asked the Minister of Defence if he will stop research into the development of germ warfare at Porton, transfer this establishment to the Ministry of Health, and open the establishment for inspection by health workers from all countries.

No, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that a germ bomb warhead has been or is being developed for the American Sergeant missile? Will he give an assurance that we entertain no such idea? If the work at Porton is purely defensive against germ warfare, why cannot he open its doors to health visitors from other countries?

We are bound by the Geneva Agreement as to the use of such weapons. We are, however, entitled to defend ourselves or to retaliate. As to visitors, bona fide research workers sometimes go there and, subject to security restrictions, they can go on doing so.

Does not the Minister think that he has enough destructive power without stooping to preparing for germ warfare as well?

How to defend ourselves against germ warfare.

asked the Minister of Defence if a decision has yet been reached on a replacement for the Beverley and Hastings aircraft.

asked the Minister of Defence whether he has now completed his joint studies with United States and other bodies before coming to a decision about allocating contracts for the OR 351 aircraft.

No, Sir. Our consideration of this problem is not yet complete.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there are many urgent reasons why a decision should be reached soon, not the least of which is that, unless a replacement is decided on in the fairly near future, there is a real danger of these two types of aircraft falling out of the skies?

This is an important matter, but it is also a complex and potentially very costly one. It is related to the inter-related use of carriers by the Royal Navy or transport aircraft by the Royal Air Force and requires very careful consideration before we decide on it.

Has not this decision already been very long delayed? Will my right hon. Friend do all he can to speed it up, particularly bearing in mind the important implications not only for our defences but also for the employment position in various parts of the country?

I am under considerable pressure from advocates on all sides in this discussion. I naturally like to take as early a decision as I can.

May I have an answer to Question No. 17?

The hon. Member was not in his place. That Question was answered with Question No. 2.

asked the Minister of Defence whether he will ensure that in future nuclear weapons for the use of the Armed Forces shall be of British manufacture.

No, Sir. The warheads used by our deterrent forces will, however, continue to be of British manufacture.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind in considering this matter that the technological advantages as well as the political flexibility are much increased if these weapons are under our manufacture and control?

Yes. I will bear all those matters in mind.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will give an assurance that all nuclear weapons when under the control of Her Majesty's Government will be free from any other nation's control.

Yes, Sir.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether every method of communication relevant to the firing of Polaris will be under British command and in no circumstances could be withdrawn?

Yes, Sir.

Will my right hon. Friend go further on this point and say that there will be no duplication of the method employed towards the firing between ourselves and the United States?

I have not been following my noble Friend. We have this weapon independently. We can communicate with it and use it without strings and independently, under the terms, whenever supreme national importance so demands. There is no problem about this whatever.

Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that if these nuclear submarines are in the N.A.T.O. fleet we shall be able to communicate with them once they are submerged save through the N.A.T.O. network?

We shall be able to communicate with them at all times through our own resources.

Has the right hon. Gentleman understood the question put to him by the noble Lord the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton)? He is not asking about communication. What he is asking is whether Polaris submarines flying the British flag could fire weapons without being under the control of an American officer.

I hope that they will never have to fire, but they can fire the weapons on British orders at any time.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm for the information of hon. Members opposite that our submarines have been communicating and have been communicated with when submerged for the past 30 years?

asked the Minister of Defence what new steps he proposes to take to equip the British forces in the future; and whether he will make a statement.

I would ask my hon. Friend to await the White Paper on Defence which will be published next month.

In the meantime will my right hon. Friend ensure that the weapons available to the men are the best available and that there are enough men to operate them? Will he in particular ensure that no ceiling is placed on recruitment so that we have not the people to operate these excellent weapons?

These are the kind of questions which I think could properly be debated when we come to the defence debates in March.

asked the Minister of Defence (1) what consideration he has given to the capacity of British industry to manufacture an effective and wholly independent nuclear deterrent;

(2) what wholly British projects he has studied with a view to backing one of them as a replacement for Skybolt.

Various projects for wholly British manufactured deterrent weapon systems have been considered. In the view of Her Majesty's Government the Polaris system is to be preferred on grounds both of time scale and of cost, as well as the fact that it is already in service.

Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the capacity of British industry to provide an alternative weapon to Skybolt was fully taken into account before the Polaris decision was agreed at the Bahamas? Is it not a fact that there have been in existence for some time two teams in British industry who have really got to the stage of producing the fundamentals of an alternative British weapons system?

My answer implied no reflection on British industry. I was concerned only with the time scale and the cost.

asked the Minister of Defence what is his estimate of the total expenditure to date on the maintenance of Britain's independent nuclear deterrent.

Taking the whole period since 1948 and including the research and development cost, the capital cost of the V-bombers, the cost of the weapons they carry, their running cost and the costs we have met for Thor, the total is about £1,000 million.

Without anticipating what will be said in today's debate, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman, as a former Chancellor of the Exchequer who resigned and protested against Government extravagance, will be prepared—either today or tomorrow—to "come clean" with the British public and tell them the amount of the bill which the Government now propose for carrying on this illusion?

Certainly we will go into the cost question in the debate, but the figure is under 10 per cent. of the defence budget.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that although the aggregation of cost over a period of 16 years or more may be £1,000 million, that figure properly related year by year to the whole defence programme of this country works out at about £50 to £60 million per annum, which is a very reasonable figure for so massive a defence system?

There is no doubt that we have had very good value for money.

Hear, hear.

Does the estimate of £1,000 million include the development cost of rockets such as Blue Streak, £100 million, Blue Water, £55 million, and other partially-developed rockets which never proved militarily successful?

As I understand it, it covers the research and development costs that have been put into this.

asked the Minister of Defence what nuclear deterrent projects he intends to develop and put into production to fill the gap before the delivery of the Polaris submarine.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to await the debate which is about to open.

Am I understood that in the course of the debate the right hon. Gentleman proposes to develop the case for filling the gap between the strategic air force and our contribution to that air force and the Polaris development and production? Does he intend to do that?

So far as security considerations permit.

But surely that is not a satisfactory answer? Are we not entitled to some information about the possibilities of filling the nuclear deterrent gap in, say, the course of the next five years?

I hope that we will have an opportunity of debating whether there is a gap, what sort of gap it is and what we might do, but I still say, "so far as security considerations permit".

Are we going to hear if the Government have made up their mind whether we can afford both a nuclear deterrent and decently equipped conventional forces? If they have come to that conclusion, how much more is it going to cost and, if not, which course is going to be preferred?

I thought that the Opposition had put down an Amendment designed to do away with our deterrent and I thought that that would be relevant.

In view of the limitations which are imposed on the right hon. Gentleman in relation to security, would it not be preferable that we should consider some of these matters in the sort of committee which some hon. Members have suggested for some time should be set up?

That raises a different question which the right hon. Member might like to discuss with his own Front Bench.

asked the Minister of Defence whether, in view of the Bahamas Agreement, he will now direct that the cost of carrying the deterrent shall not be included in the Vote of any of the three defence Services but on a separate Vote or on that of his Department.

No, Sir, I regard the question of which Service Estimates carry the cost of the deterrent as of little practical importance.

Is not my right hon. Friend aware that some of the criticism of the Polaris agreement is based on the repercussions it might have on the future of the Royal Air Force and the conventional Navy? Would he not agree that if the cost of the method of carrying the deterrent were borne on a separate Vote it would lead to more flexibility and a better understanding by the public?

That argument carried to its logical conclusion would mean that there would be only one Vote, and that the Vote of the Ministry of Defence. I do not think that one should be influenced by whether the deterrent should be carried on the Royal Air Force Vote or on the Navy Vote. One would use the equipment that is available. One would do it on its merits.

asked the Minister of Defence what projects for wholly British-manufactured deterrent weapon systems have been considered; and what were the estimates of the cost, in terms both of money and diversion of scientific and technical manpower.

Consideration was given to the possibility of a wholly British manufactured project but the factors of time and diversion of effort from other parts of the programme made this less advantageous than accepting an American offer to sell a missile which was already in service and a later mark of which was under development.

May I press my right hon. Friend on this matter. Was no estimate at all made of the cost?

I was hoping to deal with this question of the home manufacture of missiles in the course of the debate. I would really rather deal with it at greater length than is possible now.

asked the Minister of Defence what proposals were made to him by the United States Defence Secretary for an increase in conventional forces.

asked the Minister of Defence what proposals were made to him by the United States Defence Ministers at the Nassau Conference for increasing the strength of the British forces in Germany.

