asked the Secretary of State for Defence if, in view of the overcrowded living conditions in many of Her Majesty's ships and the cumbersome design and inadequate performance of the air-conditioning equipment therein, he will make representations to the manufacturers of such equipment in the hope that they may develop a more efficient and compact air-conditioning unit.

I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the equipment in our oldest ships, where only D.C. supply is available. In these there are limits to the improvements which are practicable. All our newer ships, and virtually all our ships east of Suez or liable to go there, are fitted with efficient and compact equipment.

While that Answer seems very satisfactory so far as it goes, when my hon. Friend says that "virtually all our ships" which go east of Suez are equipped with the modern equipment, does he mean that none of the older ships are normally sent to tropical waters at all?

No, not none. I say virtually all. I had a particular check made when I was in the Far East. Now and again there are exceptions, like "Ark Royal", when we simply cannot do it. But virtually all our ships are properly air-conditioned when they go east of Suez.

Can the Minister say whether the very high rate of tuberculosis in the service has been reduced?

Perhaps the hon. Member would put a Question down about that.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the case, of which I have sent details to his Department, arising from a letter which I received from parents in my constituency? They have been caused great concern and anxiety because of the intolerable conditions which their lad is experiencing in the ship to which he has been posted? They are now endeavouring to buy him out.

I cannot recall this case, but, of course, I shall look into it.

Would not the Minister agree that a continuation and extension of the work of the Royal Naval personnel research unit with air-conditioning and habitability problems would be of value?

I cannot agree that our existing equipment is in an way inefficient or unsuitable. The vast majority of it is extremely good. It is simply the equipment for those oldest ships which can provide only D.C. current. It is not practicable to design and manufacture new equipment for D.C. current.

Does the Minister realise that living conditions in ships and warships are inevitably overcrowded, and that, whether or not these ships are air-conditioned, there still exists the need for the sea-going allowance which he and I have previously discussed?

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how he proposes to apportion the cost of clearing oil from the English Channel on 28th March, 1965.

In the exceptional circumstances, and without prejudice to future cases, the cost will be borne by Navy Votes. Since the subject has been raised, I am sure the House would wish to acknowledge the promptness and efficiency of the Royal Navy in dealing with this occurrence.

Will my hon. Friend, on behalf of all Members, convey the thanks of the House to the Navy, not only for the expeditious way in which the operation was conducted, but because of the fact that so many men gave up leave to carry out this operation? Are we to understand that the taxpayer is involved to the extent of many thousands of pounds? Is he not aware that the ships involved in the collision were insured? Surely, insurance ought to have covered the cost, and not the taxpayers' money.

The cost of the operation was £8,618. We have had a look at the possibility of a claim, but we are advised that one does not lie.

Will the Minister accept that we on this side of the House would like to be associated with that tribute to the Royal Navy, and will he accept our congratulations on what must be a noteworthy victory over the Treasury?

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the number of commissioned officers, non-commissioned officers and other ranks in the Territorial Army at the latest convenient date.

On 31st December, 1964 there were 9,001 officers, 37,950 warrant officers and non-commissioned officers and 62,222 private soldiers in the Territorial Army.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that the cost of these men in the last year was £35 million? Does he not think, in the light of that fact, that a review of the Territorial Army ought to move a little more quickly? Can he say whether the ratio of officers to men in the Territorial Army is as high as, or higher than, that of the Regular Army?

I am fully aware of the cost of the Territorial Army. My right hon. Friend and I have said in the debates which we have had this year that the defence review of the whole of the commitments of the Defence Services is proceeding, and the Territorial Army will in due course be dealt with as part of that defence review. There is a higher ratio of officers to men, but to a certain extent the Territorial Army is on a peacetime cadre on which its war-time strength would be based, and this necessitates a higher ratio of officers and senior N.C.O.s.

Does the Minister want more recruits for the Territorial Army? If he does, will he consider asking his right hon. Friend occasionally to say a kind word about the valuable contribution which the Reserve Forces make?

Neither the Territorial Army nor the T.A.E.R. are at present up to the permitted recruiting strength, but I understand that at present recruits are still coming in at quite an acceptable rate and that under present plans there is a need for them in the rôle which they have to fill. I have spoken from the Box on the subject, and my right hon. Friend and I in visiting T.A. units since October have been very pleased to see the high standard of spirit and of training which they have and the keenness of all the men involved.

