asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next proposes to visit Bahrain.

On 15th July.

Will the right hon. Gentleman realise when he visits there that Bahrain is no substitute for Aden, and can he tell the House how much money he proposes to save by substituting Bahrain for Aden?

I entirely agree that Bahrain is no substitute for Aden, otherwise we would not be saving a large amount of money by going there, but Bahrain and the other facilities we expect in the Persian Gulf will be fully adequate to enable us to carry out all our commitments in that area. On the question of the precise amount of money we expect to save, I cannot add to what was said in the Defence White Paper and the debates which followed.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what conclusions he has reached about the use of a large Hovercraft for the Royal Navy as a result of the recent official investigation of the project.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how far his consideration of Hovercraft following the trials of such craft in Borneo last year have gone in the direction of larger, seaworthy Hovercraft; and whether the prototypes he is considering for coastal patrol work are fit for crossing the English Channel and North Sea and for passenger and commercial use and for carrying freight.

We have decided, subject to satisfactory arrangements on price and time-scale, to order two experimental Hovercraft for technical and service evaluation; one is to be developed and built for coastal patrol work, and one for logistic support. These craft will certainly be capable of crossing the English Channel and the North Sea; they may have commercial application where the sea is too rough for smaller craft, but the traffic too light for larger.

Can the hon. Gentleman give any idea of the size of the craft which has been ordered, and can he say also whether he is considering an even larger craft which will go further than coastal duties?

These are of 45 tons. Yes, we are considering a larger hovership.

Can my hon. Friend say why Britain's achievement in the science of Hovercraft lags behind Britain's achievement in aircraft, as evidenced by the recent spectacular flight of Miss Sheila Scott, and will he do something——

Order. That supplementary question is getting too wide of the Question on the Paper.

May I continue my supplementary? Will the Minister take steps to see that Britain's achievement in Hovercraft keeps pace with Britain's achievement in aircraft?

Britain's achievements in Hovercraft lag behind no one and no thing.

Can the Minister tell the House whether the Hovercraft is a naval vessel? If this question has not been considered, ought it not to be considered, to prevent overlap which has so often occurred among the Services in the past?

There has been no overlap at all. Inter-Service work has been entirely harmonious and satisfactory. What one calls the thing I do not know, except Hovercraft, which is what it is.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the vast superiority of the Humber ports for craft of this order, rather than the North-East of Scotland—or Aberdeen?

I do not want to get involved in that one.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what investigations he has made into a suitable site for a Polaris submarine base in the area of the Indian Ocean.

None, Sir.

Are we to understand that in conversations with the Americans this was not thought of last year, in view of the importance which the Government attach to policy east of Suez?

We think of a great many things which we do not discuss with our allies. There are no plans by the Government to put Polaris boats east of Suez.

Would my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the Indian Government will not be subjected to nuclear defence against their wishes either from Polaris submarine bases or by Prime Ministerial nuclear umbrella?

I can assure my hon. Friend that the Indian Government will receive no defence assistance which they do not request.

How, then, is it proposed by the Government to provide any nuclear defence of the kind to which the Prime Minister frequently refers, in the event of its being agreed to?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has repeatedly made it clear, not least in the notable speech which he made in another room a week ago, that there is no proposal by Her Majesty's Government unilaterally to provide nuclear defence for India.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will seek to attach British officers to units in Vietnam as observers.

No, Sir.

But would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in the interests of peace, British forces must keep up to date in the skills" and techniques of counter-insurgency warfare? As the confrontation in Malaysia might fold up, ought we not to attach some British officers to the Commonwealth troops fighting so nobly for the defence of freedom in South Vietnam?

I recognise that it is desirable that we should keep in touch with developments which might be relevant to the rôle of our own forces. That is the reason why we have attached three additional defence attaches to the British Embassy in Saigon.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that any proposal which involves a British military presence in Vietnam in any capacity whatsoever would be most strenuously resisted both by the Labour movement and by the country? Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm that the Government have no such intention?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total value of arms sales overseas for the last convenient 12 months before the appointment of the new head of defence sales.

About £120 million during 1965.

