HC Deb 01 February 1980 cc1731-827 9.35 am
Mr. Hugh Fraser (Stafford and Stone)

I beg to move,

That this House, noting the successive acts of military aggression organised by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, culminating in the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, remarking the growing domination of Soviet policy by the largest military and armaments machine in history, and believing that now and over the next decade the greatest danger to world peace lies in the hesitancy of a sustained Western military and diplomatic response, calls upon the Government as a preliminary and minuimal act of prudence to enrol the youth and the skills of the nation by a registration by law of those eligible for national or military service. I hope that the House will bear with me on this occasion if I stick closely to my notes. I usually make short speeches without much use of notes. It strikes me that in opening the assembly of this honourable House at 9.30 am it would be appropriate to end prayers with the first line of the Star-Spangled Banner, which says: Oh, say can you see, by the dawn's early light". I hope that those hon. Members who have the chance to come here will listen to what I have to stay.

This is neither a bellicose motion nor one calling for the immediate reintroduction of the previous form of national service. What it asks for is the first payment of an insurance policy—that, and no more. It asks that those eligible and considered suitable by the Government for national military service should register.

I am not asking the House of Commons or the Government for a blank cheque. It is not even financially a very expensive premium to pay, considering the £8,000 million being spent on defence today. In the United States, President Carter feels that £5 million would bring the United States national registers for the draft up to date. All I am asking is that we in this country carry out what President Carter has requested of his people—a register by law of those who can be key to the defence of the realm. It is far less than is demanded by the Governments of any of our European allies where conscription is a fact.

Having Listened to statements by Ministers and by the Leader of the Opposition, there is no need for me to amplify what has been said here or in the United Nations about the nature of the invasion of Afghanistan. A most alarming sign of the times, which may well become more apparent over the next few months, is the rising dominance in the Soviet Politburo of those responsible for the armed forces and for the armaments industry inside the Soviet Union.

My fear—and it is not just my fear—is that in modern Russia the enormous military and armaments machine not only dominates the economy but is beginning to dominate the political thinking. Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success. There is now a momentum that is more alarming and more sustained than the late Adolf Hitler's drive to war.

There was always a chance that the general staff, Krupp, Thyssen and the industrialists, could turn upon the dictator; on more than one occasion they nearly did so. Figures show that it was only in 1939–40 that German rearmament rose to a crescendo. In 1935, German armament was only 1.4 per cent. of the gross domestic product. In 1936 it actually dropped to 1.3 per cent. But now, in the bunkers of the Soviet Praesidium—to use the Hitlerian analogy—we have an OKH, an OKW and an industrial national gessellschaft ruthlessly and infrangibly combined. Never before in human history have a group of men been so conscious that if they do not hang together they will hang separately.

What is alarming about Russian rearmament is that because of the system it is totally inflexible and more and more voracious, taking about 12 per cent. of the Russian gross domestic product and increasing that take annually by about 5 per cent.

I am not, I hope, making an ideological point: I am stating a fact. Where politics and not profit dominates, there is no flexibility.

In the United States of America—a country that, industrially, is infinitely stronger than the Soviet Union—if a company does not get an order for tanks or aeroplanes it turns over to making white goods, or its labour force finds other jobs. Air photographs show—and reports confirm—that in the Soviet Union there is a steady, relentless expansion of war factories, with labour forces tied to those factories and commissars involved with those factories. For those commissars, in their privileged position, the means and making of death have become a way of life.

Dr. Kissinger said that "in history the juggernauts of relentless military and armament expansions move inexorably towards states of war"—or something like that. My fear is that, unless it is checked, the Soviet juggernaut will find its appetite in eating, and in an unstable world the menu seen from the Kremlin must be extensive, to say the least.

These considerations are the first reason for my bringing these proposals before the House. The second is what one might call the credibility or deterrent aspect of what I am proposing. The old Chinese military adage, "When in danger let generals put out more flags", is no longer valid for the dangerous decade that lies ahead.

What is needed is not the temporary cutting off of grain supplies or diplomatic relations, or the boycotting of one Olympic Games, but an adequate and enduring response by the West, and by ourselves in particular. Let it be remembered that to play the hawks one needs two essential characteristics of those birds—talons, however neatly sheathed, and vision.

I hope that the Government will accept the motion. It is the quickest—and indeed the cheapest—means by which we can show our allies and our enemies that we are serious people. What I propose is not an act of hysteria. I am asking the Government to take the first step so that they will have available the knowledge and the means for the effective direction of manpower, should the international situation deteriorate and demand it. Far from being aggressive, what I propose is a minimal act of prudence. Using the technical military jargon of the day, bringing this forward now would mean that the telescoping of our reaction time—a shortening of seven or eight months to a situation of near-immediate civil response to a state of national and international alert. Those who are engaged in the game of deterrence will know what an important matter that is.

I notice that in the United States, Senator Kennedy has attacked the President, declaring that registration would merely offer a solid paper wall of data print-outs. I believe that the senator is wrong. Until the data is available, the Government—and the argument applies also to our own Government—are largely in the dark as to what manpower resources they have available.

But where the senator and those who will oppose me here are especially wrong is in regarding this as a response to one Soviet action. It is not. We face a chilling decade, and it is best to take action before that decade becomes more chill. I know that there are some in this House who may say that this is a sign that will make the cold war position worse.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

Yes.

Mr. Fraser

I know that the hon. Gentleman will be speaking in that sense. All I would say is that if in 1937 or 1938, rather than in April 1939, Prime Minister Chamberlain had brought forward the Militia Bill for the registration of our youth, Hitler and certainly the general staff might have had second thoughts. On that grim April day in 1939, Chamberlain said Nothing would so impress the world with the determination of this country to offer a firm resistance to any attempt at general domination as its acceptance of the principle of compulsory military service, which is the universal rule of the Continent. I believe that that principle has been accepted by this House of Commons. The question is whether what I propose is not just relevant politically—which clearly it is—but is militarily necessary.

I turn to why I believe that Government action is now necessary to pay this small premium. That can be best shown by considering this effectiveness of the major insurance that we are now paying—a military budget running at £8,000 million a year. I ask the House to concentrate on the manpower aspects of that budget and to disregard equipment for the moment, although noting that we have had to borrow American Air Force Argosies to fly our own Puma helicopters to Rhodesia.

The most obvious fact is that between 1970 and 1980 the total of our forces has dropped by about 200,000 men and women—from 768,000 to 592,000. Our reserves—as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as a leading figure in the Territorial Army, will know—haveremained in the area of 200,000 overall. That must be set against the reserves of two neutral countries. Sweden can field over 500,000 and Switzerland can field about 600,000. There are even more serious shortcomings within the figures. There is a shortage of technicians. There is a shortage of reserves. There is a shortage of men to meet either changing circumstances in Britain's defence or, judging from our stance on foreign policy, the making up of a force for action outside Europe.

The problem of technicians as opposed to fighting men—of course, the fighting man is the technician—is common to all voluntary armed forces in the free world. Military remunerations cannot compete with those afforded in civilian life. Hence the recent cry of despair from the chief of naval staff in the United States to the President asking that the draft be brought back.

Let us take three examples nearer home. What is the position of the Royal Army Medical Corps? Few, if any, operations in BAOR are carried out by British doctors; they are, rather, carried out by German civilian surgeons working under contract. It is impossible to hold that level of medical skill on the pay that is offered.

Secondly, I draw the attention of the House to a recent article by the military correspondent to The Times, reporting the number of Her Majesty's ships either immobilised or mothballed by shortages of artificers and other skilled personnel.

