asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the present strength of the Territorial Army, in officers and other ranks; how many units are below establishment; and whether he is satisfied that the present strength of the Territorial Army is sufficient to fulfil its future rôle;

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is aware of the importance of the Territorial Army; and if he will arrange for it to be more closely attuned to military conditions today.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals are under consideration for the reorganisation of the Territorial and auxiliary forces.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to reduce expenditure on the Territorial Army.

At 31st May there were 9,022 officers and 99,741 other ranks in the Territorial Army. Units are not recruited up to establishment because since the last reorganisation volunteer recruitment has been limited to 123,000 all ranks, which is about 65 per cent. of the total establishment of 190,000. The attributable cost of the Territorial Army was £31 million in 1962–63, £34 million in 1963–64 and £35 million in 1964–65, but no estimate is available for the years before 1962–63. I fully recognise the valuable contribution made by the Territorial Army. Its future rôle and organisation are under review and I cannot at present say what the outcome of this review will be.

Will my right hon. Friend agree that in the conditions of modern warfare the present rôle of the Territorial Army does not fit modern requirements? Is this one of the topics which is in his mind in the defence review?

In the review which is in progress we are trying to take account of all these factors, including the one mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Would the Deputy Secretary of State bear in mind that the Territorial Army is the first line of defence in the event of a national emergency? Although there is an argument in favour of reorganisation, would he also try to bear in mind the extraordinary voluntary service given by members of that body towards training during the civilian period? Would he try also to remember, when reviewing the future of the Territorial Army, that this is a measure of discipline for civilians who are interested in the defence of the country when he is reviewing the future of the Territorial Army?

My hon. Friend will not expect me to anticipate today the statement which we hope to make later. All these factors will be taken into account. I should like to say how much I endorse what he said about the importance of the voluntary spirit and service given by members of the Territorial Army over previous years. We recognise that in the future, no matter what reorganisation or changes there may be, we shall be just as dependent on the good will and voluntary spirit of service which have been the characteristics of the Territorial Army over previous years.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that if a reduction of any sort is contemplated in the manpower ceilings for the Regular forces strong reserve forces will be even more important? Will he bear in mind that it will be difficult to get the volunteers which are necessary if there is a wholesale slash of the units and associations which have commanded so much loyalty and affection in the past? Could he say definitely whether there will be a statement on the future of the Army before the Recess?

We are fully aware of the importance of trying to make a statement at the earliest possible moment. If at all possible, we shall try to do so before the House rises for the Recess. I would ask the hon. Member not to anticipate that the changes which we may wish to bring forward will be of the catastrophic character which he indicated in his Question.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this matter of the Territorial and Auxiliary Forces and the general reserve issue is of primary importance? Can we have an assurance from my hon. Friend that, before the Government come to a final decision, they will consult interested parties in the House?

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have said on a number of occasions, we want to consult all persons interested as fully as possible and I have already undertaken to consult the Territorial Council and the associations fully on the details of any changes proposed. But we have also given an assurance that the first statement of the Government's intentions will be made in this House and that, of course, inhibits the circle of consultation that can be undertaken ahead of such a statement on the principles of the Government's policy.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance—I understand that he intends to take this course—that he will hold discussions with the Territorial Council and the associations before he makes a final statement to the House?

The consultations we have with the Council will depend to some extent on the wishes of the Council. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that he himself made a statement in July, 1960, and produced the resultant White Paper in the following November. We expect a similar period to elapse while the details are worked out.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to repudiate the story, to which his attention has been drawn and which was given considerable publicity in the Press some time ago, to the effect that the Territorial Army was to be disbanded?

Order. That goes beyond the range of Ministerial responsibility.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House will have heard with some relief his sympathetic references to volunteer forces? Is he aware that the longer his decision is put off the worse it will be for recruiting for the present Territorial Army?

We are, of course, concerned about the speculation in the Press and the uncertainty to which this gives rise, but the hon. Gentleman will agree that this is a complicated and difficult question. It would not have been the wish of the House that we should rush the matter and come up with an ill-conceived scheme. The few months that we have been engaged on the review so far were necessary for any Government to come forward with a set of proposals for a reserve army to meet existing conditions.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether, in view of the current rate of imports by the German Federal Republic from Great Britain, he will withdraw 500 troops from the British Army of the Rhine each week until 31st December, 1965.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans have been made to reduce the size and cost of the British Army of the Rhine.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on proposals to reduce the cost to the British taxpayer of the British Army of the Rhine.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make proposals for reducing the cost to the British taxpayer of the British Army of the Rhine.

The British Army of the Rhine is under review, together with all our other overseas commitments, and I cannot say at this stage what effect the defence review may have on its size or cost. On the extent to which the cost is offset by purchases of British equipment, I would refer to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary on 1st July.