I had a general exchange of views with Mr. McNamara but no specific proposals were put forward.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman read the American newspapers and the comments of his opposite numbers in the diplomatic and political spheres in the United States and at the Pentagon? Is he not aware of their demand that we should build up our conventional forces? Can he say whether there is complete satisfaction in N.A.T.O. about the contributions in conventional forces made by the respective countries?

I do have a cursory glance at newspapers from time to time, but this Question deals with what the Secretary of Defence said; and he made no proposal.

Does the Minister recollect that on his return from America he made a statement to the effect that there was going to be no conscription? Does that mean that any proposal was made by the Americans for an increase in the Armed Forces, which would mean conscription? Will the right hon. Gentleman repeat this categorical assurance that Her Majesty's Government do not intend to reintroduce conscription?

I think that I gave an answer about conscription, but it had nothing to do with conversations with Mr. McNamara.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that exactly a week ago, when I asked him to give an undertaking that there would be no return to conscription, he refused to give that undertaking?

I am not going to give an undertaking for all time, in any circumstances whatever. That would not be a wise thing to do.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will state estimated expenditure on Polaris submarines, missiles and warheads, and on Blue Steel.

It would be contrary to the normal practice to disclose estimates of future expenditure on defence projects.

How can the Minister hide behind the security reason when, in America, figures are published weekly of each individual contract? I am not asking for exact figures, but is it not a fact that hundreds of millions of pounds have been expended in addition to our present £1,720 million expenditure? Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about the estimate suggested in certain quarters that our expenditure will rise to £2,000 million a year in a couple of years? Is that roughly accurate?

I hope that the hon. Member will not follow too pedantically any American or other procedure. Our procedure is that we do not give the figures as they might disclose the numbers.

How does the right hon. Gentleman know what the cost is going to be, since he does not seem to know the size of the programme or the speed with which it will proceed?

That seems a very shrewd question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is giving some very contemptible replies? Is he not aware that in an Answer last week he said that Blue Steel had cost £60 million, and would it not have been more than fair had he given my hon. Friend that reply today? Since that figure of £60 million for Blue Steel was estimated by the Auditor-General in 1960, am I to understand that there have been no further development costs involved between 1960 and December, 1962, when the first went into the Royal Air Force?

The hon. Member is right. There is a distinction between past R and D costs and future costs, including production costs for which he asked. It has been the practice in the House not to give production costs because it might disclose information to an enemy or potential enemy. It is true that the past R and D expenditure is about £60 million.

asked the Minister of Defence whether he is aware of public concern that secret documents are being left in desks and filing cabinets sold to private purchasers; what steps are being taken to ensure that confidential and secret defence documents of his Department are removed from office equipment offered for sale to the public; and whether he will make a statement.

Surplus furniture released for disposal by my Department is always thoroughly searched beforehand.

From the cursory glance at newspapers which he told the House a little while ago that he makes, is the Minister aware that documents have been found at Kidbrooke and Wolverhampton which clearly revealed that secret documents were coming into the hands of the public? Surely the right hon. Gentleman must be aware of these facts. If so, is he also aware of the considerable public concern that, despite the alleged security arrangements which are supposed to be in existence, documents of this character can be freely disclosed to the public?

A glance at the Order Paper will reveal that there is a later Question on this subject.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, arising out of recent events, there are allegations of a great deal of carelessness in Departments in not locking up documents securely at night and leaving them visible with the possibility of their being examined by all sorts of unofficial people?

That is a rather different Question from that on the Order Paper.

asked the Minister of Defence how many retired officers of

asked the Minister of Defence which Service Departments organised helicopter sorties to help animals in distress on Dartmoor; how many sorties were made; and what expense was incurred.

The Royal Navy and Royal Air Force have flown 241 helicopter sorties, at a cost of £26,000.

Is the right hon Gentleman aware that animal lovers everywhere will be most grateful to the helicopter service for their untiring rescue efforts in hazardous conditions? Is it not, therefore, all the more disgusting that the callous and mercenary farmers in Dartmoor are exploiting the humane instincts of the public in efforts to minimise the appalling suffering caused by the selfishness and negligence of these farmers?

