asked the Minister of State for Defence why his Department is returning accounts rendered by suppliers for payment in decimal currency on the grounds that the amounts stated in the original contract were in sterling.

It has not been the Ministry's general practice to return bills in the circumstances described.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are many cases in my constituency of accounts being returned by his Department for the reasons stated in the Question? If I send him the papers, will he be good enough to look into this?

I am aware of one case in my hon. Friend's constituency. I regret that. It is not the normal practice, and I think very few cases have happened.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the technological research undertaken, by bodies responsible to his Department, on the problems involved in the construction of liquefied natural gas carriers.

The Naval Construction Research Establishment at Rosyth has carried out research into design aspects of liquefied natural gas carriers and has studied certain safety aspects connected with the dangers arising out of collisions at sea.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the design studies carried out by the Establishment at Rosyth resulted in, among other things, the placing of seven orders with a French shipbuilding company? Would not it be better if both he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made an initiative both departmentally and industrially to ensure that this type of vessel was built in the United Kingdom?

I do not accept that for one moment. The Establishment was asked to make an evaluation on behalf of a British shipowner to satisfy a third-party Government. That it did, and it was a normal customer-contractor relationship. There is no connection between that evaluation and where the order was placed.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will now organise a round-table conference with all the appropriate local authorities to discuss the co-ordination of civil and military air base facilities, and where relevant the development of joint civil and military use of existing air base facilities in the South Hampshire and West Sussex area.

Not at the moment.

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that his answers and those of his colleagues in the past have been regarded as very helpful, and that there has been altogether too much prevarication in the area? In the interests of both civil and military air movements and airport facilities it is urgent that everyone in the area should get together. Will the hon. Gentleman or one of his colleagues take some initiative in the matter?

We are looking at the matter urgently. I do not want in any way to discourage the idea which the hon. Gentleman put forward. I will get in touch with him at a later date about what we are doing. It is probable that some fruit will grow from his idea.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the arrangements by which the Government of Northern Ireland indicate to the British Army in Northern Ireland the tactical objectives which they wish it to pursue.

The tactical objectives of the Army in Northern Ireland are a matter for the General Officer Commanding, who is responsible to the Ministry of Defence. He works in the closest cooperation with the Northern Ireland Government through the Joint Security Committee.

In spite of that rather vague answer, is not the British Army in Northern Ireland in effect the agent of the Stormont Government? While we feel nothing but admiration for the restraint and discipline of the British Army generally, is it not an intolerable situation that, whatever the provocation, they should be killing, wounding and generally harassing the Catholic population, under the direction of the highly partisan Protestant Stormont Government? Is it not now urgent that responsibility for security should be transferred to Westminster?

I must repudiate some of the contents of the question. The Army is acting in support of the constitutional civil authority. The Northern Ireland Government are constitutionally responsible for law and order in the Province. However, the G.O.C. has overall responsibility for security operations, and he exercises this responsibility to the Defence Department, which is answerable to this House.

In view of the terrible murders in Northern Ireland within the past week and the continuing explosions in public places, with reckless disregard for human life and safety, will my hon. Friend ensure that the Forces make the maximum effort to search out the republican terrorists and restore law and order in every part of Northern Ireland, including the Catholic areas, where this would be greatly appreciated?

The Army is searching out terrorists who are breaking the law. That is what it is there for.

Will not the hon. Gentleman now concede that to 40 per cent. of the population of Northern Ireland it appears that the British Army is acting in a military rôle in support of a totally corrupt and discredited Government in Northern Ireland? Does he not now see that the only answer is to transfer security at the earliest possible opportunity to Westminster, before there can be any confidence in the rôle of the British military in Northern Ireland?

This raises very much wider questions than are contained in the original Question. They are, of course, matters for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who pointed out the implications in his speech on 1st February.

May I ask my hon. Friend to say that General Ford and his troops are not behaving in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin)?

I am sure that the remarks of my hon. Friend echo the feeling throughout the whole House that the troops have exercised incredible restraint and have used a minimum of force in rooting out terrorists.

Will the Minister accept that those of us who have been in Northern Ireland very recently wish to pay the highest tribute to our forces there, but at the same time some of us are distinctly unhappy about the present arrangements by which, while British forces themselves decide day-to-day tactics, far too much influence comes from Northern Ireland Ministers who dominate the joint meetings of the Joint Security Committee? Is it not impossible for British Forces to serve two masters for any length of time?