While congratulating my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, may I ask the Secretary of State for Defence to make it clear to the West German authorities that failure to honour this agreement will lead to the progressive withdrawal of British troops from Germany? Is it not high time, since the danger of land war in Europe has receded, that we should review the whole question of keeping British troops in West Germany?

I think that one of the reasons that the danger of war in Europe has receded is that N.A.T.O. forces have been adequate to deter it, although I recognise the need for change in the strategy according to which N.A.T.O. forces are deployed. We have made no secret, in our discussions with the West German Government, of the serious consequences which might follow if we are not able to do better in future than in the past to meet the foreign exchange costs of British troops in Germany.

Can my right hon. Friend assure us that, in view of the fact that we are bearing an unfair share of the N.A.T.O. burden in Western Europe, we shall seek to reduce the number and cost of our troops in West Germany?

I have already made it clear to my Ministerial colleagues on the N.A.T.O. Council that we would seek to achieve a fairer sharing of the burden of Western defence. It is an ironic commentary on events of the last 20 years that West Germany gains about 1,000 million dollars of foreign exchange by participation in the defence of the free world while the United Kingdom is losing about the same amount.

While not wishing to go as far as some of my hon. Friends in calling for the reduction of forces in West Germany—because it is essential to maintain a British presence there in order to keep an eye on the activities of the present German Government—may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he would not agree that if we are to carry out the social programmes to which the Government are committed, particularly in housing, education and the National Health Service, it is essential to find some savings in the defence programme? Is this not a fruitful field where savings can be found? Will he give us an undertaking that very severe cuts will be made?

No, Sir. It is our purpose in the defence review to achieve savings in expenditure, but I must point out to my hon. Friend that the purpose of having troops in Germany is to co-operate with German and other allied forces in deterring aggression and not to keep an eye on the activities of the West German Government.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the manifesto on which the Government fought the election contemplated an increase in the size of Rhine Army? Can he now say whether in his opinion the defence costs agreement that has just been negotiated is satisfactory enough to remove the whole question of foreign exchange pressure on our forces for the next two years?

On the first point, I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's facts are as mistaken as his judgments on these matters. As to the second point: no, we do not regard the current agreement as wholly satisfactory, and, of course, we shall continue negotiations to try to improve it.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many jet trainers to be produced jointly by the French and British industries will be ordered by the Royal Air Force.

It is much too early to take a decision of this kind.

Is it not likely that the Royal Air Force will be able to place only a token order for this machine and that it really fulfils a French need rather than a British need? Can he explain whether that is so? If it is, can he hold out some hope of a British project of the same kind being given to the aviation industry before long, because if not it is doubtful whether the industry will be able to meet our defence needs in the 1970s.

The hon. Gentleman's logic rather baffles me, but I assure him that I expect a need for a very sizeable number of these aircraft as advanced trainers for the R.A.F. If we had not expected such a need we would not have made the agreement.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Minister of Aviation has worked out manufacturing arrangements for this aircraft and that it is his intention that the Jaguar shall have, if possible, considerable export sale?

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation is negotiating all the details to implement the Memorandum of Understanding that we made some weeks ago. It is certainly the intention of both the British and the French Governments that sales of this aircraft should be as wide as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has yet come to a decision on whether to buy a replacement for the TSR2; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has now decided to take up the option on the F111A; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now give an overall estimate of the cost of replacing the TSR2 by the F111.

No decision has yet been taken to buy the F111A or on the numbers of this type which might be needed if it were chosen to meet the Royal Air Force's long-range strike/reconnaissance requirement. I have therefore nothing to add to the assessment previously given to the House, which remains valid, that for a full order the savings would be at least £300 million and that for a smaller order they would be proportionately and absolutely greater.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether there has been any escalation since the option was announced in the costs of the F111A? Does he accept the principle, enunciated by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, that we should allow the costs of defence to escalate irrespective of our capacity to pay? Has my right hon. Friend entered into consultation with the French to see whether we can buy a French rather than an American replacement for the TSR2?

I am assured that the development of the F111A is going according to plan as regards both costs and performance. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government have every intention of trimming our defence costs according to our economic cloth and, above all, to get better value for money in defence. We are, of course, looking at every possible replacement for the Canberra, but we shall not be able to take a decision on which is the most suitable until the defence review has made further progress and we are clearer as to the precise performance required of the replacement.

To dispel any element of uncertainty which may exist in the minds of those who are now serving in the Royal Air Force, would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is his definite intention to bring into service in the near future some form of strategic strike aircraft?

I should, perhaps, first point out that many of the doubts which exist in the minds of some people who are now in the R.A.F. have been deliberately fostered by persons who are hostile to the policies and conduct of Her Majesty's Government. On the question of a long-range strike aircraft, I have no reason to doubt that the R.A.F. will require an aircraft of long-range with a strike capability.