Thirdly, I draw the attention of the House to the shortage of pilots in the Royal Air Force. With great respect to the courage of these pilots, the modern pilot flying a plane supersonically is as much a technician as an air ace. With these groups of people, there is no way in which their technical skills can be rewarded by scales of pay for simple soldiers, sailors and airmen of whatever rank, military skill or courage. That is the first problem, and it is an extremely difficult one to meet.

For my second example there is the problem of the provision of manpower for a more aggressive or, shall we say, globally defensive foreign policy. If we claim—as we seem to—that there are vital global interests that we must either defend or support, I consider it necessary for us to be able to field at least one assault brigade.

Thirdly, there is the problem of manpower for the defence of this country. As we all know, at the first sign of an alert most of the troops in Britain will leave for BAOR. We shall be left here with between 100,000 and 160,000 soldiers to look after a population of 56 million. I do not know how many fighter aircraft we have today, but when the previous Labour Government were in office we had 76. No provision seems to have been thought through to deal with the new strength of Russian airborne forces. We have seen them in operation in Afghanistan and South Yemen. It is clear that there is a minimum of nine air-transportable airborne divisions. Apart from this, there are three obvious new problems that have arisen since 1970.

First, there is the question of civil defence. If we are proposing to station American cruise missiles in this country, I believe that the population will ask, and rightly ask, for civil defence to be given full military priority, certainly in those areas where such weapons are stationed. Secondly, there is the question of defending our North Sea oil and gas installations. We know that in the next few years 40 per cent. of our oil will be flowing through the Sullom Voe terminal. Thirdly, there is the remaining military problem of Northern Ireland, which does not go away. At a time of crisis it could absorb not the three battalions thought of in the 1970s but the 13 that it is now using.

Finally, I hope that the Secretary of State for Defence will be able to assure us of the effectiveness of the existing reserves. The sixth report of the Expenditure Committee of the 1977 Session—HC.393—threw grave doubt on the effectiveness of their planning and even the availability of those registered on the reserves. There has been some improvement, but the criticisms contained in the report do not seem, on the whole, to have been fully met.

These are serious problems. They cannot be brushed aside by professional advisers to the Secretary of State for Defence saying that these preparations are all that can be afforded. We live in an age that, I fear, will continue to be dominated by philosophers of Germanic extraction. When dealing with these considerations, however, neither Karl Marx nor Professor Milton Friedman would be so important as men such as Major-General Professor von Clausewitz. The Government must face the fact that what is proposed is inadequate and is known to be inadequate. Action must be taken.

First, it is up to the Government to ascertain the facts. That is what my proposal for registration means. Let us be realistic. Even if, tomorrow, something such as the Militia Act were introduced by the Government, it would take several months to become effective. To register even one age group without a total upset of the employment exchange machinery would take about six months.

However, the Government have more work to do than that. They will have to take certain decisions on reserve occupations in a period of national emergency. Secondly, there are specifically needed categories of technician that cannot be fulfilled from existing reserves. That is quite a large and complicated problem, which will have to be worked out thoroughly. Thirdly, the Government will have to give their consideration to civil defence proposals. Lastly, if there is to be a wider call-up, consideration must be given to the system or type of training that might be necessary for conscripts if they are to be called forward.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend (Bexleyheath)

My right hon. Friend talks about manpower. Bearing in mind the increased role played by women in the armed forces not only of Britain but of countries such as Israel, is he suggesting that women should be part of the programme that he envisages?

Mr. Fraser

I am talking about men and women in the reserves. I am using the term "manpower" for shortness. Perhaps I should be talking about person power. Perhaps that would meet my hon. Friend's objection.

Let us remember that from Sweden to Switzerland there are at least 10 variations on the way in which persons can be trained in military arts. It is not necessary that we go back to the concept that flowed previously in this country. My proposal is the first and, I think, the only effective methodological instrument for enabling the Government to decide on the establishment of national service—should it be necessary—whether of a military, paramilitary or civilian sort.

To bring forward legislation would have various side effects. It might be unpopular, but I rather doubt that. We are a serious people who would, on the whole, accept the need for legislation. One side effect would be to stimulate recruitment and expansion of the voluntary services—that is, the TA and Naval and Air Force Auxiliary Reserves.

On a lighter note, I remember that after the introduction of the Militia Bill in May 1939 there was a positive rush to the Colours by young men from Oxford, and even from Balliol. I think that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, was among those who rushed forward, upsetting some of his Left-wing colleagues.

My dear ex-father-in-law, Lord Long ford, rushed to the Colours, remembering, I suppose, the First World War song: Bloody conscript soldiers, Marching on to war, You would not be conscripts Had you gone before. Unfortunately, the present position is as serious as, if not more serious than, it was in 1939.

It is no use the Minister's saying that these problems could be met by more recruitment to the TA. The problems that threaten Britain are too profound for that. A few more men in the TA would not meet our needs. I hope that my motion will open a broad debate on the issues that Britain faces, and the problem of adequate defence. The motion asks only for a register.

About four years ago I made it clear to the House in a defence debate—needless to say, I received no answer—that an all-party committee should be established to study the problem of national service, of whatever form. I still stand by that.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies (Thanet, West)

I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend's approach. The new Select Committee on defence might be able to take advantage of considering that matter. Would that not be one solution to the problem?

Mr. Fraser

That would be a useful first use of that powerful Committee. My main resolution should still stand on the need for registration. Let the Committee decide what use could be made of the manpower.

I believe that in the years to come the expense of military equipment will mean that we shall have to look more closely at the vast expanse of an all-volunteer force, which, to put it crudely, looks after more women and children than soldiers and is unable to meet the demands of the superlative technicians. That is a grim thought, but one that, in the years ahead, must be considered.

Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking)

I am not sure that I understand my right hon. Friend's last few words. Will he expand on them?

Mr. Fraser

I have spoken for long enough, but I will expand readily. The share of the defence budget that is spent on looking after dependants amounts to about 60 per cent. of the budget, leaving40 per cent. to be spent on equipment. If the cost of manpower can be reduced, obviously there is more to spend on equipment. It is a simple point. One physical example, to quote Professor Foot, is that the employment of one soldier in 1958, worked out on a world scale, was $1,500. Today, the employment of that soldier in our service would be about $10,000. Conscription is cheaper than paying voluntary soldiers.

Mr. Onslow

I understand from my hon. Friend's remarks that it would be cheaper to conscript bachelors than to pay soldiers who are married and have families.

Mr. Fraser

Very few of the soldiers of the Soviet Army have wives and dependants. It is a simple point, but perhaps a difficult one for my hon. Friend to understand. That could be the area into which defence is moving. I am sure that it is something that Britain would have to consider one day.

I am a firm believer that defence must be integrated with the national will, and that a citizen or people's army is by far the best means to defend our country and our liberties.

Mr. Robert Banks (Harrogate)

Earlier today my right hon. Friend referred to civil defence. Does he not agree that civil defence would have the impetus towards a national will that he has described?

Mr. Fraser

That would be a useful and necessary function. It is not civil defence only that has to be dealt with. Imagine what would happen if there were a state of emergency in Britain. It is a key issue. I would like support for the concept of a citizen army, without privilege, caste or class. Perhaps it is not totally inappropriate, in the House in the year 1980, to look back to the Army debate at Putney in 1647, and the remark of that strange Cromwellian, Vice-Admiral Thomas Rainborowe: The poorest he that is in England hath a life to live as the greatest he". In the age of the deterrent and an age of the threat to world peace, I believe that to involve the people is the most profound and absolute base of a nation's defence.

I apologise to the House for having spoken for so long. I end with one further quotation, which I hope is written across the desk of the Secretary of State for Defence. It comes from Vegetius, in the fifth century, when the barbarians were not only at, but within the very gates: Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum";

10.9 am

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

Listening to the peroration of the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser), I wondered whether he was making a delicate approach for membership of the Tribune Group when he quoted Rainborowe.

