asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the number and names of British inspection vessels in the fishing waters of the North Sea; and what incidents have occurred there during the last month.

Her Majesty's ships of the Fishery Protection Squadron do not undertake continuous patrols of the North Sea but make frequent visits to fishing grounds. H.M.S. "Wotton" is at present in the area. No incidents have been reported.

Does the Under-Secretary agree that the British Fishery Protection vessels in the area are very much fewer in number than those of foreign countries and that this encourages foreign nations to encroach upon British fisheries? Will he see that the British Fishery Protection Squadron is kept up to date in the interest of British fishermen and also in the interest of the fish-eating public?

I am sorry that I cannot agree with the hon. and learned Member on the first two parts of his supplementary question. I am not aware that we are thinner on the ground than other nations, nor am I aware that as a result other nations are persuaded to fish in traditional British waters. We believe that the Fishery Protection Squadron provides adequate protection, and although we are now looking at the whole situation in the light of the Fishery Limits Bill, nevertheless we think that what we are doing is about right.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill increases the need to keep our Fishery Protection Squadron up to date, and will the hon. Gentleman see that it is kept up to date?

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now make a further statement on the working of the system of British inspection ships in the fishing waters near the Faroes, indicating how many and which of these ships are working there and what incidents have occurred.

I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply which I gave him on 22nd April last. H. M. ships of the Fishery Protection Squadron have continued to patrol the area. H. M. S. "Keppel", at present on patrol off the Faroes, has been on patrol since 9th July. The duties of these ships have remained as previously stated in my replies to the hon. and learned Member, and I am glad to report that there have been no incidents involving either H. M. ships or British trawlers.

Will the Under-Secretary agree that it is of the utmost importance to preserve harmony between the various fishing fleets using the relevant waters? Does he agree that if our fishery protection vessels are much smaller in number than those of other nations this encourages those of other nations to encroach upon British fishing grounds? Will he look at the matter also from that angle?

I must confess to a certain degree of confusion as a result of that supplementary question. I thought that this was a Question about the Faroes. As for the British Fishery Protection Squadron, I have nothing to add to the replies which I have previously given to the hon. and learned Member.

Have there been any complaints from the British Trawler Federation about the inadequacy of the protection?

No, Sir, not to my knowledge.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many additional fishery protection vessels will be needed when the Fishery Limits Bill comes into force.

I regret that at present I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 8th July.

Is there not here an occasion when the Royal Navy could increase the number of its fast patrol boats, especially M. G. B. s, and has my hon. Friend seen the letters in The Times from Peter Scott and the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) on this subject? Is there not here a great opportunity for the Navy to increase its Coastal Forces, which did so well during the last war?

I have seen those letters. As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice at the beginning of the month, these matters are under urgent consideration. We shall bear in mind the suggestion my hon. and gallant Friend has made, which has been made on a number of occasions previously.

Does the Minister agree with the argument in my letter to The Times to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and does he agree that the Fishery Limits Bill increases the obligation on Her Majesty's Government to see that our protection forces are kept at full strength?

From time to time there are things in The Times with which I do not entirely agree, and this, I fear, is one of them.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will continue to keep British troops in West Germany in view of her Government's decision not to make any financial or other contribution towards their upkeep.

The Federal German Government have made no decision of the sort to which the hon. Member refers.

Is not it generally understood that Western Germany has now decided not to pay for the upkeep of British forces in its territory? Is not it also the case that Western Germany is not purchasing any compensatory arms, which it promised to do, but is getting them from America instead? In view of that attitude, is it possible to defend spending £55 million of the British taxpayers' money on keeping an army in a country where it is not wanted?

Normally I am pressed by the Opposition to put more there. The answer, broadly, is "No, Sir; no such decision has been reached".

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about his recent talks with the West German Minister for Defence, Herr Uwe von Hassell, in connection with the costs of the British forces in Germany.

No, Sir; the talks were confidential.

Can the right hon. Gentleman at least assure us that they were a little more successful, even though confidential, than the previous talks which his predecessors, or representatives from the Treasury, had with their opposite numbers in Germany? Can he give the assurance that for this year at least we will get more than two-thirds of the cost, which is all we got from the Germans last year?

The talks were not even exclusively about costs. They covered the whole range of our defence and were in concert with the normal exchange of staff talks which go on with all our allies.

As the demand for doubling the British forces in Germany has come from behind the right hon. Gentleman today, can he say what the costs of doubling the Army of the Rhine would be?

I was not aware of any demand to double the size of our forces in Germany. It would be a very substantial capital cost of about £300 million with running costs of about £100 million, and it would involve conscription.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now reconsider his decision not to renew contracts for identity photographs in Southern Command with Mr. Lewis Jones of Glen View, 3 Innerbrook Road, Torquay.