Is it not true that the final bill for the compensation in respect of the TSR2 will not be known for about another two years? In that event, could the Minister give an assurance that at the end of the day we will be given a balance sheet to justify the figures which he gave earlier?

Yes, Sir. Her Majesty's Government have every interest in publishing the most detailed figures possible and to reveal the inadequacies of the previous Government's programme and the superiority of our own. I therefore assure the hon. Gentleman that we will do what he asks.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since we have been denied the figures of the costs of replacing the P1154 and the HS681 we are indeed glad to hear that we will be given more figures about the TSR2 and the F111? In view of the right hon. Gentleman's reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) about the defence review as a whole and his remarks about cutting our defence expenditure to meet our economic cloth, will he aver that he has every intention of ensuring that our defence forces will be able to fulfil whatever commitments are essential in the interests of this country?

Yes, Sir. I have stated on many occasions in the House that as long as I am Secretary of State for Defence I will make it my duty to see that Her Majesty's Forces have all the equipment that is necessary to them to perform the tasks allotted to them by the Government.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while he stated that he must assess the precise performance requirement for a Canberra replacement, in fact that has already been done by the R.A.F., which asked for the TSR2? Would he say what change there has been in this precise requirement, if we are now going to have something instead of the TSR2, if at all?

The performance characteristics of an aircraft depend primarily on who is the likely enemy, what is the likely state of his defences and what are the targets to which there might be a requirement to penetrate when the aircraft is in service. This is a matter of judgment on which judgment is likely to differ from year to year under any Government, whether or not there is a change of Government. One of the major differences since the last election is that the requirement for a long-range strike aircraft for a strategic nuclear rôle is no longer accepted by Her Majesty's Government so far as the Soviet Union is concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence by what date he expects the Spey-engined Phantom aircraft to be in squadron service in the Royal Air Force, and how this date compares with that estimated for the P1154 at the time of its cancellation.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) on 2nd June.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the Government, having stated that they would not take the P1154 because of the time-scale factor, will have this other aircraft in service at an earlier date, because this is important, apart from the cost, which also looks as if it might be doubtful?

The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that, owing to the decision taken by Her Majesty's Government for the Phantom instead of the P1154, the R.A.F. will have a supersonic aircraft of the nature it requires fully delivered four years earlier than under the former Government's programme.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the steps which are being taken to safeguard defence interests in regard to the sites at present being used for drilling in the North Sea.

In accordance with an established procedure for consultation made with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power, the Ministry of Defence was consulted at an early stage about proposals to drill at the sites at present being used in the North Sea. No other special steps to safeguard defence interests are considered necessary.

Does not my right hon. Friend realise that these sites are, in fact, islands based upon a shallow shelf in the North Sea and could therefore, in this scientific age, be used for radio, television, or perhaps even nuclear, purposes adverse to Britain in time of war? What protection has Britain against these dangerous circumstances?

While I recognise that it is conceivable, on certain hypotheses, that some of these installations might be used by an unfriendly Power with hostile intent, there is no reason to believe at present that their use in this capacity is so intended. However, we are keeping a close watch on the matter, and if we find that any action is required we will take it.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the number of naval personnel under the age of 18 years; and for what period these have enlisted.

At 31st March, 9,826 naval and marine officers and men; 9,013 were on 9-year engagements, and 790 were on 12-year engagements, both starting at 18. Fifteen were training for permanent commissions and eight for short service commissions.

Would my hon. Friend review the system whereby boys of 18 are signed on for a period of 12 years? Would he consider introducing an option at the end of three years, by which time these boys will have been sufficiently experienced fully to consider the matter? Will he also bear in mind the comment of one of my constituents who, in writing to me, refers to being "sold into military slavery"?

I obviously could not for a moment accept the phrase just quoted by my hon. Friend. I think that the break of three years which he suggests would be quite impracticable. However, on the general point of allowing very young men joining the Service to have some chance of opting out, perhaps in the early stages, there might be a case for this, and I am looking into it.

Is the Minister aware that several hon. and gallant Members of this House joined the Royal Navy at the age of 13 and that our experience has shown that it is a jolly good system?

Would my hon. Friend not agree that it might be useful in cases like this for these young men to be given interesting service, particularly overseas, so that they are not extremely bored, especially when they are stationed at home?

That is a very good point. We are always anxious to bring in sea training as quickly as possible in a young man's career.

Would the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), who used an expression contained in a letter from a constituent, did not express the view of most of the people on Tyneside?

Answer.

Answer, please.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for increasing the number and value of contracts placed with firms in development districts.