I do not know what farming conditions in Brixton have been like, but they have been rather rough on Dartmoor. I think that everybody has done his best and we should be very grateful for the efforts.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that farmers know perfectly well that it is their responsibility to feed their stock but that because of snowdrifts the three Women's Armed Services are in receipt of retired pay under each of the six retired pay codes and, in each case, how many of these officers are over 60 and 70 years of age, respectively.

As the Answer consists of a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Speech.

I was about to say that we must stop at Uncle Tom Cobbleigh.

In view of the completely unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek leave to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will state the increases in the ordinary Armed Forces widows' pensions, on 1st January, 1963, for the over-60 widows of generals, Army captains and privates, and equivalent ranks in the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, and for the widows of other ranks whose husbands were pensioned before 1st September, 1950.

As the Answer consists of a table of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Will the Minister assure the House that there will not be further comparatively large increases in the pensions of officers and officers' widows until after more pennies per day have been added to the meagre pensions of the widows of other ranks? [HON.

asked the Minister of Defence, if he will state the number of years that generals, Army captains and privates, and equivalent ranks in the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, on normal engagements, have to wait, after being pensioned, for an over-60 increase in their long-service pension.

As the Answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

I fully recognise the interest which the hon. and gallant Member takes in this important matter, but the Question asks for some information and he will receive it. Perhaps he will then consider it and, if he wishes, put another Question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the number of figures involved in this and the previous Question are fewer than half a dozen—[Interruption.]Who is running this House? Will the right hon. Gentleman say why the ex-Service man with the lowest pension should have to wait the longest period for an increase? Why should a man who has already served 22 years for his pension have to serve another 20 years for his first increment, in view of the fact that civil servants receive their increase when they become pensionable, or shortly afterwards, and Service officers receive their increases at much earlier periods than do other ranks who have served under them? When will the Conservative Party do something about this anomaly which is a great disgrace to our present welfare system?

Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at the information with which I am providing him and then ask another Question.

asked the Minister of Defence what has been the total cost of national defence for each year since 1951 inclusive; if he is satisfied with the value obtained from this expenditure; and if he will make a statement.

I will, with permission, circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The value of this expenditure is shown by the facts that we have not had a major war, and that in the operations we have undertaken the Forces have done all that was required of them.

Since Stalin and Stalin's policy are both dead and since Mr. Khrushchev has offered to live more peacefully with the West, does not the Minister think that we should pay more attention to that and save the taxpayer from these enormous sums which we are spending against an attack from the Soviet Union which may never take place?

The sum spent on defence must depend on the obligations placed on the defence forces of the Crown. I do not see much possibility of an immediate reduction in those obligations.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the cost of defence depends not only on the Armed Forces but also on the errors of Government policy?

But primarily it depends on the obligations which one lays on the Armed Forces. We can discuss how we do this in the debate, but unless one reduces those obligations there is not much prospect of reducing the cost.

Is the Minister saying that there is no hope in the immediate future of these colossal sums being reduced?

To be frank, I think that they are likely to rise at least as fast as the gross national product.

asked the Minister of Defence (1) what is his estimate of the minimum number of Polaris submarines which will be required to provide an effective independent deterrent;

(2) when he expects to make an announcement giving details of the proposed Polaris programme.

I would ask the hon. Member to await the debate, in the course of which as much information as possible will be made available.

Are we to understand from that Answer that during the course of the debate we shall be given some information about this programme; or is it true to say that the Government have not made up their mind about it and that they are preventing any sensible debate or decisions about this matter because of their withholding of the facts concerning the programme?

Some information about the programme will be given.

Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us now, or shall we have to wait until the debate, whether or not the Mark III missile which we have to use in the Polaris submarines has been proved yet?

That is the sort of question which could be asked in the debate.

asked the Minister of Defence when he will state the plans of Her Majesty's Government regarding the building of Polaris submarines and the programme for introducing them into the Fleet.

I would ask the hon. Member to await the debate opening today.

It is a pity the right hon. Gentleman cannot have a defence debate every time he appears at the Dispatch Box to answer Questions. If during the course of the debate 'the right hon. Gentleman is going to announce the building of a Polaris fleet, either singly or as a crash programme all at once, could he say to what extent a survey has taken place of British shipyards to ascertain whether they have the resources, the nuclear "know-how" and sufficient technical staff to tackle that job if it is to be done speedily?

