asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will now announce improvements in the pensions of service widows, in view of the evidence sent to him by the hon. Member for Tynemouth.

I understand that the Question relates to the situation of widows of officers and men of the regular forces who die from a cause attributable to service. As I told my hon. Friend in my letter of 15th December, the proposals she sent to my noble Friend are being studied thoroughly and sympathetically.

I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer and also for his sympathetic letter. I am alarmed at the rumours that anomalies are not to be met in detail and in all ways. Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that I have come to the conclusion that it must have been easier to win the Battle of Waterloo than it is to move the present Government, or any other Government, to deal with these injustices?

I assure my hon. Friend that we are considering this matter, that no decisions have been taken, that any rumours she has heard are baseless, and that this is likely to be less of a close-run thing than the Battle of Waterloo.

I recognise the difficulties associated with this question, which we on this side in our turn faced, but will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that our Service widows' pensions compare badly with those of our allies within Europe?

This is one of the factors we are bearing in mind.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of British troops in the Gulf area.

I have no statement to make at present about the future of British troops in the Gulf area.

Is it not a fact that orders to withdraw given by the last Government have not yet been countermanded? Does my hon. Friend agree that the presence of British troops in the Gulf leads to stability in the area and safeguards Western oil supplies? Can we be told when we may expect this important statement?

The statement will be made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs as soon as possible. Our responsibility is to take a decision which will result, as best we can achieve it, in the ultimate stability of this area. We are retaining in the Persian Gulf the forces necessary at the moment to meet our existing commitments.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a further statement about the present and projected armament of British nuclear submarines.

British nuclear-powered submarines, including those fitted with Polaris, continue to be equipped with the Mark 8 anti-ship and the Mark 23 antisubmarine torpedoes. Development of the Mark 24 torpedo continues, and studies are being made of submarine-launched anti-ship missile systems.

Does that reply mean that submarines costing from £20 to £40 million are still armed with weapons developed during the last war, some 30 years ago? Could my hon. Friend speed up not only the development of the Mark 24 torpedo, which has had a chequered history, but also the development of submarine-to-surface missiles which have been in and out of various White Papers in the past five years?

My hon. Friend has frequently impressed on the House the importance of technically advanced torpedoes. One of the major problems we have found on coming into office in regard to defence equipment has been the slow development in recent years of these very advanced torpedoes, but I must impress upon the House that these submarines with their sonars and weapons system are powerful weapons for military use.

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that the last Administration made a significant change in the allocation of resources to submarine weaponry. Will he assure the House that the decision to continue with "Ark Royal" and to go for a surface-to-surface missile will not divert funds from this most urgent area of weapon development?

I assure the House that we shall not divert funds from what is crucially important for the defence facilities of the Fleet. I hope that we shall achieve greater success than did the previous Administration.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning his official meeting on 19th November with the West German Defence Minister.

The meeting which my right hon. and noble Friend had with Herr Schmidt was confidential covering a number of defence matters of common interest. The talks were friendly and constructive and contributed to the successful outcome of the meetings of European and N.A.T.O. Defence Ministers on 1st and 2nd December.

Can the Minister confirm that his noble Friend informed Herr Schmidt that he should tell Herr Ahlers that the United Kingdom attitude towards the support costs of troops in Germany, whether British or American, will be based on the Government's assessment of the interests of the Western Alliance and will not be deflected by any blackmailing pressures about the future of Common Market negotiations?

A statement was made after the meeting with Herr Schmidt. I have nothing to add to that.

Can my hon. Friend say to what extent these negotiations are proceeding, whether they will be satisfactory and whether we shall be able to ask for a larger sum from the West Germans than that arrived at last year? Will he bear in mind also the fact that the purchase agreements with this country have not turned out to be very satisfactory in the past year?

It would be wrong for me at this stage to refer to what were confidential discussions between Herr Schmidt and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he has considered the letter addressed to him on 30th November, 1970 by the Secretary of the National Council for Civil Liberties, concerning two men who have been absent without leave from their service duties for six years; and what reply he has returned thereto.

I have written to the Secretary of the N.C.C.L.

While thanking the hon. Gentleman for sending that reply, which I understand was received yesterday, may I ask whether he will circulate a copy of it in HANSARD? I have not seen it, but I gather that it was reasonably satisfactory, so far as it went, and also informative.