My Department is fully aware of the need to stimulate production in development districts and to make the maximum use of their labour and capacity. We follow the same procedure as other Government Departments in allowing some preference to such firms. I hope that firms in development districts will take full advantage of these arrangements and that the steps the Government are taking to assist industry in these district will enable them to win an increasing proportion of Government contracts in future.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the disappointment that exists about the low proportion of Government contracts from the Ministry of Defence placed in development districts, particularly in Scotland? Will he have a look at the Government preference scheme to ensure that it may really be regarded as a preference scheme?

I know that there is anxiety in development districts about this and other matters. I assure my hon. Friend that we will do everything possible to increase the proportion of contracts which go to the development districts. However, I do not think that the House as a whole would wish the Ministry of Defence to pay a large additional premium for equipment which it could buy more cheaply in other parts of the country. As I say, I hope very much that firms in the development districts will take advantage of the special opportunities which they are granted under Government procedures to tender not only in the first instance for contracts but also to re-quote for part of an order which is already allotted, but at a price which would not involve Departments in greater expense by having to refuse acceptance of the lowest tenders received?

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the Service men or ex-Service men who served on Christmas Island at the time of the nuclear tests in 1957 have died or are suffering from leukaemia or other diseases that can be caused by radiation; and if he will order an investigation of this matter.

Seventy-two Service men have contracted leukaemia since 1957, of whom three served at Christmas Island. Each case was carefully examined, and there is no evidence to connect the illness with the nuclear tests. We keep no medical records of people who have left the Services, and I do not think that any further investigation would be useful.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that if there are even three cases which might be attributable to this service—which he says there are not—it is a very serious matter? Can he not trace the relatively few Service men who served on Christmas Island, after they left the Service, and have their subsequent medical history investigated?

No, Sir. There is no evidence at all that the leukaemia of these men was connected with these tests. There is no scientific evidence of that, nor do the figures I have quoted represent even a prima facie case.

Would the Minister confirm that the matter raised by the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) has been very exhaustively examined over the course of several years and that there is not a jot or tittle of evidence to show that any of the Service men who contracted leukaemia did so as a direct result of being involved in these tests?

I must say that the most exhaustive inquiries have been made and no evidence whatever has been found.

While I am delighted to hear that the matter has been exhaustively examined, if it has—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—if it has, does that mean that there has been some examination of people who have left the Service, apparently fit, after this special service on Christmas Island? Of course, if it does not mean that, it has not been exhaustively examined.

Plainly, it would not be possible to keep medical records of all members of the Services after they have left the Services, but there is no evidence to suggest that if this examination were made it would produce any evidence that the tests caused the leukaemia.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how much in the £ of revenue raised by Government taxation goes on military expenditure; if he will reduce the present expenditure of £2,120 million by £200 million in the coming year, by £400 million in the subsequent year, and by £600 million in the third year; and if he will make a statement on plans made by Her Majesty's Government for reduction of arms expenditure.

Defence expenditure represents about 5s. in the £ of revenue raised by Government taxation. We are at present carrying out a full review of defence expenditure in relation to commitments. I cannot yet add to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's answer on this subject on 15th July.

Does the Minister agree that the master key to nearly all our problems—including balance of payments, re-equipment, prices, housing and pensions—is the drastic cut proposed in the Question and also proposed in the Motion signed by 68 of my hon. Friends last month?

I think my hon. Friend must agree that the key to all our problems is survival on this planet, and in so far as defence expenditure is justified by its contribution towards maintaining the peace, I do not think that he or anyone else would wish to reduce it or slash it in the way proposed in the Question.

Would the Minister direct his attention to the specific figures quoted in the Question? Does it not seem to him that, with a cut of anything approaching the order proposed, it would be totally impossible even to maintain the commitments which it is in our national interest that we should protect?

On this Question, as on the other questions I have answered of this hypothetical nature, I shall not anticipate the results of the defence review.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the rôle in service of the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft; and with what armament and weapons it will be equipped.

As I told the House on 17th May, it is likely that we shall have to begin to withdraw from service during the middle and late 1970s, the Buccaneer, the Lightning and the Phantom. The variable geometry aircraft is likely to be a suitable replacement for some, or possibly all of them. The armament and weapons to be carried have still to be decided.

Can the right hon. Gentleman, then, say that it is intended that the aircraft shall have a joint Service rôle?

It will certainly have a joint Service capability, but I am not prepared at this stage to say whether it will have a joint Service rôle. It is far too early to answer such a question.

Would the Minister confirm that the variable geometry aircraft is very suitable indeed for operation from aircraft carriers?

Yes, Sir, and I suppose the House will draw its own conclusions about the interests that lie behind the hon. and gallant Member's intervention.

