asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will visit Portland naval base.

There are no plans at present for my right hon. Friend to visit Portland naval base.

Will the Minister find time to visit Portland and explain to the many short-service naval pilots and observers stationed there what the Government's policy is regarding the payment of their gratuities when their engagements expire? If the Government do not honour this pledge, will the Minister do the honourable thing and resign, and vote with the Opposition tomorrow?

My right hon. Friend will be making a statement on this matter during the course of the debate on the Defence Estimates following Question Time, and I think the hon. Gentleman will then get a reply to his supplementary question.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state the budgeted figure for expenditure on adver- tising for recruitment to the Royal Navy in the current year.

About £874,000 will be spent in the current financial year. This figure includes advertising for the Royal Marines, the Women's Royal Naval Service and Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service. All but a very small proportion of this expenditure is borne on the votes of the Central Office of Information.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that it is unethical and blatantly dishonest to advertise contracts of service on which, in the case of gratuities for Royal Navy pilots, the Government are prepared to welsh? Is it not disgraceful that for so long the Secretary of State has remained silent and refused to refute these suggestions?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman used such extravagant language when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Navy has just told the House that if my right hon. Friend catches Mr. Speaker's eye he will be making a statement in the course of the debate this afternoon. There has not been, and will not be, any question of this Government welshing on any undertakings.

Will my hon. Friend make certain that none of the television advertising for the Navy or any of the other Armed Forces conveys, either directly or indirectly, the impression that jobs in industry, which are vital to national recovery, are in any way monotonous or humdrum?

I do not believe that our advertising conveys that impression. What we are seeking to do in our advertising for recruitment to the Armed Forces is to demonstrate and make clear to young men and women that if they do join the Armed Forces of the Crown they will be entering upon an honourable and exciting career.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how much money has been invested, to date, in the Nimrod airborne early warning project.

About £14 million.

Is the Secretary of State aware that as the only member of an alliance with a rival—I must say a very good rival—to the Boeing AWACS in a very advanced state of development, Britain has been patient long enough? Will the Secretary of State give a categorical undertaking to the House and to the industry, which has so many jobs at stake, that in the event of no decision being taken in Brussels later this week at the ministerial meeting the British Government will go full steam ahead and back Nimrod?

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, speaking, as I am sure he does, on behalf of the Conservative Party. I shall, of course, convey that view to my ministerial colleagues. I shall not at this juncture speculate on the outcome of Friday's meeting, but clearly, having stressed the urgency of the matter in December, I shall want if at all possible to reach a final decision on Friday. I shall be referring to this matter later in today's debate.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Yorkshire Labour MPs recently met a deputation of workers from the aircraft factory at Brough on this subject? There is a deep feeling that undue deference should not be shown to the Americans on this issue and that we should back this aircraft, as has been said from the Opposition Benches, because it is thought throughout the trade that it is better and that it will preserve jobs.

I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. My ministerial colleagues and I have met about 30 deputations and we have clearly got the message of the importance attached to this project by the aircraft industry.

Why is the right hon. Gentleman now prepared to reveal figures about this project when a month ago he was saying that security considerations prevented his doing any such thing?

The only figures that we have been able to give are very rough estimates, because the negotiations in NATO about the final determination of shares are still not concluded. As regards the industry, both the companies and ourselves are in a difficulty in terms of disclosing figures in advance of what may be a contractual negotiation. Obviously we cannot begin this negotiation until a decision is taken to proceed.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has now reached a decision with regard to the purchase of an airborne early warning Nimrod.

No. But I very much hope that NATO Defence Ministers will reach a decision when we meet later this week. Meanwhile, work on Nimrod is continuing.

Is it not the case that the Nimrod system is broadly comparable to the proposed Boeing AWACS? Why does the Secretary of State pretend otherwise?

It is not the case that the two systems are comparable, because they were designed for different military requirements. The AWACS was designed to meet the needs of the congested land and air space in Central Europe, and the Nimrod, which was in competition but which, unfortunately, was not chosen by NATO, was designed and will fulfil the requirements of the Eastern Atlantic, the Channel and the United Kingdom air defence region.

Will my right hon. Friend inform the House of the results of the latest negotiations on AWACS between the Germans and the Americans? Is there any possibility of the French Armee de l'Air entering the AWACS scheme in place of the Germans if the latter pull out?

