress, cannot be maintained if such a battalion is created. Already a good deal of confidence has been dissipated by this proposal first seeing the light of day in newspapers during the weekend and being confirmed by the Minister this afternoon. It will not do for the Government to deal with such sensitive matters by off the record Press briefing. The similarity of the stories in different newspapers on the same day can lead to no other conclusion. It will not do for such sensitive matters to be floated in this way and then confirmed, almost reluctantly, by the Minister three days afterwards.

Already a great deal of confidence in the Ulster Defence Regiment has been dissipated by this step, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will give us a robust assurance that he is convinced that the future of security in Northern Ireland depends on the minority community feeling a continued confidence in the Ulster Defence Regiment and that the. Ulster Defence Regiment will continue to be operated according to military obligations rather than short-term political necessities.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Julian Critchley (Aldershot)

I hope the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) will forgive me if I do not follow his interesting and important speech, but I suspect there are enough hon. Members on "both sides of the House representing Northern Ireland constituencies to keep that subject going for some time. I hope too that my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) will forgive me if I do not follow the interesting points he made in his excellent speech.

I have only four points to make. They are minor ones, but they are exclusively of interest to my constituency of Aldershot.

My first point is that the White Paper on Local Government Reorganisation has put a question mark over the future of the three military members of the Aidershot local authority. This is a unique fact. We are the only local government authority to have military members, and, save for Oxford and Cambridge, there is no other local authority with any similar arrangement.

The three military members form one eighth of the council, if one leaves out the aldermen, of whom there are eight, and it is the view of the Aldershot Borough Council that the military membership should be retained. There are more soldiers than civilians in Aldershot, and the soldiers occupy physically a larger area of the town than do the civilians.

There is an immense military investment: some £30 million has recently been spent on new buildings, and I believe that there is contribution to the rates of some £415,000 a year made by the Treasury. Whatever may be the fate of Aldershot after the Secretary of State for the Environment has finally decided on the reorganisation of local government, we trust that this unique and very satisfactory arrangement of having three military members will be retained.

My second point has to do with the Army medical services, and especially with the decision taken by the former Government to build a new military hospital in Woolwich. I hope that the committee of inquiry into the medical services of the Armed Forces, which has been referred to in the debate, will shortly come out against that decision. The decision is strongly disliked by very many Army consultants, as it could not fit into any three-Service amalgamation of the medical services, which I believe to be desirable in the medium term.

Nor does Woolwich enjoy advantages of geography in any way comparable with those of Aldershot or, indeed, with those of a military hospital in the Surrey area. In view of the opposition to the proposal, to build a new military hospital at Woolwich, I wonder whether it might not be wiser to postpone work until the views and recommendations of the newly set-up committee are known.

My third point is that there is now a proposal which comes from the garrison in Aldershot, for the renovation of Rush-moor, which many of my hon. Friends will remember as being the place where a number of remarkable Army displays took place in the years before the war. I hope that my hon. Friend will look favourably upon this suggestion for the renovation of Rushmoor, and will use his influence to see it is brought about.

Finally, there is the question of the construction of a lido in that part of Aldershot which is occupied, if that is the right word, by the Army. Any such lido would be open to the civilian population of Aldershot, so that any advantage to the Service families would be widely shared. I understand that the Royal Engineers have a scheme whereby they could build the lido, or help in its construction, and the Commander of the Aldershot Garrison, Brigadier Mann, has opened a fund to bring this lido into existence. I am told that £100,000 is needed; and that the Department for the Environment has been approached. I hope that here, too, my hon. Friend will intervene, and use all the influence he can muster to extract from the Secretary of State a handsome contribution so that this facility may be granted to Aldershot, both civil and military.

6.19 p.m.

Miss Bernadette Devlin (Mid-Ulster)

I make no apology for returning to the subject of the Armed Forces in Northern Ireland, even though hon. Members opposite seem quite upset. Although they have 9,000 British soldiers on what they claim to be British territory, if not a colony as such, we have a situation so extreme and unusual in our democracy that its merits taking up all their defence debates.

It has always struck me personally as being a particularly naive attitude on the part of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides who debate political matters as though the Armed Forces and defence policy were something apart from politics. We talk of defence and the Army's rôle when political solutions are necessary, but one has to accept before attempting even to understand the Northern Ireland situation that the armed forces of any Government are people who are trained, disciplined and organised for one particular purpose, which is, with the aid of the many delightful weapons mentioned earlier, to enforce the political decisions of Governments which make up their minds to act one way or the other.

That being so, I repeat, although it upsets other hon. Members, that the rôle of the British Army in Northern Ireland is not and cannot politically and objectively be seen to be a humanitarian rôle. The Army there cannot be seen as a body of men determined to do good and prevent one section of a Christian Community living in the Middle Ages from slaughtering the other section. The rôle of the British Army in the North of Ireland is to maintain in Northern Ireland the British economic and imperialist interest. The fact that from time to time the Army has stopped mindless militants and violence is secondary to the rôle of the British Army of maintaining the British interest in Northern Ireland and in other parts of the world.

That brings me to the subject of the Ulster Defence Regiment. When some of us debated the relevant Bill and fought late into the night and the following morning against the setting up of any such regiment we were given complete assurances at that time by the Labour Government and by Tory Party Front Bench spokesmen about the rôle of the Ulster Defence Regiment. We were told that it was an essential part of a reorganisation of the police and of the defence strategy of Northern Ireland; that it was a part-time regiment which would not be asked to become more than that or to serve outside Northern Ireland. We were told that it was something better than the old B Specials and the paramilitary force, and that, as usual, it was necessary to maintain the peace.

Since 1969 the defence policy in Northern Ireland has shown itself singularly to have failed. There are 9,000 soldiers there, and it may well offend the niceness of Opposition spokesmen that British soldiers have to wash their faces in chipped basins in schools while school kids jeer at them. Such hon. Members would do well to remember that to a large extent the troubles in Northern Ireland come from the fact that ordinary people—who do not wear uniforms, who are not soldiers—have had to live in those conditions, and have had people jeer at them for their economic position in society. If something were done to change that position, we could well bring home those ill-treated and ill-cared for soldiers and give them decent productive jobs.

But if the Minister thinks that the political pressures applied not just by the Unionist Government but of necessity applied by the British Government on the Army in Northern Ireland can solve the problem there, he is mistaken. If he thinks that he can meet terrorism, however mistaken that terrorism is, by the polite terrorism of statements in the columns of the Sunday Mirror, which everyone knows come from the Minister and the Ministry, and out-terrorise a terrified people by saying that he is setting up the Ulster Defence Regiment as a permanent force within the Army, he is doing nothing but repeat policies formerly declared in this House; to wit, the setting up of the Trucial Oman Scouts in order to maintain an imperialist policy in someone else's country which time and experience have shown does not work.

I tell the Minister that before this debate ends he should make a categorical retraction of any suggestion that such a force will be set up, because it will be seen that the majority of people, respectable people, in spite of their religions, are not supporting the British Army in Northern Ireland. Their reasons are different. Those people are on different sides of the religious and political argument, but it is a fallacy to say that 95 per cent. of them want the presence of the British Army. They do not.

If the Minister thinks that he can get away with it, all he will do will be to succeed in creating a situation in which young men who join the Army because they cannot get a living wage in Coventry, Glasgow and Birmingham may be brought home in their coffins to their mothers, while others in Northern Ireland are taken to Belfast and Derry. An active imperialist Army will be needed to retain British interests there. This sort of policy has not worked in the past, and it will only give increased credibility to the existing wave of terrorism. I say to the Minister: on his head be it.

6.27 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchell (Aberdeenshire, West)

I had not expected to follow the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), otherwise I would probably have gone home earlier. I attended one of these Irish debates once before and was not called, and most of the points I had then were on matters of defence. I had hoped to go over some of the points introduced earlier by my noble Friend, and to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) referred.

Like the hon. Lady, I am too young in this House to be able to decide whether this new cycle of defence debates is any good. I have found it utterly frustrating, because the larger strategic issues of defence are invariably overshadowed by the tactics of the latest "banging on" going on at present. Tonight it is Ireland, so we are back to dirty washhand basins, but the fact remains that if we are to have a proper defence policy were must have a far broader look at it in Parliament.

My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) talked of his 17 years in Parliament and 16 years in the Royal Marines. I have had only 25 years in the British Army, but I know that during that time one of the most irritant factors has been the failure of Members of Parliament to debate defence as we hoped it would be debated; instead they have got themselves tied up in minor tactics. There are more minor tactical battles fought on the Floor of the House of Commons than ever there are on the battlefield.

If we are to look at the meaning of war and peace in the world today we find that both have changed but, paradoxically, both are becoming more alike. In this nuclear age war is an expensive luxury which only the weak can truly afford. The strong cannot successfully fight the weak any longer, because modern advanced societies like our own lack the will to match ideologically, and their nuclear destructive arsenals are neutralised because they are unusable. That is a fact now of military life and of diplomatic behaviour. Because of our new global nervous system, which one would refer to as mass communication, this age, which people said will be free of war, is likely to be dominated by what the hon. Lady was talking about just now, though perhaps she did not know it—or she may have known it—as an escalating global anarchy. It is global anarchy with which we are faced in Ireland today, and which I shall talk about in a few moments because the hon. Lady has brought up the subject of Ireland. Co-operation obviously is the answer, and we were all impressed, as we have always been, about the consultative ties which were discussed earlier in the debate by the Minister and by the right hon. Member for Dundee, East, about the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, about the Conference on the Security of Europe, the Mutual and balanced Force reductions, the Berlin four-Power conversations, the Middle East, the aim to get a peace initiative, and even now the great defence advantages, which have sprung up in the last two weeks, of going into the E.E.C. First we had the economic reasons, and now we have the defence argument for going into the E.E.C.

Global anarchy is as relevant to Ireland as to anywhere else. The point where co-operation becomes impossible in international and diplomatic terms is where these urban guerrilla forces are involved. My personal theory and practice on the subject of terrorism is this: the only way to destroy terrorism is to terrorise the terrorists, and the difference between what we are talking about in this House most of the time—that is, the open palm of peace which we all want, or the clenched fist of war which we have all got to pay for—lies, if I may coin a phrase, in the form of a limp handshake. If one does not go for one or the other, it is a limp handshake. If we get involved in a military situation against urban terrorism and if we are not prepared to be tough, we are doomed to failure. We shall see it in Ireland unless we change our methods slightly.

The background against which our armed forces exist, so we have been told tonight, includes the possibility of substantial American reductions in Europe and also growing isolationism and growing anti-militarism. That we all accept. The fighting Services are essentially conservative—with a small "c". The fighting Services, despite very sophisticated weapons and modern technology, consist of people who believe in the old and true virtues, which they practise. Those who wandered last evening on to Horse Guards Parade and saw the massed bands of the Scottish regiments marching up and down in front of Her Majesty will probably appreciate that that is part of the things which appeal to people in the Services and is one of the reasons why people join and why many of us love the Services. It is as simple as that. It is an emotional experience, and an attitude which people have towards a way of life and a practice of virtues of which they approve. Whether that is acceptable is immaterial. To me it is a fact.

There is a danger in the House of overlooking this human factor. Today we have heard some encouraging stories about increases in pay, the number of railway warrants, quarters which are being hired, and such practical considerations. But I appeal to the House, when they are thinking about why people join the Services, to consider the deeper psychological reason why men and women volunteer to serve their country, and what is their motivation. We are told nowadays that this has something to do with a public image and with good public relations. All of that is true, but the fact remains that at heart the majority of people who join the Services do so for reasons of old-fashioned patriotism.

We have in the central control of this complicated Ministry of Defence, which we were discussing earlier, a difficulty in expressing military effectiveness in financial terms. I was very impressed by the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice about the Navy and the inadequacy of our plans, when he said that neither one side of the House nor the other had a monopoly of virtue or vice in effecting these plans for our defence and our security. I shall stick my neck out slightly by saying that the best value for money that the British Treasury has ever had is the Battalion of Infantry. The cheapest and the most useful tool that we have in the defence arsenal has been basically the same for hundreds of years. It is the Battalion of Infantry who are in Ireland at the moment, to which I shall refer later.

We have in this sophisticated problem of the Ministry of Defence deciding how the Treasury's money is to be spent the difficulty of relating cost to effectiveness and of quantifying effectiveness in a military sense. Although we have these modern techniques, with scenarios, which can measure various things, but they cannot measure human considerations—considerations like morale, surprise and efficiency. I believe also that it is difficult to assess the cost of production, of research and development and, indeed, the running costs of many of these sophisticated weapons which we have been discussing earlier in the debate.

Again there is the difficulty of time-scale which came up so poignantly in connection with the question of our naval missiles. Something which is introduced at a certain time soon loses its advantages when other systems come in and outstrip it in this very speedy technological age. The value of these cost-effective studies which the Ministry of Defence pursues must not lead us to an air of certainty and exactitude about these matters. We must be more flexible, in this House and outside, in our approach to the certainty of weapons systems. A very large degree of human judgment will always be needed. In fact, that is where the real skill comes in to the cost-effectiveness studies, in identifying the area in which human judgment has got to be exercised.

I believe that we are very short of reliable information in this House about defence matters. When one worked in the Ministry of Defence there was always a most interesting series of strategical capability and intervention studies, cluttered up with heavy gradings of "Top Secret—Not to be seen by anybody", which were perfectly harmless documents and which would have added greatly to one's enjoyment of the Library here. If my noble Friend would at some stage look into the quality of literature which is available to us, it might enable us to participate in these debates with slightly more intelligence. Such things as the use of our armour east of Suez and the size of our paratroop drops are discussed, and these I call military cloud-cuckoo-land factors. There are other matters about which we need information—for instance, the future of our amphibious forces and the size of our helicopter lift. If we had more facts about these sorts of things, I for one could contribute a little more to these debates.

As to the future structure of the Army, I thought that my noble Friend's remarks could only be taken by everyone with great enthusiasm. There is no doubt that the sociologists write a lot of rubbish about the out-moded public image of standing armies. The fact is that we have a jolly good public image of our standing Army and of our Navy and Air Force. When we go round to our constituencies we find that everybody is proud of our Services. Some of this rubbish that is written ought to be thrown into the waste-paper basket.

I believe also in what my children call the International Rescue type of activity, particularly in terms of contingencies like the cholera outbreak in Pakistan. Greater publicity of this sort of activity would in our modern age get over a great deal of the criticism from young people about the image of the Services. The public relations department of the Ministry of Defence should now be grinding out every bit of worth while propaganda about what the Services are really doing and, rather than issuing some of these advertisements in the newspapers about recruiting, which are subject to criticism, we should flood the schools with photographs and descriptions, from the Ministry of Defence, of what we are doing, which would carry great weight in the future.

The day will come, I suppose, when the Services have that as their main rôle, when they are devoted to the international help and rescue type of operation. But behind it all, we shall need in our Services a hard hitting—this is how I should call it, and there is no better phrase—terrorist-killing anti-subversive group of people who can go in and sort out that sort of terrible problem.