Is there not a very real danger that the current American-German project for a comparable aircraft will come on the market earlier than this one, and that if that does happen any hopes of building up a European aerospace industry will be virtually lost. Will he pay attention to this aspect?

Very obviously, there is a potential competition between the proposed German-American aircraft and the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft. I would hope that there would be room for both if they came into existence about the same time, but I think that it is far from being the case that if the German-American project came into production the European aerospace industry would be doomed.

Will the right hon. Gentleman still do his best to interest the German Government in this particular aircraft? It may certainly be possible for it to fulfil all the requirements of the German Government as well, and this would be a great help to the European aircraft and space industries. Further, would he say whether he intends the aircraft to have a strike and reconnaissance rôle?

As I made clear when I announced the agreement signed with the French Government, we are anxious to enable other allied Governments to participate in the project, and steps are being taken to ensure that, if possible, this will be so. I cannot add to what I have previously said about the precise rôle of the aircraft.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to increase the sales of British arms overseas.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he has made in securing the services of a super salesman for the purpose of selling British military equipment overseas.

Sir Donald Stokes, the managing director of Leylands, has, with the agreement of his board, accepted an invitation extended to him by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation and myself to advise us on the promotion of exports of defence equipment, and on any changes of organisation that may be necessary for this purpose. My right hon. Friend and I are most grateful to Sir Donald for so readily placing his great experience in the field of exports at our disposal, and we are convinced that the result of his work, which he has already begun, will be to enable us to step up the sales of our defence equipment to the maximum extent.

Will the Secretary of State say whether the appointment of Sir Donald Stokes, and the appointment of a super salesman in future, about which the Prime Minister told the House the other day, will be intended to cover the sale not only of new equipment but of equipment that has been in service with Her Majesty's Forces and which they no longer require?

Yes, Sir. There is no limit to the scope of military equipment on whose export sales Sir Donald is now concerned to advise us.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this appointment has been greeted with considerable astonishment? Has the Minister for Disarmament been consulted about it? What salary is this big business tycoon, who is, presumably, selling arms for private manufacturers, to be paid? What kind of arms are to be sold? As the Government are against the proliferation of atomic bombs, are they now to try to sell napalm bombs?

The Government as a whole, of course, agreed this appointment. I think that the whole House is concerned with the fact that, for completely compelling economic and military reasons, we are buying some of our defence equipment from abroad, and it is desirable that we should be able to recoup the foreign exchange we lose from buying equipment from abroad by selling suitable equipment to our allies. From a constituency point of view, my hon. Friend probably shares our concern in this respect.

How dreadful you are!

Is not one of our great difficulties in the export of arms that our competitors have an advantage because they can give credits that we cannot?

There is a very wide range of considerations affecting the matter, and Sir Donald will be concerned with all of them.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House feel most grateful to Sir Donald Stokes for agreeing to take on this responsibility which he has been invited to take by the Government? Would the right hon. Gentleman consider putting in the Library a copy of the terms of reference given to Sir Donald Stokes? Are there any countries in the Western world which are excluded from his terms of reference?

I will consider whether it might be possible to put a copy of the terms of reference in the Library. No countries are excluded from the terms of reference.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter at the earliest possible opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the Government's review of defence policy.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's Answer on 15th July.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that both in the Services and in industry there is some disquiet about uncertainty for the future? Can he give some idea when the defence review is likely to be made, and will he give a commitment that the first statement on it will be made in this House?

Yes, Sir. This review, as I have said, is into every aspect of the organisation, structure and rôle of our Forces. For that reason it is likely to continue for some time. At the same time decisions will be taken at regular intervals, and will be communicated to the House as they are taken, and we intend to publish White Papers on the decisions as that seems appropriate.

Is it the intention of my right hon. Friend to come to a final decision on the defence review and then to submit it to the House as a fait accompli? Would it not be better to present the House with the White Paper and hear the views of hon. Members on the defence review before reaching a final decision?

I think it is a matter of constitutional fact that no final decisions can be reached without the House having a chance to pronounce on them. Certainly on all the major issues likely to arise in the defence review the House will have a chance to consider the Government's proposals before any final action is taken.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now announce the Government's intentions with regard to the Armed Services pensions.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether, in view of the rise in prices, he will expedite his study of the problems of Service pensions; and whether he will make a statement.

I have nothing to add to the statement I made on the Adjournment last Wednesday.

Will the Minister accept from me, in view of the very clear pledges on this subject given by the Labour Party in its manifesto last October, that there is a widespread feeling of frustration among retired officers throughout the land? Will he show a greater sense of urgency on this matter?

As for a sense of greater urgency, I noticed in the debate when I made a full statement last Wednesday that there was no member of the Opposition Front Bench present.