I have explained that the G.O.C. has full responsibility for overall military operations and that in that respect is answerable to this House.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what report he has had of the incident which occurred in December, 1971, in which a soldier was shot whilst guarding his officer who was giving a television interview in an exposed and dangerous place; and if he will ensure in the future that no soldier is exposed to wounds or possible injury for non-military reasons.

At about 4.15 p.m. on 27th December when a routine patrol was on duty in the Grosvenor Road area of Belfast, their company commander agreed to give an interview—which was not pre-planned—about the risks of playing in the street with realistic toy weapons. Three shots were fired at the patrol. One hit a soldier who was not, I am glad to say, seriously injured. No fire was returned because the gunman did not present a clear target. Every precaution is taken to ensure that troops on duty are not exposed to unnecessary risk.

Does my hon. Friend accept that with television the temptation to dramatise is inevitably always present and sometimes causes unacceptable risk? Will he ensure that orders are such that soldiers, if they must give interviews for television or radio, shall do so under cover and with the minimum of risk to themselves?

I sympathise with the concern which my hon. Friend shows in this context, but I have to tell him that no soldier, and no officer, is compelled to give a television interview. Company commanders may on the spot decide on their own initiative to give such interviews, but I assure him that they are well aware of the need to avoid any needless risk because of the requirements of television. Their over-riding responsibility is the security of their men and carrying out their duties.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that British troops in Northern Ireland are on active service? Why should they be expected to conduct their legitimate duties under the surveillance of television cameras, which in my opinion ought to be excluded altogether from battle areas?

My hon. Friend raises a question which is much wider than that which was put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King). It raises the whole question of censorship. The Government are opposed to censorship in Northern Ireland, and I know that the Army is most definitely opposed to it.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what courses of training in crowd control are provided for British troops before their deployment in Northern Ireland, and if this applies to all units.

All operational units receive detailed training instructions to enable them to conduct intensive training in all aspects of internal security operations before being posted to Northern Ireland. In addition, units other than infantry send numbers of their officers to specialised courses in order to prepare them for training their units.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the whole House is aware of the fighting reputation of the Parachute Regiment, including the First Battalion, and of the training and the qualities which distinguish it from other units, but is he quite sure that those qualities were appropriate to the crowd situation which existed in the Bogside on 30th January? Was it not a case of bad staff work and wrong troops in the wrong place at the wrong time—[Interruption.]—and furthermore—

On a point of order—

I deprecate points of order at Question time, but I will call the hon. Member.

This point of order must be put now. As a judicial inquiry is going on into events affecting this unit, and the inquiry is presided over by a judge, is it in order to prejudice the outcome of the inquiry?

The hon. Member is quite right. I do not think the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) should go into a matter which could be the subject of the current inquiry.

Of course I accept your Ruling. Mr. Speaker, but you will recall that the Minister went much further than I did on Tuesday, 1st February. However, I have no intention of following him. I shall merely conclude by asking whether he is quite satisfied that the presence of the Parachute Regiment in trying situations in Northern Ireland is always welcome to other units, notably the county regiments who showed more restraint in more trying situations?

I make it quite clear to the hon. Member that the Parachute Regiment has upheld the very fine traditions of the British Army in Northern Ireland and has carried out its duties in the same way and has been subjected to the same training as have other units in the British Army. I am sorry that the hon. Member should choose this occasion to cast a slur on the Regiment's reputation.

Is not this a typical example of the way in which British units, particularly Scottish units, have been traduced by hon. Members opposite?

I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned that. There was a time when some people tried to criticise Scottish regiments in the same terms as others have attempted to criticise the Parachute Regiment. They are all regiments of the British Army subject to training and internal security duties and they have a fine reputation as models of self-restraint and self-discipline.

While all of us very deeply regret the need for large numbers of British troops to be in Northern Ireland, is it not bad enough for our troops to have to run all the perils of being shot at by gunmen without having their pain increased by smears in this House?

On a point of order. I said nothing, as scrutiny of tomorrow's Hansard will bear out, that cast a slur on the Parachute Regiment.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the new allegations by prisoners in Northern Ireland of torture by the security forces in statements sent to him by the hon. Member for Islington, South-West.

These allegations were passed to the General Officer Commanding, Northern Ireland on 17th January. They are now being investigated by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, with the full co-operation of the Army authorities so far as military personnel are concerned. I understand however that the police investigations are being greatly hampered at present by the refusal of 13 of the 19 complainants to make statements or cooperate at all with the police inquiries.

Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that that is an amazing reply suggesting that he is putting an investigation into the hands of the R.U.C. when the people involved will certainly not accept the impartiality of the R.U.C.? Will he accept that the allegations made in the statements I have sent to him are at least as serious as those proved in the Compton Report and that, if true, they suggest that the Army has shifted from official methods of interrogation to semi-official methods having the same result? Is he telling the House that he does not intend to use a British Government representative to investigate?

I am simply telling the House that the allegations are being investigated by the normal and proper methods.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the main Republican effort is aimed at discrediting both the Army and the police? Will he back up both in the circumstances?

It is certainly true that allegations are being made and a war of propaganda is being waged against the authorities whose purpose is to secure law and order.

In case there is any misunderstanding, will the right hon. Gentleman make plain the division of responsibilities in this matter as between the R.U.C. and the Army and wherein the responsibility of the Army could possibly lie?

Allegations against the Army are in the first instance investigated by the Royal Military Police. If it is necessary for them to be investigated by the civil authorities, the Army cooperates fully in making the results of its investigations available to the civil authorities.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will now set up rest camps in Scotland for soldiers on stand-by duty in Northern Ireland.

There is little that I can add to the answer my hon. Friend was given on 22nd March, 1971, except to say that a good deal has been done in the meantime to improve local conditions and to make it easier to visit families in Great Britain on short leaves. However troops on standby must necessarily he immediately available.—[Vol. 814. c. 44–5.]

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that by using the Stranraer-Larne ferry troops can be in Belfast inside three hours, and by using aircraft they can be there in a few minutes, and that all units and the R.U.C. would be welcome across the Channel?

I am glad to hear that they would be welcome, and I appreciate the suggestion. There are, however, occasions when three hours is too long a period to elapse before troops who are on standby can be brought into internal security positions. Much as I appreciate my hon. Friend's comments and invitation, I feel that we should let the present situation rest.

Is the Minister satisfied with the adequacy of the present arrangements for rest and recreation for the Forces in Northern Ireland? Will the Minister recall that the Forces are on four months' duty, are working normally 18 hours a day and are fortunate to have one day off a month? Would it not be worth investigating more vigorously the sugestions made by his hon. Friend?

I have looked and will continue to look at every opportunity to improve the conditions for our troops in Northern Ireland. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has firsthand knowledge of those conditions, and I should be pleased to hear any further practical suggestions he cares to make. They will be given most earnest consideration.

asked the Minister of State for Defence how many persons have been arrested by the Army to date in Northern Ireland.

Between 1st January, 1971, and 14th February, 1972, the Army arrested 2,078 persons with a view to their possibly being charged under the criminal law with offences in connection with the civil disturbances.

Are not these very disquieting figures? Are not the purposes for which the Army is currently being used in Northern Ireland very different from those for which the troops were originally sent? Are not many people in the Army disquieted about the way in which troops are employed and should not the current activities of the Army be re-examined with a view to possible redeployment and even withdrawal?

I am afraid that, starting in February, 1971, there has been a considerable escalation in violence and disorder in the Province. This has inevitably resulted in an increased number of arrests.

Do I assume that the figure of 2,078 given by my hon. Friend represents persons arrested on direct confrontation with the Army and security forces as distinct from persons who may be on the wanted list? If not, what is the number of arrests resulting from direct confrontation with the Army over that period?

Those arrests were of people charged under the criminal law for offences in connection with civil disturbances. The wider figure I gave for the security forces as a whole takes into account those whom my hon. Friend describes as on the wanted list.

Does the Minister agree that, much as we may sympathise with the soldiers in Northern Ireland who are fighting a ghost war, the examples of alleged brutality which are being circulated by certain organisations are most disturbing and, if only one part true, can only exacerbate the situation? Is it possible that a fringe might be acting in a not entirely reasonable way because of the whole grimy situation in Northern Ireland?

This raises a wider question than that on the Order Paper and is designed by implication to attack the reputation of our Forces there.

Does not my hon. Friend agree, despite the opinions expressed by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), that the morale of the British Army in Northern Ireland is sky-high?

I certainly confirm that.

Is the Minister aware that I witnessed the aftermath of six arrests by the British Army in Derry? All the people arrested were released within 24 hours. The British Army was put in grave peril in carrying out this operation, which was based on information provided by the Special Branch of the R.U.C. Some of us on this side of the House who wore uniform for many years know what it is like to face difficult situations when wearing uniform and are concerned about the position of British troops. What will the Minister do about it?

I appreciate the concern shown by the hon. Gentleman for the position of British troops in Northern Ireland. That position is unchanged, I assure him.