I revert, in conclusion, to affairs in Northern Ireland. If one has to put in the military to support the police and the civil power—dressed in any language one likes—one must never put oneself into such a position that they take over from the police, for, if one allows that to happen, what does one do when the time comes to take the military out again? One day, the military must be taken out. So, amid all the argy-bargy which is going on about whether the Ulster Defence Regiment should be this size or that, or whether we should have this or that unit in Northern Ireland, we must always remember that the day will come when the British Army is withdrawn. It makes military sense, therefore, to start building up a force which can take over from it.

The first year of this Government in office has given one a feeling that a forward-looking and imaginative policy is coming into our defence effort. If we concentrate on what I have described as the modern human appeal but at the same time not over-sentimentalising about the real problem of anarchy on our doorstep, the Services will have an extremely promising future, and so shall we, under their earnest protection.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

I very much agreed with what the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchell) had to say about the quality of information on important matters which comes out of the Ministry of Defence. There is a remarkable contrast here. On welfare matters or "do-good" matters, no Ministry takes more trouble about the giving of information to Members of Parliament than does the Ministry of Defence. For example, when I raised specialised questions of this nature in the debate on the Royal Air Force, I received an excellent and full reply—obviously, a lot of trouble had been taken—about opportunities in civil aviation, about entry from the Forces into the teaching profession, about the mechanical apprenticeship scheme, about housing and about language training.

All those may be interesting and important matters, but they are by no means the cruicial issues. The moment one tries to obtain information from the Ministry of Defence on strategic or equipment issues, however, one runs into all sorts of absurd classifications and various degrees of secrecy.

I agree, therefore, with what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said on that subject, if not on such subjects as urban terrorism, about which, perhaps, one difficulty may be that he and I have rather different views on who may be the terrorists in various situations and about the relative virtues of the confronting sides. However, I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that it is important to discuss such an issue as the one on which I wish to concentrate; namely, the results of the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks now proceeding in Helsinki. I wish to use this opportunity to probe the thinking of Ministers, in the light of the S.A.L.T. negotiations, on the possible consequences of those discussions for the British Armed Forces.

As I understood him, the Minister said in opening that he welcomed the joint statement of 20th May. It is easy to be cynical about these things, and any advance is an advance for the good, and I certainly have no wish to sneer at any hopeful statement coming out of Helsinki, but, before coming to my questions to the Minister, I must put to the House a firm view—albeit a pessimistic and contentious view—of the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks thus far.

We have now become accustomed to the spectacle of political leaders grossly exaggerating the importance of international arms control agreements. For example, President Nixon made a euphoric statement about the breakthrough at S.A.L.T. With the best will in the world, as far as I can see it is based simply on an agreement to attempt to negotiate an agreement on a numerical limit on offensive and defensive nuclear missiles. It is simply a question of an agreement to attempt to negotiate an agreement.

Whatever else it is, I do not think it can be described as a "remarkable break-through". I fear that the West is being far too optimistic, revealing a depressing lack of understanding of the real hazards of the nuclear arms race and of the type of agreement required at SA.L.T. to reduce such hazards.

The British Services must be aware that there are at least three major advances in military technology which threaten to erode the all-too-fragile strategic balance. First, there are the improvements in the reliability of intercontinental ballistic missiles. Second, there are the further improvements in the accuracy of these missiles. Third—this is vital—there is the deployment of the true multiple independently-targetable re-entry vehicle, the M.I.R.V., the importance of which was emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) in our previous debate.

Does the Ministry of Defence doubt that, taken together, these three lines of technical advance add up to the prospect that both East and West may, for the first time, and within the next few years, acquire a genuine first-strike capability? Is it the Department's view that we have here, for the first time, the ingredients for the possession by East and West of a genuine and credible first-strike military capability, and does the Department accept that no S.A.L.T. agreement at present on the horizon will affect the movement towards a very dangerous situation; that is, the possession of a first-strike capability made possible by new technical developments?

I want to hear from Ministers—I put it as a genuine question—what, if the S.A.L.T. agreements are to be quantitative rather than qualitative, the consequences are likely to be for the British Forces. I am not asking the Government to have a row with the Americans on this issue; I merely say gently but firmly that it is about time that some direct questions were put to our American allies about the British position, and it is about time that a report on these vital matters was given to Parliament.

It is astonishing that these crucial discussions have been going on in Helsinki for many months now but, as far as I know, no statement on the progress of the talks has been made to the House of Commons. If it be said that the talks do not directly concern us, that they are talks between two foreign Powers, I can only remind the House that the Minister himself said today that the Americans had taken great care to consult their allies. If that be so, the House of Commons ought to have been kept in the picture about the Helsinki talks.

The crucial question on which I should like to hear some comment today is whether these new technical advances, and the M.I.R.V. in particular, have created a situation in which East and West now have a powerful and credible first-strike weapon. It is a most important question, and I hope that attention will be paid to it.

I come now to one or two other issues. I very much agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) said about Senator Mansfield's position. We have to accept that whether the Mansfield amendment were adopted or defeated, anyone who has recently been in the United States knows perfectly well that the impetus behind the substance of the Mansfield amendment is there. True, President Nixon had the full weight of some "Old Guns", wheeled in to support him, and he may have been successful this time, but the next time the question comes up the President of the United States will not be successful, and, on any view, the question has considerable consequences for our whole economic and military thinking. I want to know what contingency plans are being thought out in the event of some future Mansfield amendment—perhaps not by Senator Mansfield himself—being successful, because at that time the policy of the United States might be different, whoever the next President may be.

I want to add my voice to what has been said about the need for some kind of United Nations permanent force on disasters. I do not want to take up the time of the House because the matter has already been eloquently dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East; I merely want to let hon. Members know that many of us echo what has already been said by him on this subject.

From the three previous debates I should have thought that no one has a very clear idea of the position of the M.R.C.A.—the multi-rôle combat aircraft. We are entitled to some progress report. My information is that it is running at least a year behind schedule, and that real difficulties have arisen not only with the Italians but with some of our other partners. Industry, in particular, would like an assurance about the future of this project. This may present some difficulty for the Government, because there are all sorts of unknown quantities, but it is not merely Members of Parliament who ask these questions; many people—especially in the electronics industry, which is going through a bad phase—want to know for the basis of their future planning what the future of the M.R.C.A. is likely to be.

I had hoped that the Minister, with his recent experience in the "Ark Royal", would be able to give us some account of the Harrier trials. I understood him to say, in answer to an intervention, that an evaluation was proceeding but that no decision had been arrived at. I should like to know when certain decisions will be made. I also understood that no account would be given to Parliament of the results of the Harrier trials. I was on the "Ark Royal", and every officer behaved correctly and properly in regard to information; I could not have had better hospitality. Nevertheless, a genuine and widespread interest exists in the Harrier and the possibility of its success, and I should have thought that this was a precise example of what the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West was getting at when he said that there was too much unnecessary secrecy.

1 do not see why we should not be told, at any rate in outline, what the general estimate of the Harrier trials is. It cannot be all that secret, and it is of some interest. If the Minister and the Department of Defence want a genuinely informed interest to be taken in the Services, I should have thought that that information was the kind of information that we could be given.

Some of us await with anticipation the report of Lord Nugent's Committee. I gather that it is bogged down. I have a constituency point to raise, because the question arises of the Engineer Park at Livingston New Town, West Lothian. The new town development corporation wanted these acres, and it is not obvious to us that they are of essential military importance. They are of considerable importance to the new town, however, and I should like the Department to consider in the light of the correspondence that has taken place between the Department, the new town corporation and myself, whether the Engineer Park could not be made available to the new town.

I should have thought that similar cases could be made out in respect of areas throughout the country, because I have the impression that some land is held not for any clear military purpose but because it suits the slight empire-building nuances of certain commands to keep land within their jurisdiction. I am not making any great criticism on this point; I am merely saying that there seems to be a resistance to change and to giving anything up, and that a clear directive—after the Nugent Committee has reported or even before—would be welcome.

This afternoon the Minister announced that he was having a full-scale inquiry into the medical and dental facilities of the Armed Forces, and that it was to be carried out under Sir Edmund Compton. I can think of no better chairman than he; I spent three years under his tutelage on the Public Accounts Committee. We all know what an extremely able Whitehall civil servant he is. But to set up a committee is shelving the problem. This question has been widely discussed in Government circles, as anyone knows who has had anything to do with the Department of Health. I can reveal what the simple problem is in respect of the dental and medical facilities in the Armed Forces. It takes no great genius to do that. It is a matter of money—of pay and differentials.

Lord Balniel indicated dissent.

Mr. Dalyell

If I am wrong, let me be told so in a letter, or in the Minister's winding-up speech—unless the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene now.

Lord Balniel

I can think of many other factors that are involved. There is the relationship between the Armed Forces medical services and the National Health Service. There is the relationship within the Services themselves. Of course pay is a factor, and it will be considered. The point is that the committee under Sir Edmund Compton has a very wide remit, and will be able to consider all aspects—the relationship with the National Health Service, the structure of the organisations within the Services, and, no doubt, the points raised by the hon. Member.

Mr. Dalyell

If I am wrong in thinking that this is a bogus committee I am glad, because something must be done about the problem.

Of course there is the question of the relationship between the medical officers in the Armed Services and those in the National Health Service. The relationship is that, on the whole, those in the Armed Services are paid very much less than those in civilian practice. That is what I meant. There is a real problem here. People of equivalent rank in the medical military service would have to be paid substantially more than those in the teeth arms. That would lead to a good deal of friction. But there is no earthly chance of making up the manpower deficiencies among medical and dental officers unless there is this differential, and we had better face up to that fact. It is merely shelving the issue to set up a committee, however distinguished its chairman, and however hard working its members. It seems to me that this is one of those superficial committees that hon. Members opposite often complain about, often rightly in my view, as being unnecessary. We know what the problem is. The question is whether we have the will to face it and do something about it.

As will appear from my questions to the Prime Minister, and those put by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), some of us are concerned about precisely what the Government think they are up to by underwriting the British Armed Forces Gurkhas in Brunei. When the Prime Minister goes to Australia—which I gather he will do this Christmas—I hope he will take time to talk to some Asian leaders to discover what they really think about propping up a régime in Brunei which, although not necessarily a dangerous one, is a bit of an anachronism in the modern world in South-East Asia.

It may be true that no one will complain at Prime Ministerial level about British policy in Brunei. I accept from the right hon. Gentleman that no one has complained to him. That may be because the question has not been considered sufficiently at the moment. Nevertheless, I hope the Prime Minister will talk to people in South-East Asia. They do not want to fall out with Britain on this matter. The Indonesians do not want to have a row with us, but they think it rather odd that we should have done this—and that goes for many other Asians.

The question is not serious, but it could become serious if there were internal trouble in Brunei—as there might well be—because one cannot conceive a situation in which the Gurkhas will not then be involved, especially as they are partly financed by the Sultan of Brunei. They remain under British command because the King of Nepal will not have it otherwise—probably rightly. There is a potential danger here. I hope that it does not flare up, but it would be a little unfortunate to have gratuitous trouble just because we have a policy that might seem all right on the surface but is very far from all right if considered under the surface.

I want to raise finally a substantial issue of a kind that the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West would like to see discussed in this debate. This is the whole philosophy of the subject of replacement. I do not understand precisely what the hon. Member for Haltem-price (Mr. Wall) wanted when he talked in terms of a replacement for Polaris and Poseidon, but sooner or later in the strategic scenarios set up in the Ministry of Defence this question will be discussed, and discussed probably in depth.

I should like to draw the attention of the Department and the Minister to the evidence given to a Senate sub-committee by George B. Kistiakowsky, President Eisenhower's science and military adviser, when asked about a replacement for Polaris and Poseidon. He said that he was already "well insulated" against the possibility of being labelled an "uninformed pacifist radical". He went on to say that a new generation of missiles could be safely deferred and that there was no need to develop an anti-ballistic missile system, or bomber system, to succeed the B.52.

On the Pentagon's proposal for an extensive new defence system against aircraft, Kistiakowsky observed that since Nixon himself had publicly conceded that a reliable anti-missile defence was impossible, it would be "preposterous" to spend billions on a defence against aircraft. He also expressed opposition to the Navy's plans for building a new fleet of submarines to replace the Polaris/ Poseidon fleet. The present boats, he noted, were virtually invulnerable. If a break-through in research should render them vulnerable, their successors would be no more secure, no matter how much had been expended on their design and construction. The Navy's desire to proceed, he testified, could become another example of rushing into costly programs to react to an imaginary threat just because more advanced technology appears to be possible. This is a very important view as it is clearly indicated that Kistiakowsky is far from being one of the extreme left in the United States—he was the science and military adviser of Eisenhower. Here is a serious man saying that we have gone to the limit of military technology.

In the light of what Rayner and others have published and what was said in the ill-attended debate just before the Recess, we should not embark on the next generation of extremely sophisticated weaponry, be it Polaris, Poseidon or some successor to the MRCA. Surely one has to recognise that a limit can be reached where just to have a new weapon for its own sake is unnecessarily expensive and not justified in defence terms. This is the point of view of those who recognise serious defence to be necessary. I hope that the Government will take heed of the evidence that Kistiakowsky and others have given to the Senate sub-committee.

7.14 p.m.

Mr. Carol Mather (Esher)

The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned the matter of defence secrets and the need for hon. Members to know more of these matters and to be better informed. It is my impression that there is very little that one will not know if one looks for it. I am not suggesting that I have access to any more information than the hon. Member. There is a disadvantage if one is privy to secrets, for to begin with one cannot remember what is confidential and what is not and to some extent that muzzles one if one wants to speak on these matters.

I want to discuss the most exacting rôle which British Forces have today, and that is the rôle in Northern Ireland. I visited a battalion there last month. To some extent we have become so used to facing this kind of situation in various countries that we tend to normalise it, but it is not a normal situation. As has been said by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas), this is happening in the United Kingdom itself. It is a civil war in as much as it is an attack directed not against any particular community, but the State itself. About 14 months ago the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said that we had as many troops involved in Northern Ireland as in the confrontation in North Borneo. The situation has not altered. At worst, the manpower problems posed are acute enough to imperil the whole of our defence strategy; at least they are a running sore and a constant drain on our resources.

The situation has changed during the course of 1971 as compared with the two previous phases, the phase in 1969 when the whole business erupted and British Forces were called in, and the situation in 1970, which was a period of incipient terrorism and the stirring up of the civil populations. Now the situation has changed in that the tactics have switched to indiscriminate bombings culminating in the attack on the British Legion hall and the attack on the Springfield Road police station. Combined with these are the daylight gun attacks against military patrol vehicles, which have never occurred before, which means that the terrorists are coming more into the open.

When I visited Northern Ireland last month there was a certain air of confidence, but I cannot honestly believe that one can say that the situation is improving. Any improvement which may be possible to detect starts from a very low base line. From the air Belfast is a beautiful city with the mountains enclosing it and the city enclosing the bay, but looking down into it one sees the sand-table model and the parallel lines of the streets—grim lines of Clonard, Falls and Shankill Road—in which are sandwiched the Catholic and Protestant areas which are the flash points in this situation.