I wish to make it clear that I speak not as the chairman of the foreign affairs group of the Parliamentary Labour Party, but purely for myself. I oppose the motion stridently. If it is any consolation to the right hon. Gentleman, my speech will be as displeasing to the Russians as it will be to him.

We are indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for raising an important subject. I have no doubt that his feelings are the tip of an iceberg. We are also indebted to him for the phrase "person power". That is one that some of us will treasure. However, I believe that the right hon. Gentleman's motion is ill-timed, ill-conceived, ill-informed and irresponsible.

Mr. Hugh Fraser

Disgraceful!

Mr. Dalyell

Let us understand that very often the Right can be quite as irresponsible as the Left is sometimes supposed to be. Indeed, I think that this is an example of the irresponsibility of the Right.

This debate would not have taken place at all—or at least, it would not have taken place seriously—had it not been for the events in Afghanistan. Some of us believe that the very act of drawing up a register would be one more milestone along the road to a position in which the nations of the world could easily slide into an unwanted war over Afghanistan. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that his motion is a minimal act of prudence. It is a great deal more than that.

I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that in the motion there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what current events in Afghanistan are about. In fact, by doing this I challenge the whole premise of the motion. I make it clear that I do not think that the Red Army should be in Afghanistan—for very similar reasons to those which lead me to believe that the British Army should not be in Northern Ireland [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] But no one says that the British Army, by being in Northern Ireland, in Ulster, is trying to set out on world domination. By the same token, there are some of us who believe that the Russians are not trying to dominate the world or make steps in that direction, even towards oil, by being in Afghanistan. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the date that he should choose is not 1937, 1938 or 1939, but, in the opinion of some of us, 1969—when this House agonised over whether to send the Army into Ireland.

I start with what I believe to be an essential and crucial fact, which is that the new factor that prompted Moscow, in its actions in Afghanistan, is the gradual realisation that intellectual elites have grown up in the central Asian States of the Soviet Union who believe, rightly or wrongly, that they can run things in Soviet Asia rather better than can the men in Moscow.

We have, for example, the capital of Uzbekistan, now a city of 2 million, in Tashkent. There are elites there who see—rightly, probably—that the Soviet Central Asian republics are the disadvantaged parts of the Soviet Union. Indeed, what Afghanistan is about is the internal problems of the Soviet empire.

Mr. Alan Clark (Plymouth, Sutton)

Devolution problems—what else?

Mr. Dalyell

Very much so. Precisely. I take the hon. Member extremely seriously. Part of the reason for the speech that I make is the obsession on my part, which I admit, about devolution problems and about central Governments handling minority peoples. That is what it is about. The only difference is that Tashkent is about 5,000 miles from Moscow and Edinburgh is 400 miles up the shuttle or up the railway line. There are differences. But, as a Scot who has taken part in the devolution problems, this is precisely what prompts me to display the interest that I do.

I am not alone in this view. I owe something of an intellectual debt to Professor John Erikson of Edinburgh. I put it on record that I gather that it is the Romanian view, for example, that a lot of Afghanistan is about the problems of the southern half of the Soviet Union contiguous with Asia. But by background, putting oneself, as I think one must, in the shoes of these bewildered men in the Kremlin, they have had number one fiasco in Egypt with the Muslim world, and a second fiasco in Syria with the Muslim world, and whether, given their own internal situation, they can have a third fiasco in Afghanistan at least raises questions.

This is not a justification for the Red Army being in Afghanistan. It is a judgment that the kind of things that concern the right hon. Gentleman are in fact misplaced, and that, whatever else Afghanistan is about, it is not a reason for—I shall not say "getting into a panic", because all who know the right hon. Gentleman know that he is not a man who is given to panic, but at least this is about things different from calculated world aggression.

I ask the House just to look at a map. I refer to a map in Le Monde Diplotmatique of January 1979, giving the ethnic populations of Afghanistan. What do we find? We find that northern Afghanistan is populated by the Turkmens, the Uzbeks, the Tadjiks, and the Kirghiz peoples who straddle the border with the Soviet Union.

Mr. Jim Spicer (Dorset, West)

I hope that as the hon. Gentleman develops his argument he will move beyond the boundaries of Afghanistan and how they relate to the Soviet Union's internal problems, and bring into his argument how Somalia, Egypt and Angola, and all the other peripheral areas in which we have seen aggression within the last year or two, fit in.

Mr. Dalyell

You of all occupants of the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are rightly concerned with motions, and the motion refers to Afghanisan. I would very willingly dilate on not so much Somalia but certainly South Yemen, and I do not think that I would stray out of order, but certainly my speech would be much longer than it should be. I refer to Afghanistan in detail because it appears in line 4 of the motion.

I point out that the facts are that in the south part of the Soviet Union there are on average five per family; on average, one and a half per family in Byelorussia, Moscow and Leningrad. The projections—and these are hardly beyond dispute—are that by the year 2000 there will be 100 million Muslims in the Soviet Union—that is one-third of the population—and not only Muslims, but Muslims with their own particular organisations in each state of the Soviet Union—this is not a global figure—are as critical of Moscow, and probably a great deal more so, as the Scottish National Party was of the Government in London.

I return to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark). I think that it is highly relevant to draw the attention of the House, briefly, to the 1977 popula- tion figures. In the RSFSR—the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic—the birth rate was 13.8; the death rate was 10.2. In the Ukraine, for the same year, the birth rate was 14.7; the death rate was 10.5. In Byelorussia, the birth rate was 15.8; the death rate was 9.

Then we come to Georgia, where the birth rate was 17.8 and the death rate was 8. I have not been to Uzbekistan or Kazakhstan, but I did go on a science delegation to Georgia some 15 years ago. Anyone who has been to Tbilisi knows how the Georgians, who are a very charming and outgoing people, do not have great faith in the wisdom of "them" in Moscow. That was 15 years ago. I have not been to the Soviet Union for 15 years, but from all accounts, none the less, one gets the impression that the feelings of criticism have mounted far more powerfully than those of a decade and a half ago.

We then come to the borders of Afghanistan itself. In 1977 the Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic had a birth rate of 34.2 per thousand and a death rate of only 7.7 per thousand. That represents a major population explosion, and the Turkmen people straddle the border with Afghanistan.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the gentlemen of the Kremlin are quite capable of managing death rates in areas of the Soviet Union if the birth rate seems to be a problem to them?

Mr. Dalyell

I do not see it that way. I take a different view of the sophistication and, indeed, humanity of the present occupiers of the Kremlin. There is no point in arguing this matter. I can say that the hon. Gentleman is a cold war warrior, and if he wishes he can say that I am naive and dewy-eyed. In any event, there is a difference of argument and judgment between us, and I hope that we can politely leave it on that basis.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a relative matter? If he means that the present occupants of the Kremlin are less oppressive in some respects than previous occupants, he is right. But, other than that, he cannot argue that the leaders of the Kremlin are starry-eyed idealists who are concerned about human rights and do not have labour camps, and so on, because that is not true.

Mr. Dalyell

I would not put myself into the ridiculous position of saying that the people in the Kremlin are starry-eyed idealists. But, in fairness to me, the point that was put was that they would manage the population explosions of the Muslim world. I do not believe that they go in for any kind of operation such as that, even had they the power to do so. Some of us very much doubt how far the power of Moscow in some respects operates in the Soviet Central Asian republics at the present time.