Will the Minister bear in mind that the delay in reaching a decision and the rumours put out in the Press are having a very damaging effect on recruiting in the Territorial Army? Before he reaches his decision, whatever it is, will he bear in mind the important part which the Territorial Army plays both in reinforcing the Regular Army and in taking its share of civil defence, as well as in aiding recruiting for the Regular Army?

My right hon. Friend has no responsibility for the rumours which appear in the Press. There have been so many that soon there will be no other permutations on which correspondents will be able to base their articles. As for the defence review, no decisions have yet been taken in respect of the Territorial Army. They will be announced in due course and we have given a pledge to consult officers of the Council of Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations in due course.

Does the Minister agree that despite the criticisms which are made about the Territorial Army, the money spent on the Territorial Army in the past has brought one of the best returns in Service expenditure?

As far as its present rôle is concerned, I do not think that anyone on the Treasury Bench has any criticism of the Territorial Army. What we are looking at is the rôle of all our defence forces, including the Territorial Army.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy with regard to the reorganisation of the Territorial Army.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what investigations are being conducted into the rôle and cost of the Territorial Army.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now make a further statement about the future of the Territorial Army.

I am not yet able to add to the statement made in the debate on the Army Estimates by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. The rôle of the Territorial Army forms part of the current defence review and the question of its organisation must be linked with this.

Has the right hon. Gentleman noted the alarm of all ranks, especially on Merseyside—always quite a good recruiting area—caused by newspaper articles saying that the Government intend to abolish the Territorial Army? Since the Territorial Army expects a change of rôle and organisation, will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is the ideal body for raising a reserve force of disciplined men, for which there will always be a need?

As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said, we are concerned that this delay must cause concern to keen Territorial soldiers, but it is inevitable that in such a review there will be speculation in the Press, for which I and my Department have no responsibility. We shall hope to carry the Territorial Council and the Associations with us in any reorganisation that becomes necessary as a result of the review.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, while in no way denigrating the work that the Territorial Army might have done, or is doing, if the review reveals that our economic pace cannot sustain the Territorial Army at its existing level he will not hesitate to prune it drastically?

I hope not.

I think that my hon. Friend can be satisfied that the outcome of the defence review will be such as to relate our military needs with our practicable expenditure.

With all this talk of reviews, is it the Labour Government's policy to carry out the Army order, "Advance in review order. By the left—slow march"?

Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that much of the alarm caused by this review stems from suspicion that Ministers are more interested in making some financial gesture rather than in the strength and health of the reserve forces themselves? Will he make a separate statement about the future of the Territorial Army before the Summer Recess?

I cannot give any undertaking as to date. It would surely be nonsense to suggest that the Territorial Army is not part of the defence forces of the Crown which are the subject of the review. Quite clearly, decisions affecting the reserve forces must be inter-related with decision affecting other aspects of commitments and forces.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence why he will not count as reckonable for superannuation the service with the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers' Association prior to 1st April, 1960, of Mrs. G. M. Edwards and Mr. J. H. Harris, both of Wokingham.

As I have explained in letters to the hon. Member, it is because before then the Association was financed from regimental, that is to say private funds, whereas by Statute only service remunerated from public funds may be reckoned for a Civil Service superannuation award.

While acknowledging the Minister's personal efforts and the voluminous correspondence on the point, may I ask him whether he will not accept that it is quite clear, particularly in the case of Mrs. Edwards, that on taking on this post working for the R.E.M.E. Association she had no idea whatever that she was working for a private voluntary organisation and that she would be forgoing her pension rights? Did not the same thing apply to her predecessor? Does not the Minister feel that, inadvertently perhaps, there has been an injustice which ought to be put right?

The hon. Member's statement is probably correct, and in any event I have no means of disproving the statement that the lady did not realise that she was going to a private organisation when she began that employment. I am, however, absolutely certain that within a very short time of starting it she was aware of the fact that she was not working in Government employment. In the correspondence which I have had with the hon. Member I have given reasons for that.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now make a statement on long-term defence commitments.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence in which overseas commands there will be economies in defence demands for foreign exchange; and what will be their extent.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now make a statement on the reduction of overseas defence commitments.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what economies he expects to achieve by means of cutting down overseas commitments; and if he will make a statement.

Our review of defence commitments is still in progress and I have nothing to add at present to what I said in the defence debate on 3rd March.