I think all letters I send are reasonably satisfactory; at least, I hope that that is the case. It would be wrong for me to circulate in HANSARD what was a private letter without the agreement of the recipient. I accept that the very existence of the Question put down by the hon. Gentleman probably accelerated the reply which has been sent.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what steps he intends to take during the course of the current year to enable Royal Naval mechanicians, on release from Her Majesty's Forces, to pursue the skilled trade for which their training in the Royal Navy has equipped them.

Agreement in principle has been reached with the City and Guilds Institute for the award of a Technicians Part II Certificate to men who success fully complete the Mechanicians Qualifying Course. It is hoped that the final details will be resolved well before the end of the year. We shall also continue to seek official union recognition of these men as skilled in their trade.

Is not this a matter of union recognition? Is it not a fact that just one member of the National Committee of the A.E.F. is currently preventing the employment of several hundred of these men who are urgently needed by the engineering industry and who are recognised by the A.E.F. itself as being fully qualified for skilled employment? Will my hon. Friend continue to maintain pressure on the A.E.F. to halt a restrictive practice which is worthy of a medieval craft guild?

I cannot compel the A.E.F. to do anything that it does not wish to do. I hope very much that it will do what my hon. Friend suggests. I do not approve of its action at the moment, but it is up to it to decide.

asked the Minister of State for Defence in regard to security at the Vehicles Depôt at Ashchurch, Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire, what steps he is taking to end pilferage of public property, such as vehicle batteries and spares, and the abuse of men clocking each other's cards and similar malpractices; and whether he will make a statement on such losses and defalcations.

A number of measures are in force to prevent pilferage and other malpractices, and these are kept under review. Such measures cannot be completely foolproof but the depôt's record as shown by stocktaking has been a good one.

Does my hon. Friend's statement about stocktaking apply to batteries, which thieves find most delectable morsels? Does he recognise that there are widespread fears in the southern part of my constituency that the practices referred to in my Question are getting worse, and that security ought to be tightened in this depôt generally?

We look at security all the time, although there is no reason to believe that the record in this depot is particularly bad. The last complete stocktaking of batteries was in April, 1969, and another one will be carried out very shortly.

I am very grateful.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the future employment of Norton Barracks, Worcester, for Regular and Territorial units; and his proposals to continue close affiliation and ties between the county regiments and Norton Barracks.

Norton Barracks is now occupied by a Signal Regiment and some smaller units, including The Regimental Headquarters of The Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters Regiment. No changes in the occupation of the Barracks are at present envisaged.

Would my hon. Friend recognise that the tendency in recent years to sever the close connection and affiliation between the traditional recruiting grounds of the county regiments and the regiments themselves has had a most unfortunate effect on attracting new recruits? Would he therefore, establish, as a general principle, that a county regiment's headquarters should be in the county, as in the case of Norton Barracks and the Worcestershire Regiment, to enhance recruiting and attract larger numbers of men to the colours?

We are not responsible for the tendencies of the last few years.

I quite agree.

I agree with the principle laid down by my hon. Friend.

Good.

I cannot give a general undertaking, but I assure my hon. Friend that there are no plans to alter the situation of the Worcestershire Regiment.

That is a reasonably satisfactory answer.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a vast recruiting ground in County Durham with no regiment for it to go to?

We are aware that there are some gaps in the geographic situation, but I am hoping that this will improve.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what approach has been made to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to assume some responsibility for the defence of the Cape route and Indian Ocean; and what reply has been received.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) on 16th November 1970.—[Vol. 806, c. 297–8.]

As there is a possibility that Soviet warships will be able to pass through the Suez Canal before long, has not the time come to take a fresh look at N.A.T.O. defence boundaries, which are very confined at present?

As I have already said, I have considerable sympathy with the views expressed by my hon. Friend. Consideration is being given to the issue inside N.A.T.O. There is no reason why any of our allies should not take independent action to improve its arrangements should it consider that desirable.

Can the Minister confirm that the Government declared its original intention to sell maritime arms to South Africa without consulting our N.A.T.O. allies? Since that intention has been declared, has any N.A.T.O. member supported the policy of the British Government to resume sales?

It would be wrong for me to disclose private conversations taking place between Her Majesty's Government and other Governments.

Has not the Prime Minister found the utmost difficulty in getting any N.A.T.O. partner to subscribe to the fears that the right hon. Gentleman says he has about Soviet influence in the Indian Ocean?

Far from that being the case, there is a gradually increasing awareness throughout the Western world of the threat posed by the extension of Soviet naval forces.

Have not several of our allies in N.A.T.O., particularly the French, been selling arms to South Africa? Have not they a great interest in the South Atlantic and the Indian Ocean, and would they not be more than willing to share the burden with us?

