asked the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions he has caused to be issued to members of the forces on support for Government defence policy in order to assist recruiting.

None, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will place in the Library a copy of the letter written by the First Sea Lord in his official capacity to retired naval officers on the subject of supporting Government defence policy and naval recruiting.

No, Sir.

Nevertheless, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the catastrophic policy of the Government has caused these bad recruiting figures? What does he propose to do about it?

The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense and he knows it. There has been no change in the trend of recruiting for a long time, but I will tell him what we are doing. As from the beginning of this month, there is a very substantial increase in pay to the Forces, because the Government have decided to honour the commitment under the Grigg Formula—unlike the Conservative Government in 1962. Secondly, we are introducing separation allowances for the Forces. Thirdly, we are reducing the overstretch of our Forces through the decisions we have taken in the Defence Review. All these measures were long overdue.

Would not the Secretary of State agree that the Government's defence policy is responsible for virtually ending recruitment for the Fleet Air Arm?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many British Service men died overseas in each of the last five years; and what is the estimated cost to public funds of returning their bodies to the United Kingdom.

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

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the tragic circumstances of one of my constituents who had to spend his life savings to have the body of his son brought back from the West Indies? Does not the hon. Gentleman recall that, on 10th February, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army said that a review was taking place of this matter and that a statement would be made shortly? When is that review likely to be completed and the statement forthcoming? Will the hon. Gentleman consider this matter generously?

The report will be out shortly and I will, of course, look at it with the greatest sympathy.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if, following the refusal of the appeal to the Court Martial Appeal by Privates Symington and Greig of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, he will reconsider the sentences imposed.

The sentences of imprisonment were reduced from three years to 18 months during the processes of confirmation and petition to the Army Board. They are reconsidered at intervals as provided by the Army Act. A review in March of this year resulted in no further change. Another review will be made in June.

Is the Minister aware that there are many aspects of the court martial in Singapore which have caused the gravest concern that there has been a serious miscarriage of justice? Will he say what reasons were given by the Army Council for turning down the petition?

The sentence and the guilt were reviewed on three and four occasions respectively during the normal procedure of reviewing court martial decisions. I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's statements about the way in which the court was conducted.

if my hon. Friend is so certain that in this case, in which I have taken an interest, as he knows, the Army is right, why have there to be these frequent reviews?

Because we take far more care in dealing with reviews of court martial cases than is the position in actions in the civil court. This is a good thing and makes sure that trials are properly conducted and properly looked into.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter of the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what action he is taking in regard to the status and pay of the apprentice instructors, charge-men and medical assistants in Her Majesty's Dockyards.

As I told the hon. Lady on 9th March, we are making progress, and hope to give detailed proposals to the trade union and staff sides before long.

This is an urgent matter and by now the hon. Gentleman will have received a petition from all the apprentice instructors from all the dockyards in the country. They would like to send a delegation to see him about the matter. Will he grant them an interview?

I know that this is urgent, but it is also very complicated and the matter must be handled through the trade unions.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence why his Department did not carry out the undertaking given, prior to enlistment, to Junior Technician D. Burlin, K.1944089, in respect of the 61 days' leave in Rhodesia to which he was entitled.

All leave in Rhodesia for members of the British Armed Services, other than for compassionate reasons, was cancelled in view of the illegal declaration of independence by Mr. Smith. A number of individuals have been allowed to take leave in Rhodesia for compassionate reasons. We are considering whether we would be justified in applying a broader interpretation to the compassionate factor, and the particular case referred to by the hon. Gentleman will be looked at in the light of this.

Is it not a fact that, whatever may have happened in Rhodesia, it is hardly the fault of Aircraftsman Burlin, or his ageing mother? I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said, but I add that if he were to deprive this aircraft-man, now that he is under military discipline, of an undertaking which was given to him prior to enlistment, the hon. Gentleman would be guilty of a very mean action.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we meant what was said in the Answer. This matter will be looked into again in the light of the review which is taking place.

