asked the Secretary of State for Defence what forces he has immediately available for home defence, other than the Territorial Army; and what is the present strength of these forces as a percentage of their war establishment.

About 230,000 Regular personnel of the three Services are at present stationed in this country, from whom forces could be made available for home defence. The numbers and composition of such forces would depend on circumstances.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that most of these forces are not immediately available owing to other duties? Would he not agree that they are too small and too under strength to make any effective contribution to our home defence? Finally, would he not agree that if he is to discharge his responsibilities to defend our civilian population he will require to keep a substantial proportion of the Territorial Army as a home defence force?

We have given, and are giving, a great deal of thought to this point, but we do not believe that an attack against the United Kingdom is likely and we cannot afford to pay the heavy premium that preparation against any contingency would cost us. I do not feel that it is necessary to have units for which there is not an operational need.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about Her Majesty's Government's decision not to allow persons with a non-British born parent or a British naturalised parent to receive a commission in the defence forces.

The rule about the parents of an applicant for a commission is as follows. We must be satisfied that each parent was born in a Commonwealth country or the Irish Republic, and that from birth until now or the time of death, each parent has remained a British subject or a citizen of the Irish Republic. In special cases my right hon. Friend has authority to waive this rule.

While I am grateful for that reply, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he means that each case will be considered on its merits? Would he not recognise that if there were a blanket prohibition it would be grossly unfair to the sons of Poles or South Africans who fought for Britain in World War II?

I absolutely agree. This is a very important part of what we propose.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many people are concerned about coming within the category of the general provision? Will he emphasise that people with good characters will not be refused appointment to commissioned rank provided that they satisfy every other question of security?

The question of character is not really at stake here. What we are worried about—I think that both sides recognise this—is that the possibility of pressure sometimes arising through, for example, having relations on the other side of the Iron Curtain, is a factor that we have to bear in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Fleet Air Arm.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether a decision has yet been reached on the building of a new aircraft carrier.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what decision has now been taken on the purchase of aircraft carriers from the United States of America.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has reached a decision on the ordering of one or more new aircraft carriers; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what decision he has reached about the future carrier force of the Royal Navy; and whether he will make a statement.

I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke) on 3rd November.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the Fleet Air Arm enables Britain to exercise maritime strategy with maximum flexibility, and does he also appreciate that the morale of the Fleet Air Arm is being undermined by his delay in announcing the new aircraft carrier replacement programme?

I recognise the great service which the Fleet Air Arm does for the nation, but I think that the whole House would wish us to consider the matter carefully in all its aspects before taking a decision which might commit us for several decades.

Did the right hon. Gentleman authorise his hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy to state last Friday that Her Majesty's Government are about to come to a decision on increasing Britain's carrier force, and if that is known to the right hon. Gentleman, why cannot the House be told the Government's decision?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman, who is a considerable expert in academic English, will know perfectly well that the statement that the Government are about to come to a decision means that the Government have not yet taken a decision. When the Government have taken a decision, the right hon. Gentleman and those behind him will be told.

If the decision has not been taken, how did the Minister of Defence for the Navy know that the decision would be about increasing the carrier strength?

A decision on whether or not to increase the carrier force is also a decision on whether or not we do not increase it.

During this prolonged period of uncertainty, can we at least be assured that design drawings are going on for the new carrier?

Yes, Sir. The whole process which started with the belated decision of the last Government in 1963 to go for a new carrier has been proceeding without interruption ever since.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what increase or decrease there was in the staff of the Department under his control in the period 16th October, 1964 to 15th October, 1965; and what increase or decrease he anticipates in the period up to 15th April, 1966.

In my reply to the hon. Member's Question on this subject on 2nd April, I forecast a decrease of 5.050 between 16th October, 1964 and 15th October, 1965. This has been achieved and I estimate that a further decrease in the order of 3,000 will be achieved by 15th April next.

While these figures are, superficially, encouraging, what is the specific situation with regard to headquarters staff? Has there been in particular any increase in the Defence Department's headquarters establishment?

In spite of the great burden of additional work that has fallen on headquarters staff over the last 12 months, the total number has been reduced in this period by 102.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when the promised White Paper on the Reorganisation of the Territorial Army will be published.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now make a statement on the future o: the Territorial Army.

The White Paper, which will deal fully with these matters, will be published next month.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that he has given a rather offhand answer, because earlier this year we were told that the defence review would be published in late autumn? Does this mean that it will be published early in December or just before the House rises for the Recess? Does it also mean that the right hon. Gentleman is having second thoughts in view of the feeling throughout the House about the proposals for reorganising the Territorial Army? May we have an assurance that the House will have time to debate the White Paper before the Christmas Recess?