The decision will have to be a collective NATO one, and the purpose of the meeting is to discover the answers to all these questions. I would like to have the answers before I go to the meeting, but at the moment I do not have them.

Does the Secretary of State agree that in many characteristics the Nimrod is superior to the American alternative? Senior Army officers as well as representatives of NATO forces have privately as well as semi-publicly expressed that view. Why, then, are the Government so self-effacing about this matter? This is literally the last opportunity for the United Kingdom to assert itself in respect of a first-rate military aircraft.

The choice, if it is on a national basis, will, for our purposes, be the Nimrod. Equally, it is clear that the Alliance has considered and rejected Nimrod as a capability for the whole of the NATO area. There is absolutely no chance, in my view—much as I would like there to be and much as I shall try to achieve it—of the Nimrod's being adopted for the Alliance generally.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate at the latest available date of the loss of jobs and job opportunities which has occurred since 1st March 1974 as a result of the Government's defence cuts.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) on 17th March.

Is not it clear from answers that the hon. Gentleman has given in the House recently that the number of jobs and job opportunities lost and expected to be lost as a result of the Government's first four rounds of cuts will be 218,000 by 1979? Will he now give an estimate of the number of jobs and job opportunities expected to be lost as a result of the cuts announced last December? Is not it clear that these defence cuts are a significant cause of unemployment?

The hon. Gentleman has arrived at his figure of 218,000 by adding together Service personnel, directly affected civilians and those in the defence industries. I accept his figure entirely. I cannot yet give our estimate of the consequence of the last round of cuts because we have not decided where the second year's cuts will fall.

In calculating the loss of jobs and job opportunities, have the Government taken into account the fact that we spend a higher proportion of our gross national product on defence than do our competitors, such as Japan and West Germany?

My hon. Friend is right. We spend a higher proportion of our GNP on defence than does any member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, other than the United States and Greece, and certain economic penalties are attached to that fact.

As the Department is trying to reduce the real earnings of industrial civil servants employed by the Army by 25 per cent. in the coming year, is it not plain that the number of jobs lost will exceed 250,000 very soon?

The hon. Gentleman defeats me. I have not the faintest idea from where he gets his figure.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Ministry of Defence awarded a contract for the building of a destroyer—HMS "Cardiff"—to Vickers, in Barrow-in-Furness because that firm said that it wanted to maintain employment in the area, but later had to remove the ship from that yard and place it elsewhere because the firm could not maintain its labour force at the level necessary to complete the contract?

There were difficulties with the contract and, unfortunately, it had to be moved to another yard. There was a complex of reasons for that decision. It related to employment in certain trades as much as anything else, as I recall.

Bearing in mind that the Minister has confirmed already that 120,000 jobs and job opportunities have been lost in the Services and the defence industries, and that a further 100,000 jobs are to be destroyed deliberately by this Government between now and 1979, what consultations about this latest job destruction programme have the Government had with the trade unions?

The hon. Gentleman must be under some misapprehension. The purpose of the defence programme is not to create jobs; it is to defend the country.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will clarify the official statement that cuts in defence expenditure will be in the tail of the defence forces rather than the teeth by further defining the terms tail and teeth.

I assume that the hon. Member has in mind my statement on 28th February that I was looking for savings to slim the tail and not blunt the teeth. My aim is to minimise the effects of the cuts on the front line by concentrating savings as far as possible on support and administrative services.

Is not this nonsense about "tail" and "teeth" a deliberate smokescreen to cover the damage done to our defence forces by the defence cuts? Is it not also an insult to those who have devoted their working lives to supporting the Services to say that they should be cut rather than the front line?

I hope that no one feels any sense of injustice or insult by the use of the terms "teeth" and "tail", which have been current in military phraseology for many years. It is absolutely true that both aspects are important, but, as I shall hope to show in my speech later today and as the White Paper indicates, the current cuts for next year are concentrated on support and not on front line formations.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is to be the personnel strength of the armoured divisions in BAOR in peacetime and after mobilisation.

In peace time, about 8,500 and up to 14,000 after mobilisation including Regulars, reservists, TAVR and battle casualty replacement.

Can the Minister say whether any changes have been made in the barrack accommodation as a result of this reorganisation of the Army in Germany, bearing in mind the previous situation, in which the troops were in the wrong locations, having regard to the need to defend the frontier with East Germany?