No, Sir. The contracts were let as a result of competitive tendering in accordance with the normal procedures and were awarded to the lowest tenderer. On the last tendering, Mr. Jones, having held the contracts for the last two years, failed to gain the contracts on price grounds.

It may seem a small matter, but is not my hon. Friend aware—I think that he must be—that this individual has been a contracting photographer for the Army for 40 years without a break, that he is a disabled war pensioner from both world wars and this is his only livelihood? Further, is my hon. Friend aware that he has a long and excellent record of security to which the Army has paid tribute over and over again? Will my hon. Friend look at the matter again because, on the face of it, if considerations of saving public money are in Ministers' thoughts, he can take it that the National Assistance on which Mr. Jones now has to live far exceeds the difference on photograph tenders over a period of four or five years?

I have myself looked into this case with very great care on more than one occasion, as my hon. Friend knows, but, unfortunately, I am not given much latitude on contracts. The only latitude would be if Mr. Jones, as a disabled ex-Service man, were registered on the King's National Roll. Unfortunately, neither he nor any of his competitors are so registered.

In the circumstances, the only thing I can say, with some regret, is that I shall seek an early opportunity to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what memorial it is proposed to erect in Trafalgar Square to Admiral of the Fleet Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope.

We have decided, in principle, that a memorial to Admiral Cunningham should be erected. I am discussing with my right hon. and hon. Friends what form this would best take.

Would my hon. Friend bear in mind the claims of Trafalgar Square, where a memorial such as this would be infinitely preferable to one of a fairly undistinguished monarch sitting on a horse, looking as though he is riding a donkey, without boots, spurs or saddle?

We shall bear in mind the posibility of Trafalgar Square, but no final decision on this has yet been reached.

Will my hon. Friend be very unwilling to remove the most distinguished statue in London, the equestrian statue of Charles I by Lesueur in Trafalgar Square?

I am getting into very deep water for a Navy Minister.

asked the Secretary of Defence what instructions have been issued to the Admiralty Library with regard to the book "The Fleet that Faced Both Ways", by Anthony Heck-stall Smith.

None, Sir.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Admiralty Library, on the publication of this book last autumn, refused to buy a single copy, and will he, therefore, look into the matter again? Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that this is a serious work of naval history, and is he aware that the author was refused permission to read signals by the Admiralty but obtained it immediately and readily from another source? Could it be, perhaps, that there has been some pique on the part of the Admiralty, or is it considered that officers and ratings are not capable of judging reading matter for themselves?

I said in my Answer that we have given no instructions to the Library about this book. Copies have been purchased for the Admiralty Library, another copy for the Royal Naval Staff College at Greenwich, and another for the education centre at Singapore. The question of classified information is an entirely different matter. To answer the Question on the Order Paper, no instructions have been given to the Library.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the whole political future of the Liberal Party depends on the delicate art of facing both ways and give this suggestion such consideration as it is worth?

The future of the Liberal Party is not to be found in the Admiralty Library.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the future of the Royal Air Force station at Finningley, Yorkshire.

The Royal Air Force will need to retain Finningley as an active flying station for as far ahead as I can see.

Does that mean that there is no question of the Royal Air Force giving up this base within the near future? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been some hope of Finningley being transformed into a Yorkshire civil airport?

No, Sir; there is no chance of our giving up this airfield in the foreseeable future.

As Finningley is in my constituency, may I say that I welcome the Minister's answer?

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Air Force stations have been closed in the last three years; how many are expected to close in the present year; and what has been the estimated financial saving.

In the period 1961–63 inclusive, 53 Royal Air Force stations have been closed, representing a total saving of £10 million a year. In addition, the sale of land and buildings has so far realised the sum of £4·25 million. During this year, a total of 14 stations will be closed, producing an estimated saving of £4 million. These closures have already been announced locally.

I am most grateful for that reply, but will my right hon. Friend agree that, before further closures, he should consider carefully the advisability or possibility of a partnership in use with civil aviation, since this would have the effect of more usefully operating some airfields and also, perhaps, proving a financial contribution towards the cost of upkeep while at the same time adding to our much needed civil air travel facilities?

If my hon. Friend will write to me, I shall be very happy to answer him. It is a very complicated point. The cost of keeping these stations open is very great, and it could not fall normally on the Defence Vote.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is being done in the Royal Air Force to ensure the most economic use of skilled technical tradesmen.

I have this very much in mind. Special units study all current and new equipments introduced to evolve the easiest and most economical methods of maintaining them. The new trade structure introduced this year is giving technical tradesmen broader trade knowledge and experience so that they can be employed more flexibly. As a result, there has been a saving in the variety of training courses needed and of key manpower.

In view of the growing complexity of modern aircraft, is it not possible for more repairs to be done centrally, say, for the V-bomber force or other commands?

