asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the arrangements for registering Service voters overseas for electoral purposes.

I am satisfied that Service men, at home and overseas, are given every opportunity to register. I am, however, concerned at the small proportion who do so.

I am rather astounded by the Minister's complacent answer. Does he not accept that the fact that such a low proportion of Service men who are eligible to register do so shows a fundamental weakness in the system?

There is no complacency. I agree that the system deserves careful examination and this is being done. Service men are given every opportunity to register but under existing law we have no means of compelling them to do so. However, we aim at trying to encourage them wherever possible to exercise their democratic rights.

In taking steps to improve the arrangements for registration of overseas voters, will my hon. Friend treat the matter as urgent in view of the possibility of a General Election in March 1975?

I am glad to say that the date of the next General Election is not a matter for me. However, we certainly do everything we can to encourage Service men to put their names on the register. We are examining this whole aspect with a view to deciding whether it should go forward as part of the electoral reforms which have been proposed by Mr. Speaker's conference.

Is there not considerable evidence to show that below the level of company commander there is a great deal of lack of information on the part of Service men about their rights in registering and how they should go about the matter? Should not another directive be sent to all commanding officers re-emphasising the duty of officers in charge of men to see that they have some awareness of their rights?

I was not aware of the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised, but I shall look into it. A directive was issued comparatively recently. It is the duty of commanding officers to draw the attention of all ranks of the Army to their rights.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the latest developments in overseas arms sales.

I have nothing to add to the statement on the lifting of the arms embargo to the Middle East made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 21st January.—[Vol. 867, c. 1202–7.] Arms sales in general make a valuable contribution to our balance of payments and will continue to be governed by our normal stringent criteria.

Since, presumably, one of the main motivations in this regrettable traffic is the desire to cover the high cost of research and development, may I ask what steps the Secretary of State is taking to begin discussions with his partners in the Eurogroup about moving towards a common policy for arms procurement within Europe?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that one of the objects of arms sales is, if possible, to reduce the cost of arms to our own forces. Over the past few years there have been a number of discussions in the Eurogroup about this. I hope that they will continue and will have a fruitful outcome.

On the subject of the balance of payments, may I ask whether it would not be to the entire advantage of the Government to push ahead with the development of the maritime Harrier for export? Has my right hon. Friend seen a copy of the latest issue of Navy International showing no fewer than eight navies flying this aircraft on and off?

My hon. and gallant Friend will realise that the photographs were not of the maritime Harrier but of the ordinary Harrier which is already in production and has been bought by the Royal Air Force and the United States Marine Corps. The export possibilities of the maritime Harrier are, as I have often said, one of the most important factors taken into account in a decision on this equipment.

Does the cancellation of the address by Admiral Lygo mean that the maritime Harrier for our forces is now a complete dead letter?

No. The postponement or cancellation of that address has no significance on this front.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he now proposes to make any further cuts in defence expenditure in the light of the most recent trade figures.

I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) on 28th January.—[Vol. 868, c. 25.]

Does not the right hon. Gentleman concede that Britain spends a higher proportion of its gross national product on the defence of Western Europe than any other country except Portugal? Does he not feel that it is about time we made a start on phasing out the facade of the so-called nuclear deterrent? Perhaps we would then be able to pay our coal miners a reasonable wage.

It is true that we spend a higher proportion of our gross national product on defence than most of our Western European allies. We spend a very much smaller proportion than the USSR or the USA. It is also true that the proportion of gross national product is not the only criterion by which to judge defence expenditure. For instance, the French spend the same amount as we do and the Germans spend a great deal more. In reply to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, it would be totally inappropriate and against the wishes of the vast majority of the House that we should phase out our nuclear deterrent.

While congratulating my right hon. Friend upon his appointment, may I ask him whether he is aware that many of us believe that his main task will be to stand up for the Armed Forces against the Treasury? Can he assure us that the maritime Harrier will not be the victim of any cuts, because it is vital to the Royal Navy in defending the realm?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. I should not like to be thought to be opposed to Her Majesty's Treasury—

Why not?

Not more than most people, anyway. As to the maritime Harrier, my hon. Friend knows that this matter has been very near to a decision for some time. I cannot promise an immediate decision.

May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon his appointment as Secretary of State. I wish him well.

Speak for yourself.

I do. If an hon. Member says that behind my back, may I say that I would rather speak for myself. If there are to be any cuts, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that they are not made unilaterally in a wide sense in relation to the nuclear deterrent but rather that we achieve a multilateral arrangement?