The right hon. Gentleman understands procedure well enough to know that questions about debates are not for me. I appreciate that to publish the White Paper in the Christmas period would probably not be for general convenience, but I cannot give an exact date today. Publication is rather later than we had hoped because, with the good wishes, I am sure, of all right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, we have held long consultations with the Territorial Army Council and with local Territorial Army associations. While such consultations are a valuable process, they take time.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the impression has got about that the Government's proposals may kill the Territorial Army stone dead? Can he give an assurance that such a thing will not be allowed to happen without every opportunity for a debate on it first?

I can give the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that we do not desire—and the proposals my right hon. Friend made in July are not designed—to kill the Territorial Army "stone dead" as the right hon. Gentleman calls it. The object of the revision, which is generally conceded in Territorial Army circles as being overdue, is to bring the rôle and the functions of the T.A. into line with the current strategic requirements of the Army.

Will the White Paper explain how the Territorial Army could defend us against 100 megaton bombs arriving by rocket?

I was not envisaging a paragraph on those lines in the White Paper. However, I am sure that if I were able to provide such an answer it would surprise my hon. Friend even more perhaps than others.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the fundamental criticisms of the principles on which the proposed reorganisation is based are by no means confined to this side of the House but are widely shared on his own side and in the Liberal Party? Will he make a clear note of the fact that we regard it as essential to debate the principles underlying the White Paper as soon as possible after the White Paper is laid and before Christmas?

As I have said, the question of debate is not for me but I will convey these views to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. However, I would re-emphasise that there is no change in the principles that my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary announced in July and indeed, as I understand it, there is no difference between us and many Territorials on the need to make the reserves more widely available to meet the kind of demands that could be placed upon us. The big difference that exists is on the question of the rôle of home defence, but the other principles underlying reorganisation are agreed and were, indeed, set out by the T.A. Council itself in its agreed papers.

rose——

Order. We must get on. I do not think that 'he hon. and gallant Gentleman can justly claim a second supplementary.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many representations he has received from local authorities and other public bodies in Scotland against his plans for the future of the Territorial Army; and what reply he has sent.

I have received 25 letters, most of which expressed concern at the prospect of having no local Territorial Army units: the replies to them have explained that the detailed location of units in the new Reserve is not yet settled.

Is the right hon. Gentleman becoming aware of the widespread opposition there is in Scotland to these proposals? Is he further aware of the grave concern about the defence consequences of removing a disciplined home force? Even now, will not he contemplate rather more than he has done the question of reorganisation instead of disbandment? Will he recognise that there is nothing so uncertain in the state of present world conditions as what might happen in a future conflict?

I am aware of the concern in Scotland that Scotland should have a proper share of the new reserves and I give an assurance that Scotland will at least have its proper share of these new provisions. But I do not accept that if we had such units in Scotland they would want to stay there for contingencies which I cannot foresee happening. If there were an emergency, Scottish units would want to go overseas with their English colleagues.

May we have an assurance that my right hon. Friend will not attempt to amalgamate the Black Watch with the Gordon Highlanders?

At this stage I can give no indication as to titles of such new units as may be formed.

In view of the implications of the proposals for local government, will the right hon. Gentleman take account of the views of local authorities and preferably consult them before announcing the results of the review?

We have taken and will continue to take account of the views expressed, including those of local authorities in Scotland. As has been announced, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will be making a statement as soon as possible on the outcome of the Government's study of Civil Defence requirements.

The Minister used the words "a proper share" when referring to the Scottish allocation of units. Will he bear in mind the great relevance of Territorial units and their location to the recruiting of the Regular Army?

That is one of the considerations we have very much in mind, but it can be overstated.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what reply he has sent to the town council of St. Andrews to their letter dated 2nd November on the subject of the Territorial Army.

I have sent the hon. Member a copy of the reply, which explained that the detailed location of units for the proposed new Reserve is not yet settled.

Whilst thanking the right hon. Gentleman for sending me a copy of the reply, would he agree that it would not be in any way disclosing a confidence to say to the council of St. Andrews that there will be no opportunities whatsoever for anyone in the St. Andrews district to take part in the Territorial Army, as his proposals are constituted?