In the furtherance of the job of exporting arms, will an arms manufacturer get any particular Government assistance when doing so over and above what a private exporter would get? Will the Prime Minister's statement about the break-up of the Ministry of Aviation mean that Mr. Brown, the arms salesman, will be put under the Minister of Technology?

On the second question, no, Sir; on the first question, yes, Sir. The Government are helping British manufacturers to sell their arms abroad through the appointment of the new head of defence sales.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the Prime Minister's statement yesterday that all war is barbarism and that, when the arms salesman heard this, he thought that the Prime Minister was letting him down and threatened to resign?

To the first question, yes, Sir; to the second, no, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to place orders for Type 82 destroyers; when he expects that these ships will start to come into service; and what their primary rôle will be.

I have nothing to add to what I told the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) on 9th March, and the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 27th April.

Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it to be satisfactory that he should delay so long after his announcement in February about ordering these ships? Has he gone to tender for these ships? Does he realise that every month he delays ordering them will add to the cost of £17 million, £18 million, £19 million or £20 million each?

We have gone to tender and hope to place a contract in September.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for equipping our Polaris submarines with Poseidon missiles in place of 3A missiles.

None, Sir.

Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the President of the United States has stated publicly that this weapon increases the effectiveness of a Polaris submarine eight-fold? In view of the Prime Minister's intention to provide a massive contribution to the nuclear defence of the West, does he not consider that our Polaris submarines should be armed with the most advanced weapons available?

No, Sir. My view has always been that our forces should have the most advanced weapons required. We are not satisfied that there is a requirement for the Poseidon missile. Moreover, the American Government have not yet made a decision to produce and deploy it.

Despite the technical difficulties, can we be assured that this matter has at least been looked at?

Of course, Sir.

Does that reply mean that the Polaris is now considered to be an entirely satisfactory system and that there is, therefore, no longer any need to renegotiate the Nassau Agreement?

I do not think there is any connection between the first and second parts of that question.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the text of the Anglo-American agreement for co-operation on the supply of arms to third countries as part of the dollar offset arrangements following on the purchase of the F111A.

No, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a growing feeling in America that there is no firm specific commitment under this arrangement? Is he aware that it is becoming better and better known that the right hon. Gentleman was fobbed off? Will he publish the terms of this agreement so as to vindicate himself?

The hon. Member should be aware that Mr. McNamara stated America's obligations under the agreement in the most precise terms a week or two ago to the United States Congress. Moreover, an official of the American Defence Department is coming to London this week to try to improve some of the arrangements for presenting the invitations to tender on this matter.

In view of the difficulties which have already arisen and the tremendous cost in foreign exchange to our country—which we cannot afford —will the Secretary of State carefully reconsider this proposal before it is too late and the whole matter is finished?

No, Sir.

Why was the existence of this agreement, which accounts for the greater part of the dollar cost of the F111A aircraft, not disclosed in the Defence White Paper?

It was referred to in my briefing on the Defence White Paper which was given in the House on the same afternoon that the White Paper was published. Moreover, the fact that sales to third countries were part of the sales agreement was twice referred to by me in my statement in the House that afternoon, but the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) did not discover that this was the case until two months later, when I told him.

But why was it not in the White Paper itself? Was it because the agreement had not been arrived at when that Defence White Paper went to press?

No, Sir. This agreement was arrived at a month before the right hon. Gentleman's extraordinary rigmarole to Conservative ladies in the Home Counties recently appeared to suggest.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence why there was no co operation between the United States Government and Her Majesty's Government on the recent sale of arms to Jordan, in view of the agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government on cooperative sales to third countries.

The discussions that took place with the United States and Jordanian Governments were confidential and I cannot disclose details.

No wonder. If the agreement in effect is viable, why has there been no benefit whatever to us in relation to Jordan, or, so far as we know, in relation to another Middle East country which will be relevant shortly? Is he aware that this is a classical example of the fact that this agreement is worth nothing?

There is no agreement for us to co-operate with the United States on all sales of armaments to third countries. Only last week I made certain sales to the German Government in competition with the United States. Jordan was an issue in our discussions with the United States, but the fact is that the Jordan Government found it more to its interest to buy three times as many refurbished American aircraft as new British aircraft. There was nothing we could do about it. In the end, the buyer will always decide what he wants.