Both points made by my hon. Friend are completely valid.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what progress has been made towards greater co-ordination by European members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and whether he will make a statement on the Brussels meeting in December.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 17th December to the right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) which gives the Communiquê of the December Euro Group meeting.—[Vol. 808, c. 406–7.]

As these communiqués are not always very informative, could my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there was at that meeting closer co-operation between the European defence allies?

I agree with my hon. Friend that all too frequently the communiqués are remarkably uninformative. It was a very successful meeting. As hon. Members will know, it resulted in the Euro-Group members agreeing to undertake the European Defence Improvement Programme, which was a major step forward in European defence collaboration.

The Minister has implied in answer to a previous Question that some members of N.A.T.O. agree with the policy of Her Majesty's Government on selling arms to South Africa and accept the so-called threat in the Indian Ocean. Will the hon. Gentleman name the N.A.T.O. members which have accepted this policy?

I suggest that if the hon. Gentleman had wished to ask a question about the last Question he should have done so when it was called.

On a point of order. Question 12 refers to

"co-ordination of policy by European members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation".

Is it in order for the Minister not to answer a question which is directly related to the Question on the Order Paper?

I am not responsible for the way in which Ministers answer Questions.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what is the number of men now serving sentences in military prisons from each of the Services, the maximum number of such men who can be accommodated, the number of staff employed, both civil and military, and the cost per prisoner per week involved.

The four military corrective training establishments for men sentenced to detention can accommodate 615 men, with a staff of 290 Service men and 67 civilians. There were 92 sailors, 218 soldiers and 14 airmen in detention at the last count. I regret that the information requested in the last part of the Question would not be available without disproportionate effort.

May I ask whether the Minister will review the arrangements for the imprisonment of members of the Armed Forces, particularly in view of the serious over-crowding being experienced in civil prisons? Will the Minister, therefore, revise the military establishments to see whether it is possible to transfer part of our military corrective establishments to civil use because of the unsatisfactory situation now applying to civilians serving terms of imprisonment?

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State responsible for the Royal Navy yesterday made a statement to the House about reforms which are being made in the Naval Detention Quarters at Portsmouth, and the matter is continually under review. I do not think that it is feasible to use the corrective centres of the Services for use as civil prisons.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether, in view of the Government's declared objectives of improving the capabilities of the Armed Forces, overcoming their manpower difficulties and enhancing their rôle in the community, as set out in Command Paper No. 4521 paragraph 2(2), he will announce plans to recreate flying units within the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.

This is one of the areas that we are at present reviewing. It is too soon to forecast the outcome.

That is welcome news as, up to now, only a thousandth part of the Royal Air Force's budget has gone on the Auxiliaries, and there is no means for expansion in times of tension or war without denuding the training staffs of conversion units at present.

I am always glad to give my hon. Friend welcome news.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether, in view of the Government's commitment to enhance the status of military service in the national life, as set out in Command Paper No. 4521, paragraph 35, he will now announce plans to establish an inter-Service Defence Academy at the Royal Naval College, Greenwich.

At the present time I have no plans to revive this project.

Is my noble Friend aware that only £20 million out of a total Defence budget of about £2,200 million goes on Service colleges, and that to create an inter-Service cadet college at Greenwich would put the profession of arms back in the public eye, which is one of the Government's intentions, when seeking to improve recruiting?

I agree with the last part of my hon. Friend's comments. We are most anxious to enhance the status of the Forces in the eyes of the country. But my hon. Friend will know that since 1968, when the original proposal was abandoned, all three Services have redeveloped their plans for the further education of young officers and the university cadet entry scheme has been enlarged. As a result, the number of vacancies for young officers at universities has been increased.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether the review of surplus land requirements at Shorncliffe has been completed; and when he proposes to make a statement.

The land requirements of the Ministry of Defence in the Shorncliffe area will be considered in the course of the forthcoming general review of Defence land holdings. It will be some time before the conclusions reached on Shorncliffe can be made known.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that indecision on the Channel Tunnel project is causing a great shortage of vacant land for industrial and commercial purposes? Will my hon. Friend bear this matter in mind and try to obtain the earliest possible decision?

Yes. Of course, the Channel Tunnel is nothing to do with me. I realise that speed is necessary, but it is impossible to deal with Shorncliffe in isolation from the rest of the land holdings of the Ministry of Defence.

In that general review which is taking place, which presumably includes Dorset lands, is there any representation on the Committee of civilian as well as of defence interests?