As I have said, the detailed location is not yet finally settled, and it would be quite wrong to enter into discussions about these matters with one area of the country when others are still awaiting a final decision. I do not accept that it would be impossible for people to participate in the Reserve, because whether or not there are locally-based units, there are also the sponsored sections for which people in all parts of the country can volunteer.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what further consultations he has had with the Territorial Council on the future of the Territorial Army; and if he will make a statement.

Discussions with representatives of the Territorial Army Council are, for the present, concluded: their views are being carefully considered.

Did the Council stress the strength of public opinion against the future lack of home defence due to the virtual destruction of the Territorial Army? Since I have eight pages of signatures and complaints, may I ask whether the Council urged the need not to isolate the Regular Army from the public, which knows the Territorial Army much better than it knows the Regular Army?

If the hon. Member is aware of the activities of the Territorial Council he will know that it put a very strong case from its own point of view, but that it accepted, as it was bound to do, that the responsibility for the operational requirements and size and shape of the Reserve must rest with the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many officers and other ranks he hopes to recruit for the Territorial Army in Scotland over the next 12 months.

I cannot make any reliable estimate until the location of units of the new Reserve has been settled and announced.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the report of the working party which has been inquiring into the wreck of the ss." Richard Montgomery "lying off Sheerness.

On 18th March I told my hon. Friend that the working party had recommended an up-to-date diving survey.

Will my hon. Friend accept that the trouble he has taken on this is warmly appreciated? Does he realise that there is concern because the wreck is regarded as a hazard to shipping and also because some explosive experts have said that the corrosive effect of sea water may mean that the 3,000 tons of high explosives still said to be on board may be becoming more dangerous?

I would not accept that view. It is the considered view of our experts that the risk of an explosion is slowly getting less. As for the problem of the wreck being a menace to shipping, it is, of course, marked with two buoys, an automatic fog signal and is on the charts. I think that that is the best we can do.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when the Defence Review will be published.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a progress report on the Defence Review.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make a statement on the Defence Review.

I gave a progress report on the Defence Review on 5th August. Further progress will be reported as soon as possible.

Will the Defence Review turn out to be our old friend the Defence White Paper, which is normally published in the spring, and involve no change in the practice of previous Governments of continuous analysis of our defence commitments?

No, Sir. It may well be that a major report on progress in the Defence Review will be contained in next year's Defence White Paper, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the work now being carried out by the Government goes far beyond anything attempted, and certainly anything achieved, by any of the previous Administrations.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Members on this side of the House are eagerly awaiting this report and that while we support the action which he has taken in certain savings in defence, there is now a growing realisation in the country that if we are to meet our economic problems there must be a drastic reappraisal of our defence commitments?

Yes, Sir. That is certainly understood and that is why we are carrying out the review.

Are we to understand from what the right hon. Gentleman has just said that there will be no statement on the Defence Review before the forthcoming normal Defence White Paper? Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether there is any truth in reports that that Defence White Paper will itself be delayed? How can he account for the fact that last week, in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) as to when the Defence Review was likely to be published, the Leader of the House said:

"… it will be published as soon as possible." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1965; Vol. 720, c. 1346.]

I must say that the right hon. Gentleman sometimes baffles me with his questions. He has accused us on many occasions recently [Hors. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—I am answering the question. We have been fiercely attacked by him in recent weeks for publishing any results of the Defence Review before publishing the whole lot. That is his main complaint about our publishing our decision about the Territorial Army. The point which I have made quite clearly, as I did on 5th August, is that we will publish the results of the Defence Review as and when decisions are taken. Some decisions may well be taken in the next few weeks. Others, as I have just pointed out—and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman understands the meaning of English words —will be included in the Defence White Paper. Some may come even later still. I hope that that satisfies the right hon. Gentleman.

Order. The supplementary question and answer from the two Front Benches were too long.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many volunteer reserve units there will be in future in the Highlands and north of Scotland.

The detailed location of units for the new Reserve is not yet settled but the forthcoming White Paper will explain their general distribution.

Before the White Paper is completed, will the Government consider the immense contribution which has been made by Territorial units of the Highland regiments and the divisions which they have formed? Although conditions have changed and no doubt changes will be necessary, is it not folly to disband this volunteer organisation?

We are very conscious of the great part which the Highlands have played in both the Territorial and the Regular Army and we shall bear it in mind. But I must point out to the House that the cost of recruiting and administering reservists is much higher in rural areas than it is in the towns.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is aware that the British Army Primary School at Port Dickson, Negri Sembilan, Malaysia, is closing down; and what arrangements are being made for the children of six to eight years old to be taught elsewhere.