Is it not a fact that the arrangements for a co-operative sale to Jordan were far advanced? Why did they break down?

No, Sir. Like so many statements by the right hon. Gentleman, that is not a fact.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will specify the main components of the saving of £80 million on the defence budget for 1969–70 arising from the decision not to build the new aircraft carrier.

Approximately £25 million on the new carrier and its associated support and the balance of £55 million on aircraft.

The right hon. Gentleman has told me that, of that balance, £15 million is attributable to Phantom aircraft. Can he, if necessary in writing, supply me with more detail on the remainder?

Yes, Sir, I can do that orally now—£15 million was for Phantom aircraft, £9 million is on credits for the Phantom buy, and the rest is on Buccaneers for fewer Buccaneers of the present mark, not developing and buying Buccaneer Mark 2 Star and not developing new British airborne early warning aircraft.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what gratuities are paid to holders of the Military Medal who won this decoration in the Second World War and the First World War, respectively.

For the Second World War, £20 gratuity or for pensioners 6d. a day in addition to pension; for the First World War, nothing.

When the hon. Gentleman comes to answer my supplementary question, will he throw away his Departmental brief? Is he aware that I know the number who won the medal in each war? Does he not think that there is a most unfair anomaly which could be easily corrected, and will he look into the matter?

When the decision was taken at the end of the Second World War, it was decided that it would not then be possible to include First World War holders. If we were to do it now, it would involve a total of 35,000 holders of the pension from the First World War and would cost about £700,000. It is felt that at this stage, so many years afterwards, that would not be a reasonable expense upon the defence budget.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of the recipients of this decoration, being officers, did not have their names and numbers inscribed on them, which is the practice with other ranks? Will he look at the point and try to change the practice so that all names and numbers are inscribed?

With respect, that is a different question, but it goes to prove that it would be difficult to track down all those who gained the award at the time of the First World War.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the hon. Gentleman's reply, I wish to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what types of ships in the Royal Navy are equipped to carry and operate aircraft.

Aircraft carriers, commando ships, assault ships, guided missile destroyers, Leander and Tribal Class frigates, the ice patrol ship, some surveying vessels and some Royal Fleet Auxiliaries.

Will the Minister give an assurance that he will not limit these ships in the Royal Navy which can carry aircraft to only one type of aircraft?

I hope not.

Does not the Minister's Answer really refer to helicopters rather than to aeroplanes? Will he give the House an assurance that his Department is studying the possibilities of V.T.O.L. aeroplanes being carried in our ships in the future?

That is one of the options which we are looking at urgently.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to bring the British Army of the Rhine up to the strength undertaken by treaty.

Our general intentions regarding B.A.O.R. were set out in this year's Defence Review White Paper. The strength of B.A.O.R. at any one time depends on such factors as our other overseas commitments and the progress of recruitment for the Regular Army.

But how will the Secretary of State bring up these figures to the treaty strength in view of present recruiting levels and the fact that he proposes to cut the Regular Army by 16,000 men?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are plans for redeploying the forces following the end of confrontation, which we now hope is in sight.

Is it not the case that the British Army of the Rhine has never been up to strength since the Treaty was agreed, which is a further illustration of the absurdity of this commitment, which was made by a previous Government? Will my right hon. Friend make sure that we do not enlarge the Army there at a time when the Americans and many others are considering immense reductions, which we in this country want to see? We want to reduce the scale of the arms budget west of Suez, as well as east of Suez.

My hon. Friend will be glad to know that I share his desire to reduce the arms budget, but not at the expense of the nation's security.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence, in view of the changing rôle of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, including France's desire to opt out, and that of the United States to reduce overseas expenditure, what negotiations he is having to reduce the British Army of the Rhine and gradually to bring home British troops; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for bringing back the British Army of the Rhine to this country.

As things stand, we have no intention of bringing back or reducing the British Army of the Rhine, provided means are found for meeting the foreign exchange costs.

Does the Minister suggest that our troops will stay there for ever? Why cannot the Germans defend their own country? What right have we to put our troops there and let the Americans pay for them? Surely we have some pride left?