Yes, Sir: we are doing this in quite a big way. The major servicing of the V-bombers, for instance, has been centralised, and this means quite a large saving running into many thousands of pounds. We are pursuing this policy as far as we can.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when it is proposed to replace the Varsity as the Royal Air Force's main navigation trainer.

The Dominie, previously known as the DH 125, will succeed the Varsity as the Royal Air Force's main advanced navigation trainer. Deliveries will begin in the middle of next year and be completed early in 1966.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the part the Royal Air Force has played since the beginning of the operations in Borneo.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the part played by the Royal Air Force in the military operations that have taken place in Borneo up till the present.

Up to the end of June. Royal Air Force transport aircraft had carried between Singapore and Borneo more than 32,000 men and 2,700 tons of stores as well as many helicopters, light aircraft and more than 350 vehicles and trailers. In the forward areas helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft have given continuous and indeed life giving support to our troops by the transport of men and supplies. The Royal Air Force has also provided fighter protection over Borneo and maritime reconnaissance along the coasts. I feel sure that the House will wish to join me in paying tribute to the high degree of competence and efficiency displayed by all ranks in conditions which are often of testing difficulty.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the Press has every facility for publicising adequately the fine record of the Royal Air Force? Would he agree that very great credit is due to the men who work under these very difficult climatic conditions to keep the aircraft serviceable as well as to those who fly them in danger with great courage, skill and tenacity of purpose?

I want to do everything I can about Press facilities. If journalists fly out from here, I will see that they are given the full facilities of Transport Command. Secondly, I fully agree with my hon. Friend that the task of maintaining aircraft in these extreme conditions of heat is a formidable one which has been carried out with great cheerfulness by all ranks.

While I agree about the admirable devotion and efficiency of the Royal Air Force under difficult conditions, may I ask whether it is not the case that it has been grievously handicapped by the lack of helicopters? Is it not the Government's fault that operational requirements were not made for helicopters years ago when this deficiency could easily have been foreseen?

With respect, I think that this can be greatly exaggerated. Every mission asked for has been carried out either by the Royal Air Force or by the Royal Navy. As the hon. Gentleman must know, by the end of this year the size of our tactical lift force will almost have been doubled. Of course, there is always a demand for helicopters. It is natural that one should ride rather than walk and fly rather than ride, but at the same time I believe that by the better utilisation of these aircraft we are meeting all the military demands from the ground.

If journalists are being flown out by Transport Command to see the operations in Borneo, can Members of Parliament also get passages?

Yes. I think there is a group of Parliamentarians going out; but certainly I will ask my right hon. Friend about this. I am sure that it could be arranged.

While wishing to associate the whole Opposition with the tributes paid both to the maintenance staff and flying staff of the Royal Air Force in Borneo, I should like to press the right hon. Gentleman on the question of Air Force Wessexes. Is there any plan for increasing the number of these in Borneo, because it seems to be the agreed view of all the Army personnel involved that they could do with a substantial increase?

I could not go into detail, but we have made a considerable increase. A considerable number of Scout helicopters is going out to relieve the heavier tactical lift stuff from doing what is really a reconnaissance and officer-carrying rôle. I am sure that the key answer to this is the better utilisation of what we have. We are improving the means of contact—perhaps the hon. Gentleman saw this when he was out there—between remote patrols and the helicopters. This saves an enormous amount of time. Helicopters can go straight down instead of wasting time flying over impenetrable jungle.

On a point of order. Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is also answering Question No. 65?

No.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent the Royal Navy and Coastal Command, Royal Air Force, are able to fulfil present North Atlantic Treaty Organisation commitments in case of emergency without the withdrawal of ships and aircraft now operating east of Suez.

We can fulfil our commitments world-wide, and have, I think, demonstrated this in recent months. I prefer not to enlarge on our dispositions for doing so.

Does my right hon. Friend recollect that seven years ago two British retiring commanders-in-chief in the East Atlantic declared that they had insufficient forces to carry out their N. A. T. O. duties? Is it not time that we had a readjustment of our commitments to N. A. T. O. with slightly more emphasis on the maritime side?

Whatever they may have declared seven years ago, the Commander-in-Chief Far East is not declaring that today. I think that we have demonstrated to the world our ability to fulfil our commitments.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many aircraft carriers are in commission this side of Suez?

No. I would not declare where our carriers are.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will now give an assessment of the results of the operation so far of the long-distance weather forecasts; and if he will make a statement;

The standard of accuracy of the 30-day weather forecasts published since 1st December, 1963, has been in line with my prediction to the House on 13th November, 1963. Nine out of 13 forecasts have been in close or moderate agreement with the weather actually experienced, and four have shown little agreement. None, however, has been wholly misleading. There are 2,800 subscribers to this new service, including some 590 business firms, 338 schools, 92 local authorities and 61 public utilities.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the laughter on the benches opposite, it has been a useful exercise to get these 30-day forecasts started? Is not the amount of information sent out on the charts in connection with these 30-day forecasts of considerable value and interest? Would he say whether the public utilities which are among the 2,800 subscribers have found this useful?