As the Government have been at this review for six months, may we be given some reason for the extraordinary length of time which it is apparently taking? May we be told when it is likely to be completed? Are we to await the outcome of Mr. McNamara's proposals on nuclear weapons? Can the Minister confirm that there is no delay due to differences of opinion in the Labour Party?

The reason for the time which has been taken so far is that, for the very first time, a British Government are making a really stringent and fundamental review of the cost, capability and commitments of all their forces, and this cannot be done quickly. The only experience which we have in the past of the sort of decision to which we have to move was the experience of the decisions taken with such precipitous haste by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), who was Minister of Defence in 1957, all of which were reversed within three years.

Does not the Minister agree that one of the reasons for the delay in publishing the results of this review is the failure of the previous Administration to do anything about it? Does he not agree that this review will make our forces more efficient than they were before?

Yes, Sir. The main purpose of the review is to provide the taxpayer with value for the money he spends on defence.

In view of the need to relate military expenditure to our economic resources, will the Minister say how soon we are likely to have the statement? Is he aware, for example, that certain bases can easily be reduced and that others can be eliminated altogether? How soon will it be before we receive this report? Will it be before the Summer Recess?

The decisions taken under the defence review will, of course, be announced as they are taken. I hope that some will be announced before the Summer Recess. Others may take longer.

Will not the Minister agree that the major differences between this defence review and the many others which have taken place in recent years are, first, that this has been surrounded by a public relations exercise and, secondly, that it is taking an inordinately long time to come to fruition? When will the Minister announce it? Will he give an assurance that at least he will announce it before the next election?

I cannot speculate on the date of the next election. I think that I should be giving the right hon. Gentleman an uncomfortable time if I were to answer his question in the terms in which he put it. The House must understand that this review would have been unnecessary if the previous Government had done their job.

Which has the higher priority in the Minister's mind—the proper carrying out of our treaty obligations and the full defence of this country's legitimate interests, or the undoubted promise made to the Left wing of the Labour Party to reduce Defence Estimates by at least £250 million?

I will treat that question with more than the contempt which it deserves. The Government are determined to provide the men and women serving in their military forces with the tools of their job, something which was not achieved by the previous Government in spite of spending £20,000 million over 13 years.

Whatever the Minister may say from the Box, there is a firm impression that the reason the Government are taking so long on this review is that their coat tails are being hung on to by the Left wing of the Labour Party.

How silly can you get?

Ask yourself.

Order. In the interests of the House, I cannot tolerate the interchange of absurd insults from one side of the House to the other. We cannot get on with Questions unless hon. Members help me in this matter.

On a point of order. May I point out that there have been three successive supplementary questions asked from the other side of the House?

If the hon. Member thinks that that helps me, I remind him that I regard it as the responsibility exclusively of the Chair to decide who asks supplementary questions. Let us get on.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether Great Britain will have any new aircraft available before 1970 with a nuclear strike capacity.

A decision on the type and numbers of any new strike aircraft must await the outcome of the current Defence Review.

Is the Minister satisfied that following the hasty cancellation of the TSR2 we shall have before 1970 an effective aircraft with a nuclear capacity capable of following contours and of getting beyond the enemy's radar defence?

I am quite satisfied that the defence review will ensure that we shall have aircraft adequate for all our tasks.

Will the Minister bear in mind when making this review that to replace the TSR2 with the American F111A would be an excessive cost to this country, would not benefit this country and would make a farce of the cancellation of the TSR2?

I remind my hon. Friend that even if the Government took up the maximum option permitted to them under the arrangements with the United States for the possible purchase of the F111A, this would save the country £300 million over the next 10 years compared with the TSR2. I hope that my hon. Friend does not regard £300 million as a nugatory saving.

The Minister will appreciate that this Question refers only to aircraft available before 1970 which I take it does not include the F111A. Will he confirm that the Phantom will have a nuclear capability?

If the option is taken up the F111A will be on squadron service before 1970.

Is the Minister aware that if the Government cut their military coat according to their cloth they will receive widespread public support? If it were right to cut the TSR2, as we believe it was, is it not even more right to stop the F111A, because that, too, involves our international balance of payments?

I believe that the job of the Government, and in particular of the Secretary of State for Defence, is to ensure that our forces have the equipment required to carry out the job with which the nation has entrusted them. This I intend to do.

I should be grateful if the Minister would answer the question whether the Phantom will have a nuclear capability.

The Phantom will be capable of carrying nuclear bombs. Whether it is required to do so will depend on the outcome of the defence review.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will conduct an inquiry into the efficiency of existing machinery for formulating British military aircraft requirements.