I give the figures again—because they are highly relevant to Afghanistan—of the Tadzhik Soviet Socialist Republic. The birth rate is 36.5 per thousand and the death rate 8.8 per thousand. I understand from those who know about these things that in the capital of the Tadzhik Republic—Dushanbe—a city roughly the size of Edinburgh, there are elites who think that the Tadzhik area could be better run as a separate State than from Moscow. Here again, we come back to the devolution experience.

Crucially and most important, there is the issue of Uzbekistan. If one again refers to the ethnic map in Le Monde, Diplomatique one sees that the whole of north Afghanistan is Uzbek populated. There are roughly 10 million Uzbeks in Soviet Uzbekistan who absolutely straddle the border. The birth rate is 33.7 per thousand and the death rate 7.1 per thousand. To complete the picture, I had better say that in Kirghiz the birth rate is 30.2 per thousand and the death rate 8.2 per thousand. I am told that there are people in Frunze, the capital of that beautiful mountain area, who think that they ought to be a separate State.

In those circumstances, given that we ourselves were apparatchiks of a central Moscow Government, one wonders how we would start reacting. I suspect that the truth is that the central Government in Moscow are appallingly bothered by the rise of militant Islam on their borders on account of its effects inside Russia. Furthermore, as we all know, central Governments are not all that good when it comes to making rational decisions about minority peoples. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) will forgive me if I say as an aside, and I hope fairly lightheartedly, that if it is possible for my good senior colleagues to make the kind of mistake about the reactions of the Welsh—when there was an 8 per cent. vote for devolution in South Wales—it is certainly possible for central Governments in the Kremlin, who are far less enlightened than my senior colleagues, to make mistakes about their minority peoples.

Dr. Alan Glyn (Windsor and Maidenhead)

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that if the Soviets are worried about Islam the invasion of Afghanistan would not make that danger even greater?

Mr. Dalyell

That is a fair question. They thought they had to stop the rot. As I understand it, there was a third puppet Government in Afghanistan, because there is a 50-year relationship of great Soviet help to Afghanistan. They were a puppet Government, who have gone terribly sour. I shall not draw too close an analogy with Northern Ireland, but we all know the problems. The puppet Government have gone appallingly wrong, and 58,000 people had had their throats cut by them in four or five months before the Soviet Army went in. I am not saying that that in itself is a justifying reason, but we must face the fact that a sort of Pol Pot type situation was developing, and someone somewhere thought that the Russians had to do something to stop it. What does a white-skinned Politburo in Moscow do, faced with a cataclysmic prospect of the potential desire of certain Central Asian republics to hive off from Mother Russia?

Heaven knows, in the last decade, there were forces in Edinburgh that were strong enough in their endeavour to hive off Scotland from the British State. From personal experience, I know what a lot of this is about, because I have fought the chairman of the Scottish National Party at seven elections. I think it is a record in the "Guinness Book of Records" that never have two men fought each other for so long in British elections. It is because of that that I understand something of the motivation of the Soviets, which must be much stronger when the distances are that greater and the religion, colour and race are different from Scots and English.

Far from drawing the conclusions reached by the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone I draw conclusions about the pressures in Tashkent to form a separate republic in Uzbekistan, the pressure in Frunze to form a separate republic in Kirghiz, the pressures in Dushanbe to form a separate Tadzhik republic and the pressures in Ashkhabad to form a separate Turkmen republic.

Coupled with all that—and here one is on contentious ground—some of us think that it is no less than a tragedy to compound the situation by the fact that SALT II seems to have been rejected by the United States. Here, again, I would expect nothing but boos and catcalls if that were the nature of the House of Commons on a Friday morning. But in cold blood I honestly believe that a great deal of the American response to Afghanistan has been about getting President Carter off a hook. It has been about Iowa, primaries in New Hampshire and caucus politics.

As we all know, in domestic politics when one is in a difficult situation—dare I say it, when one has problems such as the United States or problems such as the steel industry—it is very tempting for those at the highest level of central Government to raise great issues, take positions and posture on foreign affairs.

I do not think that the Russians imagined in the Kremlin in their wildest dreams that their action in Afghanistan would have this effect on the West. We are getting into a position of extremely dangerous talk. If we are not careful, we shall talk ourselves into a very dangerous position in the world. For example, I do not think that there is any intention of or threat to Pakistan. If there were, the Russians would have had 1 million men in Afghanisan, and we know that they have nothing like that.

I reiterate that it is my judgment, for what little it is worth, that the Red Army should not be in Afghanistan. But it is there, rightly or wrongly, to keep Mother Russia intact, rather than for world domination. That is very different from threatening Belgrade, let alone London. I believe that the Russians were sucked into Afghanistan just as we were sucked into Northern Ireland.

Above all—this is why I strongly oppose the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone—we are in danger of talking ourselves into a cold war. That is why I say, with all the force that I can, not that the right hon. Gentleman's motion is mischievous—he is not that sort of man—but that it is highly dangerous and highly irresponsible.

10.30 am
Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking)

I hope that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will forgive me if I do not follow him at length in his travels through Soviet Central Asia. All I will say about the cast of his speech is that if he thought when he began there were bewildered men in the Kremlin, he should know that when he sat down there were bewildered men sitting closer to him than that. It was difficult to see precisely what he was driving at. For that reason, I do not want to take too much time analysing his arguments. I wish to turn to the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser).

I have no quarrel with my right hon. Friend's motion until I come to the final words. I must make it clear to him that I, and, for all I know, many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, find it difficult to follow the line of logic that he sought to establish. As a member of the Select Committee on defence—I see that the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who is another member of that Committee, is present—I have to disappoint my right hon. Friend if he thinks that the subject of conscription and the use of manpower is likely to be high on the Committee's agenda in the immediate future.

Whereas my right hon. Friend may well be right—I think that he is—in his analysis of the threat, he has identified an inappropriate response—in many ways one of the most inappropriate responses that could be made in the present circumstances. Having said that, I am under some obligation to say what I believe the correct responses are and I shall attempt to do that.

The right responses are that this country, and other Western countries, should act in a way that would effectively persuade the old men in the Kremlin that they are on a wrong and dangerous course and that they should turn back before they have gone too far. I do not wish us to think in terms of some permanent escalation of the measures that we feel obliged to take on the East-West plane. I want to see us take action that will have the effect of restoring a healthier situation. So action has to be constructive wherever possible.

I leave aside the Olympic Games, except to say that whatever happens that problem will eventually disappear. They will either happen or not happen. There is a fixed point in time when the Olympics will cease to be a political counter. Therefore I enter a plea to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army, and others, that we should think of taking action that has some direct relation to the pressure that we wish to bring to bear on the Russians, and that will be seen by them to have a continuing effect.

I am in favour of the action taken by the EEC on butter, as I am in favour of some of the other economic steps that we have taken. But I see no reason why the Russians should be allowed to continue dumping their motor cars on our market. I should have thought that there was scope for action there. I see no reason why they should be allowed to continue to enjoy an imbalance in the air services agreements between our two countries, or why we should have so many Russian ships calling at our ports and so on. If we took measures that had the effect of curtailing Russia activity of that kind, the message should get through. Those are the right kinds of responses and those that we should explore.

Naturally I accept that if we take action of that kind and it produces no result in the Kremlin, it is right that we should also consider what my right hon. Friend at one stage termed an insurance policy. The question then becomes: what sort of insurance policy makes sense? I do not think that drawing up a register, of itself, makes any sense.

What is required to back that register up if it becomes a reality? It requires a considerable administrative effort, as my right hon. Friend pointed out. But, my goodness, if the names on the piece of paper, or the computer printout, were to be ever turned into men and women capable of contributing towards the defence of the country, what then does it need? We should need cadres, the skeletons of the units into which these people presumably would be drawn. They would need uniforms to wear, barracks to live in, doctors to give them medicals and cooks to feed them. We should need an enormous amount of paraphernalia which my right hon. Friend, somehow or other, omitted to draw to our attention. And above all, these men and women in uniform would need training.