Dorset is included. There will be representation of civilian interests. My noble Friend will be answering a Question on this matter later today.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a progress report on the establishment of a naval dockyard board with particular reference to the membership so far designated from outside industry.

The establishment of a Royal Dockyard Policy Board has now been completed. It will

"consider and advise on management policies for achieving the best use of the finance, material and human resources available to the Royal Dockyards for the performance of their task".

We have been fortunate in securing the agreement of Sir Henry Benson, G.B.E., F.C.A., of Cooper Brothers and Company, and Mr. Richard O'Brien of Delta Metal Company Limited, to serve as members of this Board. The remaining members will be senior naval and civilian officers serving in the Ministry of Defence. I will be taking the chair myself.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the best is to be made of the new management structure and techniques in the dockyards, it is essential to have a higher representation of ideas and experience from outside industry?

I do not think so. The two gentlemen whom I have named, and who served on the Mallabar Committee, are well aware of the problems of the Royal Dockyards. I think that they will both contribute enormously to making the management of the dockyards even more efficient.

I welcome the decision to continue the previous Administration's decision to appoint a dockyard board and also the appointment of two gentlemen who have great experience of the Royal Dockyards. Will the hon. Gentleman still consider the possibility of hiving off the dockyards to give them a greater degree of independence from the central defence mechanism, and possibly consider going towards a single dockyard budget which can be presented to the House of Commons so that we can see the financial disciplines of the dockyards hived off from the central defence mechanism?

The hon. Gentleman from his experience in my office, will know how difficult this problem is. The dockyards are so closely bound up with the Fleet that it is almost impossible to conceive a way of hiving them off. However, we have been looking into this matter.

asked the Minister of State for Defence how many men are at present detained in the Naval Detention Quarters, Portsmouth; what tasks are now allotted to them; what improvements have been made in the condition of these quarters and in the nature of the tasks performed by those detained in them; and what is the longest period during the week for which they are locked in their cells.

Forty-seven men were detained on 1st January, 1971. As regards the tasks carried out in detention and the improvements made, or planned, to this establishment, I would refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave him in the winding up of the debate on the Armed Forces Bill last night.

The longest period men are locked in their rooms is 10½ hours between 2000 hours on Saturday and "call hands" at 0630 hours on Sunday.

Does the Minister agree that, because of ill-informed public doubts which still exist about the nature of life in the prison, it might be extremely helpful if he were to take an early opportunity to make a full statement about the objectives of work within a prison of this kind and demonstrate to the general public the degree of cross-fertilisations of ideas which goes on with administrators of civil prisons?

I thought that I made a pretty full statement last night.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will now make an announcement about the review of coastal and countryside sites occupied by the Ministry of Defence.

I apologise for the length of the answer.

The review of defence land holdings in the United Kingdom is to be undertaken by a Committee which my right hon. and noble Friend, the Secretary of State for Defence, is appointing under the Chairmanship of Lord Nugent of Guildford. In addition to the Chairman, the Committee has six independent members, including the Chairman of the Countryside Commission, as well as official representatives.

The Committee has been given wide terms of reference covering countryside and coastal sites occupied by the Armed Forces, or by the Ministry of Aviation Supply for defence purposes, including all those which have been the subject of public concern on amenity grounds. With permission, I will circulate the Committee's full terms of reference and details of its members in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The inquiry will be a major undertaking and one of very great concern to the Services as well as to all concerned with amenity and recreation in the countryside. We are confident that this strong Committee is the best possible instrument to carry out this important task.

In view of the grave importance of the amenity value of different parts of the land which will be under review, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether it will be possible for there to be interim reports from this body rather than our having to wait for the whole review to be carried out? Secondly, can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether defence land in National Parks will be included in the terms of reference of the review?

I think that whether there should be an interim report is a matter which lies within the discretion of the Committee itself. The answer to the question whether the review will be able to cover defence holdings in National Parks is "Yes". In addition, all defence holdings in areas of outstanding natural beauty and along the coastline, except for dockyards and port installations, will be examined by the Committee. So also will training areas, airfields and ranges, wherever they may be situated in the United Kingdom.

Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that Nature Conservancy is also brought into this matter? As he knows, this is a long-established body, which was set up for this very purpose. Will he ensure that the best use is made of our land, and see to it that Nature Conservancy as well as the Countryside Commission is brought into this matter?

I have said that the Chairman of the Countryside Commission will be a member of the Committee, but he will sit as an independent person bringing his judgment to bear on the issues under review, and it will be open to the Nature Conservancy, or to any other bodies interested in this subject, to give evidence before the Committee.