Yes, Sir. There are only four children of Army families left in the school and we cannot justifiably keep it open. Arrangements are therefore being made for these children to be taught by their parents with the assistance of the Parents' National Educational Union.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that before officers went to this appointment at Port Dickson inquiries were made and assurances were given that there was a school for a sixyear-old child? Is he also aware that the nearest school is 24 miles away? Does he consider that that is satisfactory?

The school, which is 24 miles away, is for older children and, of course, it is not possible for younger children, about whom we are basically concerned in this Question, to travel as far as that. I am sorry about that, but when it comes to providing a school for four children there is little we can do except the provision which we have made through the Educational Union, and I am sure that that will be satisfactory.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what economies he hopes to make as a result of the reorganisation of defence commitments; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what economies he hopes to make as a result of the reoiganisai ion of defence commitments; and if he will make a statement.

At this stage I have nothing to add to my statement of 5th August. It remains our intention that defence expenditure in 1969–70 shall not exceed £2,000 million at 1964 prices. This would represent a cut of 16 per cent. or one-sixth on the plans of the previous Administration.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether this means that many garrisons overseas can be reduced to token strengths and whether that is the Government's intention in view of the saving to the nation, not only in manpower but in taxation?

I must point out to my hon. Friend that there is no saving by reducing garrisons overseas, except in foreign exchange, unless the men who are released by the reduction of the garrisons are then demobilised. The question is not a reduction of garrisons or the closing of bases but the military tasks which the nation is called on to perform.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has announced many economies before he has announced the policy? Is not that putting the cart before the horse?

I am glad to find that one hon. Gentleman opposite supports his Front Bench spokesman on this issue. It is possible to make up one's mind on some issues before making up one's mind on all issues and, in particular, it is possible to say now that the R.A.F. must have the aircraft it needs in time, which is why we took and announced the decisions about changes in the aircraft programme earlier this year.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that in his Defence White Paper he said that the danger of a Russian invasion was now remote? As that danger was presumably the cause of B.A.O.R. in the first place, will his current review seriously consider slashing the tremendous burden which we are now bearing?

I can answer my hon. Friend in his own terms. One of the reasons why the danger is reduced is the existence of B.A.O.R. and of N.A.T.O., and we do not want to restore the threat by removing what has caused it to disappear.

Does the right hon. Gentleman still stand by his statement of last summer, that by 1969–70 there would be an economy of £220 million in defence costs? How on earth did he arrive at that figure without knowing, for instance, whether the Phantom was to have a Rolls-Royce engine, or whether the Government were to order the Fl11A and, if so, in what quantities?

All the savings which I announced in August were on the assumption that the Spey would continue in the Phantom.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the future rôle of the Royal Navy.

The precise tasks of all three Services are being studied in the course of the Defence Review, but no change is envisaged in the basic rôle of the Navy.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there have been reports of a very severe reduction in the rôle of the Royal Navy? Is he aware that that would cause great concern among many people already in the Service?

Yes, Sir. I am aware of all those reports, but I must ask my hon. Friend to wait until decisions are taken.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give an undertaking that the Dorset Regiment, however reorganised, will be preserved.

I regret I cannot anticipate decisions yet to be reached on the selection of units for the proposed new reserve.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for 400 years this county regiment has been perpetually changing its rôle in response to changing requirements and that it has been militia, volunteers, horse, foot and even marines? Will he not accept that there is still a rôle for the regiment and will he not tell 700 volunteers that they are unwanted men, for it is not true?

At this stage I do not want to anticipate the White Paper and I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will wait a little, but I can assure him that wherever possible we shall preserve existing titles of regiments and units, because we are very conscious of the proud traditions which go with them.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when the beaches of Trimingham and Sidestrand will be open to the public; and if he will make a statement.

Shortly. My right hon. Friend has decided that he would no longer be justified in denying the public access, under safeguards, to these beaches. The cliffs must remain closed.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply which will be much appreciated by the residents of these villages because these beaches have been closed for 25 years, may I ask him whether his Department will, in conjunction with the rural district council for the area, take such necessary steps as will make sure that there are paths down the cliffs to the beaches and provide warning boards on the cliffs to prevent children from wandering over the cliffs?

The cliffs at top and bottom will be clearly marked as dangerous, and we shall discuss with the council plans for the clearing by the Army of specified pathways down to the beach.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the arrangements to ensure the accuracy in the sales particulars of properties offered at public auction by his department, in view of the discrepancy that arose in the case of which the hon. Member for Newbury has sent him details; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. I am satisfied that the arrangements go as far as is reasonably possible to ensure accuracy.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in this case the area advertised was shown as 11–2 acres and that it was subsequently discovered that it measured only 8.8 acres? Would not he agree that members of the public are entitled to a greater degree of accuracy?