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for what he has said. I agree that the cuts should be most carefully considered and should not fall on any one special part of our defence expenditure.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy, whenever cuts in civil expenditure are proposed, to propose greater proportionate cuts in defence expenditure; and if he will make proposals for such reductions.

No, Sir.

Why does the right hon. Gentleman persist in being so recalcitrant? Why will he not enable Opposition back benchers to join my right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) in welcoming him in his new appointment? If he goes on behaving like this, he will get no welcome from the Opposition. Even his right hon. Friends are getting fed up with him. Will he consider this matter again? In particular, will he bear in mind that the people of this country are bearing a larger taxation burden in respect of defence than are the people of most other countries? Why should they continue to do so?

The hon. Gentleman is repeating in different words the question which was asked by the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes). Defence is not just a matter of looking at the gross national product and deciding what to spend. It should be related to the needs of the country and to the expenditure of possible opponents. Moreover, it is not the only criterion upon which to measure the defence expenditure of the country.

Will my right hon. Friend persuade the Opposition to tell the House and the nation exactly what is their policy towards the defence of the country? Do they want to cut defence expenditure by £500 million or £1,000 million? What is the figure?

My hon. Friend is right in saying that there is a good deal of ambiguity about this. The right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that the popular figure now is £1,000 million, is it not?

Will the Minister explain how he proposes to make his savings of £250 million already announced for the year 1974–75? Are they to come through the postponement of projects or cancellation?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) has tabled a later Question on this subject.

In view of the challenge thrown out by the Secretary of State, may I say that it is true that the Government have announced a cut? Reference has been made to a cut of £1,000 million, but that is not the policy of the Labour Party. No responsible Opposition leader on defence could give a specific figure— [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?] I am being honest and frank—

Order. It is not the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) who is being questioned.

Nobody would accuse the right hon. Gentleman of being dishonest or of not being candid, but I do not accept that he is right in saying that it would be wrong for the Opposition to announce their defence policy before an election. That seems to me to be very odd.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now give details of the proposed defence cuts.

I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) and others on 15th January.—[Vol. 867, c. 29.]

Is not the Secretary of State treating the House with contempt? Does he not recall that on 18th December he said that he had not yet quite settled where the final cuts were to be made? Is it right for the House, let alone for the Forces, to be kept in ignorance week after week by the dithering of the Government? Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that it is good for recruiting to keep the House in ignorance of the Government's intentions?

There is no question of contempt of the House or of dithering, but the present economic uncertainty is bound to have an effect on the defence programme. It would be quite unwise and inexcusable to make specific cuts now to reduce the programme by cancelling or deferring specific major projects if this should turn out to be unnecessary.

Can my right hon. Friend at least give an undertaking that there will be no cut-back in the dockyards which give support to Royal Naval nuclear vessels?

My hon. Friend probably heard me say in reply to an earlier Question that we have every intention of maintaining the effectiveness of our nuclear deterrent.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the reasons why Skynet II failed to go into launch at Cape Canaveral on 19th January; and when it is hoped that the twin satellite will be put into operation, to provide a British communications system.

The failure was caused by a malfunction of the second stage of the launching rocket. The British Skynet II satellite functioned correctly before destruction on re-entry, and it is planned to launch the second Skynet in the autumn.

What is the cost, across the exchanges, of this failure? Is it an enormous extra cost?

As the hon. Member will know, it is not generally our policy to give details of individual defence projects. However, the total cost of the British Skynet II system, including the second satellite, both launching rockets, modifications to existing ground stations and backup services, is of the order of £20 million. The cost of manufacture of a single satellite may be said to be about £4 million.

Since I understand that an inquiry is now going on at Cape Canaveral about the failure of the American rocket, may I ask for an assurance that the report, when published, will be available to this House?

I note what the hon. Member says. He will be pleased to know that British representatives are participating actively in the inquiry being carried out by NASA into the occurrence which took place in January. I cannot give an undertaking about the presentation of the report to the House but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that once we have the report its contents will be made known.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the operations of the British Army in Northern Ireland.

As I said on 29th January—[Vol. 868, c. 82]—the Army has worked with the civil authority to bring about a reduction in violence, and will continue to do so for as long as necessary.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the allegation made in this House last Thursday by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley)—I have written him a note—to the effect that the British Army was responsible for the shooting of an ex-member of the UDR? Is he further aware of his allegation that British Intelligence is out to kill him? Have such allegations assisted the Army in its operations in Northern Ireland? Has the right hon. Gentleman considered making a statement?

The hon. Member will be aware of what my right hon. Friend the Lord President said last Thursday. The alleged harassment of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is total nonsense.