I thank my hon. Friend for his proper praise of this worthy endeavour. I am sure that it has been right to do this. Now that we have 2,800 subscribers, we propose in the next few weeks to ask them for their views on how useful this service has proved. When I have that information, I shall be very pleased to make a statement to the House.

In view of my right hon. Friend's good forecasting, will he look further ahead and tell us what the weather, political and otherwise, will be like in October.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied with the recruiting figures for Cranwell; and if he will make a statement.

Recruiting for Cranwell is highly satisfactory. Applications for cadetships have increased steadily over the last three years and there has been no difficulty in filling available places with candidates of high quality.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that that reply will give great satisfaction to the House? Will he congratulate the recruiting department in his Ministry on the advertisements which no doubt have played a big part in this response?

Yes, Sir. I think it is also true that the reason that young men want to go into the Air Force is because it offers them a fine career. This comes perhaps from the aircraft and the chances which we are now able to offer in the Royal Air Force.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make arrangements for Royal Navy and Royal Air Force air stations, listed in the Air Pilot, other than military aerodromes engaged in special work, to be made available for the use of private and club aircraft at weekends.

I regret that I am unable to extend the current arrangements for the use of service airfields by private civil aircraft.

Does everybody in the Royal Air Force go on leave at weekends? Is my right hon. Friend telling us that he has no Royal Air Force duty officers capable of aiming a red or green Aldis lamp at an incoming aircraft? Is he saying that he has no fire parties capable of going on the runway in case of need? Will he be slightly more imaginative and helpful? Will he look at this matter again?

Every station commander must be responsible for the safety of aircraft landing on his field, and that means that full and due precautions must be taken and retaining over the weekend men whom I should like otherwise to send on leave. I am always ready to look at the question of specific airfields, but I must warn my hon. and gallant Friend that what he is proposing would be a large expense on the Defence Vote, which is already strained.

Does not my right hon. Friend make allowance for a fire in a hangar at weekends, and cannot the same men who would put out such a fire go on the runway in case of necessity?

No. They have to be available for various duties on the airfield, and they must not be distracted from those duties.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is aware that the hand-out issued by the public relations officer, on behalf of Headquarters 43rd Wessex Division/District, Sherford Camp, Taunton, relating to Plymouth Army Week, a copy of which has been sent to him by the hon. Member for North Devon, has caused concern to many people who are opposed to racial prejudice of any sort; and what steps he will take to ensure that this type of propaganda is not repeated.

I regret the expression used, which I can see might cause offence. In the context it was certainly not meant as propaganda.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, which will do much to correct an unfortunate impression. May I ask him whether any indication has been given which will prevent this sort of thing occurring again?

I am sure that this is not the sort of thing which will normally occur. I have not seen fit to take action beyond answering the hon. Gentleman, because it is widely accepted that the conduct of all ranks towards foreigners is invariably correct and, indeed, praiseworthy. I think that actions speak a great deal louder than words.

Does not my right hon. Friend think that this exercise was an extremely good one? In fact, among the "enemy" were a great many people ' from overseas. No offence was taken locally. This arose only because of propaganda outside the area.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in the integration of the three Services; and if he will make a statement.

Our purpose is not to integrate the Services but the work of the Ministry which serves them. I made a progress report on this in the debate on the Estimates Committee Report on 6th May. This work is proceeding.

Would the Secretary of State not agree that it was expected that this co-ordination would eliminate wasteful competition and duplication of offices, and, indeed, other inequities in the Services, and stimulate management in the direction of economy and save the taxpayer some money? Can he say whether we have made any progress in those particular directions?

Yes, very substantial progress in all of them; but as there is a Question on numbers later I think I will wait to give the answer then.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what recent approaches he has had for Her Majesty's Government to declare themselves in favour of the United States plan for mixed-manned nuclear force; by whom they were made; and whether he will make a statement.

None, Sir.

Can we take it that none of the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who have put a Motion down on the Paper in favour of this has had the courtesy to make an approach to the right hon. Gentleman and discuss it with him? Is this not a terrible way for back benchers on the other side of the House to behave?

No. I am not referring to what is said or not said in this House, but I have had no representation from outside this House on the matter.

That was not the question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us on this side of the House who regard his current proposals as at least preferable to the official American proposals are shocked that so many of his hon. and right hon. Friends should stab him in the back? Can he tell us whether he has yet persuaded the Chief Patronage Secretary to allow those Members of the Government Party who support the Secretary of State for Defence on this matter to express their views in a Motion on the Paper?

I think that this whole subject is a very—[HON. MEMBERS: "Embarrassing."] No, grave. I think this is a grave and important issue, and I think this raises very large issues not only of defence policy but of foreign policy, too. What I would say is that I do not think that any British Government are going to be rushed into a decision over this subject, which requires very careful examination, and it is receiving that examination.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the experiments with the mixed-manned force at sea have actually started, or, if not, when they will be started?