One of the things about which the troops complain is the atmosphere of unreality over there, in that everything seems to be normal, with cups of tea and English voices, and the next moment the shooting starts. It is the very treachery of the situation which they find difficult to take.

In the so-called "no-go" areas, the situation is not so unreal, with the boarded-up windows and the burnt-out vehicles and the unswept streets and the slogans on the walls. That immediately hits one in the face as a situation which is very much a reality. According to the Army the "no-go" areas have never been "no-go" but have always been patrolled, and the Army has never failed to go in, but one must say that in some areas the Army does not go looking for trouble and in some areas the police consider it unwise to go in unescorted. In the Falls Road area one sees the local peace lines with barbed wire entanglements reminding one of nothing so much as the Berlin Wall. Not only in the centre of the city but on the outskirts in Ballymurphy and New Barnsley the writ of law does not appear to run. One sees the I.R.A. slogans on the walls there and the local authorities find it difficult to enter the areas to sweep the streets, showing that these are I.R.A. strongholds.

Across the road from the Ballymurphy area is the New Barnsley estate which was a Protestant estate and where there are 200 Catholic squatters who a month or two ago stoned the Protestant occupants of the houses and who are still in occupation. This shows that the thin line between law and anarchy in Belfast has been breached in this area.

One reads of the I.R.A. marching in para-military uniforms and carrying illegal weapons at funerals and even firing fusilades of shot. The Army says that this is an extremely difficult situation to control because there are sometimes as many as 3,000 people in the streets. It only by occupying the ground in advance, which has been done successfully on one or two occasions, that the situation can be controlled. But one needs at least a battalion for this kind of job and in order to be able to control such situations it is said that we would need double the number of troops we have there now.

The marching season is upon us again. I understand that the number of marches has been reduced drastically by mutual agreement. But one of the main troubles with the marches is the lawless bands of youths who attach themselves to the tail end of a march and who are out for any kind of trouble and are the main flash point in this kind of situation.

I had the opportunity to discuss the question of the powers, and especially the special powers of arrest, and internment. The Army pointed out that it has greater powers than were used in Cyprus, in that soldiers have the power to arrest and detain. Any question of bringing internment back would lead to those interned being made heroes of and also to the possibility of hostages being seized from our side.

It is true that in the 1956–62 situation there was power of internment on both sides of the border, but this has not for various reasons been brought in on this occasion. The last Ulster troubles were somewhat easier to deal with in that a small number of large units of the I.R.A. were operating, whereas today there is a large number of small units which are difficult to trace and deal with. Nevertheless, dealing with the situation by due course of law, by arrest and proper trial, is a very slow and lengthy process. One can only compare it with trying to charge a tank with cavalry. It is a slow and cumbersome process. One has the situation where the terrorists are playing outside the rules and our security forces are playing within them.

The police reorganisation has gone well and recruiting figures are up, but the main point here is that the police are not trained to deal with a situation of this kind. They are not being trained to take over the rôle of the Army when the time comes for the Army to leave, and it is essential to have some kind of organisation to take the Army's place when the time does come.

I spent a day with a battalion on security duties on the ground. Contrary to what has been said, the troops' morale was pretty high—I think for the reason that they were on operations and not actually engaged in training. But they lead a tough life. They are virtually on duty the whole time. They axe on call all day and during the night are patrolling and frequently do not turn in until 3 a.m.

During the four months of their tour. with this tough life, they get six days' leave back with their families in Germany or in the United Kingdom, but for the soldiers who have not got families to go back to there are not enough facilities in Northern Ireland itself, and when they go to Bangor, the main leave centre, the same insecure situation exists and it is not really a proper holiday. One thing which has revolutionised the situation for the troops is the introduction of the riot gun with rubber bullets. This means that they can force people throwing petrol bombs to stand their distance, because these guns have a range of 15 to 30 yards. This has immensely improved the feeling of security of the troops.

There has been speculation as to what extent alien interests have been involved. It is a clear threat against the State. The aim of the I.R.A. Provisionals is to overthrow the Government, whether in Stormont or in Dublin. The objective is to commit such acts which will soften up public opinion in this country so that in course of time the public will demand the return home of our troops. The I.R.A. statement when hostilities were ended on the last occasion in 1962 said that there was going to be … a period of consolidation, of expansion and of preparation for the final and victorious struggle". That is the situation today. It was not clearly understood at the time that the civil rights movement was used as a front by the People's Democracy party, whose followers included participants in the student riots in Berlin and Paris. They were relying on Mao's theory of "internal contradictions" which it was their objective to exploit. These were considered to be the flash points in any society. The situation in Northern Ireland follows the classical revolutionary pattern through the various stages of exploitation of these contradictions and the setting of one community against the other, finally ending in a situation of civil war.

To summarise, a substantial proportion of the British Army is pinned down in Northern Ireland and the longer it remains and the more consolidated its position becomes the harder it will be for the police to take over. Neither the Royal Ulster Constabulary nor the Ulster Defence Regiment is trained to control the kind of riots that go on there at present. Nor was this envisaged by the Hunt Report. The Hunt reforms to a certain extent drew the teeth of the local security forces and also destroyed the local intelligence system. As I have said, whilst the security forces are playing by the rules, according to peacetime law, the terrorists are doing the reverse. There seems to be one law for the terrorists and another for the security forces. In this situation, I ask the Government to reconsider the respective rôles of the security forces involved—the police, the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Army itself.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. Frank McManus (Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will forgive the hesitancy and awkwardness on my part because a recent enforced vacation, which the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) would have wished to be much longer, has left me much out of practice. I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lieut.-Col. Colin Mitchell) has left the Chamber because I wanted to say a number of things to him. I wanted to say to him that I would prefer the obvious honesty of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) to the arrogance and cynicism expressed by him. I doubt whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman has any concept of human beings as individuals. He talked a great deal about out-terrorising the terrorists. It sounded to me a bit like sour grapes because his own adventure in that direction was apparently a failure.

The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Mather), like many other Englishmen, has failed abysmally to understand what it going on in Northern Ireland. Rarely have I heard such nonsense spelt out with such deliberation. But there are one or two points in his speech to which I must refer briefly. First, he mentioned Ballymurphy and New Barnsley. He said that 200 Catholic families are squatting in New Barnsley and intimated that 200 Protestant families had been stoned out by the Catholics. That is rubbish. There are nothing like 200 Catholic families squatting there. There are a few—and they were burnt out of their homes in the Falls Road and sought accommodation in these houses. Several Protestant families left New Barnsley but they did not leave as a result of stoning, as anyone who knows the situation understands.

The hon. Gentleman said that the civil rights movement had been used by the People's Democracy movement for serious anarchistic motives. Everyone knows that the People's Democracy movement never counted for a great deal in the civil rights movement. It brought to it probably the intellectual flair that it would otherwise have lacked, but nothing else. He talked of the civil rights movement being a front for the I.R.A. in some way. A great deal has been talked about the riots. I promised you, Mr. Speaker, to be as brief as possible, and it was not my intention to raise these aspects. But they have been raised, and, in fairness, they must be answered.

The entry of the I.R.A. into the affairs of Northern Ireland was inevitable. The civil rights movement came to a standstill when a few paltry concessions were thrown by the Government. The old Unionist attitude of "This far, and not an inch further" reasserted itself, and the mass of support which the non-violent civil rights movement had was then confronted by a dilemma—"What shall we do?" The more moderate or the ordinary people asked themselves, "What are we to do? We have protested non-violently as long as we can." Many went home, but more determined spirits said, "Nothing is to be gained by continuing to talk to these people because their minds and hearts are closed." Consequently, the ground was prepared by the Unionist hard-liners for the entry of the I.R.A. into the affairs of Northern Ireland.

The Minister spoke about the conditions of the Army in Northern Ireland and the problems which confront it. Those conditions are hard, but there is a simple remedy and he should be actively working on it. If the Army were removed from Northern Ireland, it would no longer have to suffer these conditions.

The Army's problems are undeniable. There are mainly two problems—those from bombing and shooting and those from riots. Indiscriminate bombing and shooting which endanger civil life must be condemned by any sane person, but the riots are a different matter.

Mr. Wilkinson

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McManus

No. I feel that I should not give way. I have not been here for a long time, and I think the hon. Gentleman should allow me to finish.

Many of the rioters are ordinary men and women on both sides of the political divide defending their homes against damage or their wives and families against abuse. Many of the riots—and it will be unpopular to say so in this House—are provoked by the British Army. The British Army, as the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West would have us know, is trained to fight and is spoiling for a fight. In Belfast there is no fight available, so it goes out, not on all occasions but certainly on a great number of occasions, to provoke a row. To a certain extent I cannot blame the soldiers. They have been sent in as fighting men to impose a political solution, and I can appreciate how frustrated they are.

I want to deal with the proposal to establish a new force within the U.D.R. I must impress upon the Minister and the House that this is the most disastrous move made by this or any other British Government for a long time. First of all, there was the method of announcement—a leak to the Press which opened the door on rumour which went wild—and, secondly, the confident predictions some days beforehand of the notorious hardliner Mr. Craig which made it evident that he knew in advance of this plan.

I am appalled at the notion that a self-confessed Unionist hard-liner who, by his own admission nourishes notions of U.D.I, should have advance knowledge of Government planning. Let me impress on the Minister as deeply as I can the horror with which the minority regards this proposal. I have moved about and I know for a fact that the vast majority of the minority share my view that this is the resurrection of the "B" men under another name. For 50 years the minority walked about in dread——

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Ian Gilmour)

I do not think the hon. Gentleman was present when my hon. and noble Friend made an announcement about the matter. He stressed that there was no definite proposal, that it was merely one being considered, and that if it was decided to set up such a battalion, legislation would have to be placed before the House. With respect, the hon. Gentleman is rather running ahead of himself.

Mr. McManus

I do not think it is anything of the kind. The same sort of smoke-screen was thrown out at the time of the conception of the U.D.R. We were given this, that and the other reason. When the "B" men went we breathed a sigh of relief! After two years of demands from the Right wing for the return of the "B" men and after two years of refusal by the British Government, we now have a proposal to set up a full-time unit within the U.D.R. which it is admitted by commentators, and by an hon. Member opposite in a radio interview the other day, would be predominantly Unionist and Protestant. What is the minority to do?

Small wonder that it fears the return of the "B" Specials and that it has lost faith in the British Government, small wonder that it fears that the British Government are giving in to the demands of the Right wing of the Unionist Party, spearheaded by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, and small wonder that many have voiced the fear that the British Government are now conspiring with the Unionist Government to take back by force of Protestant arms the little gained by non-violent protests.

What, I ask the House and myself, are the British Government trying to do? Are they trying to escalate their age-old strategy of divide and conquer? Are they attempting to set up a native Army to subdue one section of the community, to encourage Irishmen to get even more savagely at Irishmen's throats? I appeal to the Minister and those responsible not to do this damnable thing but to think again. If they judge that more troops are needed to maintain a system which it has been shown is unworkable in Northern Ireland—British-held territory—let them use British troops but do not let them perpetuate the divisions between Irishmen and put further away the day when a solution can be achieved to our problems.

If the Minister and the Government really want to improve the conditions of the Army in Northern Ireland, and generally, they should be actively considering ways and means by which the days can be brought nearer when not one British soldier will be necessary to keep the peace in Northern Ireland.

Mr. R. Chichester-Clark (Londonderry)

Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, he has said in this House that bombers and killers were to be condemned, but before his own constituents the other day he said that he could not find it in his heart to condemn violence. Which does he mean?

Mr. McManus

What the hon. Member refers to is true. At a Press conference I gave a longish explanation, something similar to what I had said in this House, about the emergence of violence and how, because civil rights demands were not met, many had resorted to violence. I pointed out that many of the riots were caused by people defending their homes or families against abuse or damage. That is the sort of thing I had in mind, and those were the sort of people. I could not now, and never will find it in my heart to condemn any man who defends his home against a real or imagined enemy on either the Unionist or the anti-Unionist side of the fence in Belfast or elsewhere. He cannot be condemned because he is merely doing his duty to himself.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Rafton Pounder (Belfast, South)

I had no intention of participating in the debate until about two hours ago, when I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). With great respect to him, he was not and could not be regarded as speaking as an ordinary back bencher but as a former senior Minister in the last Administration, in the Ministry of Defence. It was with considerable anxiety that I listened to the hon. Gentleman and to his arguments, all the more so as he opened his speech by saying that Northern Ireland was a sensitive subject. I regret to say that his speech showed considerable insensitivity. He is not present and I propose to go no further in referring to his speech because it would be unfair to do so. I had no idea I would be called and I did not wish to write to him and give him notice in case I was keeping him unnecessarily.

As for the speech we have just heard by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus), I leave the House to judge his words, the more so in the light of the intervention of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark). It really is absurd for anyone to talk about Northern Ireland, and I quote from his speech, as "British-held territory", when it is the will of the vast majority of the people of that part of the United Kingdom, a will repeatedly expressed at every election over the last 50 years, that they shall be part of the United Kingdom. To talk as though it was some territory which was being held down by force of arms, be they civil arms in the sense of police or military, in the sense of the Army, is quite absurd. As for talking about the Army spoiling for a fight—that is one of the most disgusting and foundationless smears I have ever heard.

May I turn now to the subject of the Ulster Defence Regiment and make some reference to the Army in Northern Ireland. I make no secret of the fact that I was the hon. Member to whom the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone was referring when he spoke of a radio interview. He had the advantage of hearing it. I did not and therefore do not know how much was kept in and how much was cut out. What he attributed to me is true. It is reasonable to assume that any force will reflect, broadly, the breakdown of the population as a whole and in Northern Ireland that is roughly two-thirds to one-third.

I certainly welcome the idea of a full-time battalion attached to the U.D.R. I do so for a variety of reasons which I hope briefly to enumerate. The U.D.R., as it exists, varies in its effectiveness from area to area. I do not want to single names or battalion numbers at either end of the spectrum but my experience has been that some units have appeared, for whatever reason, to be more efficient and effective than others. It could be that they are up to strength and others are not. I do not know. This is the impression I have got. As things stand and bearing in mind the total number of soldiers in the British Army, and the percentage in Northern Ireland, soldiers cannot stay on the streets of Northern Ireland indefinitely.

One point that was forcibly impressed on me when I had the good fortune to visit the British Army in Germany recently was that highly-trained specialist units are being sent to Northern Ireland in an infantry rôle. I am no soldier but that strikes me as being less than the maximum effective use of soldiers. Although it may be a long time before it can be carried out, we ought to plan for the time when the soldiers in Northern Ireland are reduced to garrison strength.

We cannot have a situation where one day we have a full-armed professional army handing over to an unarmed Royal Ulster Constabulary. There must be an interregnum, there must be a security force in the country, run on military lines, as the U.D.R. would be, but drawn from perhaps less highly-trained persons than would be found in the Regular Army. I therefore entirely agree with the observations made on this point by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchell.)