Barrack accommodation is another question, but clearly this has been taken into account in the reorganisation.

Can my hon. Friend say whether any conclusion has yet been reached with the Germans over the matter of support costs for the British Army of the Rhine?

Negotiations are still taking place.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will reaffirm the obligation of Her Majesty's Government to pay gratuities on retirement to those who enlisted on short-service commissions.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has now completed his review of the tax-free gratuities promised to certain officers in the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force when they signed on.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be making a full statement in the course of the defence debate later this afternoon.

As the purpose of asking a Question is to get an answer, why cannot I have an answer now? Surely this is most important.

As will become apparent from my right hon. Friend's remarks later today, this is an extremely complex matter. A statement now would take far longer than hon. Members would want to see taken out of Question Time. I can assure the hon. Lady that at no time was there any question of Ministers wishing to welsh on their obligations under the scheme.

What is the reason for this side-stepping and duck-shoving? Do we have to sit and listen to all the twaddle in the speech that is to be made by the Secretary of State before we can get an answer to a simple question? All that the Minister has to say is "Yes" or "No". He can cut out all the legalistic quibble. I, for one, do not want to listen to the Secretary of State for Defence making his speech.

I should have thought that my hon. Friend would have deduced by now that the answer is "Yes" and was always intended to be "Yes". It always was "Yes". Many ill-informed and in some cases malicious articles that appeared in the Press had no basis of fact whatever.

There was no need for Question Time to be taken up on this matter. I wrote to the Secretary of State nearly three weeks ago saying how dishonourable the Government's apparent proposals were. Why have not I had an answer before now?

If the right hon. Gentleman insists on using that sort of language without any knowledge of the facts, it is not surprising that he has to wait for an answer. As he will discover from my right hon. Friend's speech later today, many of the complications are produced by the coincidence of the commitment to pay gratuities and the legislation introduced by his own Government with respect to Armed Forces pensions. If he will be a little patient, I hope that he will be able, with the assistance of my right hon. Friend, to unravel the complexities.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether units of the Royal Navy will be able to operate safely in those parts of the Atlantic which are outside the range of effective aircover by the RAF when HMS "Ark Royal" is withdrawn.

We believe that our arrangements for defence of the Fleet against air attack after HMS "Ark Royal" is withdrawn from service will be satisfactory.

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that whereas we shall have no aircraft carriers the Soviet Union is building three, and has air bases in Southern Africa? Does he accept that this means that it will be impossible to defend the sea routes carrying essential raw materials using British ships, British aircraft and British forces without relying on our allies?

No. Though I understand the right hon. Gentleman's contention, I cannot accept his underlying argument. The Phantom and Buccaneer aircraft of HMS "Ark Royal" will continue to be employed in a maritime rôle from ashore. Moreover, land-based aircraft can operate in the former sea areas of NATO through which all the supply and reinforcement shipping from North America must pass. Apart from land-based aircraft, we are introducing a number of very effective air defence systems into the Fleet.

Will the Minister confirm that organic air defence is no longer essential, because of modern developments?

Yes, my hon. Friend is quite right. Our concept of defence provides us with aircraft to attack or disrupt missile launching vehicles—the Sea Dart for medium-range defence, the Sea Wolf for shorter-range defence and the Sea Harrier which adds a complementary quick reaction capability.

Will the Minister cease being so complacent about this matter? Is he not aware that the single most significant new factor in this situation has been the deployment at bases in the Crimea and the South-West of the Soviet Union of 100 supersonic Backfire bombers? These pose a great threat to the territorial land mass of Western Europe and particularly to the shipping routes which are vital to us. Is he satisfied that we should be assisting the extension of the range of the Backfire bomber with Lucas and Plessey contracts?

The hon. Member mistakes complacency for informed knowledge of the Fleet's capability and deep confidence in its ability to deploy that capability.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average cost per hour of using a Nimrod aircraft in the fisheries protection rôle, including crews' salaries, expenses and the cost of ground support facilities.

Approximately £1,200 per hour at 1977 prices.

What further consideration has the Minister given to using the Maritime Defender in this role? It would cost only £64 an hour to carry out this task, and all it would require is an avionic fit. At a time when public expenditure cuts are uppermost in everyone's mind, would it not be an ideal aircraft for this task?