The men are being assembled now; it has just started.

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will make no statement with regard to plans for a mixed-manned force till the current trials have been concluded?

It depends on what I am asked to say in the House of Commons. Naturally, I shall try to answer hon. Members on either side of the House who ask me Questions, but I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that there is going to be no rushed decision by the Government on an issue of this gravity.

The Secretary of State said in reply to my Question that he had received no approaches. Then he said that it is a serious matter which ought to be discussed and ought to be considered. Can he say whether he has or has not received any approaches from his hon. and right hon. Friends who put the Motion on the Paper, as was asked in the Question? I ask: "Has there been any approach from any quarter?"

I have seen the Motion on the Paper.

But has there been any approach?

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now make a statement on the proposals he has submitted to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Study Group for a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation multilateral nuclear force.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made on the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation working group on the multilateral force in Paris; what was the result of Britain's proposal to extend the multilateral concept to tactical weapons systems; and whether he will make a statement.

I would refer to the reply which I gave on 2nd July to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Critchley). Our ideas have now been presented to the Paris Working Group by the British Permanent Representative to N. A. T. O., assisted by military experts from the Ministry of Defence, led by an Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff. The Working Group agreed, subject to confirmation by one or two members, that our ideas merited further serious consideration. They will therefore now be examined in detail. I wish to emphasise that Her Majesty's Government is in no way committed to participation in a mixed-manned multilateral force of any kind.

I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman prefers to explore the possibility of controlling existing weapons rather than to set up an entirely new force at very high cost and with dangerous political purposes. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Cabinet is now united on these proposals? He will remember that when he last adumbrated them in December they were rejected within 24 hours by a Foreign. Office spokesman. On the question of the mixed-manned test ship, would he not agree that it is highly desirable that the forces serving on this ship should receive the same pay and allowances? Are not people working together in very close quarters like this liable to be under a very serious psychological strain if, as now, there are large gaps between the conditions under which they serve?

The Cabinet is united on this as on all other matters. I have no doubt that one of the purposes of the experiments in mixed-manning is to throw up this type of problem.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that if his scheme is to be well received by our allies it must not be thought of as a substitute for a share in the seaborne forces but only as an extension of it?

My hon. Friend talks about an extension, but no one has agreed at the moment to set up any such forces of any kind. I want to make that absolutely clear. What is being studied here, on exactly equal terms to the seaborne force, is the suggestion of using existing weapons rather than making a massive investment in new weapons. This is being discussed not as a substitute or alternative but in parallel with the other suggestion on exactly the same terms.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the total cost to Great Britain of setting up a mixed-manned nuclear fleet, and of the annual cost thereafter.

No such estimate is at present possible. It has not yet been decided whether or not a mixed-manned nuclear fleet should be created or, if sc, what size it might be. In any case, Britain remains wholly uncommitted to joining a multilateral force. The estimated capital and recurrent cost would, of course, be important factors of which full account would be taken by the Government in deciding whether or not to join and, if so, what size a British contribution might be.

Does not the Minister think it worth taking seriously the constant Russian warnings that if the M. L. F. is set up it will end the hopes of a peaceful East-West settlement?

I have already indicated that the whole subject deserves to be taken very seriously indeed.

Are not these comments superfluous, coming from a party which intends to abandon nuclear power? In view of the latest Republican platform which has been published, is not the Labour Party's defence policy to abandon the deterrent even more absurdly dangerous?

Order. We are going far from the Question.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what defence aircraft have been ordered from firms in the United States; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what military aircraft he has ordered so far from the United States.

None, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current total value of orders for military, naval and air force supplies and equipment from firms in the United States and the total value of current commitments.

In 1963–64 about £9½ million was spent in the United States out of estimated total defence budget expenditure on production and research of £728 million. At 1st April, 1964, the value of outstanding orders, mostly Polaris missiles, with American firms was just over £50 million, spread over the next four years.

Why cannot these orders be placed with firms in the United Kingdom?

It is a pretty small percentage, £9½ million out of £728 million. Anything less would mean almost cutting trade off completely.

If in future any orders are placed in the United States, would my right hon. Friend undertake to see that there is a quid pro quo and that in return the United States will undertake to order equipment here?

My hon. Friend is quite right. These are important considerations. In so far as possible, one wants to try to exchange orders of this kind, so that all of us share in the manufacture of the weapons required by the West as a whole.

While strongly supporting the right hon. Gentleman on the latter point, may I ask him whether he can tell us what happened to the order announced to the House for Phantom aircraft for the Royal Navy? Can he say whether there is any truth in the rumour mat the McDonnell Company are threatening not to go ahead with the order unless it is placed in the next four months?