One point impressed on me over the last two years by senior officers in Northern Ireland has been that static guard duty is immensely consuming in manpower terms. This is something which is undertaken by the U.D.R. and which obviously could be undertaken by the new battalion if it became a reality.

There is a tendency among certain employers in Northern Ireland to be less than helpful towards some employees who wish to serve in the U.D.R. This may be a factor in some of the resignations from the regiment that have occurred recently. It seems a little unreasonable for employers to take this attitude towards members of the U.D.R. when a different attitude is taken to those who belong to the Territorial Army.

The hon. Member for Sparkbrook referred to those in Northern Ireland who are anxious about security. I am with him 100 per cent. on this anxiety. There are many people in Northern Ireland, moderate law-abiding and reasonable citizens who are profoundly concerned about security. It is this danger, that people may lose faith in the efficacy of the security forces, which is one of the greatest dangers we may face.

My hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) referred to the lack of local intelligence. We know that it takes a considerable time for an effective intelligence network to be built up. I do not wish to stray too far from the confines of the debate, but one of the reasons why the intelligence network was dislocated and has therefore to be built up again, was the disbandment of the Ulster Special Constabulary which meant the loss of an extremely effective local intelligence force. It will obviously take time to build that up again, through the Army intelligence services. The lack of Army intelligence is more than a little serious.

Lest it be thought that I have my priorities wrong let me without further ado say that I and everyone with whom I deal, have nothing but the highest praise for the conduct of the Army in Northern Ireland. It is doing a difficult, if not almost impossible, job. It is having to work long hours and the men are separated from their families for a considerable time. This makes for a very hard four months for the soldiers in Northern Ireland and they deserve, despite some of the sneers and sniping which come from various politically-motivated opponents, the appreciation of all right-thinking and decent people in Northern Ireland. Let there be no mistake on that score.

Another matter which I find a little disturbing when talking in terms of the Ulster Defence Regiment, or more particularly thinking aloud on the subject of the possible new battalion, is the efficacy of the force rather than holding back merely because one is seeking to achieve a particular balance. We obviously want to achieve a balance between the communities in the Regiment. However, it would be unfortunate to hold up the efficacy and the training and such-like—"mobilisation", if that is the right word—of a defence regiment unit because the balance may not be exactly what we wish.

Mr. John Mendelson (Penistone)

The hon. Gentleman was present during the long debates on the Ulster Defence Regiment Bill. He will therefore know that it was the firm view of the then Government, with the agreement of the then Opposition Front Bench, now the Government, that it was essential to delay the building up of this force to have a properly balanced force. I hope that he is not irresponsible enough to wish to go back on that piece of political machinery.

Mr. Pounder

I do not wish to go back upon that. This was and still is the idea, but we have at some stage to say: even if the balance is not practicable, do we hold back the formation and utilisation of the force?

In the 18 months which have elapsed since we last discussed the matter in detail, the situation has changed. Many people were envisaging a three-year Army commitment. That period is now unrealistic. Now we are talking of a considerably longer period.

There is also a slightly altered pattern of disturbance. The emphasis has shifted from street demonstrations and rioting to the terrorist bomb attacks on private individuals, public officers, police stations, army personnel, and so on. I hope that I am not consciously going back on the unanimous belief in the House at that time. Nevertheless, the circumstances have changed. Can we really go on asking the Army to shoulder this burden without endeavouring to create some force which, although it can only be used for static guard duty and patrols, could at some future date act as an important adjunct to the security forces at a time when the Army is phasing out and the civilian police are taking over to a greater extent? I hope that I am not going back on the belief at that time. I merely hope that I am up-dating it to the situation as it exists.

One cause for anxiety—this has been said frequently by my hon. Friends from Northern Ireland in previous debates—is that very tough statements are made from time to time by senior Army officers saying that if such-and-such happens they will do such-and-such or will reserve the right to do such-and-such. Then, soon afterwards, such a circumstance arises and the Army does not retaliate in the manner which it had led the general public to believe. This has a weakening effect on public confidence at a time when it is vital that public confidence be shored

up completely behind the Army and the security forces. I could list the occasions on which this has happened. However, there is no profit in raking over quotations and subsequent facts.

The Army must win virtually every confrontation. A draw simply is not enough. Unless the Army can visibly be seen to be winning each and every round the likelihood of a long and tiresome process of attrition will go on and a substantial Army commitment will remain in Northern Ireland at a time when the Army as a whole could not be said to be overmanned.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Brynmor John (Pontypridd)

It is inevitable, from the way that the debate has proceeded, that every speaker will comment on Northern Ireland. This is right in the sense that it is a problem of the most appalling magnitude. But I confess straight away that I have been chilled this afternoon to hear the contributions of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) and the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lieut-Col. Colin Mitchell). I had thought that there was a reasonable amount of bipartisan approach to this matter. However, when the hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke of his only solution being to out-terrorise the terrorists, it made my blood run cold.

Can any hon. Member say with a clear conscience that the balance with the minority people in Northern Ireland in the past has been so impeccable and just that no grievances can arise? If grievances emerge and exist, then we must remove them, or no amount of out-terrorisation of terrorisls will have any deterrent effect. It is no use the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West putting forward the theory of world anarchy and being so vague. One of the worst features about this was the murmur of support which he received from hon. Members opposite. We have to look at the reasons which cause people to rebel, not merely at the rebellion itself.

I appreciate the sincerity of the hon. Member for Belfast, South. I think that he was trying to put the position as he saw it. However, it underlines how little understanding there is of the apprehension which something like the Ulster Defence Regiment on a permanent basis causes amongst the minority people in Northern Ireland. It is not good enough to say that we must hand over to a force between the Army and the police. The one constant factor which we must have at all three levels, assuming the intermediate tier to be necessary, is the confidence of all the people of Northern Ireland in those forces to keep order impartially and justly. I do not agree with many of the things which have been said by hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies, but it is patently clear that the minority people for whom they speak would not trust such a body on a permanent basis because it would lead to that same domination by the Protestant majority and the fears of oppression of the Catholic minority. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish."] I believe that the onlooker often sees more than the player. Many hon. Members are finding it increasingly difficult to tolerate the prejudice of hon. Members on both sides who cannot see any reason other than their own justification.

I now turn to the more general subject of the debate—defence. The Minister, in reply to an intervention by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris), said that unemployment was not proved a causal factor in recruitment. If that is right, then we must recognise that there is only a certain fraction of the population which is attracted towards Service life whom we can hope to attract into the Services.

The hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West mentioned the appeal of patriotism. I commend him to consider the Report of the Estimates Committee and the work that it did on the recruitment of Forces. In the evidence given on behalf of the Navy it was pointed out that it was recognised that this appeal is a diminishing factor. Obviously it is a factor which attracts insufficient people because there is always a shortfall of recruits. We must therefore direct our minds to considering what other factors will bring the forces up to the adequate level that we need. If only a small fraction of people is attracted to Service life, we must try to maximise recruitment among that fraction.

It is said that attraction to Service life is one-Service motivation—in other words, a person is attracted to the Royal Air Force, Royal Navy or the Army as an ideal and no alternative Service attracts him. It is time that we directed some of our effort towards people who may not be able to fit in to the Service of their choice and tried to attract them to another Service. It is wrong that there should be enough recruits in a particular trade in one Service and yet an insufficient number in the same trade in another Service.

I know that the Service careers information officers liaise as much as possible to ensure that no possible recruit is lost. But in many cases the information services of each Service are dispersed round a town. Some time ago I asked a Question about how many careers information officers were shared by the three Services. The answer was that out of 302 only two are tri-Service offices. This is a source of wastage of potential recruits which we cannot afford.

Having obtained the recruits, we must retain them. The Minister of State omitted to mention this crucial fact. He spoke, rightly, about the difficulties of recruitment, but we must also consider the question of retaining recruits once they have been attracted to the Forces. At a time when manpower questions are crucial in the Armed Forces wastage rates—the number of recruits who drop out during or at the completion of their basic training—are far too high. The situation is best in the Royal Air Force. In the Army 20 per cent. of adult recruits leave after their initial basic training. In the Navy, 23 per cent. of adult recruits leave. In the Royal Marines the wastage rates are staggering—25 per cent. among junior recruits and 35 per cent. among adult recruits.

It is time that we considered this matter. Having attracted people to the Forces, the net figures for retention should be increased. It is no good saying that we are attracting 10,000 recruits if wastage rates are so high. The Minister of State will recall writing to me on this subject on 5th April. I ask him to bear in mind that consideration about how to reduce wastage of recruits to the Forces should be given priority.

I do not pretend to have the solution or infallible knowledge, but there are three factors which could diminish the wastage rates which the Minister might consider. The first concerns central selection centres. The Army has two and will have two more in the foreseeable future. The R.A.F. has one. The Royal Navy has none. In the evidence given to the Sub-Committee of the Estimates Committee on behalf of the Army, it was said that the wastage rates from such central selection centres had diminished quite remarkably. This suggests that more of them in the Army and the Royal Air Force and their introduction to the Royal Navy might be beneficial in retaining more recruits.

Secondly, we must discover in far more detail than we appear to want to discover why people leave the Forces after basic training. I know that some are inadequate and prove utterly incapable of training. Some leave because they find that Service life does not please them. That is not always the fault of the individual. In some cases it is the fault of the Services. This is wastage which action on our part might prevent.

Thirdly, the Minister should act to avoid such minor irritations as the problem of unpaid leave. In evidence to Sub-Committee C of the Estimates Committee, the following information was given by Colonel Sewell on behalf of the Army. He said: What we try to do, although this is not always possible, is to enlist him"— that is, the recruit— and send him on unpaid leave for a week or a fortnight. He was questioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) and others. Sir Eric Errington, who was the Chairman, said: Why is it unpaid leave? Colonel Sewell replied: This is because he is not doing anything for the Army at the time. The Chairman said: He is; he is waiting about? The colonel said: I agree. He pointed out that if the rules could be altered it would be greatly appreciated by the forces. That evidence appears on page 70 of the report of evidence.

I agree that this is not a vast problem on a global scale, but it is the sort of minor irritation which can dissuade people from entering the forces when basically they are well disposed towards them. It is the sort of minor irritation which we cannot afford, bearing in mind the recruitment position.

I welcome the Minister's announcement today of the independent Committee. On a previous occasion, I raised the problem of the shortfall in doctors. I very much welcome the fact that the Committee will look into this matter. This underlines the need for the body which the Opposition proposed on a previous occasion, namely, a Select Committee on recruitment which could keep matters of this kind under review. Can the Minister recruit from the Commonwealth, particularly from the coloured Commonwealth, doctors for the Armed Forces, especially as the postgraduate training given in the forces is excellent?

It is not only in the medical and dental branch of the forces that there has been a considerable shortfall. In previous years the engineering branches have been very short of recruits. I should like the Minister to deal with this problem when he replies to the debate. What is the shortfall this year? Is it reducing, or is this an accelerating problem? If it is an accelerating problem, the Minister will need to deal with it.

I was glad to note that the negotiations on Exocet appear to have been completed. The Minister did not mention this weapon in his speech today, but I was able to glean from the television news last week that a firm commitment has been entered into by the Government to purchase it from the French Government. If that is so, since the House seems invariably to be the last to know about these things, perhaps the Minister will repair the omission and tell us when it is expected to come into service, whether it is delayed beyond its initial estimated time of supply and whether, as was reported by the defence correspondents of The Guardian, the costs of the weapon have escalated since its inception.

It is right that right hon. and hon. Members should pay tribute to the Armed Forces. I join in that praise. But the function of the House on an occasion like this is to highlight those areas in which improvements can be made. I hope that the Minister will take my points in that spirit.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. John Stokes (Oldbury and Halesowen)

I welcome the remarks of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) in widening the scope of the debate and considering defence as a whole, not merely in the context of Northern Ireland. Hearing so often from Scottish, Welsh and Irish Members, I sometimes wish that we had home rule for England.

The hon. Member quoted from some document, saying that patriotism is a diminishing factor today. If that is so, surely it rests with every hon. Member to do all he can to rectify that deplorable situation——

Mr. John

That was not my point. The point is that we must recognise the realities—that not enough people are being recruited in this way and that, therefore, there are insufficient career structure and incentives to attract the forces in the numbers we want.

Mr. Stokes

I follow the hon. Member.

My hon. Friend the Minister referred in his speech to the human side of defence; we in this House seldom have the opportunity to dwell on that most important aspect. I am glad, therefore, to mention this now and to take this opportunity to pay a general tribute to the three Armed Services.

I sometimes wonder whether people realise how much we all owe to the Forces. In an age like ours, when standards almost everywhere are declining, the Forces have maintained theirs, and to a remarkable degree. At a time when selfishness and self-interest are only too apparent in all walks of life, the Forces do their sometimes unpleasant and dangerous duty in a cheerful and willing way, which is an example to those of us in other occupations.

When discipline is under attack in almost every institution in our society, the Forces still maintain superb discipline and order, often under severe provocation. The Forces also, while maintaining the finest traditions of their respective corps, have also coped fully with the best modern trends in man management, communications, organisation, public relations, training and so on which could put many commercial and industrial concerns to shame by comparison. Indeed, it is significant that industry has now started to send some of its most promising executives to the staff college courses run by the Services.

I hope that the country will not place too great a strain on the human resources of the Forces. When one hears of artillery regiments being used as infantry—as I believe has been the case in a certain area—one realises how near we must have come to scraping the barrel. I feel that our reserves must be severely stretched, and barely adequate, for the many emergencies they may be called upon to undertake.

With the virtual elimination of the Civil Defence Corps by the late Government, the Armed Forces are now the only body available in a civil emergency or disaster which can assist the much smaller number of police, fire and ambulance personnel available. I hope that the Government will never boast of saving money over defence. I believe, in common with my hon. Friend the Member for Haltem-price (Mr. Wall), who spoke with such effect earlier, that our present-day defences are barely adequate, and that there are unfortunately serious shortages, not only of weapons being developed but of present weapons as well. Apart from the numerous peace-keeping actions in which the Forces are constantly involved all over the world, year in, year out, we must not reduce our commitment to N.A.T.O. or drop our guard over Berlin, particularly in view of the possibility—whatever President Nixon may say—of the United States, in the future, reducing its forces in Europe.

Nor should we forget, nearer home, the relentless task facing our intelligence and security services in coping with massive attempts at subversion in this country, subversion which never stops, which goes on day and night, which is far greater than most people believe, in an attempt to permeate all the vital functions in this country, and ultimately to destroy our nation by causing the maximum dislocation and havoc. I hope we can have some reassurance from the Under-Secretary on this vital matter when he sums up.