I think most of the House will recognise that the presence of our forces in Germany is an essential part in the strength and solidarity of N.A.T.O. on which our survival depends. I point out that I said, "As things now stand". Her Majesty's Government hope that it may be possible to reach some agreement with the Warsaw Powers on a reciprocal reduction of arms in both parts of Europe, which would enable us on both sides of the Iron Curtain to make substantial savings.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in any decision to leave Germany to defend herself, the great danger, if this is done, is that the Germans might decide to buy nuclear weapons, which some of us believe would be a great threat to the peace of Europe?

I think my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The existence of the alliance is not only necessary to the security of our country but also a very important framework within which Germany can grow democratically and prosperously and not as a danger to her neighbours.

The right hon. Gentleman said earlier that he had sold £8 million worth of goods to pay for the cost of these troops. Does not he think that it would be more appropriate to give a little credit to those who helped him to do that? Will he say when the balance will be sold to make up the cost of these troops before the autumn?

On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, as he knows, the sales are not finally concluded. He would agree that any sale of this nature requires a great deal of hard work by a very large number of people, not only inside but outside the Government, before it can be concluded. I think that he will find that the sale of the £8 million worth of goods brings us close to the total of military purchases envisaged by the current offset agreement. He will know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is shortly to discuss with the German Finance Minister the major question of covering foreign exchange costs in general.

Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether consideration has been given to the possibility of keeping our troops in Germany on an active service basis and replacing them periodically in order to save expenditure on the cost of permanent bases and family quarters?

We have considered a very, very large number of possibilities.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that we are spending £195 million a year on B.A.O.R., nearly half of it in foreign exchange? Secondly, will he at least consider this morning's statement that the Soviet Government are offering to withdraw part of their forces from Europe?

I think that my hon. Friend had better put down a Question on his first point. On his second point, I have no knowledge of such a statement, but if there is one I should like to consider it before I comment on it.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he has made in negotiations with the West German Government about their obligations in connection with support costs for the British Army of the Rhine; and if he will make a statement.

During my recent visit to Bonn, I was able to arrange for the purchase of British equipment to the value of £8 million under the existing offset agreement. The question of a greater German contribution to the foreign exchange burden arising out of the stationing of our forces in Germany is now being pursued by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Federal German Minister of Finance. I hope that these negotiations will be brought to a satisfactory conclusion.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is growing exasperation on both sides of the House at the continued refusal of the West German Government to meet their obligations in this matter and that the large burden of foreign exchange on our economy is quite untenable? Is he further aware that we regard the offer of £8 million, spread over two years, as quite derisory and an insult to the British people? We also feel that the acquisition of arms——

Order. The hon. Lady must learn to make her supplementary questions shorter. Mr. Healey will answer.

First, I am well aware of the depth of feeling on this matter, not only inside but outside the House, and I communicated it to Herr von Hassel during our talks. It is very important that the German Government and people should be aware how we feel. My hon. Friend was unfair to the German Government. This £8 million is in addition to a very large amount of money which they have already spent under the existing offset agreement.

Is it the Government's object to secure a complete offset during the current financial year? If so, do they expect to achieve it?

The Chancellor made clear our objective in that respect. Of course, we always hope to achieve our objectives.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what purchases of British military equipment have now been made by the United States Government to offset the dollar cost of the F111A aircraft for the Royal Air Force.

The first sale should be completed shortly.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House was given an undertaking that the Government would take steps to ensure that this dollar cost would be fully offset; yet here we are, many months later, with nothing yet announced to the House. Can he not take some active steps to see that his undertaking is kept?

If there were any more active steps that I could take, I would take them. I would remind him that there are still 12 years to go, and we do not start paying dollars for the F111A for several years yet.

Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that there is a mission which will be arriving shortly in this country to deal with the matter and look at the possibility of buying more British goods? It really is becoming scandalous.