No truth whatever, but I hope it will be placed well before then. I am asked here what orders have been placed. The placing of an order is a formal act in the process of production. This has not taken place at the present stage, but I have every hope that it will.

Bearing in mind that it is probably of very dubious economic value to modernise Phantom aircraft to take Rolls-Royce engines and to be able to operate from British carriers, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this order and consider again the idea of giving orders to the British aircraft industry, particularly bearing in mind that he has been supplied with various designs from Hawker Siddeley for the very same purpose?

I do not find that supplementary question at all complimentary to one of the greatest aero-engine firms in the world.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence, in view of the continued complaints he has had from the public and authorities in Brecon and Radnor about low-flying aircraft, what action has been taken against pilots who ignore instructions against this undesirable practice.

I understand the hon. Member's difficulties, but there is no evidence that Royal Air Force pilots are disobeying instructions.

Will the right hon. Gentleman examine this again, because I can give evidence now of how Members of Parliament on a delegation to a forest in my constituency—three from this side of the House and two from the other side—saw low-flying aircraft in my constituency? Surely that is evidence enough, apart from the details I have given the right hon. Gentleman? Each time I send information to the Minister he finds another excuse for getting out of it.

I will certainly look at this multiplicity of evidence again, but the point is that low flying is part of the Royal Air Force training programme, and inevitably so.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what improvement there has been this year in the Service Departments in the percentage of industrial juveniles under 18 years of age attending day release classes.

About 8 per cent. more juvenile industrials are attending day release classes.

To put the question better, under the new dispensation will the Minister really take this seriously and at least do as well as the nationalised industries do?

We do take it very seriously, but we do have difficulties about the places in which these industrials are employed which the nationalised industries, quite often, do not have.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence by what date he expects the extra staff, appointed to effect reductions in staff, to show results.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence why the number of senior officers and their supporting staff in the present Ministry of Defence has increased when compared with the numbers employed in the separate Services before amalgamation.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how the strength of his Department on 1st April, 1965, is expected to compare with that on 1st April, 1964, at Headquarters and, as regards non-industrial civilian staff, at out-stations.

The number of staff in my Ministry will be less on 1st April, 1965, than they were when it was inaugurated on 1st April, 1964. This reduction is being achieved in spite of substantial new commitments, an increased burden on operational staff and continuing work on major schemes of reorganisation. A sizeable reduction in non-industrial civilian staff at out-stations is also being achieved. It is almost impossible to centralise any large organisation without some increase in senior staff.

Did not the Select Committee on Estimates draw attention to a substantial increase of very senior staffs? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there has not been empire building at the top, as often happens in these circumstances?

I am, as always, extremely grateful to the Estimates Committee of this House. I find its reports very helpful. I think any Minister does who is trying to economise in staff, but I would point out that it examined my headquarters within weeks or months of its being formed, and I have since then been able to take certain action which ensures that Professor Parkinson is removed from the establishment.

In one part of his Answer the Secretary of State said it would be less in May, 1965, and in another part that a reduction would be substantial. That does not convey anything to us unless we have the figures. First of all, would he give them to us? Secondly, does he not realise that if the ending of the oldest demarcation dispute in the world only means very slight savings it is not a very good thing to put out to the trade unions what demarcation disputes in industry really cost?

There will be a reduction of about 300 in the headquarters staff. This is despite a very substantial increase of staff coming in for work on Polaris and the like. There is also a reduction of about 800 or 1,000 on out stations. Considering the amount of work on reorganisation, the very heavy burden of operations at the present time and the fact that we are just getting going with the Polaris programme, this is a creditable start on these affairs.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the information which he has just given the House will be received with considerable satisfaction, particularly as this has happened within a few months of the integration of the three Services? Will he keep up the good work?

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend.

We are all happy that it is expected that the numbers of staff will be less next April than last April, but will the right hon. Gentleman' say whether the number of staff next April will be smaller than the number of separate staffs doing the same job before the new Ministry was created, which is the real issue at stake?

Yes, Sir. I am starting from the point where there was the sum total of all the staffs brought together from the old Ministry of Defence and the three Service Ministries, and there will be a cut in that.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has to scrap the Government's stock of Mark I Bloodhound missiles; what was the total cost of production of that stock, including research and development; and what were the dates between which these missiles were manufactured.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the decision to withdraw the Bloodhound I missiles from British air defences and on the proposed deployment of Bloodhound II missiles; and what is the estimated cost of procurement of the Bloodhound II missiles.

Bloodhound Mark I has been withdrawn from service because it has fulfilled its purpose. Some parts of the missiles and some of the associated equipment will continue to be of use to us; apart from minor sales the rest are being scrapped. Research and development expenditure on Bloodhound I and its launching system began in 1949 and totalled £32 million. The production cost of the R.A. F.'s Bloodhound I missiles was £23 million; these operational missiles were manufactured between 1958 and 1962. A proportion of the expenditure on Bloodhound I has, of course, contributed to the development of Bloodhound II which is already coming into service and will be deployed primarily for the defence of our bases and squadrons overseas.