No, Sir. I see no necessity for such an inquiry.

Is the Minister satisfied, following his cancellation of the TSR2 and the HS681, that the long-term planning is being properly looked after, bearing in mind that it takes more than five years between the formulation of a requirement and an aircraft coming into service?

Yes, Sir. I am very well satisfied. I am afraid that I was not so satisfied six months ago. One of the reasons why we made the agreement with the French Government for the production of two aircraft, one of which will not be available to the British Services for about 10 years, is that we are well aware of the long lead in time between the definition of a project and the production of the weapon concerned.

In formulating a military aircraft requirement, such as that with the French Government, will the Minister also consult the German Government? Has he consulted the German Government about the two aircraft ordered in conjunction with the French?

I had long talks with Herr von Hassel on the question of consultation with the German Government two months ago, and I had further talks with him in Paris during the last two days. I made that clear to the House when I announced the terms of the understanding for an agreement on joint production with the French Government. It is the experience of all British Governments, and of all Governments in the world, that it is very difficult to reach an agreement on the characteristics of an aircraft between more than two Governments. It is appropriate after a certain stage, when a work statement can be produced, to consult other Governments on participating in development and production, and this we intend to do.

I apologise to the right hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Soames) for a back-bencher muscling in on Question Time, but may I ask the Minister what rôle the present Government foresee for the Transport Aircraft Requirements Committee and whether he will investigate with our European allies the possibility of widening the scope of the body so that it may act as a Transport Aircraft Requirements Committee for all the European countries with which we are associated in N.A.T.O.?

I should be grateful if the hon. Member would put down a question about the Transport Aircraft Requirements Committee. I can assure him that we are in continuous consultation with all allied Governments about all items of equipment which may, even with adjustment, be held to meet a common need.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will improve the system of costing in his Department.

Costing methods are constantly under examination in my Department and everything possible is being done to improve them.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the directly attributable cost of our forces east of Suez which I received from his Department was given at £320 million and that I have been unable to obtain from him the cost of our overheads despite repeated Questions? Is he further aware that these, together with the costs themselves, are unlikely to be less than £500 million, a figure of extreme importance? Is he still further aware—

Order. It is time that the House realised that these questions related to the Minister's state of mind are out of order. Whether the Minister is aware or whether he is not aware merely relates to that. If the hon. Member wants action taken he should ask a question about that.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that accurate costings are made available to the Government so that they can make accurate decisions based on those accurate costings?

We do our best in this matter. I must explain to my hon. Friend that it is a great mistake to imagine that one can attribute overheads in a defence budget in the same way as in a business. The purpose of attributing overheads in defence costings is to try to find out what will be saved if one cancels a certain task or commitment. The purpose of attributing overheads in a business is to fix an artificial profit target for a department in that business. One cannot assume, for example, that a slice of our pension expenditure has any relationship to any particular commitment. I think that if my hon. Friend pursues this matter with me and my officials he will finally come to recognise that there is this fundamental difference between the purpose of attribution in an operation like a defence budget and in a normal commercial business enterprise.

Would the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the costing system has been improved since the former Government were in office, particularly in regard to the Ferranti affair?

Yes, Sir. I can give that assurance. I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that when the Public Accounts Committee investigated the cost of foreign bases two years ago it was unable to get any figures whatever from the Ministry of Defence as to their cost. This is no longer the case.

On a point of order. I wonder if you would give us a little more information on the Ruling which you just gave about hon. Members asking the Minister if he is aware or is not aware as reflecting on his state of mind, Mr. Speaker? Is it not common form in the House that every hon. Member who asks a question is supposed to initiate it by asking if the Minister is aware or is not aware? If we must follow that form in asking questions, are we indeed reflecting on the Minister's state of mind?

I am troubled about the state of this. To ask whether a Minister is aware of something may be a method, fairly improper, of introducing facts on which the purpose of the question is founded; namely, to ask for information or to initiate action. However, a question devoted to asking about a Minister's state of mind in regard to knowledge is wholly out of order. Yesterday we had two or three such questions which consisted of nothing but asking whether the Minister was aware. That occupies the time of the House and I should be pleased if the House got rid of the practice.

Is my right hon. Friend saying that if there were a cut in commitments, for example east of Suez, there would be no cut in the defence overheads of his Department?