These are exactly the sort of questions which it would be perfectly proper to put in the course of the two-day debate we are about to hold.

Will not the cost of this fleet be largely additional to our present arms expenditure?

No, it will not be largely additional; but I would rather develop the answer to that a little more fully than I can in reply to a question.

asked the Minister of Defence, in view of the statement made in Command Paper No. 1915, whether he has discussed with our allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, The South-East Asia Treaty Organisation and the Australia, New Zealand and United States Pact what should be the role of these organizations in the future.

The North Atlantic Council is now considering how best to take advantage of the offer, conceived at Nassau, to add strategic weapons for the first time to N.A.T.O.'s armoury. The Nassau arrangements will in no way reduce Britain's ability to meet her obligations to her S.E.A.T.O. allies and no changes are contemplated in the role of that organisation. The United Kingdom is not a member of the A.N.Z.U.S. pact.

In view of the fact that we are tending to reconsider our defence policy, will it not be necessary to make further arrangements with N.A.T.O. and S.E.A.T.O.?

Perhaps we could develop these points in the debate. For the moment I do not think this will affect our obligations in any way under S.E.A.T.O.

asked the Minister of Defence what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the level of the defence budget and on some form of compulsory military service.

We have no intention of restoring compulsory military service, but, as was explained in the 1962 Defence White Paper, some increase in the defence budget must be expected.

Would the right hon. Gentleman please reply about the level of the defence budget? He answered only the second part of my Question. If he cannot reply to it now, perhaps he would give us some information during the debate on the point of how far we are to share in the cost of developing the latest type of Polaris missile?

I think I can touch on the latter point in the course of the debate.

Did I understand my right hon. Friend to say that in no circumstances, even considering the withdrawal of France from N.A.T.O., is it our intention to reintroduce conscription in this country?

I did not say so. I said that we have no intention. I did not say that never would any British Government have conscription.

asked the Minister of Defence what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the establishment, as now officially proposed by the United States, of a European nuclear force in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation with West German participation.

Her Majesty's Government fully support the establishment of a multilateral or inter-allied N.A.T.O. nuclear force as envisaged in the Nassau communique.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the United States propose to include Western Germany in this multi-national nuclear force? Is it Her Majesty's Government's decision to support the arming in any form of Western Germany with nuclear weapons?

The Federal Republic of Germany is already a member of N.A.T.O. and nuclear launchers are already in the hands of those forces.

Would it not be preferable to have nuclear weapons in the N.A.T.O. force than to have nuclear weapons in an alliance consisting of France and Germany alone?

There are very many arguments in favour of including nuclear weapons in a N.A.T.O. force, as my hon. Friend says.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on the proposal to move an infantry brigade to the Far East.

There is at present no such proposal. As I said on Monday, 51 Infantry Brigade has simply been placed at 72 hours readiness.

To avoid any misunderstanding at home and abroad, I should like to take this opportunity to inform the House that a parachute battalion is due to leave for Malaya on Friday to take part in a long-planned exercise there. I do not consider the situation in the Far East is serious enough to warrant cancelling this routine exercise. The advance party has been there for a fortnight.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that according to The Times of today, the Secretary-General of the United Nations considers the situation in this part of the Far East to be very serious? If that be so, does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that his statement on Monday presented a complete underestimation of what is happening in that part of Asia? Does he agree that this position arises basically from the creation of the new Federation of Malasia? Would it not be much better to try to bring in the United Nations to help to negotiate peace rather than use force to establish it?

If there is any danger in that area I would have thought that the statement I made on Monday showed that the Government were taking reasonable precautions to meet it.

In view of the statement by the Prime Minister of Malaya, reported in The Times yesterday, that this brigade was arriving, and the right hon. Gentleman's statement today that there are no plans for its arrival, could he tell us anything about the liaison between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Malaya?

I am not entirely responsible for what appears in The Times newspaper. There are, of course, these misunderstandings in communications. But I said in my statement on Monday quite plainly that this infantry brigade had been put on 72 hours alert, and I think that is a proper precaution to take.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect using these words which appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT of Monday of this week? After saying that nothing had happened in that part of Asia, he said:

"… but it is sometimes prudent in defence matters to make some dispositions ahead of something happening."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th January, 1963; Vol. 670, c. 582.]