Will the Minister withdraw the suggestion he made that my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) attacked the reputation of the British Army? Will he confirm that once a person is arrested he becomes the sole responsibility of the Royal Ulster Constabulary?

Yes, I gladly confirm the hon. Gentleman's last point. I do not want to inflame the feelings of the House on matters of this kind, but that is how the hon. Member's question struck me at the time. He put a question which was much wider than that which appears on the Order Paper and seemed by implication to be attacking the reputation of regiments of the British Army.

On a point of order. I wish to state that I meant no reflection on the morale of the troops in Northern Ireland. I merely suggested that some of them might be more intelligent and sensitive than hon. Gentlemen opposite.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will place with Royal Air Force maintenance units some of the engine overhaul work at present carried out by Rolls-Royce.

The allocation of repair work is constantly under review and we are always trying to get the balance right.

If my hon. Friend has an open mind, will he consider the possibility that if he did this he would not only avoid the dangers of the R.A.F.'s capability being damaged by the kind of strike which took place recently at Rolls-Royce but might also find it possible to return to the air-frame side of the industry a great deal more work, which would be well carried out there?

I can only repeat that we are only too anxious to look at every side of this matter.

Will the hon. Gentleman reiterate that it is the policy of the Government to support Rolls-Royce in the maintenance work it is doing—and doing well?

Of course it is our policy to support Rolls-Royce, but that does not necessarily mean that the balance must always be one way.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what plans he has for reduction of paper work within the Army.

A wide-ranging examination has been conducted by the Army into ways of reducing the administrative load on units. The number of administrative returns required from major units located in the existing Southern Command should be reduced by 40 per cent. by April, 1972. The process is being extended to other Army units in the United Kingdom and similar action will follow in overseas theatres.

Is my hon. Friend aware that that answer will be very welcome? Does he realise that the White Paper shows that eight civil servants are required to administer every nine men in uniform? Can he give the House some hope that that ratio will be adjusted by these new arrangements?

I am glad that my hon. and gallant Friend is pleased with that answer and I hope that he will be equally pleased with my reply to his supplementary question. If he studies the matter more closely—and I know that he gives close attention to defence matters—he will understand that many of those who may come into the category of "civil servant" in the Ministry of Defence are industrial workers in the factories providing valuable support for the armed services.

What about paper work in the Navy?

I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I did not catch his question.

It was, "What about paper work in the Navy?"

My hon. Friend who is responsible for the Navy is sitting close to me. I am sure that he upholds the tradition of the Navy for due economy. It has a Fleet works study and management service organisation which operates at all levels in the naval administrative structure.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what work was done by his Department in the last year on the dangers of bird strike to aircraft.

The answer, I am afraid, is rather long.

What policy conclusions have come out of the first two studies?

They are still being examined.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will report on the progress of the scheme to commission young men into the Army while they are waiting to go up to university.

In the 1971 pilot scheme 24 were commissioned. Twelve of these applied for and were granted university cadetships; one more decided to remain with his regiment for a further year before going up. Although recruiting was not the primary purpose of this scheme it was an unqualified success and the 1972 intake of 40 is now training at Mons.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he is satisfied that freedom for shipping in the entrance to the Baltic Sea can be maintained by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces; and if he will make a statement.

N.A.T.O. places high priority on the protection of shipping in the Baltic as in other N.A.T.O. sea areas. The plans for this form an integral part of N.A.T.O.'s strategy and the present level of N.A.T.O.'s forces is reasonable in this context.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I reiterate that this is an important pressure point governing the free movement of ships in the Baltic which could be closed by the Russians? Is he aware of General Walker's statement when he retired as head of N.A.T.O. Forces that at sea N.A.T.O. was out-flanked by Russia by six men to one?

A discussion of General Walker's views does not arise out of the Question. My hon. Friend raises an important matter. N.A.T.O. and national plans for the protection of merchant shipping exist and are kept under constant review.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the cost of the United Kingdom's contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to enable it to negotiate from strength with the Warsaw Pact countries on the question of balanced mutual force reductions in Europe.

None, Sir. N.A.T.O.'s current force improvement programmes are related to its assessment of its defensive requirements and not to considerations arising out of the possibility of talks on mutual balanced force reductions.

Is it not clear that if N.A.T.O. maintains that it can negotiate only from strength and Eastern Europe says the same, the only end to the arms race will be disaster? Does the noble Lord believe that yesterday's fantastic increase in arms spending, to £2,854 million a year, even if part of it is due to undoubted inflation, can in any way contribute towards securing an East-West settlement and a mutual reduction of arms?