I am sorry about this, but we held the land at Woodcote on the basis of the acreage given in the Land Registration transfer document. That was the basis on which we bought the land. We had no reason to suspect that the acreage was incorrect, but everyone bidding for the land presumably saw what he would buy before bidding.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the cost of piping British television to Her Majesty's forces in Germany.

British Forces in Germany are dispersed over a wide area and the cost of carrying television by land line to them would be prohibitive.

Has the hon. Gentleman any idea what this cost would be? Has he considered the possibility of offsetting it by making a charge, since this facility would be very greatly welcomed by troops serving in B.A.O.R.?

We fully appreciate that the facility would be greatly welcomed. We have looked at five different technical methods of providing a service. We did not work out the cost of this one to the end because it was obvious halfway through that it was completely out of the question.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what modifications there have been in the Government's proposals for an Atlantic Nuclear Force.

I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member on 4th November.

Since nobody seems to be enthusiastic about this proposal, not even the Foreign Secretary, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Government are looking at alternatives? Will he say whether they are looking carefully, for example, at the proposal of Mr. McNamara for a nuclear committee in N.A.T.O.?

I told the House six months ago that I welcomed Mr. McNamara's proposal for a special committee. I am sure that the hon. Member will know that I am going to attend a meeting of the special committee on Saturday and will meet Mr. McNamara on Friday to discuss some of the issues which it raises.

Since we on this side of the House are all agreed that an independent nuclear force is of no value to us, and since it is now clear that a contribution to the N.A.T.O. force from us is neither of military value nor of political use, cannot we get on with our policy and get rid of the thing?

I am afraid that since I cannot accept either premise of my hon. and learned Friend's supplementary question I cannot accept the conclusion either.

Will the right hon. Gentleman clearly repudiate any suggestion that Her Majesty's Government would contemplate as an alternative to the A.N.F. selling or reselling the British Polaris force to the American Government?

I must confess that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on this. This is the most extraordinary suggestion that I have ever heard, and I cannot believe that it would ever be put forward seriously.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many men employed by his Department at former Air Ministry establishments are registered as dilutee metal working craftsmen; and how many have upwards of 15, 20 or 25 years' service in skilled capacities.

The number of workers employed in skilled metal working trades by the Air Force Department who are registered as dilutees is 524. Fifty-nine of these have more than 25 years' service; 193 have between 20 and 25 years' service and 90 have between 15 and 20 years' service.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the figures which he has given are a very poor encouragement to other people who may have to seek retraining through the Government's training centres in future? Will he take steps to ensure that these men get the status to which their skills entitle them through experience?

The exact status of these men is a matter for negotiation with the trade unions concerned. The agreements with the trade unions are of very long standing, but, as a matter of practical importance, the number of disadvantages under which these men suffer is very small indeed.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many Regular Army officers and non-commissioned officers, shown separately, would be prematurely retired as a result of the reorganisation of the reserve forces as at present proposed; what proposals he has for terms of compensation; and what account he has taken of these factors in his recruiting policy, in order to achieve his stated target of 181,100 Regular all ranks.

I regret I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was said yesterday in another place that the large-scale Regular redundancies which will result from the Government's proposal do not necessarily mean that the Regular ceiling will be reduced? How is this equivocal statement to be squared with the firm assurance given to me last week that the target is 181,100 and that it is expected to reach this target next year?

I can confirm that the target remains at 181,100, but quite clearly in the defence review all aspects of defence policy are under study. I would not necessarily say that the target would remain exactly tomorrow what it is today.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence, what financial account he has taken of the added cost to other Government departments of providing the necessary command structure, communications and transport for Civil Defence, in arriving at his estimated annual saving of £20 million in the cost of the reserve forces in 1969.

None, Sir. The reserve forces have not provided the command structure or transport for Civil Defence; their contribution to communications, though of value, is essentially in the nature of a reserve.

How is it possible to estimate the figure of £20 million, if that is the figure, without taking into account the very important rôle of the Territorial Army in Civil Defence? Am I right in thinking that the estimated saving is not £20 million but something rather less?

The estimated saving which will result from the reorganisation is based on the traditional way of treating the cost of the Territorial Army in the Army Estimates by charging the usual items of pay, bounty, equipment, and so on. We do not take account of the command structure of Civil Defence because that has never been borne on Army Votes.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is aware of the unsatisfactory state of some of the ambulances serving the forces stationed in Germany; and what early action he is taking to improve this service.