Does he not realise that that statement is now shown to be an underestimate of the situation if what the Secretary-General of the United Nations is now saying is correct?

The Secretary-General said that nothing has happened. What he and I have in mind is that something might happen, and so we took some precautions in advance.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty when it is now expected that Her Majesty's Submarine "Dreadnought" will join the Fleet.

Her Majesty's Submarine "Dreadnought" will join the Fleet formally in April. Thereafter, she will undergo a series of trials, and may also participate in certain operational exercises before becoming fully operational next year.

May I refer my hon. Friend to previous replies on this matter? In view of the fact that we had a complete set of propulsion machinery from the Americans, why does it take twice the time in this country to get the submarine into service that it takes in the United States?

I concede that it has taken very much longer, but this is to this country an entirely novel and original form of vessel and propulsion machinery, and I think it not unreasonable that she should undergo considerable first-of-class trials before she joins the Fleet. It is true that I said that I hoped that she would join the Fleet in the present financial year. April is not far out from the present financial year.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider other shipyards in addition to Messrs. Vickers, including the Royal Dockyards, when placing orders for the third and subsequent British nuclear submarines.

The third nuclear submarine was ordered from Messrs. Vickers in December last. Otherwise the reply to my hon. and gallant Friend is, "Yes."

Will my hon. Friend confirm that these new contracts will, in the first place, go out to competitive tender? Further, will he confirm that, in order to obviate the delays which have occurred so frequently in the past, one of the conditions of contract will be that the firm concerned shall undertake three-shift working?

I think that the main concern of my right hon. Friend and the nation as a whole is that these submarines should be in operational use at the earliest possible moment. It would be wrong in these conditions to go to competitive tender. In answer to the last part of my hon. and gallant Friend's supplementary question, I very much hope that the trade unions and the firms will negotiate for three-shift working, as it is obviously important that the vessels should be in service as soon as possible.

Are we to understand from those replies that the Government have at last decided what their submarine programme is? If so, will the hon. Gentleman make a statement about it at some time?

I do not think that I can be drawn on that. My right hon. Friend has answered once or twice already that there is a big two-day debate, and this question may well be raised during that.

Will my hon. Friend remember that Chatham Dockyard has a very considerable record in the building of submarines, and will he give an undertaking that it will be very seriously considered for any construction of nuclear submarines?

It will certainly be considered.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he will make a statement on his programme of Fleet replacements, in view of its importance to the British shipbuilding industry.

There are at the moment on order for the Navy from private yards: two assault ships; five G.M. destroyers; fifteen frigates; three nuclear submarines; five conventional submarines; one tanker; together with a miscellany of smaller craft. The replacement programme is, of course, a continuing one and further orders, including those for Polaris submarines, will be announced from time to time in the coming months which will help the shipbuilding industry in its present difficulties.

I welcome that statement so far as it goes, although I myself would rather see ships of peace being built than ships of war. When he comes to deal with the details of the programme, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that we must keep the skill of the men engaged and also the employment of the squads in the yards because of the necessity to maintain the industry? Will he remember, too, that on Clydeside we are in a particularly distressful position and think kindly of us when placing orders for the requirements for the new ships?

The total value of these orders for the shipbuilding industry is £185 million. The value of orders to Clydeside at the moment is about £48 million, so Clydeside is not doing too badly.

I welcome the Answer which my hon. Friend has given, but can he tell us that there will be no diminution in this programme as a result of the Polaris programme?

It is rather early for me to give any categorical statement on that issue.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what areas are to receive these contracts which can be let through his Department? Where does Tees-side, the Wear and so on come into the picture?

I could not predict what areas will win these contracts, but everyone capable of building the ships we need will have the chance.

Does my hon. Friend recall that, at the moment, there are contracts to go out for three Royal Fleet Auxiliaries? Does he agree that the important thing is that decisions should be arrived at on these contracts as early as possible so that, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) emphasised, the teams in the shipyards are not broken up?