The House will surely be disturbed by the facts which the right hon. Gentleman has just given us, particularly in the light of the unhappy history of the contract. Can he tell us how many years—perhaps he had better tell us in months—Bloodhound I has been in squadron service? Is it true, as widely reported, that Bloodhound was found to be vulnerable to switch jamming even before it was first made operational?

I do not think that anybody will be disturbed by an announcement of facts already known to most Members. Bloodhound I came into service in 1958. It was the first weapon of its generation and it has been remarkably successful. Bloodhound II will be an even better weapon.

Can the right hon. Gentleman clear up a question about whether there were any technical defects in Bloodhound I? Can he give us an assurance that Bloodhound II will be able to deal with attacks, even if electronic counter-measures are used by the attacking planes? It has been reported that Bloodhound I could not deal with switch jamming.

One does not want to believe everything said about British missiles, but I can say that we learned a tremendous lot, as is inevitable and right, from the development of Bloodhound I and a great deal of that has been incorporated in Bloodhound II.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the important feature about modern weapons is that their success lies in their never being used except as a deterrent?

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what additional sums have now been included in the cost of defence for 1963.

None, Sir.

Has it not been widely reported that the costs have increased by £128 million? Is this report true? If it is, can the right hon. Gentleman explain this additional cost?

It has not been reported to me. The right hon. Gentleman may have in mind some associated costs which were referred to by the Chief Secretary, but these were not presented this year, nor last year, and nor will they be presented next year, as part of the defence budget, although for convenience they may be mentioned in the White Paper.

Can the right hon. Gentleman translate that for me? Does that mean that there are to be additional costs of £128 million which are associated with our defence costs? Is it true or untrue?

In a way, the whole of our industrial effort is associated in some way or another with our defence costs.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what proportion of the gross national product is now spent on defence and what was the figure in 1951?

It is now about 7 per cent. and there was a time under right hon. Gentlemen opposite when it was higher.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state the value of all military weapons and munitions sold to Egypt in each year since 1951.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish a White Paper stating the names of those countries not associated with the Commonwealth who have made applications for the purchase of arms from the United Kingdom since 1952, and details of the weapons, vessels and other munitions required.

No, Sir. It is not the practice to disclose details of Defence equipment supplied to other countries.

Leaving aside the premature disclosure which came about in the other matter, will the right hon. Gentleman look at the matter afresh, because in 1956 exactly these figures were published by the Ministry of Defence which the right hon. Gentleman says are not now publishable? Will he look at the matter again?

I am always willing to look at anything the hon. Gentleman asks me to, naturally, but nothing that happened then or has happened recently disposes me to alter the Answer to this Question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my Question does not ask for details about arms which have been supplied? All that I am asking him to do is to tell the House what applications have been received. If he is ready to do that, will be give the details of the application received from the Spanish Government?

My Answer applies both to applications and to sales.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that nothing that we did to Egypt stopped her from having frigates repaired and converted in the Portsmouth area, whereas what the Opposition have done with Franco has lost thousands of £s of orders to my constituency?

Leaving aside for the moment the fact that the information provided by the Admiralty spokesman was incorrect, did not the Prime Minister say yesterday that he had been authorised to give details of such a contract if the time arose? How can he square that with the statement that he has just made that it is not the custom to give such details?

It is always courteous to give details of something which is announced from outside.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in overcoming the structural difficulties which have arisen in connection with the nuclear propulsion machinery for H. M. S. "Valiant".

Good progress has been made and work is proceeding to meet the revised completion date.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements are made for the transfer of naval air artificers to the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers.

Applications were recently invited from aircraft artificers who would have completed at least 20 years of their 22 year engagements on 1st May, 1964, and who wished to be considered for a free discharge from the Royal Navy in order to join the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers Branch in the Army. Eligible applications are being considered by the Army authorities.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if an aircraft artificer transfers to the R.M.E. he will in a short time become a warrant officer and go on pension with a larger terminal grant and pension than if he stayed in the Navy and became a chief air artificer, first class? Does not the hon. Gentleman think that this demonstrates the anomalies which exist and that we ought again to look at this question of a master rate for the lower deck?

The introduction of a master rate into the Royal Navy is a matter which has pretty wide implications, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows. I have looked into the allegation made in the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, and I am advised that that is not so. The position is comparable, although in some respects some of these artificers may have a slightly higher rate in trade pay and in charge pay.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the total cost of the proposed Polaris submarine fleet and its nuclear missiles, and of its annual cost of upkeep.

About £400 million capital and about £25 million operating.