Of course I am not saying that. In fact, we do attribute overheads to the cost of commitments east of Suez, but my hon. Friend earlier suggested that it would be possible to attribute all overheads to specific geographical commitments. That is not the case. To give an example, my personal Ministerial salary is an overhead, but I would consider that it should be increased rather than reduced if we cut our commitments.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions have been given to the officer commanding in Gibraltar regarding the crossing of the Spanish frontier by Service men.

None, Sir.

Has not the Minister had any information from the officer commanding in Gibraltar about the insults to which our boys are being subjected? Will he bear in mind that Service men spend a great deal of money across the border in Spain and that, if the Spaniards want to hit at us, this is one way of getting back at Franco where it hurts, and that is in his pocket?

My experience of the British Service man is that he takes a fairly robust attitude to insults. Our Service men, if they go to Spain for recreation, do so because they enjoy it; and I would not propose to interfere with their opportunities of recreation.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence in connection with the disposal of Government surplus goods by public auction since 1st January, 1946, when it was decided that the usual practice of giving the individual prices realised when requested should be altered; and, since this information is available to all at the public auctions, if he will state the reasons for this change of policy.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answers my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State gave him on 5th April. Whereas those who get prices at an auction can see the condition and value of the goods being sold, it could be misleading to give prices without a sight of the goods.

That is not the point. Is my right hon. Friend aware—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—that the Answers to the Question on the date he mentioned were misleading and that for years when I have asked for the prices to be given they have been given? Is it not accurate to say that this is the policy that was followed before and that the policy of not giving them has been initiated by this Administration? What is the sense of withholding from the House information as to the prices obtained when all the dealers and the public at the auctions know the prices? I urge my right hon. Friend to give this information when it is sought, just as it has been given since 1946, or otherwise to explain why there has been a change of policy.

I understand that it was never the practice for the War Office to issue these prices as a regular course. My hon. Friend has from time to time been given prices and I have told him and other hon. Members that we will always give them these figures. However, wide publicity of the prices realised for various lots without anyone being able to assess the condition of the goods concerned would not be commercially justifiable and, I believe, would mislead the public.

Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of my right hon. Friend's Answer, I give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment. After all, the Tories did it. Why cannot we?

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated cost in foreign currency over the next five years of United Kingdom defence purchases.

As I explained in my Answer on 28th April, it is not yet possible to make an estimate of the total cost in foreign currency for the years ahead. Purchases of equipment to which we are already committed will cost about £240 million in foreign currency during the next five years.

When the Secretary of State takes action to try to make further cuts in this expenditure will he bear in mind the fact that many hon. Members, including many hon. Gentlemen opposite, are becoming extremely concerned at the degree of dependence of this country on the United States aviation industry. Will he bear this in mind from the point of view of both our balance of payments and the defence of Britain?

Yes, Sir. This was one of the factors which we had in mind when we made the agreement with the French Government for the joint production of two military aircraft.

Would the right hon. Gentleman say what sales of military equipment there have been to offset against this expenditure of £240 million across the exchanges?

Yes, if the right hon. Gentleman will put down a Question.

How much foreign exchange expenditure has been committed on orders already placed, in addition to the £240 million which must be paid in the next five years?

I do not quite understand the point of that supplementary question. We have committed £240 million over the next five years and that is the extent of the commitment so far. It may well be that we shall take up further options permitted to us under various understandings. That will lead to increases, which I will give to the House in due time.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what preference his Department gives in making purchases to suppliers with good export records.

None, Sir. Our general object is to find the cheapest equipment compatible with operational needs, so orders are normally placed, as a result of competitive tendering, with firms offering to meet the technical and delivery requirements at the most economical prices.

In view of the importance of exports to the nation, and the particular importance of covering the defence costs of my right hon. Friend's Department, especially those incurred across the exchanges, will my right hon. Friend see whether any use can be made of the very large purchasing power of his Department to encourage suppliers to press forward with exports to a greater extent than now?

Of course I will investigate it, but I think that my hon. Friend, with his deep knowledge of economics, would not wish me to buy more expensive equipment than I otherwise would for that purpose. Secondly, he will recognise that there could even be a danger to exports in this by diverting export production to the needs of the forces.

Is the Secretary of State aware that his reply was the expression of the purest free trade doctrine, which will get wide support from many quarters of the House?

If the hon. Member's agreeable words are followed by action in the Division Lobby, I think that all of us on this side will be grateful to him.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that companies that will make good and acceptable goods for the home market will also make good and acceptable goods for the export market; and that it would be unwise to base his policy on export records when buying for his own Department?