Never before have the Services offered such excellent conditions to attract young men and women of the right calibre, who wish to serve their Queen and country in a life full of interest and adventure. I still believe that the desire to serve Queen and country is paramount. Judging from the calibre of men now retiring from the Services, whom I see every day in the course of my business, I can only conclude that the initial selection has been excellent and that a good record in the Armed Forces is a first-rate recommendation for a sound job in civilian life.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. Ronald King Murray (Edinburgh, Leith)

In this debate some hard things have been said about the situation in Northern Ireland. Before saying a word or two about that, I should like to hark back to a theme mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchell). It seemed to me that this was a theme of hope for the future which we might dwell upon in this debate. It was the concept that the Armed Forces are there not merely as a bastion of our security—that has been made clear from the contributions made in the debate—but as a force to ensure in various disaster areas in the world that some help can be given by a disciplined body in a position to render it.

This is a vital rôle. It is such a vital rôle, which the Armed Services alone can fulfil, that consideration should be given as to whether the Ministry of Defence should not be renamed. I know that changes of name may not mean changes of substance, and I would not want a change of name until the change of substance could come, but if I have gauged rightly the tempo of this debate there is a strong desire that the change of substance should come.

The change of substance would be that the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces would be there not merely to ensure security, although that is their primary rôle. They would be there also as an arm of rescue to help people and communities in distress. The Armed Services have always done that, but I would like that rôle to be given full recognition. To do this simply in a name would pinpoint the idea—that the Ministry of Defence should make itself into a Ministry of Defence and Rescue. No doubt there could be other names, but that covers the substance of the point.

This is closely linked up with the concept of recruitment. Recruitment among young people in this country at present is more likely to be successful if they can see that they are not only entering the security services but can play some rôle of assisting the community in ordinary peacetime activities. If the Armed Forces concentrated on this in their advertising for recruits, I am sure that recruiting would be improved. I welcome the Government's statement that recruiting is up. However, the Armed Forces could, by the means I have suggested, tap a new form of recruitment.

I also welcome the Government's announcement of the committee which is to look into the shortfall of medical and dental personnel in the Armed Forces. I welcome this in the vein in which I have been speaking, namely, that if the Ministry of Defence is to become a Ministry of Defence and Rescue and have a wider civil rôle—a rôle officially recognised and enshrined in its activities—the Services' medical side will have the widest part to play in the fullest sense, because disasters of a civil kind invariably require medical assistance, from the cholera outbreak in India and Pakistan to the hurricane disaster and the war in Nigeria. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will accept that this is to be a substantial committee which will be concerned with one of the most important aspects of the Services in both peace and war.

We should not forget that the Armed Services are not simply armed. They are providing services, and this must be particularly borne in mind if we are to present the Services to the public in this new light for the remainder of this century and in the years after. We must consider in a realistic way the functions which the Forces are called on to fulfil in various parts of the world.

This brings me to the functions which they are called on to fulfil nearer home, in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) spoke with sincerity on this issue and said that it was essential for the community in Northern Ireland to have faith in the security forces. This must be an essential first step if we are to achieve lasting security, but one should not hide behind it and fail to take the long-term steps which must be associated with that first step. For example, one should never shelter behind the dangerous task of keeping security in Northern Ireland and by so doing avoid the responsibility of reforming the state of the community in Northern Ireland.

As a Scottish hon. Member, I view with horror what is happening in Northern Ireland. If there is anything positive that I can do to help I would like to do it, but as far as I am aware, some citizens of that country do not enjoy the same rights as the citizens in the rest of the United Kingdom. Until we can put our hands on our hearts and say honestly and truthfully that Northern Ireland citizens enjoy the same rights in substance if not in detail as other citizens of Great Britain, we are asking the security forces to perform an impossible task.

Mr. Chichester-Clark

The hon. and learned Gentleman is making a sincere and thoughtful speech and I do not want to be acrimonious. As one who has played some part in fighting to bring changes about in recent years to improve community relations in Northern Ireland, I must ask him what further changes he sees that could be made legislatively and that would do anything to improve community relations in that country. I accept that a great deal could be achieved by bringing about changes of heart and mind. What legislative changes does he have in mind?

Mr. Murray

I do not with to enter a debate on the detail of the matter. I simply submit that until the time comes—the hon. Gentleman will not maintain that that time has come—when we can put our hands on our hearts and say that the rights of the Northern Ireland community are substantially the same as those of the rest of the United Kingdom, we must beware of sheltering too much behind the security forces.

The hon. Member for Belfast, South went on to mention the faith that people had in the security forces. He should have mentioned, too, faith in the possibility of genuine democracy being achieved in Northern Ireland—that is, the effective working out of the legislative reforms which admittedly have been going through the Northern Ireland Parliament in recent months.

Mr. Chichester-Clark

I urge the hon. and learned Gentleman to accept that if he is making this sort of point—when he is talking about people putting their hands on their hearts and admitting certain things and wants the time to come when people enjoy the same rights in the community in Northern Ireland compared with the rest of the United Kingdom—he must say what further rights he wants implemented legislatively. That is the difficulty today. Is he aware that it is not simply a question of legislation? In my view, all that could be done by legislation has been done. We should now be saying that to the world and convincing those who have been misled by propaganda into believing otherwise. They should be told the truth. They should be told what has been done and that, in democratic terms, democracy is in some ways even further advanced in Northern Ireland now than it is in England.

Mr. Murray

I do not wish to be drawn into a deep discussion of this issue, partly for the reason the hon. Gentleman gave. I do not wish to take part in an internal debate on how far things have gone in Northern Ireland. I said that I accepted that some essential reforms have gone through the Northern Ireland Parliament in recent months. I have not the slightest doubt that Northern Ireland is a very different place compared with some of the criticisms that could have been made three or four years ago. I do not want to sling mud, but it is obvious that changes must take place.

Perhaps I could best explain what I have in mind by giving two clear illustrations. First, until local government in Northern Ireland is entirely on an elected basis one cannot say that Northern Ireland is on a par with the United Kingdom generally; and I can think of at least one part of Northern Ireland in which local government in the sense that we understand it does not exist.

Secondly, if one has faith in the process of democracy and if this is a genuine faith which one expects the people of Northern Ireland to accept, one must be prepared to say openly that one will accept what the people there will vote to do democratically, wherever that vote leads. I do not know if the two communities there are prepared to accept this as common ground, but I suggest that having faith in the process of democracy means that if the people of Northern Ireland were to vote democratically for a closer link with Eire, that should happen. On the other hand, if they were to vote for a closer link with Britain, that should happen. Until that state of affairs comes about and until it is recognised on all sides that one must follow the democratic vote of the people, wherever it leads, one cannot accept that a satisfactory state of affairs has been reached in Northern Ireland. Would the hon. Gentleman accept those two criteria?

Mr. Chichester-Clark

They are criteria which already exist. There is one part of Northern Ireland in which there is a commission operating in local government, accepted by most of the parties concerned there at the moment. Everybody knows that there will be local government elections in 1972. Everybody also knows that there will be universal franchise in those local government elections. When the hon. and learned Gentleman talks about a democratic vote for perhaps a closer link with the Republic——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris)

Order. This is going beyond the terms of the debate, which is concerned with the Armed Forces. I hope that hon. Members will restrict their remarks to the subject under discussion.

Mr. Chichester-Clark

I will conclude what I was saying and then the point will have been answered and justice will have been done on both sides. In countless elections held on universal franchise the people of Northern Ireland have voted for closer links with the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Murray

I do not mean to take any more time on Northern Ireland, except to make one final comment. The rôle of our Armed Forces in Northern Ireland is accepted on both sides of the House as being a difficult and crucial rôle and it is one in which the Armed Forces should be conceived as playing only a temporary part. This should be part of a rescue operation in which the Armed Forces deal with a crisis which should strictly be regarded as of limited duration. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) mentioned 1972, and I hope we can look forward to 1972 as being the latest date by which these security arrangements come to an end.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) spoke about the S.A.L.T. negotiations which have been going on for a considerable time in Helsinki without visible result. I should perhaps mention in this context the parallel negotiations which have been going on with a view to outlawing certain kinds of chemical and bacteriological warfare. The Army, the Navy and the Royal Air Force today have a responsibility for ensuring our security, and a heavier responsibility than their predecessors with the massive armoury of nuclear weapons and the possibility of genocidal weapons, of a bacteriological or chemical type. The responsibility of the commander and the ordinary soldier in the field has been highlighted by the trials and complaints in the United States about massacres in Vietnam. Our officers and men in the Armed Forces are faced with the problem of what to do when they are given a command which seems to them to be unlawful or may conceivably be unlawful. We in this House who have responsibility for the Armed Forces should consider whether we do not owe our young people whom we recruit to our Armed Forces a great deal more assistance than we are prepared to give them.

Nuclear weapons of mass destruction are genocidal and against the Geneva Convention of 1948. Bacteriological weapons and chemical weapons are illegal in terms of the Geneva Convention of 1925. While we are living in the uneasy balance of nuclear power, with the two nuclear giants, the Soviet Union and the United States of America, and the United Kingdom taking a small part in this nuclear balance, we owe it to our young people and to our citizens who may be involved in various aspects of hostilities to try to convince the world that weapons of this sort are illegal, immoral and not to be tolerated.

I know it will be said that we must maintain the uneasy balance under which the peace of the world has existed since nuclear weapons were first used in 1949. While the substantial security of the world must depend on such a nuclear balance, at the same time, if we are to carry the good will and sincerity of our young people, we must do all we can in international forums to ensure that these weapons are genuinely illegal and that the international postures taken up in negotiations such as S.A.L.T. are not merely strategic but are paralleled by a genuine effort to get rid of these weapons of mass destruction.

I suggest that the Government might have the courage to do what no other Government have done in this country, although the Governments of Sweden and Canada have made efforts to get this matter raised at the United Nations, and that is to raise in the United Nations the question of legality of these weapons, and to take effective steps in the international forum to have them outlawed. It is a simple step. No one pretends that it will by itself increase the security of the world, but it will be an earnest of the sincerity of this country in seeking security not merely by weapons but by moral defences also.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Bradford, West)

My hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Stokes) said that he would welcome the independence of England from the Celtic countries of Ireland, Wales and Scotland. I think he was provoked into that statement by the interventions of the hon. Members for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) and Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), and I can well understand his view. We have had two thoughtful speeches from Wales and Scotland from the benches opposite, and I am grateful for the contribution which they made. It is hard to get a good debate going in defence matters, and their contributions have helped.

The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) spoke of the importance of bridge building, maintaining understanding between communities and reducing suspicion, bitterness and hatred. This was a most laudatory intervention, praising the British Armed Forces, and was in marked contrast to what was said by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, who made a statement which, in my 11½ months in the House of Commons, is the most shocking I have heard. He said that he could not condone the use of terrorism or indiscriminate bombing when it affected civil life. Implicitly he did not condemn terrorism and bombing which caused the death of British soldiers who are keeping the peace.

To get away from Ulster, in my short contribution I shall dwell mainly on the manpower aspects of defence. The two-day defence debate is the right forum for strategy. The three single Service days are for an examination of the budget and hardware and procurement policies. This extra day gives the opportunity to discuss the manpower aspects of our defence strategy.

My noble Friend in his admirable introduction spoke first of the Lisbon meeting of the N.A.T.O. Foreign Ministers. I welcome the contribution there of the Foreign Secretary, whose speech was in marked contrast to that of the right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson), who typically waxed eulogistic about détente. I understand the inspiration that leads him in that direction particularly as he has come hot-foot from social democratic contacts in West Germany. I was also impressed by the part of his speech in which he stressed the importance of equality of security. This I am sure is the framework which we should try to achieve in our defence policies in Europe.

The right hon. Member for Dundee, East also said that we should not erect any pre-condition on the Berlin issue. He did not spell out the pre-condition for what, but implicit was the assumption of a Berlin settlement not being a pre-condition for any settlement either of mutual and balanced force reductions or strategic arms limitation or of Ostpolitik and de jure as opposed to de facto recognition of the status quo in Eastern Europe. This is a most dangerous doctrine, and I hope my noble Friend took note of this nuance in the right hon. Gentleman's speech.

It is time, a whole generation after the Second World War, for a new initiative to be taken in defence planning. Continuity in defence has great virtues, and this is the main virtue of the Government's policy. There is nothing so upsetting to the Service man as perpetual uncertainty and not knowing what is to happen next in terms of policy. I remember in my own short period as a Service man being totally frustrated at not knowing, for example, whether my own Service, the R.A.F., was to have the TSR2, the F111 or the AFVG, whether we were going east of Suez or west of Suez or whether we were to be confined to a totally Eurocentric policy. So it is a most important step forward that we should have laid down the clear strategy under which we are working.

We can break down the whole generation of post-war British defence planning. First, we had the cold war era, based on traditional hot war ethos plus the concomitant of conscription, which enabled us to carry out successfully the Berlin airlift, to fight in Korea, to meet the emergency in Malaya and to quell the Mau-Mau uprising in Kenya, but which foundered over Suez. Then came the great hiatus, the great change in emphasis in the 13 years of the previous Conservative Administration, with the Sandys White Paper of 1957 which changed our posture. We then had imperial—if I may say so—responsibilities without the political will, the economic strength or, above all, a defence policy in terms of manpower to make it credible.

This led inevitably to the period of the former Administration, which was a period of severe over-stretch. We had in the seven-year period before that been able to carry out the Kuwait operation, do peacekeeping in South Arabia, quell mutinies in East Africa and, above all, reach the apogee of the concept of minimum force in Borneo over confrontation, but thereafter, and particularly during that operation, came over-stretch. But when further economic difficulties and devaluation were superimposed a whole series of precipitate policy changes were forced on the Government, which the then Secretary of State tried to justify as being the latest word in forward thinking in defence. It was nothing of the sort. It was short-term expediency and reaction to events.

Now we must take new initiatives, and in manpower planning the first thing I emphasise is that we should continue the process of relying increasingly upon short service engagements. My noble Friend has told us earlier how well we are doing in recruiting. He said, in particular, that recruiting of other ranks was going well, as was recruiting for commissioned service in the Royal Navy. I am glad of the larger commissioned entry in the Royal Navy, because this was a point of considerable anxiety for many years past. But, as the White Paper itself made quite clear, it is the short service engagement that is doing best of all, while the scheme for short service engagement linked with industry is also going well.

We should continue this process further. In other words, if we over-rely upon the long service engagement I believe that we do not create the proper career structure for the real high flyers, the people of real ability who want to get to the top in the Armed Services and have responsibility at an early age. That is the main argument for the short service engagement. It is not only that it will increase the area of contact, between the civil community and the Services, but that it provides a better career structure for the Armed Services themselves.

But I do not think that we can have a policy of relying more upon short service engagements without a commensurate expansion of the reserves, because it is reasonable and right, and, as it were, a rider to this, that short service engagements should be accompanied by a reserve commitment. My noble Friends the Secretary of State for Defence and the Minister of State have announced most admirable increases in our reserve forces in particular the 10,000 increase in the Territorial Army which will enable us to carry out our policy of flexible response and provide a better conventional capacity within N.A.T.O. This is quite right, fitting, proper and wholly in line with the Government's manifesto pledges.