That remains to be seen. I have received a letter from the chairman of Fairey-Britten and the claims in that letter are now being examined by my Department. We are also examining other contenders that have been suggested to us. When we come to a final decision an announcement will be made.

Will the Minister give his considered view about the use of airships in a fishery protection role? Will he consider a mini-zeppelin such as the R500, which is 85 feet long and is faster than a frigate, having 60 knots compared with 25? Also, it can hover, manoeuvre and is cheaper.

We would be prepared to consider any proposals that could make a contribution to cost-saving in defence expenditure. On the preliminary consideration that I have given to the question of the use of airships by the Royal Air Force, I see no war rôle for them, and they would be a rather expensive operation for the RAF to maintain.

Will the Minister comment on the advantages that the Nimrod has—although it is more expensive—in that it can scan such a large sector of sea and has such a long range? What information has he about the effect of the combination of air and sea protection since the Nimrod was introduced? If we cut the cost of fisheries protection we would not be able to counteract invasions of pirate fleets.

The Department of Agriculture for Scotland and the Ministry of Agriculture in England and Wales are entirely satisfied, as customers, with the contribution made by the RAF in the manning and work of Nimrod. I am entirely satisfied that the aircraft is doing the job laid upon it by the customers.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the conditions for British refugees in Anzio Camp, Cyprus.

There are 285 displaced persons living in Anzio Camp, of whom 183 have British passports. No charges are paid by the occupants of the camp, which consists of huts and which has all main services. Free rations for those in need are provided by the Republican Government. I visited the camp last September and satisfied myself that conditions there compared favourably with other refugee camps in Cyprus.

Is the Minister aware that when I last visited Anzio Camp—and I have it on good authority that things have not changed the unemployment level was high and the monthly food ration was low? Will he take an interest in the plight of these dispirited and forgotten British refugees?

Only 65 persons at the camp are without regular work and some of them are finding part-time employment. Certainly, I give an undertaking that I shall continue, as Minister responsible, to give personal attention to the parts of the situation that fall within the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence under what circumstances Her Majesty's Government refuse arms sales to other countries.

When consideration of the political, security and financial factors involved lead to us to conclude that it is right to do so.

Does the Minister agree that the Labour Government have demonstrated that commercial considerations in the supply of arms are secondary to the questions of human rights in the receiving countries—as has been the case with our policy on Chile and South Africa? Will he bear in mind President Carter's recent statement about commercial considerations and the supply of arms and consider putting pressure on our EEC partners in relation to the supply of arms particularly West Germany's supplying of nuclear power stations to Brazil, in view of conditions in that country?

All I would say is that while I have a certain sympathy with my hon. Friend, these are questions for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Will the Minister assure the House that there will be no restriction or embargo on the supply of arms to Zaire, which is currently suffering aggression from Soviet-dominated—[Interruption.]—or Cuban-Soviet-dominated Angola?

I hope that I have followed the right hon. Gentleman's question. I repeat that as a Defence Minister my responsibility relates to the security requirements of this country with respect to arms sales. Matters of foreign policy are for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

I support the British Government's ban on arms sales to South Africa, but is that policy not being undermined by subsidiaries of British companies such as ICI, Plessey and Racial, which are selling direct to the South African Government? Whether or not it is the Minister's responsibility, will he raise the matter in the Cabinet and seek to influence British companies to stop their subsidiaries undermining Government policies?

As I made clear to my hon. Friend on 8th February this year, the Government do not have any general powers to interfere with the export of information to South Africa or to prevent firms, by whoever they are owned, from manufacturing any product in that country. However, I have already made clear that we would be seriously concerned if British firms with interests in South Africa were acting contrary to the spirit of Government policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he had with NATO Allies before the publication of the recent Defence White Paper.

The regular and wide-ranging consultations within NATO have naturally covered a good deal of the subject matter of the White Paper. However, the presentation of the annual Statement on the Defence Estimates to Parliament has never been the subject of formal consultation.

In view of the fact that, according to the White Paper, the Soviet Union now allocates nearly 12 per cent. of its gross national product to military programmes and is continuing to increase that sum, is it not all the more important that we should co-ordinate our activities with our NATO allies, and is it not foolhardy to think of cutting our defence expenditure when the Warsaw Pact is increasing its defence expenditure?