Mr. Hugh Fraser rose—

Mr. Onslow

I shall just develop this point, because I do not wish to detain the House too long.

If these conscripts are to be turned into trained soldiers, only the professional soldiers whom we have at present can train them. What a diversion from their priority task of contributing to the front line of our defences that would be—and how, incidentally, they would resent it!

Mr. Fraser

In military terms, all that we are asking for is registration now, and if the worst comes to the worst it would cut what is termed our response time to a crisis to about nine months, which is vital.

Mr. Onslow

My next point was to be about time. I am not sure that if the Russians are set on bringing upon us a third world war they will give us nine months' warning. I am not sure that even if we had nine months' warning, the war would be likely to last so long that these reserves, who might just be trained by that time, would be able to make a useful contribution to defending this country. In the meantime, our professional army would have spent the nine months in which it should have been preparing for war training many people who would be totally unused to the tasks that were to be imposed upon them.

Mr. Marlow

Like many others in the House, I have done a certain amount of military service—11 years. Ninety per cent. of the time of people in military service is taken up by driving, working wireless sets, field craft and general military duties. The specialists that are required are fairly limited. Sixty per cent. of soldiers are not specialists. The skills necessary are basic and they can be quite easily acquired.

Mr. Onslow

My hon. Fieond is fortunate in having spent 11 years as a soldier. We are talking about whether we can produce a soldier in nine months. I do not suppose that my hon. Friend is arguing that these conscripts should serve for 11 years. He did not indicate how long they might be obliged to serve. I have spent a day of two in uniform, so I do not find that a particularly impressive argument in the context of this debate.

I know that there are those who would like to see the Armed Forces turned into a sort of youth club. They believe that it would take the lay abouts off the streets, get their hair cut, make them stand up straight and take a manly attitude to life. If there are people in the Chamber today who think like that, I hope that we shall hear from them. I do not concur with that view. I can think of nothing worse than treating the professional soldiers, who are trained to defend this country, as uniformed youth leaders.

Mr. Nicholas Lyell (Hemel Hempstead)

Is that how my hon. Friend thinks the Swiss, the Swedes and the Yugoslavs regard their citizen armies?

Mr. Onslow

If they have a voice, the Swiss, the Swedes and the Yugoslavs can speak for themselves here.

Mr. Lyell

That is not a good answer.

Mr. Onslow

Perhaps it is not, but if my hon. Friend wants to see some form of conscription and national service, he must say how long he wishes it to last, and where the money and the trainers are to come from.

I was very depressed, when I got the drift of my right hon. Friend's argument about getting soldiers on the cheap, to discover that he appeared to believe that it would be a good idea to go to a conscript bachelor Army, Navy and Air Force rather than to have, as we have now, a professional volunteer Army, Navy and Air Force whose members naturally tend to get married and have children. That comment is likely to be resented by the Forces. I hope that my right hon. Friend can understand why.

Having said briefly that I do not think much of the proposition before the House, I accept that I must respond by suggesting alternatives. I am certainly in favour of action to identify the sort of people whom we shall really need if it ever comes to a war, and to make sure that they are trained, know where to go and are available, under whatever powers are necessary to call them to the Colours, as soon as an emergency arises.

It is clear that we shall need many more doctors. It would be much to our advantage to overhaul the arrangements for calling up doctors in time of emergency to serve with the Forces. We may need helicopter pilots and people with other skills of that kind, which cannot be acquired in nine months anyway. We should consider establishing a selective register of certain categories that can be clearly identified.

I was depressed by something else that my right hon. Friend said. I do not think that we should dismiss the volunteer. I do not think that my right hon. Friend said anything about the possibility of attracting as volunters people who might more effectively meet the kind of need that he sees. Here I must ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary a question.

My hon. Friend probably watched, as I did, the recent television programmes about the Staff College. In the last programme we saw a full colonel from somewhere in Whitehall, who, winding up the presentation on civil defence, said something to this effect "We hope to make use of the people that we expect to flock to the Colours".

I am sure that if an emergency were clear and imminent, there would be a rush of volunteers. I am glad to know that the Government—or at any rate someone in Whitehall—are thinking about how to make use of them. It would be useful if we could be told a little more about what is involved. If they are to be deployed in a civil defence role, well and good. But they will need to be prepared, trained and organised, so that on the day there is not simply a mass of people in civilian clothes milling around and demanding to be given a job to do.

Mr. Hugh Fraser

We need a register.

Mr. Onslow

A register of volunteers. My right hon. Friend gives me the point. Let us have a register of volunteers, but do not let us go to the fantastic inconvenience and expense of registering entire age groups, without any real knowledge of whether people are fit or whether they will stay where they are, with all the complications and confusions that the Americans had over the draft, all the questions about exemptions and all the bureaucracy. I do not believe that my right hon. Friend has thought his proposition through.

I should like to say one more thing to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. A Reserve Forces Bill is coming to us shortly. I have looked at it, and I see that it appears to be a consolidation measure. Is there any proposal to speed up or ease the process of calling reserves to the Colours in an emergency? Are we to be left with procedures that some people feel would have a very inhibiting effect on getting urgently needed men forward to units in BAOR simply because the procedures of call-up are rather complicated and delaying?

Perhaps I may end on a personal note. I was serving in the Territorial Army in 1952 when the Z-men were called back to the Colours. I am not sure that all hon. Members will remember that day.

Mr. J. D. Concannon (Mansfield)

I was a Z-man.

Mr. Onslow

The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Z-men were colleagues to whom we had said "Good-bye" in 1946. They had not expected to see us again, any more than we expected ever to see them again. On reunion we had a slightly traumatic 48 hours while we all sorted each other out. But at least they came back willingly enough, and they had not lost their basic skills. Our equipment was broadly the same as they had been using when they signed off six years earlier. They were quickly integrated into the unit, and I think that at the end of a fortnight it was fairly efficient. But they were trained reserves. It is trained reserves that we need. Untrained reserves are nothing but an embarrassment.

Today, trained reserves are probably more essential than ever. That is why I very much hope that the House will concentrate its attention on that positive, constructive, realistic matter, instead of constructing a paper tiger. A register would be just that. The Russians would see it as that, and would think to them- selves "If the people in the West are not prepared to do more than that, if they are prepared only to get a lot of names on a piece of paper and not follow the matter through, why do we have to take them seriously? What evidence are they presenting to us that the West means to make a positive effort in its own defence?".

In answer to a question by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) recently, my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal said in regard to economic relations with the Soviet Union that we had no intention of doing anything over Afghanistan that would hurt ourselves. If the Russians think that that is our attitude—that we shall not do anything that might cost us a little—we shall never be taken seriously.

I repeat that the motion is a paper tiger. I cannot believe that it will be taken seriously in the Kremlin, and I do not believe that it should be taken seriously in the House.

10.48 am
Mr. Bruce George (Walsall, South)

I do not know whether one result of belonging to a Select Committee is that one is forced into a consensus. I hope not, but I must admit that I share every syllable and sentiment of the speech made by a fellow defence Committee member, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow). If there is a desire to establish a register and see the virtues of lots of bits of paper with names on, I advise hon. Members to rush to their town hall and obtain a register of electors. As Jeremy Bentham would have said, the whole process of establishing a register of names, as proposed in this motion is "nonsense upon stilts."