I am aware that there has been concern about some ambulances which are old and due for replacement. I am looking into the matter and will write to the hon. and gallant member.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Sennelager there are 1,250 families and that they got together under S.S.A.F.A. and bought an ambulance for themselves because the conditions were so bad? There was no heat in the ambulances which were supplied. Will the right hon. Gentleman look at this matter as a matter of extreme urgency during the very cold winter in front of us?

I am aware of the concern which has been expressed, and that is why we are looking into the matter as a matter of urgency. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman will realise that there is a conflict between the kind of vehicle and standard of comfort required for civilians in peacetime and the ambulance requirement which might have to serve in operational circumstances.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance the Meteorological Office gives to the British Broadcasting Corporation in the compilation of weather forcasts on B.B.C.1 television.

The Meteorological Office compiles the forecasts for the B.B.C.

Would the hon. Gentleman have some discussions with the B.B.C. and offer the meteorological forecast for the 9 o'clock news as well as for the 6 o'clock news? The detailed forecasts at 6 o'clock are seen mainly by housewives, but it would be of great assistance to farmers, motorists and others if they could see a detailed forecast on television at 9 o'clock? Could the hon. Gentleman make that suggestion?

The form of presentation is a matter which is being discussed at the moment by the B.B.C. and the Meteorological Office. I shall draw the question of timing to the B.B.C.'s attention.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether firm production orders for the Kestrel and the Maritime Comet have now been placed.

No, Sir.

When is the right hon. Gentleman going to end the uncertainty surrounding the future of these two projects? Is it not a fact that, in spite of the atmosphere of urgency which the Government generated in their first Defence White Paper, they have not yet placed a production order on a long-term basis for a single new military aircraft?

In fact, as the hon. Gentleman will know, production orders are placed when a large amount of preliminary work has been done. The programme for the preliminary work is proceeding according to plan, and there is no question whatever of any possible delay in the delivery of these aircraft to tine R.A.F. when they are needed.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what decision he has made concerning the purchase of the F111A; and if he will make a statement about the progress made with the Royal Air Force Phantom.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what decision Las been reached on the purchase of Phantom aircraft from the United States of America.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the replacement for the TSR2.

I have no statement to make at present about the F111A. As regards the Phantom, present plans provide for this aircraft to come into squadron service with the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force in 1968–69, and initial orders have been placed.

Is it not now increasingly apparent, even to the present Government, that their hasty decision to cancel the TSR2 was an error of substantial magnitude? Will the Government now come forward with definite proposals about the replacement of this aircraft? Is it not clear that this and other cancellations were taken out of a desire to wreck the aircraft industry and that no proper consideration was given to the effective equipment needed by the Royal Air Force?

I think that the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's question is too trivial to deserve comment. On the serious content of his question, the cancellation of TSR2 saved the country about £300 million, after all costs had been paid. The need for an aircraft of this nature is under discussion in the Defence Review. Already this afternoon I have been pressed by several right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite not to take decisions on equipment until the need is fully established in the Defence Review. This advice I propose to follow.

How can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what he is saving by cancelling the TSR2 when he does not even know what he is going to order in its place, or even if he is going to order? Will he take account of the fact that the R.A.F. require the Fl1lA in its place? If he is not going to downgrade the rôle of the R.A.F., will he face up to the consequences of his stupid action and pay the dollars necessary to get the R.A.F. the right aircraft?

That was a slightly incoherent question to have to answer, but, so far as I could follow it, I would say that the R.A.F. would certainly receive from this Government the aircraft which it needs to perform the tasks required of it by the nation. But until those tasks have been firmly defined I propose to follow the advice given by the Shadow Minister of Defence, who has asked me not to take equipment decisions. I have forgotten the earlier part of the Question, but if the hon. Gentleman is really concerned with an answer perhaps he would repeat it?

Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that he has undertaken to announce the Government's decision on the F111A before the end of the year?

I have told the House that the option on the F111A requires us to take it up by the end of the year.

The earlier part of my Question was simply how can the right hon. Gentleman say that he has made a saving on TSR2 when he does not even know what he he is going to replace it with, if anything?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for reminding me of this point. The saving of £300 million is on the assumption of a full buy of F111A. We are already clear that the buy we would require of F111A would give us a larger saving than this. If it were decided to take another or cheaper aircraft the saving would be even larger.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many drill halls in Kent are used exclusively for Territorial Army purposes; and how many will be released for civil social purposes subsequent to the proposed reorganisation of the Territorial Army.