If it can be done with a lower level of Armed Forces on each side, we shall be delighted. I remind the House that we suggested that Signor Brosio should go to Moscow as long ago as last autumn to discuss this matter. The invitation has not yet been taken up. In so far as part of the Question relates to defence expenditure, the hon. Gentleman will see if he studies the White Paper that roughly 80 per cent. of the increase is accounted for by pay and prices movements. I am sure that the hon. Gentle man would be the last person to say that we should underpay members of the Armed Forces. Most of the rest, namely, £57 million, is simply an accounting transaction which I will not explain to the hon. Gentleman now but which is easily understood from the White Paper.

Is my noble Friend aware that while the other side—the Warsaw Pact—has constantly professed its eagerness to talk, it has at the same time been increasing its real expenditure on armaments? Would it not be foolish for us to take any unilateral steps towards force reductions in these circumstances?

That is certainly correct and there is no indication that a unilateral reduction of our defences would be met by any corresponding action by the Warsaw Pact countries.

Is not the truth of the matter that the N.A.T.O. Forces are relevant in so far as they give credibility to an American nuclear deterrent and that without that nuclear deterrent they could not last a week or two in a conventional war, irrespective of whether we improve them?

It is certainly true that without the nuclear deterrent the scale of conventional forces which the western world would need would be infinitely larger and infinitely more expensive than at the moment.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the progress of sea trials of the Harrier; and when he will be in a position to announce the order for up-rated Harriers for the Royal Navy.

I would refer my hon. Friend to Chapter II of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1972 (Cmnd. 4891) which describes the studies that are now being made. Decisions will be taken when these studies are complete.

Does not the Statement on the Defence Estimates show that the present Harrier is not wholly suitable for operations at sea? Since it will be a long time before we can have up-rated Harriers and in view of the increasing Soviet maritime threat and the missile gap, will my hon. Friend retain H.M.S. "Eagle", which represents 50 per cent. of our naval sea power, until at least a replacement ship is available at sea?

I do not think the retention of H.M.S. "Eagle" depends on V/STOL at sea. This matter can be discussed fully next week.

What estimate has been made of possible export orders for a maritime version? Will the Government look at the possibility of collaborating on development costs with the United States Navy, which has expressed an interest in the maritime version?

Collaboration with America is one of the possibilities we have very much in mind. The export opportunities for the Harrier are very great, but I have no detailed estimate.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he now has plans for building a further Polaris submarine.

No, Sir. But the option to provide a fifth Polaris submarine remains open and is kept under continuing review.

Will my right hon. Friend agree that there is an obvious tactical advantage in possessing a fifth vessel and that, additionally, it would give much-needed stimulus to employment in the area where it was built?

Yes, but from the defence point of view we have to consider whether the strategic nuclear deterrent is capable of inflicting a totally unacceptable degree of damage on any potential aggressor. This certainly is the case. This matter is kept under continuing review in the light of modern developments.

If the Minister decides to have another submarine, will he ensure that the steel for its manufacture is British steel? Will he have discussions with the British Steel Corporation on the production of the necessary steel and so save the importation of American steel?

That is a hypothetical question, but I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says. It is our practice always to use British steel, where it is available, in the building of British ships.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what representations he has received that the depôt at Cwrt-yGollen should be retained as a Welsh focus for infantry recruiting in Wales; and what reply he has made.

Representations have been received from certain right hon. and hon. Members, noble Lords and civic leaders. Correspondents have been informed that Cwrt-y-Gollen will continue to act as the training depôt for the two Welsh infantry regiments. The plan for the depôt to serve four regiments, including the two Welsh, is still under consideration.

Does the Minister appreciate that this is an issue the political significance of which in Wales might be under-estimated? The people in Wales feel that, if Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own infantry depôt, Wales should enjoy the same distinction. If the Department turns down the recommendation of the colonels of all the regiments making up the Prince of Wales's Division, this will be regarded in the Principality as very serious.

I understand the feeling that exists on this matter, and we shall give it every sympathetic consideration. The hon. and learned Gentleman will understand that in the Army reorganisation it was agreed that the divisions of infantry would each have one depôt. Exceptions were made in respect of the King's Division, one in Northern Ireland and one in England, and the Prince of Wales's Division—one in Cwrt-y-Gollen and the other possibly in Lichfield.