Why does permission in these cases have to be dependent on compassionate considerations?

Because it is considered by my right hon. Friend that the rebellion in Rhodesia raises issues for members of the Armed Forces which make it desirable for them not to return there unless there are compassionate circumstances.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will give instructions for the demolition of unnecessary hutments at the Kinnegar, Holywood, County Down, and for the tidying up of the site, which at present causes offence to residents whose houses overlook the site and to residents in Holywood.

The hutments on this site are all in use. The site is, however, being tidied up as far as is practicable.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that will give great satisfaction to the people of the Holywood area? We appreciate the employment given on this site and would be unwilling to suggest anything which could interfere with it. We are very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his reply.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the activities of sales representatives of the American Unit Trust in so far as concerns the official permission given to them to address meetings of British Forces in Germany.

Commanding officers of Army and Royal Air Force units have authority, at their discretion, to admit sales representatives to their units. I have no information of dealings with this particular organisation.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that this raises the whole question of the propriety of the British Army authorities allowing this sort of pressurised salesmanship? If it is allowed for the sale of American unit trusts, why should it not be allowed for any other organisation? Would not my hon. Friend agree that there would be serious criticism if that were permitted?

As I have said, this is a matter for commanding officers to decide. Such permission where it is granted by commanding officers does not in any way give any official recognition to the organisation concerned and is valid only for the unit for which the permission is granted.

What is the procedure under which entry can be made to military camps for this purpose? Is it done in the N.A.A.F.I. canteen? Can a request come from soldiers to see sales representatives?

No. The application has to be made to the commanding officer. Of course, where a sales representative wishes to visit people in their married quarters outside the unit area, that is a matter for individual decision and requires no approval.

Is it not a fact that, perfectly validly, British unit trusts' units are sold to members of the Armed Forces in Germany and elsewhere? Why should there be discrimination against American unit trusts?

There is no intention to discriminate. I made it perfectly clear that the matter was for decision by commanding officers. No instructions have been given that there should be any form of discrimination.

And a very good answer, too.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many frigates he proposes to build in the next four years; and what is the total number contemplated under the present defence plan.

One Leander Class frigate was ordered in March, a second is being ordered from Devonport Dockyard, and a third will be ordered from a shipyard shortly. Our precise needs for frigates and the rate of building to meet these in the longer term remain to be settled in the light of our defence review decisions.

When is the right hon. Gentleman likely to make a final decision? There is a need for these extra frigates and, as the dockyards are getting less and less work, will he see that they continue to have ships built in their yards?

Of course, I will see that there is a steady flow of work to the dockyards and I think that we have assured this by the decisions already announced. Any further decisions will be announced as soon as possible.

As the right hon. Gentleman apparently has a precise budget for the year 1969-70, why does he not know which ships will then be under construction and which in service?

For the reasons which I gave last night and which the right hon. Gentleman patently failed to understand.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what provision he makes for the maintenance of a woman and her child who finds that the soldier who bigamously married her has been sent away on foreign service.

None, Sir. My Department can only pay marriage allowance in respect of the legal wife.

Why was this man sent out of British jurisdiction, thereby depriving the woman of her rights, or delaying any rights, which she may have had in a civil or criminal action against him? Will my hon. Friend look into the injustice being done to this woman and child?

He was not sent out of jurisdiction. Civilians, of course, cannot be brought back for proceedings of this kind. It is very unfortunate for a bigamous wife. However, a soldier is a citizen and, although we do not give him special privileges, we must not abuse our powers by subjecting him to a liability in civil law which civilians can escape. However, my hon. and learned Friend has written to me about this subject and I shall certainly be writing to him.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what new transport and other military aircraft Her Majesty's Government now plans to procure either wholly or in part from the British aircraft industry; and what support Her Majesty's Government intends to give by way of defence purchases to British aircraft design and manufacturing teams.

I would refer the hon. Member to paragraphs 17 and 18 of Chapter III of Part I of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1966.