If the right hon. Gentleman had not been asleep a few moments ago, he would have heard me refer to that mission.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, whatever the merits or otherwise of the purchase of the F111, the United States Government have gone out of their way to be co-operative in the matter? Certainly that was the impression I gained when I was in Washington six weeks ago.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. What he says is exactly true.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what provision he is making for surface-to-surface guided weapons for the Royal Navy.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he is making to develop, produce or buy surface-to-surface guided weapons with ranges of more than 15 miles.

I am considering the Navy's need for weapons of this kind, and how to meet that need, in the light of the Defence Review decisions.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, by taking away the Navy's ability to see and strike beyond the horizon, he has left it in a very vulnerable position, and surface-to-surface missiles are therefore most important?

I agree that surface-to-surface missiles may be an important way of filling the gap left by the phasing out of carriers in 1975. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Navy does not lose the capabilities to which he refers for at least another nine years.

Could the right hon. Gentleman assure us that, as he has assassinated the carriers, he will attack with some vigour the question of finding an alternative surface-to-surface missile for the defence of ships? Would he make a statement to the House as early as possible explaining what is being done, because there must be great anxiety among all those who wish to see our ships, both civil and naval, properly defended?

The right hon. Gentleman had some responsibility in a Govern- ment which failed to order a new carrier for the Royal Navy over a period of 13 years. It is not for him to talk about assassination. But I will ensure that the Royal Navy has the weapons that it needs to carry out the tasks required of it.

Since the right hon. Gentleman has himself stated in his defence review that it takes 10 years to produce a new weapon, is it not time that he got on with it? He is admitting today that the aircraft carriers will be finishing in nine years.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my colleagues have got on with it.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the German Minister of Defence about the future of the British Army of the Rhine.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about his recent consultations with the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany in Bonn.

The details of my talks with Herr von Hassel are confidential but I am, with permission, making arrangements for the communiqué which was issued to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Does not the Secretary of State recall the Chancellor of the Exchequer's remarks during the Budget debate that the whole or the greater part of the Government's financial programme for the year is based on the assumption that, by the autumn of this year, we shall be relieved from the whole of the foreign exchange costs of our troops in Germany. Can he confirm that that is the position?

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I am so aware of the Chancellor's views on this matter that, in one day in Bonn, I arranged sales of £8 million worth of British equipment to the German Government under the existing off-set agreement.

Since it is now 18 months since the Government first proposed the A.N.F., can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he discussed the matter with the German Government when he was over there and whether any progress was made?

I had discussions with Herr von Hassel about making arrangements by which the non-nuclear members of the alliance can be satisfied that the nuclear members use their weapons in accordance with the collective desires of the alliance in a crisis. That is the issue which is generally agreed by all Governments in the alliance to be by far the most urgent matter for decision and, incidentally, it is one which was totally ignored in the 13 years that the party opposite was in power.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Warsaw Pact Defence Ministers at a recent meeting decided to reduce Soviet forces in Eastern Germany by five divisions? Is he further aware that that is just one more indication that the cold war forces in Europe are falling apart? Would he not make a contribution to that at least by making a total reduction in the B.A.O.R. in the immediate future?

I am not aware of the facts to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The Soviet Government, who control these divisions, have certainly not decided to withdraw five of them, as far as I am aware. Nothing would please this Government and other members of the alliance more than if it were possible for the two alliances to reach agreement on a progressive reduction in the level at which the balance of security is maintained on both sides of the Iron Curtain.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence for what purpose buildings are being retained at the old United States Air Force camp near Bovingdon Airfield; when they will be used; and why they are at present abandoned to vandalism.

Some of the facilities including a gymnasium and some water storage tanks, are being used by the Royal Air Force. The rest of the property is awaiting disposal. I have already told the hon. Gentleman that we are taking steps to prevent vandalism.

Why is the Minister leaving these buildings open to sabotage and to destruction if he wants to use them?

The problem of disposal is being discussed with the local planning authority, which has not yet taken a decision concerning the future use of the area. The hon. Member asked about vandalism. Since he raised the matter with me, we have taken additional measures to try to see that vandalism is reduced.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions have been given to Mr. Brown, the recently appointed arms salesman, regarding sales of arms to the South African authorities.

