asked the Secretary of State for Defence what decision has been reached about the future of Leconfield aerodrome; and whether it will be made available to civil airlines as well as to the Royal Air Force.

The Royal Air Force will require Leconfield for as far ahead as can be foreseen. We are now prepared to discuss with any applicants the terms and conditions under which we could allow a scheduled civil air service to be operated from the airfield. For example, military needs must take priority, and we cannot undertake to provide for a civil operator any airfield or safety services we would not require ourselves.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's reply. Does it mean that a civil air firm could use this aerodrome within, say, the next 12 months provided that arrangements can be made with the Government?

It means that, and I suggest that everyone gets together and talks about it.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the City of Kingston-upon-Hull has always been keen to have this airfield as the site for a municipal airport? Despite any lobbying by commercial firms, will he constantly bear this in mind?

We should be quite prepared to discuss it with Hull Corporation as well.

Does my hon. Friend's reply relate to all R.A.F. airfields? Is it not time that a comprehensive review of all R.A.F. airfields was held in order that some of them might be turned over to civilian use?

This is constantly being looked at. My reply refers to Leconfield, but if my hon. Friend has any particular airfield in mind, perhaps he will get in touch with us.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the planning and preparation of an Anglo-Australian base on the continent of Australia.

No, Sir. I have nothing to add to the answers given to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on 27th April, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) on 22nd June.

As our position in Singapore depends on the local, now independent, Government, and as we have commitments to defend Australia and commitments to S.E.A.T.O., are these discussions being pressed forward rapidly?

Discussions are proceeding at the official level, and we are exploring what facilities it would be possible to provide, at what cost, how soon, and for what forces, should the need arise. But the need has not yet arisen.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many troops it is proposed to withdraw from Borneo; and when they will be withdrawn.

About 10,000; as soon after the ratification of the Bangkok Agreement as Malaysian forces are able to assume full responsibility for the defence of Eastern Malaysia.

If that is so, why did the right hon. Gentleman tell the Press in Kuching only a week or so back that the number was to be 16,000? Does he think that it is wise to bandy about figures of any sort when all the evidence at the moment suggests that the confrontation is far from ended?

I did not tell the Press that the number was 16,000.

Will my right hon. Friend recognise that any undue delay after ratification would make things very awkward for the Government of Indonesia at present?

We are well aware of the need to redeploy our forces as soon as the situation which will permit us to do so arises, and we have reached agreement with the Malaysian Government on a programme for an orderly withdrawal of this nature.

In what context, then, did the right hon. Gentleman use the figure 16,000?

I used the figures 10,000, 16,000 and 20,000 to illustrate some of the difficulties which would arise if and when the opportunity arose to withdraw the forces. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should take the trouble to read what I said and not accept his hon. Friend's account of it.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he has had with the Malaysian Government about withdrawal from Borneo.

I cannot go into details of what were confidential discussions, but of course I did discuss this important question with Malaysian Ministers during my recent visit, and I can say that there is no difference between us on the need to withdraw British troops from Eastern Malaysia, at best practicable speed, once we are satisfied that confrontation has come to an end.

Did the right hon. Gentleman discuss with the Governments in that area the question of regional cooperation so that ultimately there will be a balance of Asian forces? If so, what was their reaction?

We had some discussion on the matter, as did my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who reported as much to the House recently. Nothing would please Her Majesty's Government more than for the countries of the area to reach agreement among themselves for their mutual protection.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House was told as recently as 28th February that we would have a continuing defence commitment for Brunei? Will he reassure us that we are going to look after and stand by that defence agreement?

Yes. Of course, we recognise our commitment to Brunei.

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

I have just returned.

I am at least pleased about that. Will the right hon. Gentleman repeat what he has said to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing), since we should hear two or three times from him that he does not propose to go back on the Treaty with Brunei as he has on some of our other undertakings?

That last remark is beneath contempt.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost to public funds of a luncheon at Quaglino's given by the Army Board and the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army on 11th July; and why this luncheon was not given in some military mess or Government establishment.

£46 11s. 3d. This was an official Army Board lunch in honour of the Quartermaster-General of the Royal Netherlands Army. The cost of a lunch of this nature would not have been less in a Government establishment and suitable facilities were not available in a military mess in central London.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that there are messes in central London readily available for this? I am sure that the House, in the present mood of national economy, will not accept the hon. Gentleman's statement that an adequate lunch could not have been provided for less than £46.

The hon. Gentleman is not correct in what he says. There are only four messes in the region of central London, only one of which has a private room—and a private luncheon was essential on this occasion. But the mess with the private room at present runs only a buffet service.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many British Service men he proposes to bring back from the Far East, following the ending of confrontation between Malaysia and Indonesia; what will be the approximate annual financial saving; and if he will make a statement.