Would not this money be far better spent from the British point of view and from the peace point of view if it were spent on housing, pensions, health and helping the hungry nations? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House of one circumstance in which a Polaris missile could be used against Russia without our country being wiped out in retaliation?

If the hon. Gentleman reads the Answer, he will see that for a modest insurance of £25 million operating costs in the 'seventies, when the capital has been paid, we can have this deterrent under our own control. I would have thought that this was the cheapest investment that we had ever made.

Can my right hon. Friend say what would be the approximate cost of cancelling the Polaris programme at this stage, and what other weapon could take its place?

No, Sir. I would not like to give such a figure, though it would be substantial; but the losses to this country would be in more than money.

Can my right hon. Friend say how many men would be unemployed in this country if the Opposition proposals for defence were accepted?

asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether he will make a statement on the premature disclosure of information about the discussions with Her Majesty's Government regarding the Spanish Government's intention to build "Leander" class frigates under licence;

The fact that negotiations had been going on with the Spanish Government had been known fairly widely both here and abroad for a number of months. On 8th June the Directorate of Public Relations of my Department was approached by a member of the Press who stated that on information he had received from abroad he had knowledge of these negotiations and was told that it was our intention that these frigates should be built under licence in Spain. In fact the negotiations had not at that time been concluded and as the House already knows subsequent events frustrated them.

Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to look at the Prime Minister's reply yesterday, when he informed the House, or he suggested, that the right hon. Gentleman's Department was misled by a journalist putting a probing question which prompted an official to give information which he ought not to have done? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has today been a little more forthcoming, but has not told the whole truth? Is it not a fact that Mr. Chapman Pincher went to his Department, gave information as to what he had heard, and was told that reference would have to be made to a senior official? Chapman Pincher returned several hours later and was then informed that negotiations had been concluded—the actual words are quoted by him. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the record in the Press section of the Admiralty showed that as long ago as 15th May there was a manuscript note which dealt with this as a purely routine matter? Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell the House why when he found out—whether it was a trick or not—that the information given was incorrect he did not then—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has the House no protection against a lengthy question like this?

The House knows that I emphasise always, as far as I can, the need to keep supplementary questions as short as can be.

Mr. Speaker, in giving that reply, you doubtless took into account the fact that I have put down two Questions which have been rolled into one?

With respect, that is not a good point, because a supplementary question arises from one Answer.

Whatever that may be, it knocks my bails off, but it does not alter the fact that although I pressed the right hon. Gentleman's Department time and again to confirm whether there had been a retraction or not, it took him until 10th May to write to me to say that no such retraction was issued. If the right hon. Gentleman's story is as it is now, why did he not come clean nearly three weeks ago?

I have no complaint to make about anybody—certainly not the journalist concerned. He published a perfectly accurate report of what happened this morning. What I cannot understand is the hon. Member. He seems to have got the idea that I leaked this deliberately in the certain knowledge that the Leader of the Opposition would step into it thigh deep. This is an astonishing reflection on the Leader of the Opposition, and I must rise to his defence.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what approaches have been made to him by hon. Members opposite in favour of going ahead with the sale of frigates to Spain—those hon. Members who have received hospitality from the Spanish Government during the past year?

Will the Minister tell us why his Department first put out a false statement about this contract and then failed to deny it? This is the essence of the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg)—[Interruption.] It is easy for the right hon. Gentleman to give smart alec answers, but this is a simple question. Why was a false statement put out and then not corrected?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has explained the circumstances in which this statement was made. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman wants to get his right hon. Friend out of a mess.[Interruption.] Subsequently it was stated that this contract had not been signed, but the idea that this was deliberate presupposes a degree of stupidity on the part of the Leader of the Opposition which even I think is unfair.

Can my right hon. Friend clarify one other point? I thought the whole point of view of the Opposition was that they disapproved of this deal and wanted to stop it—[HON. MEMBERS: Question."] Is the attitude of the Opposition such that no one took any notice of what the Leader of the Opposition said, or do they still disapprove of the deal?

It is no part of the duty of the Secretary of State for Defence to describe the attitude of the Opposition.

In his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), the right hon. Gentleman said that the negotiations were widely known. As I knew nothing about these negotiations, despite the right hon. Gentleman's statement, will he be good enough, in order to elucidate the facts, to make the details of the negotiations known to the House, either by the submission of a White Paper or by circulating a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

No, Sir. I am anxious that these negotiations may at some stage be resumed and perhaps satisfactorily concluded. They were widely known, because negotiations of this kind cannot be conducted without the knowledge of a wide range of industry which might be concerned about them and a wide range of diplomatic circles. Negotiations of this kind are nearly always widely known. There was no reason why they should not be. It was only when they came to the notice of the Leader of the Opposition and he put both feet into it that things got bad.

Is it not extraordinary—indeed hypocritical—on the part of the Opposition to deplore the leak when they have shown themselves determined to try to wreck the deal?