I do not speak as someone who belongs to the "lie down and throw yourself prostrate before the enemy" brigade. If I have something as coherent as a philosophy of defence, it has two pillars. The first is that we should have a viable, credible defence at a cost that we can afford. The second, which is a corollary, is that we should work for detente and disarmament, although I must concede that the times are not at all propitious for any significant advances in detente in the immediate future. However, when the hullabaloo about Afghanistan has died down, as I hope it will, perhaps we can get down to the serious business of negotiating ourselves away from the abyss.

I do not want to talk about Afghanistan, or the threat posed by the USSR. I do not underestimate that threat, but I do not want to over-react, as some have tended to do. I regret that the motion is something of an over-reaction.

It is unfair of politicians to criticise other politicians for looking for easy publicity, because we are all guilty of that, but hon. Members are often guilty—I am criticising myself as well as some of my colleagues—of responding to events by performing like little boys playing football, with everyone chasing after the ball; when the ball goes to the wing, everyone goes out to the wing. We should stand back and try to look seriously and dispassionately at the problems of manpower planning. We should not be stampeded by what might be temporary scares.

I am not adopting the John Wayne or Errol Flynn approach. I wish to concentrate on the serious issue of military manpower planning. President Carter said recently that he intended to revitalise the selective service system. He proposes to send legislation to Congress so that registration can begin in America. The fact that the Americans see the need to do that is no reason why we should follow. We are not a major world Power any longer. We are now a second-rank Power, and I hope that we shall not drop to a third-rank Power. If the United States, with its many global obligations and resources, seeks to return to a selective service system, there is no reason why we should follow blindly behind. It would be folly for us to do so.

Historically this country has always relied on the volunteer system or the militia system. That goes back to Anglo-Saxon times. In many ways I regret that the military is unpopular, except in times of conflict. There are not many Labour Members who would want to quote Kipling. Certainly I shall not do so again, but I believe that he summarises this matter when he says: It's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' 'Chuck him out, the brute! But it's 'Saviour of 'is country' when the guns begin to shoot. I do not approach this debate from an anti-militaristic perspective. I simply believe that in present circumstances we do not need a return to conscription. Hon. Members who call for a return to national service should not underestimate the opposition that they will receive from the silent majority in this country, if it can be shown that conscription is superfluous to our needs and we can find all the military manpower resources that we require much more cheaply and effectively within the existing system.

Dr. Glyn

I think that the hon. Member has made a mistake. In fact there was conscription in Saxon times.

Mr. George

My history is rather hazy, but I think that we actually lost the battles in those times. Perhaps that is an indication of how unsuccessful the whole operation was.

Clearly in times of war there has been a need for conscription. However, there is a danger in thinking of fighting the next war with the strategy of the last war. In the past there was time to call up the lads, allow them to get together and train them. The enemy was some distance away, and because of the Channel we were able to keep him away until such time as our troops were trained. If anyone thinks that the time of conflict next time will be nine months, or even nine days, he is wrong. We would have a hard enough job in getting the troops in Germany fully mobilised. It would be even more difficult to get a fully trained reserve over to the Continent by Sealink, Townsend Thoresen, by yachts, rowing boats or anything else. If anyone thinks that in a time of conflict or in a period preceding conflict we could use such a register to get the lads together, call them up, train them and get them abroad, he is wrong. The war would be over long before that.

The suggestion that we could compel people to be Tornado pilots is beyond belief. It costs about £2.5 million to train a Tornado pilot. We cannot simply say that as we do not have enough pilots, and we cannot pay them more, we will twist people's arms and make them become pilots. That is ridiculous. One cannot force a person to obtain the intense specialisation necessary to provide the necessary expertise to fight in a modern war any more than one can force a person to become a Ph.D. candidate.

The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) did not analyse what he meant by "registration". Perhaps he wanted to mask the issue with a smokescreen, or perhaps he did not have time to research and develop his ideas. We have an obligation to look at this more closely. How many men would be involved? If one considers all people in this country between the ages of 18 and 24—men and women—one is thinking of 5½ million people. If one concentrates on males between the ages of 18 and 20, one has about 1,309,400. These are the figures that we must consider when we talk about the register, which would be a major bureaucratic exercise.

How much would it cost? What would happen to those who did not register? How could we constantly update the register? It would be a major exercise. If we were just collecting names that would be fine. However, if we want to medically examine, collect and direct we must consider whether we have a sufficient number of doctors. The costs would be absolutely astronomical. The 64,000 dollar question—or 64,000 million dollarquestion—is what we would do with the list once we had it. If we did nothing but just update it, it would be a waste of time. But if those on the register were needed, they would be useless and would get in the way of qualified people in any conflict.

To sum up—if the list is just to be a list we are wasting time, wasting millions of pounds and creating more and more civil servants at a time when the Government argue otherwise. On the other hand, if we intend to categorise these people, test them and medically examine them, it follows that we have an obligation to train them, and the cost of that training will be absolutely incredible.

The next war will not be fought like the last. There was an American Civil War general who advised that the aim must be "to git thar fustest with the mostest". That applies just as much today as it did in the 1860s. The aim must be to get our trained personnel to a combat zone as quickly as possible. That means having people who are highly trained in modern warfare and who can be mobilised and transported swiftly. The idea that untrained personnel can be used in modern warfare is, with the best will in the world, utter nonsense. The costs are astronomical.

For example these people would have to be supplied with equipment. There must be a balance between manpower and equipment otherwise it would be like the Canadian army, which has a lot of men on high pay but not enough equipment to work with. Other costs would include housing, transport, food and pay. If one paid these people over two-thirds of the minimum wage, the costs would be out of reach.

There would be an increased demand for land. We have conflict now with people whose land is being taken back into private use. Where would these military personnel go? Would Britain become a vast armed camp with people in khaki driving up and down motorways? I do not think that this is something that the public would want. We could not send them abroad as we did in the past because we have no Empire now. Therefore, if we did not use the register it would be superfluous and if we used it, the costs would be way in excess of the demand.

If it is suggested that we would not necessarily use all 5 million people on the register, that would mean even greater difficulties. Which people would we use? The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone mentioned seventeenth century Colonel Rainborowe, who said that the poor had the same rights as the rich. In military matters the poor are called upon far more than the rich. We have only to look at American experience of selective service to see that the American war in Vietnam was fought largely by poor whites and blacks who often did not have the expertise to find a way out through the many loopholes that were available to undergraduates, graduates and the sons of intelligent parents who were able to get out of the draft, or trick their way out, or worm their way out by getting to know the members of the local draft boards.

Mr. Lyell

Perhaps the hon. Member would say who won the Vietnam war. Was it not won by a nation that was prepared and committed?

Mr. George

The argument could be used both ways. Perhaps the war was lost by America because the people who were sent out to fight were not committed. They were people many of whom were press-ganged into fighting. The emigration to Canada and Sweden was an indication of the futility of forcing people into something that they did not support.

I remember a very brave and able speech of Kingman Brewster, then President of Yale, who said in 1966—and it took some courage in 1966— Service to America has been mocked by a policy which offers no reason to justify the imposition of involuntary military service primarily upon those who cannot hide in the endless catacombs of formal education Therefore, if we decided that we did not need all those on the register, how would we decide whom we would have? What tricks would some people use to get out of service? Would we use the unemployed, the unintelligent and the inarticulate who are unable to say "I am not needed, others will go and I will stay at home"? That is injustice and inequity, and it causes many problems. Clearly, there are manpower shortages. The Secretary of State made a speech to the Society of Conservative Lawyers last June in which he said that the Army was now several thousand officers and men short of its establishment. Is that a shortfall of 5 per cent. or 10 per cent? Perhaps the Minister will tell us. Any shortfall can be met by means other than this stupid proposal to have a register.