That is another economic generalisation, and I am afraid that my confidence in persuading the hon. Gentleman to follow me into the Division Lobby is not sufficient to justify my agreeing to it.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what were the percentages of cadets accepted into the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, in the years 1962, 1963 and 1964, respectively, who were formerly educated in Headmasters' Conference Schools, and State secondary schools, respectively.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what were the percentages of cadets applying for admission to the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, in the years 1962, 1963 and 1964, respectively, who were formerly educated in Headmasters' Conference Schools and State secondary schools, respectively.

For applicants to the Regular Commissions Board the figures are approximately 53 per cent. for Headmasters' Conference schools and 47 per cent. for State secondary schools for the financial year 1962–63, 48 per cent. and 52 per cent. for 1963–64, and 48 per cent. and 52 per cent. for 1964–65. For cadets accepted into the Royal Military Academy, they are 60 per cent. and 40 per cent., 59 per cent. and 41 per cent., and 63 per cent. and 37 per cent. The figures for applicants to the Regular Commissions Board do not include boys who 20 to the R.M.A. from Welbeck or as Army Scholars.

Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that that Answer, together with the Written Answer of 30th March to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker), indicates that 61 per cent. of the entrants into Sandhurst come from public schools, compared with 42 per cent. into the Royal Naval College and only 25 per cent. into the Royal Air Force College? Why should the Army stand relatively aloof from the tendency to break down social snobbery and class barriers? Cannot the northern grammar schools produce first-class officer material for the Army if the Army really wants to find it?

I think that my hon. Friend would be wrong to approach this matter from the point of view of the particular schools from which the boys come. The Army is very glad to have good candidates from any type of school. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would, as I have suggested to him previously, come and have a look at the procedure employed by the selection board. We are pleased with the increase of 20 per cent. in the last year of applicants from northern schools. We do all we can by way of advertising, visits of lecturers and school liaison teams to schools, most of them State secondary schools, and we should be very glad to see an increase both in applications and entries from the State system.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the object is to get the best possible officers, irrespective of where they are educated?

That is the object, but I understand that there is a feeling that boys from the State grammar schools do not get possibly the full consideration that they should. We are examining this matter and I will be grateful for help from any quarter to get more grammar school boys into the Army.

Does my right hon. Friend recall the recent correspondence I had with him over a disillusioned constituent of mine who had been rejected? Will he bear in mind the view expressed by my constituent that at the selection board more importance appeared to be given to people with the right social background than to any other kind of talent?

I am satisfied that the tests are not directed to the social background of the candidates. At the same time, it is extremely difficult to give information about the rightness or incorrectness of a decision in an individual case.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence why there are long delays in delivery of post to ships stationed in the West Indies.

I have no evidence that, in general, deliveries are unsatisfactory, but I regret that mail for H.M.S. "Rothesay" was delayed during the latter part of March.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this delay was occasioned primarily by confusion of location particulars? Is not this inexcusable in peace time and will he offer a reason for the confusion?

I am sorry to say that this was an error on our part at the Home Postal Depot. Steps have been taken to try to make sure that it does not happen again.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will introduce a housing loan scheme for the Army and Royal Air Force on similar lines to the scheme to be introduced for the Royal Navy.

Not at present.

Having searched vaguely in my mind for a suitable alternative phrase, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that his Answer will be received with very great disappointment? Can he say why a scheme which offers to the Navy loans on favourable terms to leading seamen and above, should not apply equally to both the Army and the Royal Air Force?

There is more family separation and moving about in the Navy than in the Army and Royal Air Force, and I therefore think that we have a special interest in trying to get a stable family base for our wives and families—an even greater interest than the other Services. But it is always open to the Army or the R.A.F. to apply for schemes.

I understand that it is intended that this scheme should also apply to the Civil Service. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Civil Service has greater need for this kind of facility than either the Army or the Royal Air Force?

I cannot speak for the Civil Service; I only repeat that the Army and the Royal Air Force can put in for a scheme if they wish.

Was not a £40 million housing loan scheme promoted by the Labour Government in 1947, and why has it been suspended?

This is a different scheme. This will enable a naval rating to bridge the gap between a building society loan and the cost of his house against his terminal grant. I do not think that there has been a scheme like this before, and we wish it success.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many and which of Her Majesty's ships have been lost by accident at sea during the last 10 years, owing to their design, construction and manner of loading; and what progress has been made in these respects to protect Her Majesty's ships from such accidental catastrophes.