The hon. Gentleman is inviting me to give him the contents of the speech that I hope to deliver a little later today. However, I shall spare the House that now. Certainly we work in the closest co-ordination with our NATO allies, and although I have been censured by the Opposition Front Bench for so doing on the provision of AWACS we shall continue that co-ordination. For reasons that I shall explain, I believe that we are making a proper and full contribution to the Alliance.

Is the Secretary of State aware that Admiral of the Fleet Sir Peter Hill-Norton, Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, recently said that it was extraordinary how some of our political leaders view the military buildup of the Warsaw Pact as being only for defensive purposes, and added that Warsaw Pact forces are not the right shape for that purpose. Does he agree with that view?

I do not have in mind the remarks quoted by the hon. Gentleman but I have a clear recollection of a Press statement issued by the Admiral of the Fleet last week, in which he spoke of ill-informed armchair critics who criticised the fact that NATO is working all day and every day for 24 hours round the clock. I have a copy of the Press communiqué in which that statement is made. I am inclined to Sir Peter's view that NATO is wrongly knocked and alarm wrongly created by people who are not nearly as well-informed as is the Admiral of the Fleet.

What would be the effect on the pound and what would be the view of our foreign creditors if we were to indulge in another £2,000 million of defence expenditure—and what would be the effect on our already weak economy?

It would be a matter of serious concern for our creditors if we were to announce an increase in any form of public expenditure totalling £2,000 million. Generally speaking, I do not find it worth while to seek to answer hypothetical questions.

Did not the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor undertake that all Government cuts in defence would be discussed with NATO beforehand? Why, in the latest round of cuts, was that undertaking broken?

The undertaking has not been broken. I was asked whether the White Paper had been formally put to the Alliance. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that has never been the practice. I announced in the House on 12th January, and subsequently at Question Time, that we had sent to NATO details of the proposed cuts, which I have since announced to the House, and are in course of preparing our proposals for the cuts in 1978–79. There will be the fullest consultation with the Alliance in accordance with NATO procedures.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the latest figures available for the balance of payments costs of British forces in Germany; and what progress has been made in obtaining adequate offset arrangements.

The foreign exchange cost of British Forces Germany for 1977–78 is currently estimated at £544 million. As for the second part of the Question, I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's statement to the House on 25th January last.

Is not the delay by the German Government in this matter deplorable? Has not the time come to give the German Government a date by which we shall expect a satisfactory agreement and indicating that unless we obtain agreement we shall commence systematic withdrawals?

In the past my hon. Friend has been kind enough to offer negotiating advice. I am not sure that the course of action that he proposes will be either satisfactory or successful. As I have explained many times, although I have a great interest in the outcome of the negotiations their conduct lies with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether that figure is gross or net? Does it include the entire pay of the Armed Services, on the assumption that it is all spent abroad and none is remitted home, and does it make any allowance for the normal import content of ordinary people's expenditure when in the United Kingdom?

It is a forecast of actual expenditure in foreign currency based on exchange rates of October 1976. It is less than the total budgetary cost, which is £699 million, because part of the cost of pay and part of the cost of weapons, and so forth, will fall to be paid in sterling and not in deutschemarks.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the cost of our military commitment overseas last year amounted to almost £1,000 million, and that over the last three years the total we have paid out in military expenditure overseas is equal to the amount we have to borrow from the IMF? Is it not time that we made considerable cuts in these overseas commitments?

I am afraid that I cannot agree with my hon. Friend's figures. The figures of expenditure are in the White Paper. I do not have them exactly in mind, but they are much lower than the sums we have had to borrow, and certainly less than £1,000 million. The sales of arms and equipment have equalled in foreign exchange terms the amounts that we have expended on the Rhine Army and in other ways.

Will the Secretary of State resist firmly the suggestion put forward by his hon. Friends below the Gangway, since the West Germans already spend on defence 25 per cent. more per head than we do? We have no good reason to lecture them on these matters.

I have already said that although I am anxious that there should be some movement in the matter of offset costs the kind of enthusiasm shown by my hon. Friend is perhaps not the most successful way in which to approach these matters.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if any recent consultations have taken place relating to the introduction of alternate employment in factories at present engaged on the manufacture of defence equipment.