In view of the demands for a further Polaris submarine, would the Minister now consider moving the submarine base to Wales to satisfy my hon. Friend and many people in Scotland?

I doubt whether that would satisfy the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) because we are talking not about an inland waterway, but about an inland depôt.

Does not the Minister realise that this is the last Welsh infantry depôt? Since I recently had the privilege of taking a passing out parade there, will he accept from me that this depôt is a privilege that is highly valued by parents, who are able to visit sons, and also by the men themselves who, in the initial period in the Army, are able to get home on leave? If the depôt ceases to be the sole Welsh depôt, does he not agree that recruitment in Wales will fail?

I take note of the hon. Gentleman's opinion, and I appreciate the significance of a depôt in Wales for Welsh soldiers.

asked the Minister of Sate for Defence what is his estimate of the availability of air power for strike, air defence, anti-submarine, and airborne early warning operations to the fleet consequent upon the proposed scrapping of Her Majesty's Ship "Eagle" and when Her Majesty's Ship "Ark Royal" is undergoing refit.

Air power available for maritime operations will comprise the aircraft complement of H.M.S. "Ark Royal" operating from the ship or from shore during refit periods: helicopters carried in other ships: aircraft of the R.A.F. and of allied navies and air forces. It would be contrary to normal practice to give numbers of aircraft in these categories.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. May I draw his attention to a letter which appeared in the Daily Telegraph on 14th February from the Chairman of the Air League, who is an illustrious naval aviator? Does he not agree that, with the surface-to-surface weaponry now possessed by the Soviet Navy, there will be a necessity in the immediate future for integral airborne strike capability for the fleet, and that this can be maintained, when "Ark Royal" is refitting, only with aircraft from H.M.S. "Eagle"?

It could not be maintained on "Eagle" without "Eagle" herself being refitted at considerable cost both in terms of money and manpower. I do not suggest that the present solution we have reached is ideal, but it is a compromise which gives us 65 per cent. cover. Furthermore, it is unwise to overlook the capacity of our allies.

Should not my hon. Friend more accurately and concisely have replied that, if the Government scrap H.M.S. "Eagle", it will be tying the Navy's fists behind its back as well as gouging out its eyes?

No, Sir.

asked the Minister of State for Defence, in view of the fact that there have been strikes recently in shipbuilding yards, if he will consider transferring some of the orders placed by Her Majesty's Government for the building of ships for the Royal Navy to Her Majesty's Dockyard, Devonport.

To do as my hon. Friend suggests would not relieve the difficulties of the shipbuilding yards. which, of course, was a primary object of the recent Naval orders.

Could my hon. Friend say how far the ships are behind schedule? Will he recollect that Devon-port has built ships before and appreciate that we have large unemployment in the area? In view of the strikes in other shipyards, surely we should be given a chance.

The programme will be delayed a little by the strike, but not substantially. As my hon. Friend knows, the structure of the labour force at Devon-port is primarily concerned with repair and maintenance and the modernising of the fleet, but we shall retain the capability for building small ships there.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the progress made in the talks concerning the future defence provisions in Malta.

I would refer the hon. Member to the statement I made on 15th February.—[Vol. 831, c. 254–259.]

Is the Minister aware that since he made that statement there has been an important visit to Malta by a representative of the Russian Government? Does this not indicate that, quite apart from any considerations involving defence bases in that part of the Mediterranean, there is a great desire to try to maintain the affinity between our two peoples? Is any further consideration now being given to this matter?

There has been no further consideration since my statement on 15th February. I am aware that the Ambassador accredited to Valetta has visited Valetta in the last day or two.

Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he is prepared to discuss the phasing of the redundancies and that the 1,600 redundancy figure is an absolute ceiling, because I gather that these two points are still causing concern in Malta? What is the situation about the cable linking Malta and Sicily, which is a N.A.T.O. facility?

On the matter of redundancies, we must have the right to discharge labour that is surplus to our requirements, but we have already said that we are ready to discuss with Mr. Mintoff how the redundancies should be phased. In our current offer to him, only 150 of the 1,600 surplus Maltese employees will be made redundant now and no further redundancies will be effected until 1st September, 1972.

Could the right hon. Gentleman say what is meant by his use of the phrase "appropriate arrangements"? Is this not possibly one of the "fixed assets" which he mentioned on Tuesday as to be released to the Malta Government?

If we reach a new defence agreement, the Government of the United Kingdom will need to retain the use of the cable. If we cannot reach a new defence agreement, obviously arrangements for reimbursement will have to be made by the Malta Government if they take over the cable.