Will my right hon. Friend see whether it will be possible for the Committee to give particular priority to examining the possibility of releasing sites, or parts of sites, where, for instance, local authorities have been pressing for their release for urgent local purposes?

I shall see that the point made by my hon. Friend is brought to the attention of the Chairman of the Committee.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House warmly welcome his announcement of the appointment of this Committee and that, like him, we attach great importance to its work? May I, with the same area in mind as the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), express a rather different point of view from that expressed by the hon. Gentleman, and say that there have been many instances in which, although military occupation has created difficulties of access, it has, at the same time, preserved areas of natural beauty and recreational use from undesirable developments? I hope that this Committee will take great care in considering that aspect of the matter and will ensure that land of natural beauty or amenity value is preserved for those purposes?

I am sure that the two points of view put to the House are exactly the kinds of issue that will be examined by the Committee. I should like to express my gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for welcoming this Committee, because its report is of undoubted importance both to the defence needs of this country and to recreational and amenity interests.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what have been the casualties, by degree of seriousness, to British forces engaged in their peacekeeping rôle in Northern Ireland.

No member of the Armed Forces has been killed while directly engaged in peacekeeping operations in Northern Ireland. Five hundred and eighty military casualties arising from peacekeeping action have been recorded, of which 106 required admission to hospital. More detailed information on the nature of the injuries is not readily available.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the admiration of the British people for the manner in which members of the Armed Forces are carrying out their difficult job in Northern Ireland? In view of the high level of casualties about which my hon. Friend has told us today, can be suggest any way of reducing the numbers?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said to begin with. I am sure that his feeling about reducing the number of casualties is widely shared. A great deal has been done already. A range of protective devices has been introduced which includes protective jackets, plastic shields and helmet visors. These have helped to save lives and reduce casualties, but we are continually looking at further ways to improve the position.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he can announce further details of the proposed expansion of the Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve.

A new Armoured Car Regiment consisting of a headquarters, a headquarters squadron and three armoured car squadrons will be formed on existing Yeomanry cadres. A further 20 unit headquarters and 77 subunits of company size for employment in an infantry rôle will also be formed.

With permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of the locations selected for these units. Units will begin to form on 1st April.

I welcome that important step towards repairing some of the serious damage done to the Territorial Army by the last Labour Government. Can my hon. Friend say something about recruiting prospects, bearing in mind that the TAVR. is, unfortunately, now about 20 per cent. below establishment?

I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for the welcome that he has given to these proposals. On the recruiting point, it is mainly the logistic units that are under strength. Infantry and Yeomanry units in the TAVR. have done quite well for recruiting, and their strength is more than 90 per cent. of establishment. An important feature of the expansion is that we shall be able to attract recruits from new areas.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House why, when he was in Opposition, he wrote a pamphlet suggesting that the appropriate size for the Territorial Army might be 25,000, yet it appears from what he has said today that the Government are going for a target of about half that figure?

I never wrote any such pamphlet.

It was his hon. and gallant Friend behind him who wrote it.

I am not aware of what figures my hon. and gallant Friend had in mind, but this is only a start, and we believe that 10,000 was the right figure for initial target.

Can my hon. Friend tell the House to what extent it will be necessary to repurchase drill halls which were sold by the previous Administration?

When we came into office in July we held up the sale of as many drill halls as we could. We had to let go those which we were under an obligation to sell, but I hope that we can exist on the accommodation that we possess now.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the delay in confirming the new status and conditions of service for apprentice group instructors in the Royal Naval Dockyards.

I hope to make a decision on this question very shortly.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Would he not agree that a real sense of grievance is felt by these men, because of the long delay? Will he assure us this afternoon that the decision will be final, and soon?

I realise the problem, but the hon. Gentleman knows that this is a very complicated question. I hope that the decision will, to coin a phrase, be given within a matter of days and not weeks.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the latest round of talks in Singapore on future five-Power defence arrangements in the area.

Senior officials of the five Commonwealth countries met at Singapore on 7th and 8th January to prepare for a meeting of Ministers in London this spring to discuss five-Power defence arrangements. Good progress was made. In particular, the officials agreed upon the political framework for these arrangements when the Anglo-Malaysian Defence Agreement is terminated, which will now be recommended to their respective Governments. Other matters agreed for submission to Ministers included future arrangements for regular five-Power consultation and the setting up of an Air Defence Council to be responsible for the functioning of the Integrated Air Defence System.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that statement. Can he say whether the officials were able to agree a document to replace the Anglo-Malaysian Defence Treaty? Can he also say whether the Government of Malaysia have agreed to five-Power arrangements for the Jungle Warfare Training School inside Malaysia?