The appointment of Mr. Raymond Brown as head of defence sales implies no change in the Government's policy regarding sales of arms to South Africa. He has, of course, been informed what that policy is.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there is a danger of the arms sold to one country finding their way to South Africa? Does he not recognise this danger? Does it not prove that even the appointment of an arms salesman is wrong in all possible directions?

No. With respect to my hon. Friend, I think that it proves exactly the opposite. It proves that it is desirable for the Government to exercise more political control of the sale of arms by this country to other countries.

Will the right hon. Gentleman publish from time to time a list of countries—perhaps Portugal, Spain and others—in respect of which the Labour Government do not agree with the régime s in power with the result, presumably, that the terms of reference of this arms salesman prevent him from selling arms to those countries? The House is entitled to a list of those countries so that we may know where he may sell and where he may not sell.

The House has already been informed of those countries in respect of which we wish to impose restrictions in the sale of British arms.

Is it not fatuous to deny the sale of shotguns and Ferret scoutcars to a country which is at least thought to be on the verge of developing its own nuclear capability?

If the hon. Member reflects, he will not think it wise or right for this country to fly in the face of resolutions of the United Nations Assembly on this matter. I hope that he will not press us to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to stimulate British participation in meteorological studies based on data obtained by satellites.

The Meteorological Office is studying the results of its Ariel 2 experiment and is preparing an experiment for UK 3. The Office at Bracknell also receives cloud pictures for forecasting from American weather satellites and is equipping four other reception stations overseas.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will order three frigates in the current financial year; and when the first type 82 will be laid down.

Two Leanders have been ordered in this financial year, and a third was ordered in March; the first Type 82 should be laid down in 1967.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he now expects that the Army target strength of 181,000 will be reached.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he still proposes to recruit the Regular Army to his stated ceiling of 181,100; and, in the light of the latest recruiting figures, when he expects this strength to be achieved.

We maintain the ceiling of 181,100. On current recruiting trends it should be reached next year but much will turn on the extent to which those now serving renew their engagements.

Is this a target which the right hon. Gentleman intends to revise in the light of his statement of 8th March and other occasions about a reduction in manpower following developments in the Far East?

The possibility of reducing the target is of course, open in that respect.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his refusal either to confirm or to deny the very strong rumours of a cut of 15,000 or so in the overall size of the Regular Army is not only having a deplorable effect on recruitment and re-engagement but is leaving our allies in doubt about our determination and ability to carry out our obligations to them?

I am not responsible for rumours which circulate but I am glad to say that the May recruiting figures do not bear out the statement made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied wtih the current rate of re-engagement?

No, Sir, and successive Governments have always felt that the question of re-engagement and prolongation of service is the most difficult question with which they had to deal—more difficult than the recruitment of new members of the Services.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what naval vessels have been purchased or ordered by India in the past three years from the United Kingdom.

None, Sir, but she is obtaining equipment from the United Kingdom for a number of Leander frigates to be built at Bombay.

Does the Minister agree that there is a great desire by India to buy a large part of her military equipment from Britain and that it is being frustrated for various reasons? Will he review the various restrictions, official or unofficial, which are placed on the sale of military equipment to India?

I think that I am right in saying that the problem is not political restriction but the ability to finance sales of this nature.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether Her Majesty's Government is considering the replacement of the British sovereign bases in Cyprus by North Atlantic Treaty Organisation bases.

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for discussions within the next six months with Britain's Commonwealth and other allies on proposals to reduce the British military commitment east of Suez; and whether he will take steps to reduce this commitment speedily.

We are in constant communication with our Commonwealth and other allies over the whole range of international affairs which have a bearing on the speed with which we can implement the reductions foreshadowed in the Defence Review. These reductions will be carried out as quickly as is both practicable and consistent with our political obligations.

Is it not the case that my right hon. Friend went to Canberra and to Washington earlier this year with a firm policy in mind of reducing this commitment drastically, that strong representations were made to him by Australia and by the United States to reverse that policy and that he acceded to those representations? Will he take steps either to confirm or to deny this and give an assurance that we are not committed unilaterally to defend that area until the 1990s or the turn of the century?