On the naval side, too, there has been the announcement of an increase in the special reserve category for the Fleet, and a small augmentation to the Royal Marine Reserve. Here I point to that part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) in which he echoed the words used on an earlier occasion by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers), when she was stressing the value of coastal forces. It is well known, and I have said it before, that there are some 11 Royal Navy Reserve divisions around the country, geographically well located, with a good spread for recruiting which do a jolly good job. They provide a valuable mine-sweeping addition to the Fleet, but if we look at coastal forces and realise the full implications of the surface-to-surface weaponry of high-speed patrol boats, this is just the sort of exacting, demanding, worth-while and professional rôle that reservists are capable of, and that we should be examining.

Steps are also to be taken on the air side. I have heard rumours of increases in headquarter staffs for the Auxiliary Air Force and one or two other moves to augment ground reserves, but the time is ripe for rationalisation of our reserve structure, and perhaps an examination of the benefits that could accrue from the merger of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve. This merger has already happened for the Royal Navy: why should it not happen for the Royal Air Force? The old auxiliaries no longer have their individual flying squadrons in the fighting rôle, so to do this would be appropriate. Were it done, I suggest that there could exist, through the air experience flights which have a geographical distribution in the same sense as the R.N.R., the basis for some reserve flying rôle at a future date. It should not be ruled quite out of court.

We should, in keeping with the philosophy of the Conservative Party, be seeking ways to "hive off" in order to reduce overall expenditure. This is one of the great virtues of a reserve force. There are a number of ancillary rôles, such as liaison, forward air controlling, certain search operations, air experience, perhaps even primary training, that could be done by the reserves more cheaply than by Regulars, and we could thereby release extremely highly trained, very highly qualified personnel for the more sophisticated functions that are appropriate to long-service Regular Forces.

That broadly concludes my remarks on reserves, but I must just say that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force said in the debate on that Service that there was a shortage of pilots in mid-career. The advantage of a fairly short service scheme of, say, eight or twelve years would be that we would retain pilots to their early thirties before they went into civil airlines—and this is the time of their lives when they are of most use to the Royal Air Force. I hope that my noble Friend will remember this.

When trying to create a new structure for the next 25 years we must envisage reforms, such as the Cardwell reforms those which were created by Haldane, or the sort of Jackie Fisher-Churchill partnership in naval terms. We must think of something really new. Reference has been made to the value of emergency services, perhaps on a tri-Service basis, in the future to capture recruits. This was echoed by various hon. Members when speaking about the medical services. It is not inconceivable that by the turn of the century we could be operating something not altogether dissimilar from the Canadian system. I understand the reasons that cause my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice to shudder and groan. None the less, there are a great many functions which could cross established Service boundaries.

If, as my hon. Friend is so precise in pointing out, we are working to fixed targets of expenditure in our strategic planning, we must ruthlessly eliminate areas in which we are spending too much. Obviously, areas which spring to mind include my hon. Friend's own fine fighting force——

Mr. Wall rose——

Mr. Wilkinson

I am not going to allow my hon. Friend to intervene. If anything, I am suggesting that the green uniform could be donned by the other arms! I am not suggesting that professionalism or specialisation should be ruled out. Of course, it is a specialist function to be an amphibious soldier, as no doubt my hon. Friend was. It is professional to be a highly-trained pilot. It is professional to drive a tank. But there are so many areas of overlap—the Royal Air Force Regiment and the Marines, the chaplaincy and the medical services—that it is important that a greater understanding of inter-Service attitudes and a less prejudiced approach be indoctrinated into Service men at the earliest stage of training.

Mr. Wall rose——

Mr. Wilkinson

Perhaps my hon. Friend and I could discuss the point outside the Chamber.

A few years ago I submitted evidence to the Howard-English Committee which was recommending a pattern of service education for the 1970s, as the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) will remember. It is important for the long-service professionals that they have outstanding career opportunities.

Mr. Wall rose——

Mr. Wilkinson

May I be allowed to continue?

All three Services run different officer-education schemes. The Royal Air Force has carried the process of a university education not ad absurdum but certainly to an extreme. The Royal Navy has instituted a new scheme—I refer to a Written Answer of 3rd March—in which, in addition to the university cadetships, there will be special degree courses at the City University for those who have completed their professional training. The Army has something between the two. It is still possible after Sandhurst to get a place at university, I believe. It is certainly true that the Army relies heavily on university cadetships, but, of course, Sandhurst is still most important for providing the main bulk of the officer entry.

I would welcome the establishment of an inter-Service cadet college. My suggestion to the Howard-English Committee was that it should be at Greenwich. The last Government, when they toyed with the idea, suggested that the defence college should be at Shrivenham, and the late Mr. Gerry Reynolds made this clear at the Joint Service Headmasters' Conference in 1967 on the subject of officer education. The Royal Defence Academy, a federation of the three existing academies, was an inadequate scheme. It was insufficiently inspiring. It had not the conceptual grandeur to take us into the next century. But I believe that much value could come from the establishment of an inter-Service cadet college at Greenwich, near the capital, in fine Wren buildings of international, let alone national, fame, and with the National Maritime Museum at hand with its reminders of our great maritime and peacekeeping tradition ever present. I believe that an inter-Service year there—unlike Howard-English, I suggest that it should be before professional training—would be most valuable.

The Donaldson Report on boy entrants emphasised the value of the further education establishments within the Armed Forces. That Report dealt specifically with other ranks, but the same is true for the officer training establishments. I am sure that Cranwell, Dartmouth and Sandhurst could fulfil their professional function better if they concentrated on the professional training, and if the other aspects such as drill, discipline, traditions of the Service, military history and so on were learned in a joint environment.

If I am asked what people would do there and what courses they could meaningfully engage in, I recall that the Report of the joint Service Headmasters' Conference held at Shrivenham said that the proposed joint college would have three schools, one dealing with applied science and weapons technology, another with political and strategic studies, another with economics and management studies.

I feel that this breakdown of disciplines commends itself as reasonable for people in the post-sixth form stage of their education. Thereafter, they should do their professional training, prove that they can do it, and be sent if good enough as sponsored students to university, where Captain Roskill and others who are in a good position to judge would say that they were a good example to their generation of all the virtues of military life about which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Stokes) was so enthusiastic.

We should put greater emphasis on reserve forces. We should train a smaller number for the highest positions of leadership and responsibility within our Armed Forces, and a very good method of doing that would be the establishment of a joint Service cadet college of the kind which I have proposed.

8.49 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles (Winchester)

The last day of a long string of defence debates is always bound to be something of a Scran Bag affair. The House will know that the scran-bag in the Royal Navy is the stowage for any odds and ends and bits and pieces lying about a ship from which items can be retrieved only on payment of a fine of one inch of "pusser's" soap.

Before coming to a few Scran Bag items, I wish to raise one strategic matter. I detected in the opening speeches from both Front Benches today something of an obsession with N.A.T.O. I know that my noble Friend the Minister of State cannot be accused of this, but any Minister is to some extent a prisoner of his Ministry, of his advisers and of the policies which he has inherited. The policy which this Government inherited was almost unhealthily obsessed with N.A.T.O., and it did not pay heed to the wider issues—such as questions of east of Suez policy which have so often been discussed in the House. It is no good burying our heads in the plains of Europe and forgetting President Kennedy's warning that the greatest danger to the West is of being nibbled to death in conditions of nuclear stalemate. Certainly the meeting of the North Atlantic Assembly which I attended in Brussels 10 days ago was inclined to accept the absurd situation much too easily—recognising the threat north of a certain line on the map but refusing to admit the existence of any threat outside the N.A.T.O. area.

Each day of the year 120 merchant ships enter the ports of Western Europe to discharge over 1 million tons of cargo. I urge the Minister of State never to forget the importance to this country, and to Western Europe as a whole, of the security of our trade routes at sea. I do not apologise for making this plea. The pages of HANSARD throughout this century are studded with appeals to the Government of the day not to forget this fact, very often in speeches by "former naval persons"—if I may use that phrase.

One of the ways in which we can best meet the political threat which we face in the aftermath of Empire is by a sufficiently widespread deployment of naval and air forces to present credible evidence of our ability and intention to protect these sea trade routes. For surveillance is abosolutely necessary to enable "hot line diplomacy" to be effective. We all devoutly hope that "hot line diplomacy" will be a substitute for shooting wars in the future.

Two practical points arise if the Minister of State agrees with my philosophy in this respect—and I see him nodding. First, there is the need for seaborne aircraft. When I raised this point with him in the Air debate earlier this year my right hon. Friend said that he was shortly going to observe the trials of the Harrier aircraft on board H.M.S. "Ark Royal". I pulled his leg about the fact that we were still having trials 10 years after we had first seen this aircraft flying at Farnborough.

I hope that the Minister of State will be able to tell the House what impression he gained during the trials of the Harrier, and what was the result of those trials'? I hope that he will be able to tell us how much longer we are to go on with those trials? And also why we apparently need more and more trials although the United States Marine Corps has been sufficiently impressed with the aircraft to place a large additional order since the Air debate?

Lord Balniel

I shall not be winding up the debate. That task falls upon the shoulders of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army. When I attended the "Ark Royal" the evaluation trials had to be postponed. Nevertheless, I had the pleasure of being catapulted off the "Ark Royal" in a Buccaneer, which showed me the advantages of the vertical takeoff, as being a more comfortable way of leaving an aircraft carrier.

In view of the requests made by many hon. Members—including my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) and the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)—for some kind of statement about the evaluation trials at an early opportunity, I shall try to make one. Hon. Members will appreciate that the details of the evaluation trials cannot be disclosed, but I shall try to give the House the general picture.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that assurance. I am sure that it will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

The second practical point arising on this subject is that the present cost of defence is so great that we cannot lightly forgo the help of any allies. The South African Government still give us facilities at Simonstown. I am glad that Her Majesty's Government sold the naval helicopters to the South Africans. But what about the Nimrods? And what about the frigates that the South Africans are bound to require to replace three of their six frigates dating from the Second World War? There seems to be a deafening silence about the supply of those arms. I should like to know what is happening. After the Prime Minister's resolute stand at Singapore I am sure that we do not want to see such orders to go to other countries?

Now I dip into the scran-bag for a couple of items, and the first is the Royal United Services Institution, that very valuable establishment in Whitehall. As I understand it, the rent of that Institution, which has a Government lease, is to be raised from £500 to £12,000 a year, a crippling increase for any independent institution. The Government will pay tribute to the R.U.S.I., and its work in the United Kingdom and abroad, especially in the United States? Will they declare that their policy is not to close down the R.U.S.I, or merge it, but to help it to continue its useful independent existence—by hook or by crook? More than 20 hon. Members from both sides of the House belong to the R.U.S.I., which is valuable for providing informed debates about defence matters away from the sort of fixed firing lines which we are all too apt to adopt in the House. The Labour Government encouraged the R.U.S.I. a good deal, and I should hate the present Government to allow it to slip away.

The second scran-bag item to which I refer is H.M.S. "Belfast". Here, instead of sniping at the Government, I should like to thank them very much for the extremely helpful reply which has been given to the trustees of the H.M.S. "Belfast" Trust. My right hon. Friend the Navy Minister has written to me giving approval in principle for the ship to be handed over to the Trust as an outright gift, subject to two or three simple conditions. The first is that if the scheme should fail and the ship should have to be sold the funds would revert to the Treasury; nobody could object to that. The second is that there should be no further expenditure of public funds on putting the ship on exhibition, and we entirely agree to that, because we hope that the scheme will be self-supporting and financially viable. There are certain details, for instance, the docking, which we hope to accept after some discussion.

But it is now four months since Early Day Motion No. 363, signed by 87 Members from all parts of the House, appeared and three months almost to the day when the issue was first raised by me in an Adjournment debate. The trustees are beginning to be anxious about the time-scale. It is difficult to agree costings with the Ministry about every small particular. I am the last to wish to enter into a "battle of experts" about details. We want to get on with the scheme while the tourist season lasts, because if the scheme is to be viable and self-supporting we must get her on exhibition before the tourist season this summer comes to an end.

H.M.S. "Belfast" is to be berthed at Hay's Wharf, which is not only the best berth in London but the best in the world. We are confident that we can arouse great interest in this ship when she comes up the river. The trustees entirely agree with the Navy Minister that H.M.S. "Belfast" in the eyes of the public would always remain a Royal Navy warship, and we are very happy that that should be so. The trustees want to do the job properly or not at all.

I hope that the Minister of State, having been so helpful about this matter so far, having swallowed a camel, will not strain at a gnat. I hope that he will allow the ship to be handed over and put on exhibition as soon as possible.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. John Morris (Aberavon)

I welcome the Under-Secretary for the Army to the first time that he participates in our defence debates. I do so as the oldest surviving inhabitant of these Front Benches in defence debates, going back some nine years or so. He comes in to bat late in this the last of the current series of defence debates.

I endorse what my right hon. Friend said earlier about the spread of these debates. I hope that this practice will continue. Perhaps it would be preferable if the fourth day were kept until somewhat later in the year so that there was not so long a gap as we shall now have, but this is an improvement on the previous position when it would have been next March before we could have had a formal defence debate in Government time. It would be churlish not to say that this is an improvement in recent use of the fourth day. Last year the then Opposition chose procurement as the special subject to be discussed on the fourth day. This year, as the Minister said, we have had more defence debates than usual. We have had two White Papers and two debates upon them. The Armed Forces Bill came before us on two occasions. We have also had the usual debates on the Estimates.

This traditionally has been the tidying up debate. The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) need not apologise for going through the scrambled egg part of the ship. It is right that on this occasion some of the points which have not been covered earlier should be raised. It would be wrong to expect the Under-Secretary of State to deal with all the points raised, especially those in the latter part of the debate, but I hope that he will follow the usual practice and write to hon. Members on those matters which he is unable to resolve tonight.

I welcome the Minister's statement about recruitment. He was perhaps a little partisan in saying that the reason for the increased recruitment was that there were no longer changes in policy. But as my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) said, the Government have adopted, with some small exceptions, the last Government's policy in money terms, which is what matters to the troops. I know that the situation causes as much dissatisfaction to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) now as it did during the last Government's term of office.

Mr. Wall indicated assent.

Mr. Morris

I see the hon. Gentleman nodding his head. Parts of his speech today were reminiscent of his chastisement of me from this side of the House when I was at the Ministry.

We welcome the increased recruitment but note that there are still difficulties in some aspects. The hon. Gentleman referred to the medical and general services, and my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) mentioned some of the engineering parts of the Services. There always have been these difficulties, and that is why flexibility in terms of service and other attractions must exercise the minds of Ministers from time to time. If unemployment is not a major source of assistance in improving recruiting, and if they do not give any credit to the military salary introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), we should at some stage have a statement from the Government about what major factors they believe do assist recruiting. If unemployment is not one of those factors, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us the advice he gets on the matter and how he justifies it.

The military salary was brought in in two stages—on 1st April, 1970, and 1st April, 1971—and I believe it has been a major factor in increased recruitment. We were also conscious at the time that it would create a number of problems and anomalies from time to time, and presumably some anomalies have been coming up since we left office. I hope that most of them have been resolved.