In view of the recent experience with the Boeing and the F111, will the right hon. Gentleman now take a very friendly look at the British aircraft industry, before it packs up completely, with a view to injecting some hope for budding young aeronautical engineers that there is a future in the British aircraft industry?

I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman means by talking about the F111. I hope that he was not misled by mistaken reports in the Press that the aircraft under discussion in the United States was that which Her Majesty's Government was planning to buy. Certainly we have taken steps, as I explained in the White Paper in the paragraphs to which I referred, to ensure that there is a suitable future for the British aircraft industry.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the promise given to the House by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation on 16th February, that the need for a strategic jet transport would be considered after the defence review?

Yes, Sir.

Would the right hon. Gentleman go further than that and undertake to make a further examination of the possibility of using the largest version of the VC10, which now seems likely to be required by B.E.A., for military purposes as well?

We have all these possibilities under examination, but it is my duty to the country to ensure that the weapons which we order meet the country's need at a cost the country can afford.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are being taken to improve the married quarters and recreational facilities available to members of the forces stationed in Bahrain.

We are building a second all-ranks swimming pool at Muharraq, improving the joint officers' club and we plan to build a third all-ranks pool at Jufair. Most of the Service families at Bahrain live in hirings; if the hon. Member has any particular com- plaint to make about these or the married quarters, I will be glad to look into it.

In view of our imminent withdrawal from Aden, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the urgency of these measures, including particularly the need for proper air conditioning in married quarters, and will he see that the facilities are sufficient to meet the increased needs at Bahrain when we withdraw from Aden?

Most certainly.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what overall plan he has for returning to civilian use tracts of land no longer required for military training.

Land that is used for military training is kept under continual review, and areas are released as soon as they are no longer required.

Is the Minister satisfied that sufficient urgency is being given to this problem?

I am aware that there is a great deal of feeling about this. As I said, the matter is under continual review. However, my hon. Friend must remember that part of my duty is to ensure that the Services have the facilities which are necessary for operational efficiency. If my hon. Friend has a particular case in point, I will, of course, look into it.

Will the hon. Gentleman see that the 240 acres at Nether Alderley, which the Ministry has had for a great number of years, are returned to agricultural use instead of being used for a proposed prison?

I would require notice of that question.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that the time taken in negotiations when a local authority requires land for redevelopment is interminable? Should not the period be shortened?

These negotiations are often extremely difficult, but certainly we think that they could be speeded up. We are seeing what can be done about this.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the report of the inquiry into the fire at Neatishead radar station is completed; and if he will make a statement.

I have not yet received the report of the Board of Inquiry. I shall consider making a further statement in the light of the Board's findings.

Can my hon. Friend give any indication at all when this report is likely to be available, since this event caused a great deal of interest in the County of Norfolk?

It is anticipated that the Board of Inquiry's Report will be received very shortly.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements he is making with the Norfolk Fire Services to enable regular exercises to take place at Neatishead radar station by Norfolk and Norwich firemen, thus reducing the element of risk in the event of any further fire occurring at this station.

Very close liaison is maintained between the Royal Air Force and local fire authorities, and facilities are afforded for fire officers and men to make themselves familiar with R.A.F. establishments, subject to the requirements of security.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. Is he aware that the arrangements will give a great deal of satisfaction to the members of the Norfolk Fire Brigade?

asked the Secretary of State for Defence, in the light of the current balance of payments deficit, what further steps he is taking to prevent the increase in arms expenditure by approximately £100 millions a year.

Even after absorbing pay and price increases of £124 million, defence estimates for 1966-67 are only £52 million more than those for last year, and indeed at constant prices are £72 million less.

Even if achieved, does not this ceiling of £2,000 million at 1964 prices mean at least £2,500 million by 1970? Are there not projects mentioned in the current defence review but not estimated for this year which will swell even this figure in the years ahead?

The answer to both parts of that supplementary question is "No, Sir".

Would it not have assisted the balance of payments if the right hon. Gentleman had made a better offset arrangement with the Americans in connection with the purchase of American aircraft?