I am glad that my hon. Friend has given me an opportunity to deny completely the story, on which he based his remarks, in the Observer last Sunday. There is not an atom of truth in that story. It is on record, and in the House of Commons Library, that I pointed out to the people of Australia in my speech at the Press Club in Canberra—in which incidentally, I did not say, as some hon. Members have been led to believe, that we should maintain all our present commitments until the 1980s; that can easily be checked—that we should expect a fair sharing of the burden.

If the Government persist in their determination to rat on their obligations in Aden, does the right hon. Gentleman think that we shall be able to respond to any further appeals for military assistance from Commonwealth Governments in Africa?

First, I cannot accept the hon. Member's statement that we are ratting on our commitments in Aden. We are perfectly satisfied that our capability for carrying out such operations as we think are likely to be required in Africa will not be affected by a withdrawal from Aden, not least because we have made arrangements to provide ourselves with long-range transport aircraft which, under the previous Government's policies, we should not have had for another six years.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether the fact that Malaysia, so far from expressing gratitude for her defence, is now ordering our troops out, will accelerate the process of leaving the Middle East? It certainly seems to be an illustration that troops are not a very good way of buying either gratitude or trade.

My hon. and learned Friend, with his vast experience of international affairs, will agree that gratitude is not a commodity which one seeks to acquire through doing one's duty.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that he would secure worth-while defence economies if he were to discuss the withdrawal of both British missions and British troops from the Sudan, from Zambia and from other African countries?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate has been made of the cost to this country of moving North Atlantic Treaty Organisation installations from France.

Until further detailed studies have been carried out to determine precise locations, communications requirements and the like, no estimate can be given.

Surely the Minister can be a little more frank than that with the House, as discussions have been going on for many weeks? Is the Minister aware that part of the very heavy cost which will have to be borne by this country could be offset if displaced units from France came to this country? Have Ministers had any success in pressing this point?

Yes. The hon. Member will be aware that two American units, displaced from France, are coming to the United Kingdom very shortly. I would point out that there is still some uncertainty as to the number of N.A.T.O. installations which will be required to be moved from France. For example, the North Atlantic Treaty Council will not decide until October whether it, itself, should move out of France, and there is still a good deal of discussion about the number of logistic facilities now in France which would require to be moved.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will raise the compulsory qualifying allotment for marriage allowance for corporals and below from 4s. a day, since it has remained at this figure for many years while pay has increased.

The whole question of qualifying allotments is now being reviewed.

While I do not share the view of a noble Lord who is a field marshal that the Army should largely consist of bachelors, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman would agree that Service men should be encouraged to take family responsibilities seriously as under the present system their families can be left in financial straits?

Of course it is true that seven out of eight married Service men are living with their families. It is also true that the present qualifying figure of 4s. a day is very much less than the vast majority of Service men pay over. As part of the review we are considering whether the responsiblity for deciding how much should be allocated to his wife should fall on the man rather than be done by means of restrictions.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give an assurance that British Armed Forces released from the Malaysian confrontation will not be transferred for service in Australia unless the cost is fairly shared by all interested parties.

We have no intention of transferring for service in Australia the forces which, we hope, will soon be released from their present duties by an ending of confrontation. The sharing of costs in Australia does not, therefore, arise at this stage. If and when it does, we shall certainly expect the costs to be fairly shared.

Does that mean that the troops will be either brought home or demobilised?

No. It means that the troops will be redeployed either in the Far East or in other parts of the world.

Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that Australia gave us help without counting the cost in two World Wars? Will Her Majesty's Government be generous in carrying out Commonwealth obligations in conditions of cold war?

We recognise our responsibilities in respect of Australia. That was one of the reasons why I visited Australia and discussed our decisions with the Australian and New Zealand Governments before they were finally taken.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if, in view of the fact that most Royal Air Force stations are based on a five-day working week, he will give greater facilities for civilian flying and gliding clubs during the weekends; what extra financial support he proposes to give to these clubs; and if he will make a statement.

I am unable to add to the reply given to the hon. Member by my predecessor on 2nd June, 1965. With regard to facilities, however, I would be prepared to look sympathetically at any specific proposal which the hon. Member has in mind.