Following the dreadful events of the past 48 hours, may I ask my right hon. Friend to abandon his equivocal attitude and admit that the IRA is waging war against this country and Northern Ireland? Will he further admit that almost 1,000 people have been killed? Will he ensure that in areas such as Crossmaglen, where the IRA has complete control, law and order is restored and the battle is taken up with the IRA so that peace may be restored in Northern Ireland?

I am bound to say that I was not aware that I had an equivocal attitude towards the IRA. Of course the Army, the Government and the whole House are out to stamp out terrorism wherever it may be. We have had considerable success in what we are doing. I honestly do not think that allegations such as those produced by my hon. Friend are helpful.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he will be supported in any action he may take to crush terrorism in Northern Ireland or anywhere else in the realm? Will he now return to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) and expand on what he has said because we are concerned about the serious allegations being made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley)? It is incumbent upon the Government to refute them in the most absolute detail and to make a statement.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for the comment in the first part of his question. I cannot do much more than say that what was said was absolute nonsense. That seems to be clear and fairly concise and as much as the hon. Gentleman could want.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is no one in the House who will deny what he has said about the Army contributing greatly to bringing about the peace in Northern Ireland? May I ask him to assure the House that nothing will be done politically to prevent the forces from carrying out their difficult duties?

I am glad to give my hon. Friend that assurance. He will be aware that a terrorist situation of this sort is fairly complicated and some police measures are not always most likely to be effective. The Army at all levels is aware that no efforts are being made by politicians to hamper its work. The hon. Member will have been to Northern Ireland and seen the situation there. He knows that such a suggestion is not true.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the number of soldiers serving in Northern Ireland now as compared with the number six and 12 months ago respectively.

The number of regular troops was about 16,500 at the end of both January and July 1973, and about 15,500 at the end of January 1974. In addition, UDR strengths on these dates were 8,814, 7,910 and 7,860 respectively.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he not appreciate that the scale of violence in Northern Ireland in recent months has been escalating, and that—despite the disbandment of the B Specials and all reforms, including power sharing—the number of murders and bomb attacks has increased? Will he appreciate that while he and his governmental colleagues talk of combating all terrorists, people in Northern Ireland are dismayed at the situation? Does he appreciate that the IRA has been carrying out this campaign, and will he take steps to wage war on those responsible for death and destruction in Northern Ireland?

We take action against all people who indulge in violence and terrorism, from whatever quarter they come. I recently visited Northern Ireland to see the security forces and was very impressed with the morale and sense of purpose of troops of all ranks. The idea behind our activities is to maintain the flexibility and credibility of the Army. I believe that this is being maintained at present.

In the light of yesterday's terrible atrocity and also of today's discovery of Bren guns and a number of rounds of ammunition, which apparently belong to a UDA gang arrested in the north of England, will the hon. Gentleman pay special attention to assisting Service men and their families in the North-West and will he look into the security of key areas of transport? Will he give the House the latest information concerning today's arrest and any connection which it may have with yesterday's events?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to go into detail on the point he has raised, since the news is too recent. As for the terrible incident yesterday, we shall give every help we can to the families of the dead and injured. We are currently reviewing all security processes in connection with Army camps and Army personnel. This is a vast problem and nothing can be 100 per cent. foolproof.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of Polaris submarine nuclear missiles.

We shall continue to keep the effectiveness of our Polaris force under review.

Is it correct that the Government are to spend £100 million on updating these missiles? Secondly, would it not be ruinous for Britain to try to compete with America and Russia in nuclear forces and risk thereby the détente and the Non-Proliferation Treaty?

As I have said to the hon. Gentleman more than once, we have no intention whatever of abandoning our nuclear capability, which forms a valuable contribution to NATO's deterrent forces. That continues to be the position.

My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), who sometimes disagrees with me, has a very valid point. There should be a statement about the future. After all, there are arguments in the United States about Poseidon and how far we may be involved. It is important that we should know what transactions are in mind and what is the cost. We have pressed the Minister time and again on this but have had no satisfactory answer.

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman does not think I have given him satisfactory answers. I think that I have been as explicit as he would expect me to be. As he knows, we shall shortly have an opportunity to discuss all these matters in the defence debate.

With the vast Soviet build-up at sea, is not the case for the British independent nuclear deterrent stronger than it has ever been? Instead of making carping comments about it in the House, should we not, on both sides, pay tribute to the men who man that deterrent day and night so that we may sleep quietly in our beds?

I entirely agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that we should pay tribute to those who man our nuclear deterrent. I do not think there is serious disagreement between the two sides on the question of an independent deterrent. After all, the previous Government kept it between 1964 and 1970

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans have been made for a joint Anglo-French nuclear deterrent.