I have pointed out that the total value of the increase in dollar expenditure on all forms of equipment from the United States made by the last Government is less than the dollar expenditure by the previous Government, for which no offset agreement whatever was attempted to be negotiated.

Answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the reasons for the visit of H.M.S. "Dreadnought" to Rosyth for examination and repair.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what defects have been discovered in the "Dreadnought" nuclear submarine; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what constructional defects have recently been discovered in H.M.S. "Dreadnought".

As my predecessor told the House on 27th October, hairline cracks associated with some welds in the submarine have been discovered in the "Dreadnought" and we are carrying out a series of sea trials to study the behaviour of the affected areas and are undertaking detailed metallographic surveys.

Would not the Minister agree that it is a very serious matter that these cracks should have appeared after this submarine has been in service for such a short time? Would he not further agree that, from the point of view of future submarines, this really necessitates a very close look at the work which was carried out and at the place where that work was carried out?

It is serious, but no question at all arises of there being any risk to the ship's company. We are making a most detailed and careful survey.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the metal-forming techniques employed in building H.M.S. "Dreadnought" were the same as those employed by the Americans, or were they different?

They were different in some particulars.

Can my hon. Friend tell me how much this submarine has cost to date, how much more it is going to cost to make it fully seaworthy and whether we are ever going to get value for money out of this expenditure?

We are getting enormous value from it already, finding out things we could not otherwise have found out.

Have these defects been noticed in the "Valiant" and "Warspite", which are her sister ships?

No, they have not yet.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will use Chatham Dockyard for the construction of hunter-killer nuclear submarines.

I have nothing to add to the reply given by my predecessor on 27th October last.

Would not the hon. Gentleman admit that there has never at any time been any fault in the hull welding of a submarine built at Chatham Dockyard? If this dockyard is to be used as a repair unit, only so much hot welding can be done and welders will be unemployed unless there is cold welding also. In view of the great record of Chathham Dockyard in this sort of construction, would it not be wise to give it the opportunity of construction?

Chatham indeed has a fine record. However, it would be a very expensive business to equip it for construction and we think that we have sufficient capacity already.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement concerning the recent bomb incident in a cinema at Aden and the extent of British casualties incurred.

On 17th April a hand grenade was thrown into an open air film show at the camp at Beihan, near the Yemen border. British and Arabian Federation troops, as well as local employees, were watching the show, which was within the protected perimeter of the camp. The hand grenade exploded in front of the British troops. Thirty-three were injured; eight of them are still in hospital.

Does this incident mean that the Minister will be increasing the advance measures in Aden, particularly in places of troop recreation where the terrorists seem to concentrate their attacks?

There are already very adequate protective means. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We must, of course, recognise that the situation creates dangers. We also recognise that the grenade which caused the damage was thrown from within the camp, presumably by someone already there. A thorough investigation is being conducted to find who was responsible.

Has there not been an increase in bloodshed, terrorism and danger for British subjects and their families since the announcement that Her Majesty's Government are going to dishonour their obligations and run out of Aden in 1968?

This has been a problem, as the hon. Gentleman will know, for a considerable time and my right hon. Friend is very much aware of the gravity of the situation and is taking steps.

Have we not suffered far too many casualities in the past few years in Aden, and would not the best security be for us to get out of Aden?

My right hon. Friend is fully aware of the decision taken to bring this about.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement concerning the Territorial Army and the Volunteer Reserve.

No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my written Answer of 22nd April to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small).

Is it the intention in the case of the future structure of the Territorial Army and Volunteer Reserve to allow these reserve troops to wear the regimental facings and cap badges of the units affiliated to the county regiments—as in the case of Worcestershire—which have formed such an important part of volunteer tradition during the last 400 years?

Any hon. Member who has visited Territorial Army units in the past few years will have seen the multiplicity of badges. It would be a very brave man who tried to alter that situation.