The answer to the first part of the Question is one—H.M. Submarine "Sidon", almost exactly 10 years ago, on 16th June, 1955. She sank after a torpedo had exploded prematurely. The accident was due to incorrect loading of the torpedo, and shortcomings in its design. This type of torpedo was not used again until several modifications and alterations had been carried out.

Is my hon. Friend aware that these incidents demand urgent technical investigation to prevent recurrence, because they involve loss to the Navy? Can he say what steps are being taken to prevent a recurrence?

Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend did not hear the reply. It is not "incidents", in the plural, but "incident"—one; and immediately this happened, modifications and alterations were made.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the military requirement for which the TSR2 was developed; whether this requirement still exists; and what aircraft will now be provided to meet it.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if the range and bomb capacity of the Buccaneer is satisfactory for its operational tasks as a Canberra replacement both in Europe and east of Suez; and if he will make a statement.

The TSR2 was under development as a Canberra replacement in order to give the Royal Air Force a continued long-range tactical strike and reconnaissance capability. This requirement still exists, but a precise definition of the tasks of the Canberra replacement will not be possible until a later stage of the current defence review. The subsequent decision as to how the R.A.F.s requirement will be met will then depend on what type or types of aircraft can best and most economically discharge these defined tasks.

Is it not the fact that for the future the reconnaissance rôle for which the TSR2 was designed will be of very particular importance, and in order to discharge this rôle in the likely state of defences, the ability to follow the contours of the ground must be available to the aircraft? If the right hon. Gentleman is to await the outcome of his review before making any decision on what aircraft is to take the place of the cancelled TSR2, what is the purpose of his holding an option on the American F111A?

To answer the second half of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question first, the purpose of taking out the option is to enable us, if we require an aircraft with the capability of the F111A, to buy it, and we shall take the decision on whether we take up the option by the end of the year.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that all officers and men of the Royal Air Force are very worried about the Government's dilatory attitude to the weapons system? Can he say when we can expect a firm decision in the matter of the Canberra replacement, and, when that decision is taken, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the aircraft will fulfil the tasks that the Air Staff consider necessary?

Of course, I give the latter assurance. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that a decision will be taken by the end of this year. As to the first part of the supplementary question, my experience is that R.A.F. aircrew and the R.A.F. generally are absolutely delighted that the present Government have guaranteed to meet their needs in so many respects so quickly, and are going to meet their needs years earlier than there was any chance of meeting them under the aircraft programme of the previous Administration.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether any of the unique and almost revolutionary features of the TSR2 will be incorporated into other aircraft?

Yes, Sir. I have already told the House that, for example, the reconnaissance pack developed for the TSR2 is likely to be introduced into a number of aircraft in the reconnaissance rôle.

In this review will the right hon. Gentleman consider to what extent the high altitude reconnaissance rôle of the Canberra can be met with satellites carrying high precision cameras? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that we do not get left out in this field?

One considers to what extent these rôles can be met by satellites, but I would point out that we are talking here about tactical strike and reconnaissance, and nobody has yet come up with any idea for using satellites in this rôle.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about progress made with the French in the joint development of military aircraft requirements.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement that I made to the House on 17th May.

Could the right hon. Gentleman emphasise that there is not likely to be any damage caused to this new agreement with the French were he to take up the option on the F111A?

On the first question, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I discussed the question in great detail with M. Messmer, the French Defence Minister. He is aware, as hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to be, that we shall need a Canberra replacement in the next three or four years, whereas the swing-wing aircraft that we are planning to develop with the French Government will not be available for the Royal Air Force for about 10 or 11 years. It is a different generation of aircraft, and its precise capabilities have not yet been defined by the two Governments.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether any decision has yet been made by his Department to purchase the F111A?

Yes, of course I can, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now announce a timetable for the reorganisation and rebuilding of the Colchester Garrison, for which plans have already been published.

Much of the Garrison has been rebuilt already. I expect the rest of the programme to be completed by 1971–72.

Would the hon. Gentleman be prepared to issue a timetable for various stages of the future development of the Garrison? Does he realise that this is particularly important because further development involves handing back some land for civilian purposes? At the moment there is very little knowledge of the timetable and this is causing despondency among some of the military personnel involved.