We heard the even more stupid suggestion of a return to national service. The arguments against national service are overwhelming, even from the perspective of meeting British military demands. I do not say that because I am a pacifist. I am not. We simply do not need conscription. If one asks full-time members of the Regular Army whom they would prefer to fight alongside—a Regular reservist who is trained, someone from the Territorial Army who may have spent 10 years off and on in Germany, or a conscript who has been press-ganged—the answer is clear. The MacMahon plateau points out that a full-time conscript takes 12 months to be trained, is gone in 18 months, and therefore is of real use for only five or six months.

Are we to subject 1½ million people to training simply to get six months of fighting work from them? What about the expense? We would do better to rely on conventional resources. Perhaps it will be said that that 1½ million can be put into voluntary service.

One argument in favour of conscription is that it will improve literacy. If the Government wish to encourage literacy, let them pump money into adult literacy schemes. If it is argued that conscription improves skills, the Government should not close skillcentres. The Government should revive the temporary employment programme. Let them not kill off many of the TOPS schemes. Does anyone believe that voluntary services can cope with 5 million people? That would mean more equipment and more people involved in the supervision of enforced conscripts than would be performing the essential services.

Major-General A. H. Farrar-Hockley wrote a book on national service in 1970. I have not spoken to him since that publication, and I do not know whether his views have changed. He said: The simple fact is that national service has not been reintroduced because there is no requirement for it. If, at some future date, recruitment in peace for the armed forces should fall away so much that conscription was the only alternative form of manning, then we have a fund of experience on which to draw to avoid the mistakes of the past.…The nation should recognise that it would be considerably more expensive in resources". To say glibly that we can get defence on the cheap by national service is absolutely wrong.

I do not wish to be politically contentious as I think that there is some consensus. However, the Government were elected with a platform of infinitely expanding defence resources. Despite the rhetoric of the election, it is as much as the Government can do to maintain the commitment made by the previous Labour Government. I have seen press reports of Tory Members being "shocked" at defence cash limits that may be imposed. It is no use saying that we should do this or that. Any expenditure on defence must be met from existing financial commitments. The Government will be hard pressed to meet their existing obligations. Adding replacement of Polaris and the mere contemplation of national service will have such a devastating effect on investment and the economy that that which remains will not be worth defending.

What then, is the alternative to conscription? We need to reform internal procedures within the military. We need to make more effective use of existing resources. The military must show the outside world—which pays for its existence—that it is seeking every means by which it might become more efficient, or, as one American said, to see that all feasible non-resource additive alternatives have been considered". If the military is more efficient it will be more cost-effective.

We should encourage Armed Forces personnel to remain in the Services. Clearly, some reach an age when they wish to get out. Up to September 1979, the outflow from the Services was 47,288. If that outflow can be stemmed, our total force of trained personnel will increase considerably. A corollary to that is to boost recruitment if we are to raise levels of personnel. That can be done by normal and conventional publicity means, and improving pay and conditions. The Minister is aware of my argument that the best means of improving defence is by expanding the Territorial Army.

Many people believe that the Territorial Army was abolished in 1967. However, 3.4per cent. of the Army budget and 1.2 per cent. of the defence budget provides almost one-third of BAOR strength. There are 33 TA regiments out of a total of 88. In Germany, in war, that is an enormous contribution. It is an incredibly cost-effective element in our defence. It embraces the enthusiasm and commitment of the population. As has been said, it breaks down the idea of a military caste.

In order to boost the TA we need to solve some problems. I do not underestimate them. We must cut down the high turnover. As the Minister told me in a written answer, there is now a gross turnover of 37 per cent.—or a net wastage of 33 per cent. We need to cut that figure down. It can be done. The Shapland committee recommended increases, but those increases are not enough. At the moment the TA forces are at only 80 per cent. of establishment. The TA should be made up to establishment. If establishment were raised we should be able to meet our military requirements more readily.

Therefore, we need more vigorous recruitment, improvements in pay, and more training visits with fellow members of NATO abroad. We should encourage employers to be more co-operative. Perhaps the Government could give a lead. Private employers should realise that they should not put any obstacles in the way of personnel who are in the TA, Indeed, tax concessions could be made.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend

I do not wish to raise a party political issue. However, presumably the hon. Gentleman realises that the Labour Government made six rounds of defence cuts, which greatly damaged our reserve forces. In the Conservative Party manifesto we pledged to increase numbers and to provide better equipment. We warmly welcome the hon. Gentleman's recommendations.

Mr. George

I had not intended to be too partisan. However, if the hon. Gentleman looks at the background paper "Statistics on Defence" in the Library, he will see that the biggest drops in defence expenditure occurred under a Conservative Government. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will not like that, and I am certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) will not like it. In 1952 expenditure on defence represented 11.4 per cent. of the GDP. In 1964 it represented 6.8 per cent. of the GDP. I had not wished to make that point, but I do so in response to that of the hon. Gentleman.

If one suspects my figures and thinks that they were inflated by the Korean war, let us take another year. In 1955 defence expenditure represented 9.1 per cent. and that figure dropped to 6.8 per cent. by 1964. In 1971, defence expenditure under the Government of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) represented 5.6 per cent. of the GDP. In the last full year that the Tories were in office it represented 5.4 per cent. and in 1974, 5.6 per cent. Let us not hear that the Labour Party is unpatriotic and that only the Tories have any concern to defend.

Perhaps the Prime Minister does not wish to be seen as the next Tory Prime Minister to follow the inevitable law of defence politics. That law dictates that one shouts in Opposition but when in Government that policy becomes little different from that of the former Government. The last election was fought on the bandwagon of more money for defence. Judging by secret reports, I wonder whether such vast increases in expenditure will come about. Will the mouthings of the Prime Minister be supported by a genuine increase in defence expenditure?

There is an enormous difference between mouthing and doing in defence aspirations and performance. Perhaps the Government will look at their election speeches six months from now. They will see that talk of a treacherous Labour Party—full of moles undermining defence—has no substance. The Labour Party was obliged, sometimes unwillingly, to maintain defence. I challenge Conservative Members to see whether there is any major qualitative difference.

There are therefore problems with the TA. They relate to training, the need for better equipment and the need to ensure swift mobilisation. However, a rejuvenated TA offers an alternative to the dilemma of choosing between an incredibly expensive large conventional Army and a suicidal dependence on nuclear deterrence alone.

Let us therefore use our TA and our Regular reserves better. There are 100,000 Service men who have left the Army in the last four or five years. They may be called up under Queen's Order if national danger is imminent or if a great emergency arises. There is a training obligation that has never been invoked. Those 100,000 men could be encouraged to come forward. They are registered. There has been reference already to the difficulties of keeping tabs on these 100,000. If that is difficult, how much more difficult it will be to keep tabs on 5 million people between the ages of 18 and 24.

I support the recommendation of the previous Select Committee on defence and external affairs, which said, in the report on reserves and reinforcements: We strongly recommend that the Ministry examine the feasibility of invoking from time to time the training liability of the Regular Reserve and arranging for them to train with the Unit to which they would be assigned in time of war. So there are about 100,000 men. If we boost the TA, stopping the outflow, that could provide another 20,000 men. If we stemmed the outflow from the Regular Army, that would provide a saving of a further 20,000 men. So, without resorting to the stupidity of a superflous register, or the even greater folly of conscription, that is a way of boosting our forces.

I regret that I have taken so long, and I regret that the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone did not spell out the arguments in fuller detail. If we are to vote today to commit 5 million people to a break in their careers, if we are to commit this country to spend an extra £100 million that it cannot afford or find, we have an obligation to analyse the arguments in detail, and we desire more information on the subject than we have received hitherto.