Would the Minister say something about the position of the civilian staff who work for Territorial Army Associations? Is he aware that for many months they have been extremely worried about the future of their jobs? Could he confirm how many of them are likely to be kept on?

I cannot say how many are likely to be required. We still have under consideration the disposition of the Home Defence Force. We are still having consultations with the associations and unions concerned in respect of compensation and other provisions for these employees.

Does the Minister recognise that the House so far has had no opportunity to debate the Government's revised proposals, including those for the Home Defence Force, and that we shall wish to consider these on principle and on broad lines when we come to his Bill?

I have no doubt that there will be ample opportunity in a few weeks' time on the Second Reading of the Bill and in subsequent Committee stages.

Before we debate the Bill, would the right hon. Gentleman consider laying a White Paper to explain what the Government have in mind regarding the earmarking of reserve forces for purposes in the United Nations forces? Would he bear in mind that there are certain liabilities which people have undertaken which must not be betrayed by the Government?

If British troops are used to give assistance to United Nations forces they go as formed units and come under whatever control they come under. I have been in considerable correspondence with the hon. Gentleman on this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the rôle and purpose of the new Type 82 destroyers.

The Type 82 destroyer has been designed as a successor to the County Class. She will be a dual-purpose ship, armed with the new surface-to-air missile system, Seadart, and with the latest anti-submarine attack weapon, Ikara. The primary rôle of the ship, which will also have the new three-dimensional radar and other advanced equipment, will be to defend a surface force against air and submarine attack.

As this class of destroyer was designed to operate with aircraft carriers, and as we are no longer to have aircraft carriers, is there a continuing reason for these destroyers? Is it not a case that the Government are to spend £120 million on building these destroyers, for which sum we could have built one and possibly two aircraft carriers?

We consider these destroyers to have enormous value to the Fleet.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what sales of British equipment are being made to offset the foreign exchange cost of the F111A.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the value of purchases of British defence equipment which have been made by the United States Department of Defence since 1st January, 1966.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what orders for British defence equipment have been placed by the United States of America, or are in prospect, since the F111As were ordered from the United States of America; and what collaborative sales with the United States of America have been achieved.

Details of a number of items of British defence equipment have been sent to the United States Department of Defence, some "invitations for bid" have been received and the first bids will be made tomorrow. No further proposals for collaborative sales have yet been made.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the economic burden of our east of Suez rôle is being increasingly questioned by hon. Members on this side of the House? The purchase of the F111A is entirely devoted to the east of Suez rôle. While the expenditure may be extremely large, many of us feel thankful that the foreign exchange part of it is to be met, but we shall be watching this point very closely.

I do not know whether to be wholly grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said. I am grateful for what he said in the second part of his question. As for the first part, had he been present at the debate yesterday he would know that there are very sound reasons, accepted by the vast majority on both sides of the House, for continuing a British military capability outside Europe.

Can the right hon. Gentleman now deny the report that part of our defence contract with Saudi Arabia is included in the offset agreement on the F111A? Can he say what is the target for dollar sales in America on defence weapons for this first year?

We fixed a target for the 10-year period during which we shall be paying for the F111A. No substantial dollar payments will be made for the F111A for at least four years, and for this reason we have made no fixed annual target.

Mr. Nigel Fisher.

rose—

I called the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher).

Did not the right hon. Gentleman always justify the replacement of the TSR2 by the F111A on the ground that we should offset this very heavy dollar expenditure by selling a considerable amount of British defence equipment to the United States? Has he any comment on a report about a non-collaborative sale of 36 American aeroplanes to Jordan? Has he not wrecked the British aircraft industry without getting very much in exchange?

We always justified the purchase of the F111A rather than the TSR2 on the ground that it would save this country about £600 million. In addition, unlike any previous Government, we have arranged to offset the cost of the F111A purchase by arrangements for the sale of British products to the United States or British products to third countries with assistance from the United States. This is a precedent unique in British history and I should have expected hon. Members opposite to welcome it if they had any interest in the future of the British economy.