We hope to be able to sell some land, probably to the local authority, when the programme has been completed, but until it has been completed the land in Colchester which will eventually be surplus to Army needs will not be available. We shall keep in touch with the local authority about the development of the programme.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence, what rôle he envisages for the new Territorial Army Centre soon to be completed in Colchester; and if he will make a statement.

The Centre, the building of which is expected to be completed by the end of this year, is designed to replace two old and inadequate Territorial Army Centres in Colchester and will accommodate 14 T.A. units.

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that if either he or his right hon. Friend do not soon make a statement about the future of the Territorial Army there will be no soldiers to use this brand-new Centre? Does he not realise also that it is important that he should take up the invitation at the end of the Question to make a statement? The whole of the Territorial Army who are to use this new Centre are in a state of considerable despondency because they feel that their whole future is in jeopardy. This is a very important matter.

The hon. Gentleman obviously has not been in close contact with the Territorial Army in the last few months; otherwise he would not make such statements about the state of their morale. The morale of the Territorial Army is as high as it has ever been, and recruitment at the moment, as I said in answer to a previous Question, is going quite well.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he now expects to announce the results of his review of Armed Services pensions.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he has made towards achieving parity in Service pensions regardless of date of retirement.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make arrangements to ensure that Armed Forces pensions will keep their full purchasing power instead of being eroded by inflation.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will reduce the age at which increases in Service pensions operate from 60 to 55 years.

We are considering these and other proposals. I cannot yet say when a statement will be made.

I do not think I need ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that that is not a very satisfactory reply. May I ask him what representations he has received concerning the cynical disregard by the present Government of the pledge given on their behalf by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) before the election, and how much longer he is going to wait before making some effort to relieve these pensioners of the burden of increased taxation and increasing inflation which the present Government have placed upon them in the last six months?

The major part of the burden was placed there by the preceding Government. I cannot accept any of the implications in the first part of that supplementary question. I am not in a position to make a statement yet.

After 7½ months in office—[Laughter.]—which was been far more burdensome to the country than 13 years of Tory Government—surely the present Administration ought to be prepared to come clean with an answer? Is it a fact that the present Colonial Secretary gave his party's pledge to the officers and men retired from the Services that they agree with the principle of parity? This putting off of the decision is surely unworthy of any Government, even the present one.

There is no question of putting off a decision. This is a difficult question and we are naturally having to give it very careful consideration. The only thing certain about previous attitudes of the parties is that the Conservative Party were opposed to parity from beginning to end.

Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that the present Government, in their review of the Armed Services pensions issue, will not think it is wrong to come to a satisfactory decision because the previous Administration failed to do so? Is my hon. Friend aware that in the last seven or eight years hon. Members in all parts of the House sought to bring about a revision of the scheme and failed to do so, because the previous Tory Administration refused to do anything?

That is completely right. If the present Government find it possible to help these pensioners we can be sure that the Opposition will vote against the means for paying them.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), as spokesman for the Opposition in Army matters, gave a very definite pledge in reply to a questionnaire from the Officers' Pension Society? Why are the Labour Government now going back on these pledges which they gave?

We are going back on no pledges that we have given. The Government are bound by their election programme which does not commit the Government either for or against the implementation of parity at this time.

Is not the truth that this matter is far too serious for party politics and that it should be the concern of all parties? Is it not time for any Government to treat old and faithful military servants of the Crown fairly? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that this issue calls for a larger-minded approach than mere party controversy?

I agree. There are real hardships being suffered not only by Armed Service pensioners but by all public service pensioners. This is the point of our review. If the matter can be taken out of party politics, well and good. This is a matter for both sides, and not one.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence to what purpose the hospital at Burderop Park will be put following the withdrawal of the United States Air Force; and in, coming to his decision, what consideration he gave to the medical needs of Swindon.

We have no further need for the hospital and I am at present discussing with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health the possibility of its being used by the National Health Service. As my hon. Friend is aware the property is held on lease and any transfer would be subject to negotiations with the owner of the land.

May I take it from the reply that it is now up to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and the regional hospital board to decide whether or not they want these premises? Would my hon. Friend like to say a word of thanks to the United States authorities who I understand have made a generous offer of equipment to the British medical authorities should they need it?

I was not aware of the offer by the United States Government, but I am sure that all hon. and right hon. Members would like to express their appreciation of this donation. It is the case that the future of the hospital now rests with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and, for our part, we will do all we can, if my right hon. Friend decides that he wants it for a Health Service hospital, to go through all the formalities and get legal permission.