Since the R.A.F. stations are absolutely at a standstill over a long weekend, on the assumption, I suppose, that no enemy would be caddish enough to attack us while we were having a weekend off, cannot greater facilities be given to the flying and gliding clubs to use these expensive installations which are standing idle?

The hon. Gentleman's remark about operational stations is not true. There are two factors which must be borne in mind. First, R.A.F. stations are carefully established for the rôle which they perform. There is no surplus manpower for performing civilian tasks. Secondly, there is the problem of control, safety and fire precautions. Men must be there over the weekend to perform these tasks if aircraft are there. I have promised to look at any individual case, but, in general, this is a very difficult problem.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress was made during his recent meeting with the French Minister of Defence towards developing the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft; and what difficulties remain to be overcome.

We noted that considerable progress had been made on the military requirement and arranged for this to be further examined so that the technical and industrial factors could be fully evaluated before we launch the next stage of the project. This examination is now in hand.

While that news is welcome, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that there is some concern about what appears to be slow progress in getting the Anglo-French v.g. aircraft under way? Will he assure us that there is no chance of it being supplanted by a smaller version of the American F111?

I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance for which he asked in the latter part of his supplementary question. I am aware that people are worried about the pace of progress in this matter, but—and I know that he will agree with this—the French Defence Minister and I are convinced that we must produce a worth-while aircraft at a cost which we can afford and which gives some chance of selling it to other countries. This is one of the reasons why we are examining the matter so carefully at this stage. If other projects had been equally carefully examined by previous Governments, we could have saved the taxpayer a great deal of money.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree, if he has done his homework on the matter, that there is not even an operational requirement for this aircraft at the moment?

That is totally untrue, and the right hon. Gentleman would have known that if he had attended our debates and remained alert, as I hope he often is. He will know very well that we have a real requirement for this aircraft to supplement the V-bombers in the strike rôle when the V-bombers phase out in the middle 1970s. One respect in which we have made progress on this matter in the last few months is that we now agree with the French on the operational requirement and on the time scale.

Does not the fact that the French Government are proceeding with their own variable geometry aircraft indicate that they have a well-founded doubt as to the seriousness with which the British Government are approaching this matter—well founded in the light of their experience with Concord and E.L.D.O.?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence, how many members of Her Majesty's forces have now left Zambia for Rhodesia; and what representations have been made in Salisbury and other action taken.

Five, Sir. No representations have been made, nor has any other action been taken in Salisbury.

Does that mean that the Government are quite happy that our forces should transfer themselves to Rhodesia from Zambia? Has the Ministry of Defence satisfied itself that Her Majesty's Forces now have proper conditions of life in Zambia? With regard to their morale, have they been told the purpose of their being there; and, if so, what is it?

No representations have been made, because it was not thought likely that they would be productive; nor would it be desirable to make representations. The conditions of our airmen in Zambia have greatly improved. They are quite aware why they are there, and the hon. Genteman ought to be aware of that, too.

Are not these troops costing many millions of £s? Is not their rôle unpopular, and are not their duties unnecessary? Will the hon. Gentleman bring them home as soon as possible?

No, Sir.

In view of the refusal to say why our forces are there, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Notice must be given in the conventional way.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans he has for the reorganisation of the Chiefs of Staff Committee as part of the progressive unification of the defence services;

None at present.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that should this matter ever be considered, as has been suggested in reports, this House will be given the chance to debate it before anything permanent is done?

Certainly the House will have a chance to discuss any proposals which the Government may ultimately decide to put before it.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will amend the Rules of Procedure made under Section 103 of the Army and Air Force Acts, 1955, to provide that a prisoner acquitted shall not suffer heavier costs than a prisoner honourably acquitted; and why he makes the distinction.

No, Sir. An ex gratia payment in respect of costs may be made when the circumstances of an acquittal justify it. The distinction quoted by my hon. Friend is only one example of the cases in which such a payment may be made. Our practice in this respect is modelled as closely as possible on the practice of civil courts.

How many decisions is it 0possible to have from a court-martial? Is it possible to have an acquittal which is not an honourable acquittal?

It is possible to have an acquittal which is not an honourable acquittal.