No, Sir. Unless there is a substantial change in our assessment of the external threat, we expect overall employment in the defence industries to remain fairly steady over the next few years.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be tragic if skills and apparatus already employed in the defence industry affected by cuts were not utilised to the advantage of civilian production? Is he aware of the proposals submitted by the Lucas Aerospace shop stewards committee to facilitate this changeover, and is due consideration being given to these proposals?

I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. We are aware of the Lucas Aerospace shop steward's committee proposals, but I am sure that my hon. Friends will agree that these are matters for the firm itself to consider.

Will my hon. Friend consider whether it is now appropriate for his Department to liaise with the Department of Energy to establish some sort of working committee to consider the whole problem of the diversification of those employed in the defence industry?

I am always happy to consider any suggestions made by my hon. Friend. I must refer my hon. Friend to my first answer, namely, that over the next few years we expect overall employment in the industry to remain fairly steady. Of course, in some firms it will rise and in others it will fall.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), who, at a recent meeting of workers and trade unionists at a Hawker Siddeley factory, expressed the Marie Antoinette view that they should be allowed to manufacture caravans at a time when there is a glut of caravans on the United Kingdom market?

I am no expert on the state of the caravan market.

I am glad that the question has been asked, as I wish to ask my hon. Friend whether he thinks that the highly specialised skills of the aircraft factories and the workmen in them are especially suited for the manufacture of highly sophisticated machine tools that we are now importing in large quantities from America, Sweden, Italy and Germany?

My hon. Friend may well be right. The problem is that within our given level of defence expenditure, if we forgo procurement of defence equipment from our own country we shall merely have to buy it abroad.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what increase he expects in the military capability of the Warsaw Pact forces by 1980 if their present rate of increase of military expenditure is maintained.

The Soviet Union accounts for most of the military expenditure in the Warsaw Pact. I would expect a substantial improvement in its military capability if it persists with its high rate of such expenditure.

Bearing in mind the current progress of mutual balanced force reduction negotiations and the heavy defence burden that Britain is now carrying, is there not a strong case for persuading our NATO allies to spend more on the defence of the Alliance?

It is right that we should not in any sense be complacent about the increasing capability of the Warsaw Pact. At the same time, the most urgent and important way to approach this matter is as the United States President has indicated, namely, by increased activity to seek the reduction of forces at both strategic and conventional levels between East and West.

Is it not a fact that the most significant development in Warsaw Pact countries is not the increase in size but the fact that they are now at instant readiness, which means that NATO will get virtually no warning time?

The hon. Gentleman is right. It is not the increase in numbers that is the most impressive aspect of recent years' developments but the increasing sophistication and high technology involved. In that sense, NATO's advantage in technology has been eroded. At the same time, it would be wrong to feel that the whole of the political considerations that have been explained from time to time are necessarily changed as a result of these developments.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that those who have been the firmest supporters of détente for many years are appalled at the continued increases in the high level of armaments in the Soviet Union, for which no justification can be seen by friends of peace throughout the world? Will my right hon. Friend give the strongest possible support to the proposal made by President Jimmy Carter that when the next meeting between America and Russia takes place a start should be made to the reduction of armaments and not merely an agreement on a new ceiling that will be more fantastic than the last?

I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that the Government will give maximum support to President Carter's initiatives in these matters. I agree that it is time that we saw the colour of the money of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries in terms of an agreement in this area. We cannot go much further without having some definite and tangible arrangements.

Figures have already been published indicating that the Soviet Union is spending between 12 per cent. and 14 per cent. of its GDP on defence. Are there any comparable per capita figures within the Soviet Union? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot give me those figures, what is the absolute sum, in comparable terms, that is being spent—GDP always being a misleading figure?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman and the Committee of which he is a distinguished member that it is extremely difficult to make these comparisons, because, for example, of different standards of national incomes. It is quite impossible to give a realistic per capita figure. It is estimated that 12 per cent. and not 14 per cent. of the Soviet Union's gross domestic product is devoted to defence purposes. That indicates the high priority given to these purposes by Soviet and Warsaw Pact countries.

Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that the British Socialist Government, by their policy of five successive unilateral cuts in defence expenditure, are undermining the whole basis of getting an arms control agreement with the Soviets?

No, I do not understand that. What I understand quite clearly—this is borne out by SACEUR, who stated recently that the equipment that is coming now is the result of decisions taken a decade or more ago—is that the previous Conservative Government cut defence expenditure every year they were in office, and three times in the last year.