Ten. Most of the drill halls in Kent will become surplus to Service requirements, and will be disposed of in the normal way.

Whilst thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, will he ensure that local authorities get the opportunity to use these halls, and that they will be able to provide pensioners' facilities much more economically than the Territorial Army Council does at present?

All surplus Government property of one Department has to be offered to other Departments to see if it is required for some other Government use. Other than that, when we dispose of the halls we shall inform the local authorities of their availability and will be prepared to discuss individual cases with them.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is aware of the connection between the disappointing recruiting figure for the last few months and the present state of pay and conditions of service in the Armed Forces; what action he proposes to take; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. The next pay review is due to take effect in April, 1966, and conditions of service are under constant review.

Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that the Government will do what they are in honour bound to do and implement in full the Grigg formula? Is he aware that failure to give such an assurance on a previous occasion has created dismay and may be hampering recruiting? Will he take the opportunity of giving this assurance now and saying what it is going to cost?

I am afraid that I have not yet been able to see the results of the Grigg review and therefore I cannot possibly give an assurance without knowing what is involved. I am fully aware of the considerations which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

Can I press the right hon. Gentleman, as he refused to answer my question two weeks ago, at any rate to give an absolutely clear assurance that the Grigg formula will be applied?

Yes, Sir. The Grigg formula is proceeding according to plan.

The right hon. Gentleman has not understood my question. I said, will the Grigg formula be applied?

The Grigg formula is being applied and the results are not yet available to the Government. The Government cannot possibly take the decision on this matter until they know what the results are.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that answer I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for any further amalgamation of regiments, battalions or units of the Regular Army.

None, Sir.

I am glad to hear the Minister's reply. Is he aware that, owing to the endless uncertainty which has been caused in the past by the Government's defence plans, many members of the Regular. Forces are very concerned that there a-e plans to reduce the numbers of the Regular Army? As his comments made a few minutes ago to my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench will not allay these doubts, will he give the House an assurance now that he will not reduce the size of the Regular Army?

It is quite impossible to give an assurance about no increase or no reduction in any of the Armed Forces when a review is in progress. I would have thought that the clear undertaking which I gave, that we have no plans along the lines of the hon. Member's Question, would be of some satisfaction to those concerned.

Order. May I express the hope that Front Benchers will not take too great a share of supplementary questions? It deprives the back benchers of their opportunities.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the measures being taken to safeguard Gurkha recruiting in the unsettled conditions which now exist in the Indian sub-continent; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. The intake of recruits for this year has been successfully completed and all the recruits are now in Malaysia.

Does the Minister realise that unless a solution is reached to the vital and pressing problem of Kashmir, a further outbreak of hostilities between Pakistan and India is inevitable and that if that happens, it is bound to affect Gurkha recruiting, the passage of recruits from Nepal and leave parties into Nepal? What will the Minister do about it?

I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member will understand that I, as he does, would like to see a solution to Kashmir. He will, however, know from his experience of the customs of Government that it is not my responsibility to answer questions about the Government's initiative in this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence the average length of tour of major units of the Army in the British Army of the Rhine.

About three years for infantry battalions; rather longer for armoured and artillery units.

Is not this a somewhat excessive length of time bearing in mind that units in Germany have a rather dull time compared with the more exciting tours further overseas?

With about one-third of the Army in Germany it is bound to work out something like that.

When Army men are sent on these long tours, why are they forced to separate from their wives? Why is not provision made to enable their wives to accompany them, as in the case of which my hon. Friend must be aware because I have written to him about it?

It is usually possible to provide accommodation for families in B.A.O.R., although quite often there is a waiting period before a family can join a serving soldier.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of major units of the Army is serving on unaccompanied overseas tours.

About one in seven.

Does not this indicate that there is rather excessive use of unaccompanied overseas tours, bearing in mind the hon. Gentleman's Answer to my previous Question, there being a substantial number of units on very long tours in Germany?

It means that the Army is fully stretched looking after its present commitments.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what study he has made of, and what military lessons have been learned from, the recent hostilities between India and Pakistan.

All available information is being studied. British equipment showed up very well and it is probably in that field that we shall learn most lessons.

Would not the Minister agree that the first lesson that we should get from these operations is that they should never have been allowed to happen at all, and for that I feel the whole House of Commons is a good deal to blame. As, however, they have happened and are certain to happen again unless leadership is given by the Government, should we not study in more detail the military lesson, particularly with regard to tanks, on either side?