11.12 am
Mr W. R. Rees-Davies (Thanet, West)

I begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) on initiating the debate. It is immensely valuable, whether or not his motion is carried—and I have grave doubts about the motion's nature and terms.

One of the most vital factors is that by this debate we might be able to demonstrate some of the essential need for a campaign to secure not only voluntary recruitment into the Regular Armed Forces but—and I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George)—a substantial increase in recruitment to the Territorial Army.

In the general world scene, it is not just Afghanistan that represents the danger. We are concerned that the Russians are in the Horn of Africa, Ethiopia, Mozambique and Angola. There is a great deal in what the hon. Member for Walsall, South said about the effect on the Soviets of events in the Muslim world. There is no doubt that there is a real fear in the Soviet Union of the militant rise of Islam. However, I am not sure that the hon. Member drew the correct conclusions. I think that the Russians will merely continue their active militant attitude to Islam and take those countries on board together with the countries of the West.

There is great danger in Yugoslavia with the possible death of Tito. There is little indication that the Soviets have changed their attitude, which is one of steady, merciless aggression and the taking over of other States when they can further to add to their empire.

I share the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and others that, although we can and ought to have a selective register of those who are needed to ensure that we have the kind of Armed Forces that are necessary, I do not for a moment believe that it is either necesssary or practical to have national conscription.

A substantial expansion of the training of volunteers for the TA is both desirable and eminently practical. If we have an efficient public campaign not only for recruitment in to the Regular Army but for an extensive increase of volunteers into the TA, I believe that we can achieve what is necessary and train the right type of person in order to overcome the shortages in the Armed Forces.

There are problems. At present the unemployed cannot undertake service in the TA during the working week without losing unemployment benefit. They must therefore carry out, as is normal in the TA, only weekend duties. That position needs to be reviewed if we are to expand service at weekends and during the week for some members of the TA. The TA terms of service are good, but, to provide for a substantial expansion, a review is needed. At present a volunteer undertakes 12 days or six weekends minimum each year plus two weeks at camp along with drills during the course of the year amounting to two hours. That minimum should be increased to 20 days or 10 weekends. It would extend the work that the men do.

We must then turn to the question of pay. Pay is excellently handled at present, as it reflects the Army rate divided by 365 and multiplied by the number of days' service. That is plainly right. The Government honoured their obligation and increased the bounty to £100 for the first year, £200 for the second and £300 for the third. That will need to be reviewed again next year to encourage volunteers, who, if they realise that they can do the work, get a good summer holiday afterwards and do something of value for the country, will come forward. Of course, we must make sure to continue the basis that they must guarantee a three-year period of service as a minimum.

The greatest need mentioned to us by those in the TA—and there is an effective TA in Thanet, where officers and volunteers can easily be obtained—is equipment. It must be up-to-date, but it is not. Much of it goes back almost to the days when I was in the war, and it must be modernised.

There must be more officers and NCOs for training purposes, but how is that to be achieved? At present, men are allowed to join a squadron, a company or a battery of their own choice, and that must continue. It is an incentive for men to be allowed to go where they want to go. But how are we to get the additional NCOs and officers? In future they would not retire at 55 as at present. Instead they would have to carry on for an additional three years to train the necessary volunteers in the TA.

They would receive their pension and be paid for that service. I am certain that they would be happy to carry on until they are 58, and thereby facilitate training for the expansion. The proposal can take effect immediately. I do not believe that it requires legislation. Many people who leave the Forces at the age of 55 find it difficult to get full-time jobs, and they will have the opportunity to devote time to the necessary training.

Training at universities is a complicated question. Each university has an OTC, but these units need to be substantially expanded and turned into a real training ground for future officers and NCOs for the full period of the three years that they are at university. At the end of that period they would be adequately and properly trained in the areas necessary—scientific, mathematical, medical, and so on. That would provide the Services with the type of personnel that they want.

Summer camp would need to be extended from two to four weeks for university units. After all, they are paid, and it is during their vacation, which lasts at least eight weeks. They will still have plenty of time to engage in their other activities. Those measures would provide first-class training.

I hope that it will not be necessary to pressurise the universities. However, the Government may have to indicate plainly, with the mailed fist, that they are determined to secure that training. It could be indicated that the grants for universities would always have to be carefully looked at to make quite sure that we achieved what we needed.

It is in that area that I come close to the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone. I do not believe that we need conscription. I am convinced that we can achieve the results voluntarily. However, as the Army well knows, there is voluntary and voluntary. The right approach is to encourage the universities to the maximum degree, with financial advantage to them, if possible. OTC training could be expanded so that within the next three years we have a first-class force.

I am sure that substantial numbers of volunteers will come forward if they understand the terms of service in the TA. Members of the public, in the Gallery and throughout the country, are unaware that the TA offers them a first-class club, a good bar and a pleasant association with others. It involves only one weekend a month, with a fortnight's camp in the summer, and adequate pay throughout. How many people in the country realise that that is an admirable situation for men and girls—and I hope that we shall see girls being trained, as well as men?

It is essential that there is a special register of the needs of the Forces. That can be done extremely well in the TA. Through the Army, the technical people who are required can be recruited into the TA. For example, it would be easy to deal with special registration for doctors and other medical workers. If they attended for the occasional weekend, that would help establish the medical corps—and the same applies to nurses. Once that practice is built up, it will give us the type of personnel that we need in the Forces, and that will be achieved relatively cheaply. By using our own officers and NCOs for training, we would train the necessary personnel for the future.

My right hon. Friend is right to introduce the debate. The way that it is developing is interesting. I profoundly hope that the Government will follow it up with a substantial campaign which, if effective, will achieve what we need.

11.25 am
Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)

I first pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) for his excellent speech. It was well researched and thoughtful, and within reason I agreed with practically everything that he said, although not with every dot and comma. It was a speech of some moment, and I hope that it will be noted by the country, the Government and the Opposition. I shall not follow my hon. Friend, primarily because I have not done the research that he has. In any case, it is not my field. I should like to deal with the political aspects.

The motion states: noting the successive acts of military aggression organised by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I apologise to the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser). Although I made the effort, I was not here for his opening speech. However, I understand that he looked back to 1939 and to what he regarded as successive acts of aggression by the Soviet Union since that date.

Mr. Hugh Fraser

I quite understand that the hon. Gentleman could not be here, but I did not go back to that period.

Mr. Heffer

I apologise. That is the advice that I was given.

I believe that the right hon. Gentleman will accept my word when I say that I am no apologist for the Soviet Union and Soviet leaders. Their so-called brand of Socialism is not Socialism at all. Socialism cannot be built without democracy. I therefore take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South, who tended to slide over the question of human rights, as though loss of human rights was rather unpleasant, but that, nevertheless, we had to look at the real politics of the world.

To me, human rights are very much the real politics of the world. That is why I often challenge hon. Members on the Conservative Benches when I feel that they have not been even-handed—when they have criticised what has happened in the Soviet Union and East Europe but have tended to remain silent on Brazil, Chile and Spain. If we genuinely wish to stand up for human rights, we cannot have double standards. We must fight oppressive acts of Governments, wherever they are, including, if necessary, those of our own Government.

Having made it clear that I am by no means an apologist for the Kremlin, I go on to consider the atmosphere that is being created in the country at present. I am very much afraid of it. When the right hon. Lady became Prime Minister, she immediately started to make belligerent statements about the Soviet Union. We are returning to the philosophy of the two camps—the Soviet Union and the United States of America; freedom versus oppression. It can easily lead us—

Mr. Marlow

Who started it?

Mr. Heffer

That is typical of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). In the past the hawks on both sides started it—American military hawks and Soviet military hawks. The only sufferers a