While recognising the completely unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's Answer, may I ask him to bear in mind, in trying to come to a conclusion on this matter, the possibility of making a new datum line for everyone concerned? Will he bear that in mind?

All these considerations have been borne in mind and we will make a statement as soon as possible.

As both sides appear to have been committed to these proposals during and since the election, why cannot the Government do this, as they appear to be doing it in regard to the judges? Most of my hon. Friends would prefer these people to get increases rather than the judges.

Nothing I have said should lead my hon. Friend to suppose that we are not going to help these pensioners. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] I hope and believe that he will give these pensioners a great deal more support in any measures we have to help them than he has given in the case of the judges.

As the Minister knows, very positive promises of parity for all Service pensioners were made by the Prime Minister, the Colonial Secretary and the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) before the election. Will he say whether those promises have now been turned down, or does he stand by them?

The hon. Member is quite mistaken. If he had taken the trouble to attend the debate last week he would have heard a full statement on these things. The Government are bound by the pledges they gave in their election programme and stand by them.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the grave sense of disillusion in the country in view of the promises made before and during the election by the party opposite and the fact that the position has greatly worsened since then by a considerable rise in the cost of living?

The right hon. Gentleman had plenty of opportunity of tackling this problem when he was in Government. Since he went into Opposition, if he wishes to help pensioners, he could at least be in his place when their case is debated.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future rôle of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

I have nothing to add to the Answer which the Prime Minister gave to my hon. Friend on 13th May.

When considering economies in our defence expenditure, will my right hon. Friend please do what he can to see if in this alliance, an important one which most people in the country support, some economies can be made?

Yes, Sir. Her Majesty's Government regard the N.A.T.O. Alliance as the foundation of this country's security and the firmest guarantee of our survival in the atomic age, but, as I have said, we hope to distribute the burden more fairly, bearing in mind the many burdens which Britain is carrying alone outside the N.A.T.O. area.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister lent his name to a poster with a photograph which said, "No matter what they call it, no N.A.T.O. nuclear force"? Is that still the policy of Her Majesty's Government?

I think the hon. Gentleman is confusing a poster issued by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament with an election poster which stated the promises the Labour Party has carried out since it took office.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of military equipment is of British manufacture.

This information cannot be provided in the form requested, but I can say that rather more than 90 per cent. by value of current purchases is of British manufacture.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it would be far better to get agreement among all those nations in the Alliance with Great Britain to withdraw the supply of armaments provision rather than to start off an international competitive race in the sale of armaments? Would he accept from me that many of us on this side of the House and many in the country think it a retrograde step to organise a professional sales service indiscriminately to sell arms?

I think my hon. Friend will recognise that it is Her Majesty's Government's hope that we can end this whole business of traffic in arms by reaching disarmament agreements with our political opponents. Meanwhile, it is an unsatisfactory arrangement that we should engage in commercial competition with our political friends to sell arms for defence. I think he will agree that when hard selling methods are used by some allies to pre-empt a market which should be fairly shared, Her Majesty's Government have not only the right but the duty to ensure that British industry shall get a fair share of the available market.

Will the right hon. Gentleman put first things first? When he proposes spending hundreds of millions of British taxpayers' money on United States aircraft, will he ensure that they buy some British equipment in return?

Yes, indeed, but I point out that during the financial year 1964–65 British exports of arms were three times as great as British imports of arms.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are being taken by Her Majesty's Government for consideration of schemes to reorganise, improve, extend or rebuild the military hospital at Catterick Camp.

I am not yet able to add to the reply my right hon. Friend gave the hon. Member on 26th May.

Before any decision is taken to rebuild Catterick Hospital, will the Department have consultations with the Ministry of Health to see if in military hospitals some provision can be made for civilian patients?

Consultation with the Ministry of Health and all local hospitals is going on at present.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the security situation in Malaysia in so far as British troops are concerned.

Our forces, together with Australian and New Zealand units, continue strongly to support the Malaysian forces in resisting Indonesian confrontation tactics. They have been remarkably successful lately in intercepting numerous raiding parties which the Indonesians have launched, usually at night, against Malaya and Singapore. Most Indonesian patrols venturing across the frontier in Borneo have also been driven back with losses. I regret that our own units have suffered a number of casualties in these sea and land operations.

I pay tribute to the success of our forces in Malaysia. Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that there are now enough British troops in that area? What effect is there on the Strategic Reserve from having to maintain large numbers of troops in South-East Asia?

I think that the best proof that we have enough forces in Malaysia at the present time is that we have succeeded in deterring large-scale conflict. The extraordinary fact, which I should like the House to note, is that, although we now have over 50,000 men in the Malaysian territories altogether, fewer than 50 men have been killed in actual fighting in the last two years, whereas the Indonesian casualties since they have been on the attack have been very substantially higher. These operations have had a serious effect on the available forces of the Strategic Reserve in this country. That is why on more than one occasion we have been obliged to ask our N.A.T.O. allies for permission, which they have readily granted, to withdraw units from Germany to meet the need in the Far East.