My responsibility relates to the military lessons to be learned and we are conducting studies on the lines suggested by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. If he wishes to pursue other questions of a political character, he will know that he must ask my right hon. Friends and not me.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence, in view of his decision to buy United States aircraft, what representations he has made to the United States Defence Department against their decision to add 50 per cent. to the existing tariff barrier against imports of defence equipment from Great Britain, which is contrary to the terms of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

Negotiations are being pursued with the United States Department of Defence about the possibility of their purchasing certain items of British equipment. If we can establish that these items meet the requirements of the American Forces in performance and in time, we hope that the British firms which manufacture them will be allowed to compete for United States orders without having to face any price differentials. The question of whether the differential is contrary to the provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade is one for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Will the right hon. Gentleman press this case as hard as he can, because we are committed to very large expenditure on American armaments and it is only fair that the Americans should give a fair crack of the whip to some of the excellent weapons which we produce in this country and not load the dice against us?

Yes, Sir. I am deeply concerned about this matter and I have pointed out to my American colleagues that it will not be possible for the United Kingdom to make large purchases of new American equipment without compensating purchases by the United States.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions are taking place on the principle of establishing a single staff college for the three Services.

Staff training, including the possibility of establishing a single staff college, is at present under review. But I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that 25 per cent. of staff training is already carried out on a joint Service basis.

Would not the Secretary of State agree that two levels of staff instruction are vital, so that junior officers should thoroughly understand their own Service before they take part in a joint staff college?

Yes, Sir. This point is well borne in mind and is under consideration by those considering the question.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish a list of those infantry brigades converting to large regiments within the next 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

The second large regiment, the Royal Green Jackets, is to be farmed in January next. As I told the hon. Member on 27th October, I would welcome the move of other brigades to a similar organisation.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Territorial Army P as in the past been a fruitful source of recruiting for Regular county regiments and that now that the Minister has decided upon the virtual disbanding of tae Territorial Army this may have a great effect upon what brigades can in future be formed into the new larger regiments?

We accept, of course, that the organisation of the Territorial Army has a bearing on Regular recruiting. As I have said in answer to previous Questions, we are very concerned about this.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's policy with regard to the ordering of ships from the Fairfield shipbuilding yard.

At the time of the appointment of a receiver and manager by the Bank of Scotland in mid-October, Fairfield's had naval contracts for two guided missile destroyers. The position on these major orders is under discussion between my Department and the receiver, in conjunction with the general consideration now being given to the future of the company.

Is my hon. Friend aware that it is one thing to have orders but another thing to have the instruction to proceed with an order? We appreciate having the right to draw up to £1 million, but does my hon. Friend realise that the £1 million, while it is helpful, must be supplemented by work? Will he see to it that Fairfield gets the instruction to go ahead with the second missile frigate?

As I have said, talks a re going on with the receiver. I should be careful not to prejudice them.

asked the Lord President of the Council whether, in order to provide for full debate, he will seek to arrange for the Orders arising from the Southern Rhodesia Bill to be taken at morning sittings of the House.

No, Sir. I think that the arrangements already made for these Orders today will meet the convenience of the House.

Why is my right hon. Friend so conservative in these and other matters? Is he aware that the Opposition have made complaints about these Orders and asked for assurances that they should be debated at reasonable hours? Is he further aware that there are eight of these Orders for debate today which means that some of them, anyhow, will be debated into the very early hours of tomorrow morning? Will he not reconsider this position so that everyone who wishes to take part in this debate may have a reasonable opportunity of expressing his views on them, and will he not accept that this surely means morning sittings?

I understand that Her Majesty's Opposition are in agreement that these Orders shall be taken today, as tabled. As far as my conservative views are concerned regarding morning sittings, I would remind the House that to decide whether to sit in the morning would need a full day's debate in the House.

asked the Attorney-General if he will instruct the Director of Public Prosecutions to institute proceedings for obscene libel against the British Broadcasting Corporation, as a result of the obscene language used in the programme B.B.C.3 on Saturday, 13th November.

No. After careful consideration of the matter in conjunction with the Director of Public Prosecutions I have come to the conclusion that no criminal proceedings should be instituted in this case.

Has the Minister forgotten that week by week in the United Kingdom many persons are subject to such criminal proceedings for using such obscene language in the presence of a few, yet this character from the B.B.C. uses it in the presence of millions and gets away with it? Does this not indicate that there is a law for the ordinary people and a different law for the untouchables of the B.B.C. ——