Will the right hon. Gentleman or his right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation make a personal statement to the House explaining the circumstances in which they came to mislead the House by concealing the material fact that the value of the Saudi Arabian deal was included in the offset arrangements on the F111A?

There has been no attempt whatever to mislead the House on this—none at all. We agreed when we made the F111A deal that we should include the Saudi purchase arrangements, which had not then been concluded, in that part of the offset arrangements which related to sales to third countries. When the original negotiations were undertaken and the Americans originally undertook to stand aside, the F111A agreement had not been concluded, and the original American intention was not dependent on its conclusion.

The right hon. Gentleman's answer completely contradicts what was said earlier in the House by other Ministers. If that is not deception, what is? In any case, why was it necessary to bring into this matter the Saudi Arabian deal, negotiations for which had been begun many years ago, and which had nothing whatever to do with the purchase of the F111A? To bring it into part of the offset arrangements at this stage is a shameless piece of deception.

I think that if the hon. Member takes the trouble to read what I said he will be less excited tomorrow than he was this afternoon. Negotiations for such sales were initiated under the previous Government. Like so many things which the previous Government initiated, they failed to bring them to a successful conclusion. We have done so—and that is the difference.

rose—

Order. Questions must be questions and not statements.

I beg to give notice that we shall press this matter further at the earliest possible opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for equipping British forces with the United States M79 light mortar.

A decision on the use of this equipment will be taken in the light of trials now being held in this country and in the Far East.

In view of the shortage of light mortar equipment in the Middle East and Far East and the fact that the trials so far held have proved to be most satisfactory, will the Minister press this forward as quickly as possible?

It is not a mortar. It is a grenade thrower. I do not think that the rest of the Question therefore follows. But we are going as fast as we can.

The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) should not anticipate Mr. Speaker by standing when another hon. Member is speaking. Mr. Burden.

Does not the Minister agree that if we go on buying American equipment at this rate we shall have to sell a lot of British equipment to make up for it?

In fact, we are not buying in total sales as much as the amount to which the previous Government but one committed us. Answering about this particular piece of equipment, the hon. Member is probably aware that it takes many years to design a piece of equipment of this nature. We did not inherit any design studies about this from that Administration.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if the Amphibious Squadron is now to be reconstituted; and where it is to be stationed.

No, Sir. The present Amphibious Warfare Squadron will be paid off when the first of the new asault ships, H.M.S. "Fearless", is deployed east of Suez.

Does not the hon. Gentleman propose to bring the new assault ships and commando carriers together in one squadron to work with the Army logistic ships? Would that not be following the successful precedent set by the original Amphibious Squadron?

One of these assault ships will do more than the Amphibious Squadron.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence for what purpose Land Rovers and other vehicles are now being specially prepared and overtime and weekend work being worked thereon at the Vehicle Recovery Depôt at Feltham in connection with the shipment of these vehicles to Dar-es-Salaam.

The vehicles now being prepared for shipment to Dar-es-Salaam are a consignment that has been sold to the Tanzanian Government through the Crown Agents. Overtime being worked at the Central Vehicle Depôt is not directly connected with these vehicles.

If those 50 Land Rovers and military vehicles are going to be used in connection with any military operations in Rhodesia, should not the Government say so now and so put the public in a position to know what they are really intended for?

The hon. Gentleman does not appear to have listened to my original reply. These vehicles have been sold to the Tanzanian Government as part of a general export drive, and we want to deliver them as quickly as we can.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future use of Leconfield Aerodrome, near Hull.

The Royal Air Force will require Leconfield for as far ahead as can be foreseen. Exactly what its future rôle will be has not yet been decided.

In view of that Answer, which I did not expect, may I ask my hon. Friend, who is a Yorkshire Member like myself, to bear in mind the keen anxiety that the situation will change should the Hull City Council desire a modern municipal airport, in view of our movement towards the Common Market?