Is there any evidence of continued Indonesian build-up such as the deployment of regular forces and the establishment of supply dumps, indicating that the Indonesian Government may be ready for action on a greater scale than has taken place up to date?

My right hon. and learned Friend will know that there has been a substantial reinforcement in South Kalimantan of Indonesian regular forces over the last six months. This is one of the reasons why we have been obliged to reinforce our own forces in North Borneo, though on a very much smaller scale. All the indications are that the steps we have taken have been successful in deterring any possible Indonesian attempt to launch a large scale attack, though we are permanently on our guard against such an eventuality.

Are Hovercraft being successful? If they are, have we a sufficient number of them?

Without notice of that question, all I can say is that we have had, as the noble Lord will know, a Hovercraft evaluation team using Hovercraft in various operational conditions in Malaysia, but so far as I know—I shall correct this in writing at a later stage if I have this wrong—we have not actually used Hovercraft operationally in fighting so far. We are extremely interested in this development and are pursuing it with all vigour.

Would not the Secretary of State agree that the figures he has quoted are in themselves a great tribute to the efficiency, training and equipment of our forces in Malaysia?

Yes; that is so. I am sure that the whole House would wish to join me in paying tribute to the enthusiasm and skill which our forces have shown in extremely trying operational circumstances.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what economies he proposes to make in the cost of maintaining the Hong Kong garrison in the furtherance of the defence review.

We are examining all our overseas commitments during the defence review, but I cannot yet make any statement about the Hong Kong garrison.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, when he is conducting this review, the danger of the Hong Kong garrison becoming too large in relation to the trip-wire theory, whereas it can never be large enough to deal with any major land onslaught?

My hon. Friend can be assured that I have this very much in mind.

Since the highest rate of Income Tax in Hong Kong is 2s. 6d. in the £, would the Secretary of State convey to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies that it might be a good idea for the Hong Kong Government to cut their budget cloth according to their defence commitments?

I am far from indifferent to the consideration which the hon. Gentleman has put forward, but it is only fair to point out that the Hong Kong Government are contributing £1½ million a year towards the cost of our forces and have agreed to pay up to a further £6 million for Army and R.A.F. works projects in the Colony spread over six years. These contributions are appreciated.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to develop the westward defence route to South-East Asia.

The R.A.F. already occasionally makes flights to and from the Far East across the longer North American route. We are currently considering what arrangements might be necessary to enable us, with the agreement of the United States and Canadian Governments, to make greater use of such routes, if need be, in the future.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce the results of his defence review, and in particular the decision on H.M.S. "Sea Eagle".

I cannot yet add to what was said on 15th July by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in answer to questions about the defence review generally, but I do expect a decision on H.M.S. "Sea Eagle" to be announced shortly.

Can we be told whether any of the decisions in this review will be announced before the House rises? If not, can we have an absolute assurance that no important decisions in this review will be announced while the House is in recess? Is the Secretary of State aware that the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) concerning a White Paper is one which commends itself to many members on this side of the House?

I am aware that there is some interest in that suggestion. On the question of the announcing of decisions, I cannot undertake not to take or announce a decision while the House is in recess, but so far as possible I will take any pending decisions in time to announce them to the House before it rises.

Is a decision on this question likely to be taken before the coming recess?

I cannot give a firm assurance one way or the other on that at the moment.

Will the Secretary of State give the House an assurance that in this rather complicated matter he will give absolute priority to the technical requirements of antisubmarine defence, which is the purpose of H.M.S. "Sea Eagle"?

Certainly the major considerations in the Government's mind are the operational advantages of the particular location of the anti-submarine training school. That will always have first priority. However, I do not think that on reflection the hon. and gallant Gentleman will want to give it an absolute priority and to ignore completely all other considerations.

Is the Secretary of State aware that there is a certain amount of disquiet, not only in Northern Ireland but elsewhere, about the whole question of the future of H.M.S. "Sea Eagle"? Would he give the House an undertaking that, if he proposes to come to a decision to close down H.M.S. "Sea Eagle", he will take the opportunity before the recess of announcing it in the House and give us the necessary opportunity to discuss or debate the matter?

Of course if it is possible to communicate a decision to the House before the recess I will do so, but I cannot hold up action which the Government have decided is in the national interest for three months if a decision is not possible until after the House has risen. I do not think the House as a whole would wish me to.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment as quickly as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is aware that married men who are under the age of twenty-one are not permitted to have married quarters while serving with the Army in Malta, nor are they permitted grants for free travel for their wives and families to join them; and if he will issue orders that this age discrimination should be discontinued, and that married men of any age should be entitled to apply for married quarters.