None.

Will the Minister give an assurance that there has been and will be no discussion of this matter, as it is accepted policy on both sides of the House that our defences should be based on NATO and not on bilateral arrangements of this kind and it would be very much regretted if such an agreement were sought with the French?

As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and many other members of the Government have repeated in the House several times that while such nuclear collaboration may be desirable in the long term there have been no discussions about it in the near term. I entirely agree with the hon. Member that NATO is an important factor.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Committee of Nine recently reported to the North Atlantic Assembly advocating such a force as the start of an integrated European defence force? Will he keep these two questions carefully under consideration?

I am aware that the Western European Union committee said that. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) was the rapporteur of that extremely interesting report. But it does not affect our view that this is a matter for the long term and not for the immediate present.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Prime Minister recently gave an interview to a French newspaper defending his original concept which he declared in a Godkin lecture many years ago? Is he also aware that any attempt to create outside NATO an Anglo-French nuclear force would be detrimental to detente and would harm relations with countries like West Germany?

I am well aware of the interview which my right hon. Friend gave to Figaro, but he did not say anything different from what he has said in the House or from what I have told the House this afternoon.

On the assumption that in the long term it would be useful to have a European defence system that is better integrated than it is at present, would it not be sensible to continue discussions with the French on the possibility of a joint deterrent force which eventually would become the European deterrent force?

I must reiterate that, although there are obviously long-term attractions in the idea put forward by my right hon. Friend in the Godkin lectures, there are considerable difficulties, and I do not think that we would wish to go on any further in discussion of this matter at present.

Is it not a fact that we could not form a joint nuclear force with the French without breaking our agreements as to confidentiality with the Americans?

It is perfectly true that that is one of the factors to be taken into account.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total amount spent on recruiting promotion for the Armed Services; and if he will give the figure Service by Service.

The total amount being spent on recruiting publicity in the current financial year is about £6·4 million. Of this, about £2 million is being spent on the Royal Navy, about £2·9 million on the Army and about £1·4 million on the Royal Air Force.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply, but will he estimate the relative effectiveness of the methods used and in particular the value of recruiting offices?

It is difficult in all matters of advertising to be absolutely precise about the effect of any particular expenditure, but we know from all the surveys that we have done that our advertising is extremely effective in what it intends to do, which is to ask young people to come and make inquiries about the possibility of having a Service life. Fortunately, in this our advertising has been very effective.

Has the Secretary of State's attention been drawn to a picture and a news story in last Sunday's Sunday Mirror showing two young soldiers, presumably under punishment, sweeping gutters in a public highway? Does he think that this kind of behaviour in the Army is conducive to the recruiting policy?

That has been drawn to our attention. My right hon. Friend is indeed looking into it.

Can my hon. Friend say what proportion of the money he has announced to the House is spent on recruiting for the Reserve Forces? Will he bear in mind the constant plea of those who voluntarily give their time, particularly to assisting the TAVR, that money for advertising should be spent on a local and not a national basis?

I note my hon. Friend's points. I have a great deal of sympathy with them but I cannot without notice give him any figures for individual advertising for the Reserve Forces. However, from personal experience I know that the general advertising for the Army and other Services brings in recruits for the Reserve Forces as well.

Is the Minister satisfied that we are getting value for the total of £6 million? Is he not concerned with the appalling recruiting figures of recent months? What does he intend to do about it?

On the first part of the right hon. and learned Member's question, I would never be complacent about the expenditure of sums of money of this kind. We keep these expenditures under careful and regular review. I am satisfied that this money is spent well and carefully and in a professional manner. As for the recruiting figures, I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend's answer to a recent Question except to say that the recruiting figures for last year undoubtedly give concern.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current level of flying being carried out by the university air squadrons and air experience flights of the Royal Air Force; and how this compares with the number of hours being flown before the fuel restrictions and with those flown by Regular RAF units in which cadets and Volunteer Reserve personnel are not associated.

To conserve fuel, university air squadrons are required to reduce their level of flying by 25 per cent. The target for air experience flights is a reduction of 80 per cent. Reductions in flying effort for other RAF units vary considerably according to the priority of their task. Certain essential activities such as air defence are exempted from fuel savings; other units have had their flying reduced further than the university air squadrons. Overall the RAF is required to make a fuel saving of 10 per cent. excluding the exempted areas.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the proportionately higher savings in respect of the AEFs and the UASs which are equipped with single-engine and piston-engine aircraft are quite disproportionate, particularly in view of the fact that these units are the only ones which have direct contact with the civil community and therefore can bring in the enthusiastic young boys and young men whom the Service so badly needs in the future?