I am aware of the interest that my hon. Friend has in the economic development of Yorkshire and Humberside. But, in terms of my right hon. Friend's responsibility for R.A.F., Leconfield, my reply is bald and clear. Under the defence review, we have not yet decided its future.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us when his right hon. Friend will make up his mind on the matter, because it is an important one? If the airfield is to be used by civil aviation as well as the R.A.F., the present arrangements can go ahead. If the R.A.F. are to quit the airfield, new arrangements must be made.

We are fully aware of the importance of R.A.F., Leconfield, but it is not only its operational use which is important, because there are many other important issues there, namely, the flying zones in that part of Yorkshire. But it will be expedited, as I have promised my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to visit Malta.

At an early opportunity.

Could the Secretary of State go as quickly as possible, as our cuts in defence spending will have a greater effect on the Maltese economy than possibly we may realise here? A visit by him will be welcomed by the Maltese people.

I am aware of the problem, but it is not one for my Ministry, which is concerned with the security and influence of this country, and the savings which we make with the defence review are made in the interests of the people of this country. We have responsibilities to the people of Malta, of course, but those are for my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary.

Will the right hon. Gentleman investigate the conditions of service of the Royal Malta Auxiliary, who get only two-thirds of the pay and allowances of Britsih troops? The matter needs straightening out, and it is about time that something was done to put them on a par.

The hon. Member will be aware that that unit has recently had a pay increase, but I will look into the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what military exercises have been carried out in the United Kingdom recently, and with what kind of operations in view.

Six large military exercises have been carried out in the United Kingdom since the beginning of the year. Their object, whether they have been conducted on a single-Service or a three-Service basis or in collaboration with our allies, has been to prepare our forces to meet all probable eventualities. They have therefore been undertaken with a wide variety of possible operations in view.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say which of our allies were not present at which of these operations, and whether Portugal was present at all?

I cannot say that without notice. If the hon. Gentleman puts a Question down, I will answer it.

In the past, facilities have been made available for hon. Members of this House to attend some of these exercises. Was that done, and will it be done in future?

It was done in the case of one or two of them. If the hon. Member believes that we should make more facilities available for attendance at exercises, perhaps he will make his suggestion through the usual channels.

asked the Secretary for Defence what fresh assurances he has sought and received about the bomb load of the F111, as a result of the recent investigation in the United States of America.

None, Sir.

Is it not a fact that there seems to be some fresh information as a result of the work of the investigating committee of the House of Representatives and, in view of the importance of this aircraft to the Government's defence policy, would the right hon. Gentleman ask for further information?

I think that the hon. Gentleman ought to do his homework. He should know that Congress has not been investigating the aircraft which we are buying, the F111A: it has been investigating a totally different aircraft, the FB111. The hon. Gentleman should do his homework.

Has the right hon. Gentleman swallowed, hook line and sinker, the story of the American manufacturers that all the bad American planes have been sold to America and that all the good ones are coming to us?

That is a good comic remark, but it is so irrelevant to the subject that I had better not comment on it.

Would my right hon. Friend confirm or deny that the drag has turned out in our version to be about 20 or 25 per cent. greater than expected?

I cannot remember whether my hon. and learned Friend asked me to confirm or deny. I deny it.

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that, for a given range, if the drag is up, the bomb load must be down? Since the President of General Dynamics informed hon. Members on both sides of the House that all was not well with the engineering, ought not the right hon. Gentleman to inform himself better?

I can assure the House that I have taken the trouble to inform myself very well on this, and we are satisfied not only that the range is adequate but that it is still several hundred miles in excess of the radius of action of the TSR2.

Would my right hon. Friend say that it is the case that the F111A and the FB111 originate from the same model? Is it not possible that some of the faults in the FB111 might be transmitted to the F111A?

To clear it up for my hon. Friend, the best analogy was trying to turn a Mirage into a totally different sort of aircraft by making it the Mirage IV. This is what the American Administration is trying to do in turning a tactical strike aircraft, the F111A, into a nuclear strategic bomber aircraft, the FB111. This presents serious problems but was not relevant to our purpose.