Married officers under the age of 25, and soldiers under 21, receive marriage allowance, but are not entitled to quarters or the other family benefits of older men. This applies to all three Services, at home and overseas. We are not able to relax the age limits.

The fact that it applies to three Services does not make it any the less heinous in respect of one. Is my right hon. Friend aware that young married people under 21 are allowed to take their wives but they must pay their fares? They are not given quarters. They are treated shamefuly in this respect. Will not my right hon. Friend reconsider this matter and make no distinction between persons who are under 21 and those who are over 21, particularly if they have families?

We are aware that the average age of marrying has been greatly reduced, and this will naturally apply to servicemen as to civilians. The ages have been reduced from 30 to 25 for officers and from 26 to 21 for soldiers. Changing the age for their entitlement would not provide them with quarters. I do not think that my hon. and learned Friend appreciates that there is world wide an inadequate number of quarters for all three Services, and in every station a number of people who are already entitled and who are over 21 are not able to get quarters. Merely changing the age, as my hon. Friend suggests, would not provide the quarters we need.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence why the constituent of the hon. Member for West Ham, North, serving in Chatham Barracks, details of whom have been supplied to the Admiralty, has been refused permission to buy himself out of the Royal Navy on the grounds of shortage of manpower, whilst serving-men in this barracks are being given occupations, such as picking up paper, doing private house work, mowing the lawn and other work normally undertaken by private servants; and whether he will cause an investigation to be made into these complaints.

This rating completed his last draft in May. He was due for embarkation leave and posting to the Far East by August. There was, therefore, no point in sending him to a complement billet. Hence his temporary posting to the Fleet Maintenance Unit at Chatham, his preference area. During a short and unusual lull in ships' maintenance work, he was employed on keeping Navy Department property ship-shape. The fact remains, however, that the Navy still has a pressing need for his skilled services. He will be fully employed in his proper category as soon as he joins his new ship.

Is it not a ludicrous situation when a man who applies for his discharge is told that he is too busy to be discharged and yet is spending his time, as my hon. Friend rightly guessed, mowing the captain's lawn and acting as wet nurse to the captain's family? [Laughter.] Yes. Hon. Members laugh, but I mean looking after the family, looking after the kiddies and acting as the equivalent of a wet nurse. [Laughter.] All but in fact. Is it not a terrible situation that we have this sort of thing going on? [HON. MEMBERS: "A nanny."] Yes, a nanny. That is the same thing. Is it not better that this man should come out and get on to some useful work rather than doing these officers' work and work which their wives should be doing?

My hon. Friend's constituent is obviously a man of many parts, but I can assure him that his proper skill will be fully used very shortly.

Despite the versatility of the hon. Member's constituent to which the Under-Secretary has rightly referred, would the Under-Secretary deprecate the use of the expression "serving-men" in this Question for "sailors"?

Yes, indeed.

(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement about the withdrawal of the Sudanese delegate from the South Arabian Constitutional Commission and the cancellation of the Commission's departure for Aden.

On Monday, 19th July, I was informed by Sayyid Mohammed Abu Rannat that he had been asked by the Sudanese Government to withdraw from the South Arabian Constitutional Commission and that he considered he had no alternative but to comply.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House have consistently advised him not to persist in this ill-conceived initiative and that if he had followed our advice he and the Government would have been saved another humiliating rebuff? Can he now say what representations have been received by the High Commission or himself from the Federal Government and the Aden Government since the withdrawal of the Sudanese member from the Commission?

The right hon. Gentleman calls this an ill-conceived initiative, but it was a genuine attempt to ease tension and end bloodshed and I am sorry that I did not receive the co-operation of either the Aden Government or the right hon. Gentleman in that perfectly legitimate endeavour. I have received suggestions from Federal Ministers which have reached me through the High Commissioner. I am in touch with the High Commissioner about them, but I prefer not to add anything at this stage.

What about the Aden Government?

I have not heard from the Aden Government at this stage.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember that when I was in Aden I advised all concerned to receive this Commission and to co-operate with the Government, although it was well known that I disagreed with that policy? I have been as helpful as I could. Will the right hon. Gentleman now give up this futile attempt to shelter behind an international Commission which has no authority, and which only serves to blur responsibility, and now resume what is his own task, which is to undertake whatever consultations are necessary and to take decisions on the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government?

When I used the expression "right hon. Gentleman", it was in the singular and not the plural. I exempt the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) from the strictures which I just passed on his right hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery). I appreciate what the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) did when he was in Aden. It is too early at this stage to talk about abandoning the Commission. I am in consultation with the High Commissioner and I do not think that it would be useful to debate the matter further at this stage.