I hope that we shall be able to announce where the contracts have been won within the next few days.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he will substitute vertical take-off and landing aircraft for types now used on aircraft carriers in order that a greater number of smaller carriers may be used than at present, and that a too great proportion of the striking power of the Royal Navy should not be concentrated in too few and too expensive ships.

The use of some V.T.O.L. aircraft was taken into account in the design studies of the next generation aircraft carriers. Nevertheless, the main factors which determine the size of the ship are the dimensions and number of the aircraft to be embarked and the number of men to fly and maintain them. In this context, the length of the runway is relatively unimportant.

Is not the length of the runway important in this matter? If one were able to have ships without the length necessary for a runway, would not one have far more of them, and would not this spread the risks in a desirable manner?

I concede that it is one of the factors, but—I give this example—a 40,000-ton aircraft carrier will carry only half the number of aircraft that a 50,000-ton aircraft carrier will take owing to the size of the hangar, which is a more dominant factor than the length of runway.

What is the tonnage of the proposed new aircraft carrier replacement?

Approximately 50,000 tons.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the present generation of vertical take-off aircraft are not sufficient in performance for the type of military duties required as are high performance aircraft which can operate only from large carriers?

Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend is thinking of the limited production of 1127 aircraft, whereas I was thinking in terms of the 1154 or its development.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty why tit has been decided to scrap the cruiser H.M.S. "Belfast".

The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. H.M.S. "Belfast" is not being scrapped but is to be placed in reserve and will, I hope, remain available for a number of years for service with the Royal Navy.

I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman has made this statement which publicly contradicts the statement in The Times.

Like my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence, I am not responsible for all that appears in The Times.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if the naval Board of Inquiry, investigating the circumstances in which Admiralty Tug T.I.D. 97 cap sized in Chatham Dockyard on Saturday, 29th December last, has completed the inquiries; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty when the hon. Mem- ber for Faversham can expect a reply to his letter of 1st January, concerning the capsizing of Tug 97 on Saturday, 29th December, in Her Majesty's Dockyard. Chatham.

The Board of Inquiry which investigated the circumstances in which Admiralty Tug T.I.D. 97 was capsized in Chatham Dockyard has now submitted its report to the Commander-in-Chief, Portsmouth. As soon as the report has been considered in the Admiralty, I will write to the hon. Gentlemen.

I would like to take this opportunity to express the Admiralty's deep sympathy to the three families concerned.

Will my hon. Friend give an undertaking that proper compensation will be paid to the families of the men who lost their lives as a result of this incident?

I have looked into that. It is difficult to say what my hon. Friend's interpretation of "proper" is, but there will, of course, be awards made.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that confidential and secret documents of his Department have been left in office equipment sold to the public; whether he will hold an inquiry into the circumstance that documents relating to Russian trawlers equipment were left in filing cabinets sold to the public; and whether he will make a statement.

The facts are that three official documents—in each case a single sheet of paper—were left in the drawer of an Admiralty desk during a comprehensive series of office moves; the desk was later surrendered to the Ministry of Public Building and Works and sold by public auction.

Two of the documents, dating from 1959, were classified "Restricted", the lowest security grading. The information in the third document was classified "Secret" in 1959 but was down-graded to "Restricted" in 1960 and was subsequently published in "Janes" of that year.

Is it seriously suggested that this matter can be minimised because of the passage of events or because, at this moment, the documents are not secret, as they originally were? Does not this incident reveal that there are serious gaps in the security arrangements at the Admiralty? Instead of attempting to devalue the importance of these discoveries, would not the Minister do better to thank the Daily Sketch and Daily Mail journalists for, apparently, being able to do the job of security which the Admiralty is failing to do at present?

No, Sir; I was not seeking to minimise the offence. I concede that there was a mistake, and I am very sorry for it. We are trying to tighten up our procedure. The desk was searched. It appears from our first investigations that these papers must have been either stuck under the drawer or at the back of the drawers. The true facts are that these papers were not secret either when they were placed in the desk or when they were found, and all the material has been published.

Will the Minister confirm one way or another whether the documents related to the equipment upon Russian trawlers, as reported in the Press? At the least, if such documents are being left in desks, it must have a deplorable effect upon our relations with other Powers. Is it or is it not the fact that these documents contained detailed reports of the equipment upon Russian trawlers?