But I am also confident—if I am wrong, no doubt the hon. Gentleman can disprove it—that one of the major recruiting agents has traditionally been unemployment. It has happened in the past and I am afraid that it is not entirely a coincidence that recruitment has risen along with the high unemployment figures. The unemployment figures for last April were the worst since 1940. Regrettably, it appears that there will also be high unemployment throughout next winter, which may also come to the aid of the Government in recruitment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell us—and if necessary set up a study—what are the factors which influence people to join the Armed Forces and whether there are parts which call for improvement.

A great part of the debate has been concerned with Northern Ireland. Perhaps this was to be expected, although I do not see here any of the hon. Members who took part from below the Gangway, with the exception of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder). I have known him a long time and would expect him to be here, as he is a very courteous man. Indeed, the debate has been dominated to a large extent by Northern Ireland.

I echo the words of my right hon. Friend, who said that our troops are there as guardians of democracy and to use the minimum amount of force to preserve the peace. Although we have had one or two dissident voices, it should go out that there is wide commendation and support for and confidence in our troops in Northern Ireland in their most difficult and distasteful task. If there is any doubt—and one hears murmurs occasionally—among the soldiers about it, I hope that the hon. Gentleman the Minister will make known to them the feelings of the House in that they have our support and confidence.

The hon. Member for Belfast, South used a rather odd word, although I am not sure that I caught it right. If I am wrong, I hope that he will correct me. He referred to the Army's task of "retaliating". Perhaps, on reflection, if he did use that word, he will now withdraw it.

Mr. Pounder

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I did use the word, in the context of statements made after actions. It was perhaps not the happiest choice of words, and I accept the correction.

Mr. Morris

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has withdrawn that word because it would be quite wrong to use it in connection with the task of the Army. Perhaps its duty is to react, but certainly I would hope not to retaliate. The hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lieutenant-Colonel Colin Mitchell) used some odd words which I am sure caused some surprise when he said that the task was to out-terrorise the terrorists. Below the Gangway on this side of the House the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) said: "Many of the riots have been provoked by the British Army." I find these words, coming from all sides of the House, quite out of place and quite out of character with my understanding and that of the majority of hon. Members, of the rôle of the troops in Northern Ireland.

I much preferred the wise and somewhat sharp words of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd, endorsed by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) who called for the building of bridges and the curing of evils which caused the disturbances and the troubles. I hope it is that note, struck by the majority of hon. Members, which those who will read our debates in Northern Ireland will adopt rather than the odd statements we have heard from some of the hon. Members I have quoted.

One of the issues raised was that of the Ulster Defence Regiment. Perhaps we could be told more about that regiment in the closing speech. Perhaps we could be told something about the recruiting position. Does it vary in different areas, and what is the problem over the substantial number of resignations which have taken place? What is the up-to-date balance of the religions? An effort was made, despite all the difficulties, to try to get a balance of religious persuasions into the Regiment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) mentioned the suggestion about the full-time battalion in the Regiment. It was the Minister of State for Defence who said that this was being considered but no decision had been reached and in any event it would need legislation. I endorse the remarks that have been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East. I find it extremely strange that in newspaper after newspaper on the same day this suggestion appeared, but not in the House of Commons. In The Times of yesterday there was this statement by the defence correspondent: The Ministry of Defence is considering setting up a full-time battalion in the Ulster Defence Regiment, the part-time Army which acts as a kind of home guard in Northern Ireland. A statement confirming this from the Ministry last night emphasised that discussions were still at a very early stage and no decisions had been taken. It is odd that this kind of statement has appeared in all the papers one after another. Whatever the merits of the proposals, it seemed a very ham-handed, elephantine way of approaching a most delicate problem—allowing fears which undoubtedly exist——

Lord Balniel

I was abroad when this statement appeared but I understand that the position was that one newspaper had an article on it. Very naturally, other papers sent their reporters to the Ministry, and the statement which the hon. Gentleman has quoted was the response of the Ministry of Defence to the inquiries being made. That is the explanation why it appeared in so many papers.

Mr. Morris

I know the difficulties of trying to trace sources of articles in newspapers. After five and a half years as a Minister, I know of the difficulties that face the hon. Gentleman. However, he made in the House today an off-the-cuff statement in his opening remarks, in response to an attempt by an hon. Gentleman on this side of the House, below the Gangway, to obtain time for a debate on the subject. It seems to be a casual and cavalier way of treating the House of Commons.

Lord Balniel

The right hon. Gentleman is getting over-excited about this. I have also answered a Parliamentary Question on the subject today.

Mr. Morris

It must have been a Written Question. I do not know when it was put down, whether it was in view of the articles which have appeared in the newspapers. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can advise us whether it was an inspired question from someone on his own side. I do not know; I have not had the advantage of seeing it.

Lord Balniel

I must continue to assist the right hon. Gentleman. The question was put down by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) who was naturally interested in the subject. I answered the Question in accordance with parliamentary practice.

Mr. Morris

The hon. Gentleman can hardly accuse me of being over-excited on this matter. There were fears, and attempts have been made by his predecessors to alleviate those fears in that part of the world. It seems odd, when the newspaper articles appeared out of the blue, that he did not take the trouble to come down to the House and tell us what the situation was, rather than merely acting in response to an indication given by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone this afternoon. The Government have acted in a ham-handed way and have undoubtedly added fuel to the fires of fear. I suggest that the Government should think hard about this issue. There were real fears about the "B" Specials. An effort was made to start afresh, and there has been a measure of success. It would be wrong for the Government to take any step which would mean the loss of confidence which has been brought about in the intervening period.

Concerning the statement made by the Minister this afternoon, it is odd that, although he dealt with the rumour and the suggestion by saying that the matter was being considered and there had been no decision, he did not put forward one argument why it was being considered. We shall expect to have some assistance on this important matter when the Minister winds up.

I welcome the statement made by the Minister a few minutes ago regarding the Harrier trials and his intention of placing before the House some of the results so that we may have more general information. I had the privilege of attending some of the earlier trials. I hope that they are successful. It would be of advantage if the Minister would place the maximum information before the House, within the usual provisions of security, so that we can have a fuller debate upon it.

The hon. Member for Haltemprice asked what the Government's views were about the ordering of an increased number of hunter-killer submarines. He said that nothing had been done by the present Government beyond what the previous Government had done. The hon. Gentleman said, "If our words in Opposition are to mean anything, there should be an increase in the number", and presumably in the total amount of defence expenditure. I have raised this matter in previous defence debates. We should be told specifically whether there has been any change of policy from that of their predecessors, whether their intention is to increase the number or to maintain the policy which on so many occasions they attacked when in Opposition. If the Prime Minister means what he says by "frank and honest government" then the hon. Member for Haltemprice, who has taken a great interest in this matter over the years and cross-examined me when I was a member of the Labour Government, should be told how the matter stands. I do not share his confidence that there will be a substantial change of policy, but he should be put out of his misery one way or the other.

Another matter which has caused concern in previous defence debates relates to torpedoes. I know a little about some of the difficulties attendant upon that subject. We should be told what the present position is and whether matters have now been sorted out.

I should like to know how the Government's organisation of the dockyards is proceeding. I was glad to note the announcement recently about Plymouth. How is the dockyard board there sorting itself out? Is it an improvement on the previous system? Has it now been properly set up? Who are the outside members?

Concerning refits, I know of some of the problems regarding the policy of the typing of yards and getting the right ships to the right yards to be refitted. At times some ships have had to wait many months to be refitted. In view of the vast amount of capital involved when ships are not available as soon as they might be because of delays in being slotted in to be refitted, I should like to know whether the position has improved, is the same or is worsening. Perhaps the Minister will write to me about this matter in due course.

I raised a similar point in the debate on the Royal Air Force concerning aero-engines and the time taken to have them refurbished and the capital amount involved. Given the constraints on defence expenditure, I am sure that we shall be able to make a greater amount of equipment available if some of the bottlenecks can be tackled in a better way. I am aware of the problems, but perhaps we could be brought up to date about the position.

I should like to refer to the announcement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about the future of Foulness and Shoeburyness and the third London Airport. He was asked who would bear the cost of re-provisioning Shoeburyness. About £25 million may well be involved in re-provisioning the Army's essential needs at some other place. When I asked him who would bear the cost, he said: It will be through the normal Ministry of Defence Estimates."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1971; Vol. 816, c. 40.] The impression conveyed to me by the right hon. Gentleman was that the cost would be carried by the Ministry of Defence and presumably would come within the defence ceiling.

On 13th May I asked what effect the Government's decision to locate the new London airport at Foulness will have on Ministry of Defence financial estimates; and how the cost of the movement of Shoeburyness facilities will be borne. The Minister of State for Defence Procurement replied: The cost of replacing the Shoeburyness facilities will not be a charge to the Defence Budget. The actual allocation to financial Votes is under consideration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th May, 1971; Vol. 817, c. 144.] The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Minister of State for Defence Procurement cannot both be right. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that the cost would be borne by the normal Ministry of Defence Estimates. He has made a number of observations in the House which have had to be corrected. The Minister of State for Defence Procurement is not ad idem with the Secretary of State when he says that the cost of replacement will not be a charge to the Defence Budget.

Mr. Ian Gilmour

I was right. The cost will not be borne on the Defence Vote. Probably my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was thinking of accountancy procedures, or something of that sort, when he was asked the question off the cuff. The answer is as I gave it in reply to a Question which, unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman was not able to ask but which was published as a written reply.

Mr. Morris

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has reiterated what appears in a Written Answer. I hope that he will convey to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the need for him to come to the House and amend his answer. I was present when he made the announcement about Foulness. He was asked twice by me who would bear the cost, and he said specifically that it would be borne under the normal Ministry of Defence Estimates, washing his hands of the whole affair. It is time that the Secretary of State was a little more House-trained and was able to say what the position is.

Mr. Wall

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the cost on the Ministry of Defence Vote which is being saved is £25 million—exactly the cost of a hunter-killer submarine? The House may draw the right moral. I hope that the Government will.

Mr. Morris

That is a matter for the Minister and not for me. The hon. Member for Haltemprice still has had no satisfaction on this point from the Government.

I wish to deal briefly with other matters. The question of Exocet has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd and the hon. Member for Haltemprice. What decision has been taken? Will the Government tell us what it is if a decision has been made? How many ships will have it, and over what period? There was some query by one of the defence correspondents that the existing gun might have to be displaced on some of the ships. Is that right or wrong?

There were rumours of dissatisfaction in British industry with the share out of the work, in that only the "garage work"—some of the assembly work—would be done in this country, and that the bulk of the money would go to France. I remember the times when I stood at that Dispatch Box being chastised because of foreign purchases. The Government should tell the House the position: what proportion of the money will go to British industry, and what are the terms of the order. Do we understand that the cost has escalated and that the Government are buying fewer than they originally intended?

We still have not been told the Government's intentions over a trainer for the Royal Air Force. Before the recess we expect a statement on the M.R.C.A. There has been no statement since last July, and we do not know what the position is. We have been promised a statement this July, and it would be wrong to go into recess before we knew whether the difficulties over Rolls-Royce have affected the position, or made the engine which Rolls-Royce was to supply for the M.R.C.A. any less competitive. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State could reassure us on this score.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles

Does it really lie in the right hon. Gentleman's mouth to chastise the Government about Exocet when this purchase was made necessary by the absolute inaction on the missile front by his Administration over five long years and more?

Mr. Morris

The hon. and gallant Gentleman will have studied the White Papers on this issue. He will not know, and perhaps he will accept from me, that when the Government came to the House and announced like some dens ex machina, that they had started negotiating with the French—as if this were something quite new—it was some surprise to them to know that the naval staff had been engaged in discussion, with the blessing of my right hon. Friend and myself, for some time on this very important issue.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman may not know that in this field there have been a substantial number of difficulties. [Laughter.] The hon. and gallant Gentleman may laugh, but he will know that in some of these fields one is on the frontiers of knowledge. Whatever the amounts involved, there are enormous difficulties. I am sure that the Minister of State for Defence Procurement is going through enormous difficulties—just as I did—in the torpedo field, for example. Here we are essentially dealing with guided weapons, and are venturing into the unknown. With the best will in the world, the best scientific and technical advice, the best people whom the Royal Navy can put at our disposal, it is not always easy to ensure absolute success.

While there is success on many fronts, I know, as I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman will know, that there are disasters from time to time. I am not in any way chastising the Government on Exocet. All I am saying is that it is time the House was told what the position is. I hope that there will be statement from the Government on this very important development.

Concern has been expressed in the House about the provision of the relief and supplies in the tragedies that have befallen citizens of the Commonwealth in India and Pakistan. I welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement today, and obviously we shall have to return, in the debate tomorrow, to the amounts involved and the question of urgency. I am glad to know that the Royal Air Force has made available six aircraft to carry necessary supplies and that more will be avilable, according to the statement, if necessary.

Right hon. Gentlemen opposite have inherited a first-class transport fleet in the Royal Air Force. These are tasks which the R.A.F. do so well. A number of calls have been made on the R.A.F. over the years, and I am confident that whatever calls are made, however great they may be, the Royal Air Force will match the needs of the times.

In addition to the rôle that the R.A.F. can and does undoubtedly play, have the Government thought of other assistance which our Forces could give? I am thinking, for example, of the Royal Marines in Singapore and the invaluable assistance they gave during the floods. Perhaps not the same sort of troops are required in this instance—on that occasion troops in small boats were required—but it would be wise for the Government to look right through the resources of the Ministry of Defence to see whether other forms of assistance could be made available.

One hears much about the shortage of mass injectors. I recall that, as a Minister, I was shown a mass injector at Porton which had been devised there. I am not sure whether it is the same sort of equipment as is being discussed in the cholera context, but the Government should ensure that the resources of Porton are being utilised so that as many people as possible may be injected against cholera in the crisis that is now faced.

I can best sum up my appeal by urging that to avert enormous human misery in India and Pakistan, there should be a speedy response to any request that is made and that every effort should be made to look at the entire resources of the Ministry of Defence, in addition to the R.A.F., which has a great transportation rôle to play, to see that every possible assistance is given.

I am confident that our Forces can be relied upon to carry out this and other difficult tasks in all parts of the world, including on our own doorstep. I wish them well. They can rest assured that they have the support and confidence of this House in what they are doing, and I trust that this message will go out from this debate today.

9.32 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith)

The right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) began by rightly referring to the fact that he was a veteran of many defence debates and that this was the last debate of the defence season. He also correctly pointed to this as being my first appearance at the Dispatch Box as Under-Secretary.

I wish to open my innings by agreeing with him that it is appalling that we should not have our defence debates spread over a wider period. After listening to the contributions today, I cannot wait for March until we have another of these debates. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his cordial welcome, and the same goes for his right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson). Hon. Gentlemen opposite have, on the whole, taken a constructive approach to the problems that we have been discussing. I am sure that our Forces appreciate this immensely. Indeed, they are bound to be appreciative of our trying to maximise the areas of agreement.