The recommendations made by officials to Ministers are private and, as they affect other Governments, I do not think that it would be right to refer to them until the spring meeting. As regards the Jungle Warfare Training School, we have agreed, in consultation with the other Governments, to continue the school until the end of this year. It will then be transferred to the Malaysian Government, who will hold discussions with the other four countries about meeting their needs for jungle warfare training.

Will my right hon. Friend, in his discussions with the Malaysian Government, insist that the Jungle Warfare Training School should continue to be run by the Gurkhas who are doing it so ably, as I saw last year, and also that it should continue to be available to all the five Powers concerned in the defence of Singapore and the Far East?

I do not think that it would be right for the Government in their discussions with the Malaysian Government to insist on what course of action they should pursue, but we have impressed on them the importance to Commonwealth forces of this Jungle Warfare Training Centre, and they are well aware of its importance.

asked the Minister of State for Defence how the proportion of the gross national produce devoted to defence he intends for 1975 compares with the 3 per cent. planned by France for that year; and, approximately, what saving in millions of £ sterling his reduction to 3 per cent. would mean on the basis of the United Kingdom's present gross national product.

The level of defence expenditure for 1975 has not yet been decided. When it is, the decision will be based on the needs of defence and the national economy and not on arbitrary proportions of the gross national product or comparisons with countries whose circumstances are different from our own.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, if it remains at roughly 5½ per cent., expert statisticians—[Laughter.]—the highest statistical advice provided by the House of Commons—say that this would mean more than £950 million saving a year for this country? Is he aware of public opinion, as shown by public opinion polls, supporting the idea that this should be saved for other and better things?

I do not care what expert statisticians might say on his subject. What I do know is that public opinion and the Government are absolutely determined that defence shall be a high element in the expenditure of this country, and we are determined to play our part in preserving the freedom of the Western world.

Is not the reason that the French have kept down their figure to that mentioned that they have concentrated on nuclear weapons and that they sell their conventional weapons—say, to South Africa? Does not the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) object to this country doing either of those things?

We do have nuclear weapons.

It would be wrong for me to comment on the proportion of the gross national product which other Governments spend on their defence programmes, but certainly the points which my hon. Friend makes are relevant.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, after all his fine words at the Box a moment ago, and all the finer words of his colleagues before the General Election, the Government are to spend a proportion of our economic resources on defence which is almost exactly the same as was spent by the Labour Party?

What I am aware of is that the defence Services were becoming increasingly worried about the defence programmes of the previous Administration and that they have widely welcomed the decisions of Her Majesty's Government.

May I press the Minister on this? Is he further aware, in the light of his last remarks, that the Government are trying to take credit for the fact that they are willing to spend less on what they regarded as the long-term defence projections of this side of the House?

We are spending on our defence what we consider is appropriate, and we are spending it a great deal better than did the previous Administration.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will appoint an inter-Departmental committee to assess the total economic effects of decimalisation arising from price/measure changes.

No, Sir.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, after the Government have scrapped every protective body for the consumer, there is great concern in the country that, with decimalisation, retailers and others will take the opportunity to rob the public?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has the slightest justification for making that accusation.

If evidence is provided after decimalisation comes into force, will the Minister be prepared to retract that answer and let the House of Commons examine—he should give a lead—whether there is any wholesale cheating over decimalisation and advantage being taken of ordinary people?

The hon. Gentleman seems to forget that a large number of retailers are ordinary people. There is nothing disreputable about putting up prices on decimalisation if prices have been held down simply in order not to make two changes instead of one.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take immediate steps to set up a national emergency fund from which moneys can rapidly be drawn on the occasion of any national accident or disaster.

No, Sir. Despite its superficial attractions, successive Governments have concluded that this is not a practicable proposition.

Would my hon. Friend look at this question again, because many dependants of those who have suffered in national disasters must wait a long time before any moneys are forthcoming? If a national fund can be set up, even if only with a small initial amount, that would help those dependants who require help at once.

I take that point, but I think that the resources which are available for immediate rescue are adequate. It does not require a national fund to deal with emergency action. When it comes to dealing with compensation, this is an attempt to insure the uninsurable. Where a disaster is insurable against, it creates very difficult problems as between those who have and those who have not insured themselves.