I cannot help having a great deal of sympathy with that, but at a time when we have to conserve fuel supplies in the national interest we have to draw up a list of priorities. Perhaps my hon. Friend will agree that it is the active defence parts of our defence requirements which have to get the priority, however much we might like these particular activities to be preserved. It is worth saying that these economies by the university air squadrons and air experience flights have succeeded in saving about 20,000 gallons of fuel per month.

While thanking my hon. Friend for his information, may I ask whether he is in a position to indicate the extent to which other branches of the Services are making a similar contribution to easing the fuel supply position?

Yes. The three Services taken together achieved in December a saving in total oil consumption in excess of 10 per cent. Certain areas of activity —for example, Northern Ireland operations and support—remain exempt from cuts, but all areas are saving what they can without impairing their operational capability. The House as a whole might like to congratulate the Services on this good effort.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to meet the French Minister of Defence.

I am looking forward to continuing the regular series of meetings which my right hon. and noble Friend had with the French Minister of Defence.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us are alarmed by recent developments in French defence policy? The French now seem to have turned their back on practical co-operation with their allies in weapon development and weapon sales.

As my hon. Friend says, there have been one or two indications in that direction, but the House must not forget that there are also some successes on the other side, like Jaguar, Martel and the series of Anglo-French helicopters. I see no reason to believe that this policy will greatly change in the future. It is one of the matters which I look forward to discussing with the French Minister of Defence.

Would the Minister also express the view that if France desires full co-operation with Europe we are anxious to have it and that, therefore, she should fully co-operate with NATO?

Successive Governments have endorsed the view that we should like France to be a member of NATO, but this is necessarily a matter for the French Government.

Will my right hon. Friend point out to the French Minister of Defence that many people in this country find it curious that the French can engage with us in a co-operative programme like Jaguar and then do their best to pull out the rug from beneath that project when we try to sell it abroad?

I would not like to adopt the language of my hon. Friend. We certainly hope that the French will co-operate with us in selling our collaborative ventures.

Will the Secretary of State make sure that there are two other questions on his agenda? The first is about why the French Government continue to snub the International Court at The Hague on the matter of French nuclear testing. Secondly, are not the French, as our allies, due some explanation why there is to be a £200 million Anglo-American staging post at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean? Is not this worth discussion?

The second part of the hon. Gentleman's question could not conceivably arise on this Question. When I meet M. Galley it is unlikely that I shall discuss the French nuclear tests with him.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for transferring Ministry of Defence jobs to Scotland.

Scotland is one of several possible receiving locations being considered preparatory to a decision being taken about the possibility of further dispersal of Ministry of Defence work.

When will the decision be announced about dispersal following the Hardman Report? Can the Minister confirm that the 11,000 Ministry of Defence headquarters jobs which are recommended for dispersal will in fact be dispersed? Will he take a particular look at Scotland, which in the past has been given only Ministry of Defence jobs which no other parts of the country have wanted and would very much welcome these headquarters jobs?

I note with great interest what the hon. Member says. We do not say that we are surprised by his comments but I am grateful to him. We will try to get a decision as soon as possible, but it is not a decision solely for my Department to take; it is a matter for the Government as a whole. There will be no unnecessary delay in taking the decisions. We hope to present them in due course.

Before my hon. Friend transfers any jobs to Scotland, will he make a statement on the jobs at Manby and North Coates in my constituency, and will he make it before the next election?

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend will agree that the date could be likened to the Greek calends. However, I note what he says and if he has a particular question about Manby I will do my best to answer it.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will consider an increase in the pay of the Armed Forces in the light of the relativity report.

The pay of the Armed Forces is currently under review by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, which seeks to ensure that Service pay is and remains fair in relation to pay in other walks of life. We expect that the new rates of pay resulting from the review will be effective from 1st April.

Can my hon. Friend name any group that deserve more than do Service men on the score of value of their work to the nation? On the subject of danger and unsocial hours, can he name any job that compares with patrolling the Bogside at midnight on Saturday or standing on the bridge of a coastal minesweeper in a Channel gale?

I share my hon. and gallant Friend's admiration for the way in which our Armed Forces are carrying out their duties in so many difficult areas. The activities of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body are designed to take account of those factors. I am confident that that is what it will be able to do.

Is not the best way to assist a seaman facing a gale in the Channel to reintroduce the rum ration?

If the hon. Gentleman cares to table a Question on that topic, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy will be prepared to answer it.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.