It is obviously impossible for me to cover in the time available to me all the points that hon. Members have made in what, to use a new Parliamentary term to me, has been a scran-bag of a debate, and any major points with which I do not deal I will reply to by way of correspondence.

I was glad to hear the right hon. Member for Aberavon conclude his remarks by commenting on the theme which has run through many speeches, and that is the rôle which our Armed Forces can and do play in helping countries which are afflicted by disasters. We all welcomed the statement which was made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, and particularly his reference to the initiative which we had taken at the United Nations in this respect.

My noble Friend referred to the help which is given by our Services to civil communities. I was privileged earlier this year, during a visit to the Mediterranean and the Gulf, to see some of the work done by British Forces in Malta and the Gulf. This work has been much appreciated. This aid to civil communities is a continuing programme for our Armed Forces.

I would like to be able to give a more detailed answer to some of the questions posed by the right hon. Member for Dundee, East. He said that he was not asking a series of rhetorical questions about our position in the Gulf, though he raised the issue of our dispositions and asked what would happen to the sale of our assets. His questions, if not rhetorical, were certainly hypothetical. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has made it clear that we strongly support the development of a union of the Arab Emirates. Discussions are going on with the local States concerned about the matters which the right hon. Gentleman raised with me. The House cannot expect me tonight to anticipate the outcome of those discussions.

The right hon. Member for Dundee, East asked me about our plans to maintain relations with Iran. We are fully aware of our need to retain the friendship of Iran and recognise the major part which Iran has to play in the long-term stability of the Gulf. He also mentioned the rôle of frigates; they will normally be deployed east of Suez and probably visit the Gulf area three or four times a year.

Mr. George Thomson

Is the Under-Secretary of State saying that the Government will not terminate the treaties with the rulers in the Gulf at the end of the year, as his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced to the House just before one of our defence debates? If the treaties are to be terminated at the end of the year, what will be the status of British Forces there beyond that point in time? If they are to be terminated at the end of the year, should not the forces be moving out now? Has not the deadline already been passed?

Mr. Johnson Smith

My right hon. Friend said that the treaty arrangements were to be terminated, and, if a federation were not achieved, he would come to the House and make another statement. I cannot go further than that this evening.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the rundown of our forces in Singapore, and that is proceeding satisfactorily. There have been a few changes in the previous plans to take into account our decision to maintain a British presence in Singapore after 1971. Some units have left earlier than planned, but we are spreading the withdrawal of families through until December instead of withdrawing them all in September as originally planned. This will reduce the spell of family separation. Our Forces permanently stationed in the area after 1971 include one battalion which will be accompanied. I will later come to the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman and many hon. Members on both sides of the House about Northern Ireland. I do not want to duck that at all.

Mr. Wall

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the fact that we are leaving troops in Singapore enables us to maintain communications and intelligence, and, above all, storage facilities, which we would have lost had the Labour Party's plan been carried out?

Mr. Johnson Smith

Yes, I am glad to confirm that. The right hon. Gentleman asked about the running on of certain destroyers and frigates in the Royal Navy and said that he had heard that we were increasing the number of ships planned for the Royal Navy under the previous Administration. This is indeed so, and none of them is to be put in mothballs. There is no need for him to suggest that there is anything secretive about the decision. It was announced by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy to the House in the debate on the Royal Navy on 4th May, when he said that we are keeping in commission a number of frigates which were on previous plans due to be phased out in the next year or so. He explained that it is not the practice to reveal the detailed numbers, but the ships involved will provide a most useful contribution to the Fleet at relatively low cost and add to our total declaration of ships to N.A.T.O. I have myself gone into the question of manpower, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the men will be found from the numbers available to the Royal Navy at the time.

My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) raised the question of Exocet, as did the right hon. Member for Aberavon. My hon. and gallant friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) gave part of the answer to why it was necessary for us to buy this equipment. There was a gap, a decision had to be taken, and it had to be taken urgently.

My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice compared this system with the Russian Shaddock missile. It is true that Exocet is not a counter to Shaddock and is a horizon range weapon only, but, as hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise, there are other methods of dealing with missiles of the Shaddock type. First, there is the option of attack on the ship which launches the missile. The attack can be delivered by aircraft, whether carrier-borne—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—or shore-based, or by submarines. In the context of carrier-borne or shore-based aircraft, may I say how important the rôle of the Harrier could be. As we have heard, there have been trials on aircraft carriers. One has to consider also their possible use on cruisers. Secondly, the Shaddock missiles can be countered by the surface-to-air missiles now fitted in our warships and by the improved systems which have succeeded them—Sea Dart and Sea Wolf. It is important to remember that long-range missiles of the Shaddock type encounter problems of acquisition which may be very severe. Usually they must rely on a form of mid-course guidance which is vulnerable to attack. If the mid-course guidance system is destroyed the capability of the missiles to exploit their full range must be severely impaired if not altogether removed.

Mr. Wilkinson

Does not this fact further emphasise the importance of naval air power? The guiding instrument will probably be a long-range patrol aircraft, of which the navy of the Soviet Union has some 500. It is, therefore, all the more important that the Royal Navy should have its own integral air cover.

Mr. Johnson Smith

It emphasises the importance of air power—no one denies that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice spoke of submarines and of air flight missiles launched from them. I can assure him that studies of such a project are under way.

The hon. Members for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and for Aberavon referred to the M.R.C.A. As has been said before, the M.R.C.A. fills a crucial place in our plans for strike reconnaissance but, as my hon. Friend explained in the debate on 19th April, the project is due for review later in the summer. I therefore do not think that this is a good time for me to go further now. Nevertheless, I can assure the House that the question of the range of this aircraft is kept constantly in mind.

Mr. John Morris

Will a statement be made to the House before the Summer Recess?

Mr. Johnson Smith

We must complete the review before I can give a categorical assurance that there will be a statement such as the hon. Gentleman seeks before the Summer Recess.

Mr. Morris

I have raised this matter at Question Time on at least two occasions, and I think that I was given the assurance on earlier occasions that a statement would be made before the Summer Recess. I want to know exactly what the position is. If the hon. Gentleman does not know, I will accept that, but if he does know I want to be told what the position is. Are we to be told before the Summer Recess what the position is?

Mr. Johnson Smith

I do not know, because the review is not completed, and I cannot genuinely say that there will be a statement until we know when the review is completed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) referred to an important welfare matter affecting very many of our men in Northern Ireland, and that is the issue of free travel warrants for soldiers normally based in Germany but at present serving in Northern Ireland. The troops in Northern Ireland are very much occupied with their duty. This requires constant alertness, and opportunities for leave, especially for those from units in Germany who are serving a four-months' unaccompanied spell of duty are few. Only a few are able to get a short leave, perhaps 24 hours or, at the most, 72 hours, and even the latter period would hardly allow a soldier to make the trip to his family in Germany even if he could use the aircraft charter service from Luton. We are examining the possibility of reducing the air fares from Northern Ireland to Great Britain for Servicemen, and on compassionate grounds air passages would be arranged if appropriate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) raised the question of military members serving on the Aldershot Council. I assure him that we have always been very pleased to see those representatives in such a militarily oriented area. I will consider the point he made, but I am sure he will realise that in the last resort it is the local authority which must judge whether this is a practice which should continue. I will also look at his points about Rushmoor and the proposed lido.

The hon. Member for West Lothian raised the question of lands held by the Services, and I want to clear up this point. Too many people too often get the impression that the Services hold on to land because they are rapacious landlords who never disgorge what they have gained from war. The fact is that since the war we have reduced our land holdings very substantially. We held 7 million acres in 1945, and the holding is now 600,000 acres: 4,000 acres have been disposed of in each of the last four years.

There is constant and heavy pressure for land, and that is why we have arranged for the committee under Lord Nugent to make a wide-ranging study of land requirements. The committee will not be able to report today or tomorrow—the study will take some time—but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be patient, as I think we all have to be on this subject.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, East and his hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon for their approach to the subject of Northern Ireland and for pledging the support of the Opposition to the troops we have there. The right hon. Gentleman, and his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) would like some assurance of our attitude on this side to the rôle of the troops in Northern Ireland. This came out more specifically in the speech of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook when he spoke of political pressures on the Army. He asked for a categorical assurance that the conduct of the Army's operations is influenced entirely by military considerations and is under the direction of the Government in London. I think that that is a fair paraphrase of what was in his mind.

In reply, I would say first, and I am sure that it will not be forgotten, that the Northern Ireland Government have a very real interest and responsibility in matters of public order and security in the Province, and they are entitled to have and to express views on the way in which public order and security should be maintained in Northern Ireland. In so far as they affect the Army's rôle, these views are fully considered by the G.O.C. and by the Westminster Government, but the final decisions on the conduct of military operations rests with the military authorities in Northern Ireland under the direction of the Ministry of Defence and the Westminster Government. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. and right hon. Members that the actual conduct of operations will continue to be guided by the principle of restraint in the use of force—minimum force, but, I hasten to add, adequate force. It is recognised very clearly that, legal requirements apart, the success of the anti-terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland depends considerably on isolating the violent extremists from the population at large and, therefore, avoiding indiscriminate force. This is resorted to because injury to innocent bystanders could result in the alienation of large elements of the population on whose support the security forces depend for eventually routing out and defeating the terrorists. It would be a self-defeating tactic. However, let there be no doubt that while every effort will be made to avoid involving peaceable sections of the population, the terrorist when identified will be dealt with as forcefully as necessary to counter his activities.

I think hon. Members on both sides of the House who have been there, or who have read about and discussed the scene in Northern Ireland, will be aware that there has been a marked change in the security situation since the Army assistance was first provided in 1969. At that time and, throughout 1970 there was serious large-scale communal strife, and the British Army's contribution was largely one of keeping the peace between the communities, although increasingly the Army became the target of attack from the elements of one community or another.

Now we have a situation in which communal rioting on any significant scale is a rarity but where, instead, a small number of terrorists are engaging the Army by particularly vicious attacks. Eight soldiers have been killed this year, the first deaths since 1969. The organisers of this campaign of gangsterism must know that it cannot succeed. If they believe that they will eventually break the will of the British people to support the task of the Army in Northern Ireland, they are seriously mistaken. The British Army will remain in Northern Ireland for as long as its assistance is needed. It has no imperialist rôle, I say to the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), and there will be no irresolution of purpose on our part.

The Government of Northern Ireland—an assurance was asked for in this connection—are committed to a reform programme which is now well under way, and there is no slackening in zeal at Westminster to see that this programme is carried out successfully. The Army will play its part, with the Royal Ulster Constabulary, in helping to bring violence to an end so that in an environment of peace and order the full fruits of the reform programme can be seen. All this is anathema to the gunman and the bomb thrower whose purposes are served only by fear, hatred and frustration. They have failed to provoke the Army into over-reaction against the population, and in this and all forms of hostility, as the House has generously recognised today, the British soldier has remained restrained and will continue to do so because this is the hallmark of the professional, as we know the British soldier to be.

A point was made by a number of hon. Members about the Ulster Defence Regiment. There was no leak by my right hon. and hon. Friends. We do not like the way the information came out in the way that it did, any more than does the hon. Member who raised the point. The statement which he read, which appeared in the papers on the Monday, arose out of inquiries made with the Ministry following a report which appeared in one paper—I think, the Sunday Mirror. I was telephoned about this. What should one do—tell a lie or tell the truth? Quite rightly, the Ministry of Defence spokesman told the truth. I am sure that it was the right way to act.

We have heard about misgivings that people have, but I am bound to say and emphasise that we wish to improve recruiting to the U.D.R. We are considering the possibility of raising a full-time battalion because we think—it is under review; no firm decision has been taken—that this could possibly help the task of improving our security forces. But I cannot emphasise too much that the principles on which a full-time battalion would operate would be the same as those which apply to the existing units of the Regiment.

The Ulster Defence Regiment is now well into its second year of operational duties. The Regiment has quickly found its place in the Northern Ireland security system, and it has provided an important public example of successful non-sectarian co-operation.

Here are some interesting facts. In its first year, over 120,000 man-days of operational duties were undertaken throughout the Province on tasks which would otherwise have fallen to our Regular troops. Nearly one-sixth of these operational days were carried out in February this year alone. Apart from its routine duties in support of the Army in guarding key points and undertaking patrols on the Border and in rural areas, the Regiment has been particularly useful, in times of emergency in taking on some of the Army's routine tasks on the periphery of Belfast and assuming complete responsibility for certain rural areas.

The full-time call-out of some members of the Regiment in such circumstances interferes, I know, with normal civilian life, and I pay tribute to the way in which the members concerned, and their employers, have met the challenge.

As regards recruiting, the Regiment's strength is now over 4,000, and we hope to build up steadily to the ceiling of 6,000 envisaged in the Government's White Paper published in November, 1969. I cannot forecast how quickly we shall achieve this. Obviously, we should like recruiting to go at a faster rate. As regards wastage, the House will appreciate that invariably one finds a rather higher wastage rate in a part-time volunteer force, but, with the exception of two weeks, there has been a net weekly increase of srength. This is encouraging and it suggests a solid foundation.

Mr. George Thomson

Could the hon. Gentleman give us the present breakdown of the force as between Catholic and Protestants? Also, since he has given a welcome reassurance of Whitehall control over these military matters, could he tell us whether the answer reported this morning as being given in the Stormont today in reply to a question about a full-time battalion was agreed with the Ministry of Defence before it was given?

Mr. Johnson Smith

I am not aware of the statement to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. If I may, I should like to study that statement and write to the right hon. Gentleman about it, taking up at the same time the question which he raises about the breakdown between the different religious groups.

Mr. Thomson

I am sorry to press the Minister at this point, but the breakdown of the existing force as between Catholic and Protestant is crucial to the whole argument which he is putting. We ought to know.

Mr. Johnson Smith

I appreciate that. I said that it was a good example of non-sectarian co-operation. I recognise the point very well, and I shall give the right hon. Gentleman the breakdown when I deal with that and the other point which be has raised.

As this is the first time that I have spoken from the Dispatch Box, and I have only recently taken up this appointment, I should like to say a few general words in conclusion. I have been very struck by the professionalism and sense of purpose of the individual Service man wherever I have been. His adaptability is apparent, and, indeed, legendary, not only in the Province of Northern Ireland but in the rather different circumstances of Cyprus, Aden and Borneo.

The image of the Armed forces in this country has steadily but perceptibly changed. I think that our soldiers are more accepted now as part of the community. There is less "bull" than there used to be, but the Service man's smartness and general turn-out are as high as ever. Discipline has changed, in my view for the better; it comes more from the man himself, and it does so because the Armed Forces give him more responsibility. No one can fail to be impressed by the maturity and awareness of the junior N.C.O. who commands a detachment either in Belfast or on the peace line in Cyprus.

I have no doubt about the resources on which we can call, not only in terms of men and equipment but in terms of leadership and morale, and I am sure that the whole House will agree that the British Armed Forces of the 1970s are a credit to their country.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.