The maximum number that will permit those who remain to discharge our continuing obligations in the area. The annual financial saving will depend upon the size and composition of our final force deployment in the Far East and upon the way in which the units withdrawn are fitted within the overall force structure which emerges from the Defence Review.

To what extent, if any, is the saving above that already accounted for in the February Defence Review? Will my right hon. Friend undertake that the saving will be a massive reduction—as the Prime Minister called it on 23rd June—and that we will not send the troops elsewhere in the Far East but will bring them home?

I have made it clear many times that the first call on the forces that it will be possible to withdraw from Eastern Malaysia will be to relieve overstretch among our forces in other parts of the Far East theatre but that we plan to reduce our overall force strength in the Far East as soon as possible in line with my main Answer.

The Prime Minister told the House that the withdrawals would be "massive". Was that said to please the Left wing? What was President Johnson told?

My right hon. Friend said "massive". I would have said "substantial". Substance and mass are much the same thing.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, while our existing commitments are maintained, there is no intention of reducing the manpower levels agreed for 1969–70 in the Defence Review?

Yes, Sir. I have made it clear that a reduction to lower force levels in the Far East is strictly contingent upon the ending of confrontation and my hon. Friend will be as happy as I am that the ending of confrontation seems to be coming earlier than sometimes imagined.

If the right hon. Gentleman contemplates the removal of forces from the Far East and perhaps from Germany as well, can he say where he will put them?

Yes, Sir. Elsewhere.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress made towards reduction of arms expenditure.

Defence Estimates this year are below those of 1964–65 at constant prices and I hope that my hon. Friend will consider this evidence of progress.

Unfortunately not. Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on this side feel that, despite the financial crisis, the cuts are trifling? As the £2,000 million a year programme is to stand, are not the Government really only advancing a £100 million a year cut by one year?

I think that my hon. Friend is mixing up savings on foreign exchange and savings in resources. I do not think that anyone could rightly regard savings of £400 million in resources as trifling. Nor is a saving of up to £100 million out of a total expenditure in foreign exchange of £300 million trifling. It is a cut of one-third.

When will the Government announce details of the £100 million cut which the Prime Minister mentioned two weeks ago? Both the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury have told us that firm decisions have been taken. When will we be told about them?

When the necessary consultations have been carried out with our allies and others concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence for how many P1127 aircraft he has now placed a firm order.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation is at present negotiating a contract with the firm covering the development of and a substantial production order for this aircraft.

Can the Secretary of State give an assurance that, in accordance with the promise given prior to the cancellation of the TSR2, it is his intention to put this aircraft into substantial service with the R.A.F.?

Yes, Sir. We hope that it will be in service in 1969.

Is not this a fantastic delay in making the order firm? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the R.A.F. must be extremely distressed by the delay and the total disregard he is showing?

The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. There has been no delay of any sort in the process of producing this aircraft. Long-lead items have been ordered and all necessary financial authorities are continuing. This is very important and I hope that hon. Members will agree that we should draw up the tightest possible contracts to meet the taxpayers' needs.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what undertakings he gave to the Government of the Southern Arabian Federation concerning the British base in Aden, prior to the publication of the Defence Review.

I have nothing to add to what I said on this matter in the defence debate on 8th March.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is firm belief in Southern Arabia that he gave definite pledges himself that there would be no going back on our agreement to help them with their defence? Is he saying that he has given no undertaking to that Government?

I am aware of the feelings and beliefs of the Federal Ministers, some of whom I had the pleasure and honour of talking to about this question in London the other day. I am satisfied that they do not regard me as having given any undertaking not consonant with the policies of Her Majesty's Government.

Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he never gave any undertaking? If so, how does he account for the universal belief among Ministers and leaders in that part of the world that he did so, that the Prime Minister did so and that this country is thoroughly committed?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong in saying that this is a uniform belief among Ministers in Southern Arabia. I have discussed it with them and I am satisfied that what the hon. Gentleman says is quite incorrect.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what public funds are being provided for the military training of schoolchildren and other young persons under 18 years of age; and if he will release these funds for other educational purposes.

I assume that my hon. Friend's Question relates to the cadet forces: the overall cost of these to public funds is about £3·7 million a year. Many members are over the age of 18 years and it is not practicable to distinguish the cost attributable to those under that age. The answer to the second part of the Question is: No, Sir.

Is not this an unwarrantable waste of public money in present circumstances? May I remind the Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—that a previous Labour Administration discontinued these grants? Is not this the time to revert to that precedent?

It is not an unwarrantable waste of public money. So long as we are to have Armed Forces, we have to have recruits, and this is one way of getting them. Secondly, these forces are doing an extremely good job as public youth services. If my hon. Friend wants confirmation of that, I shall be glad to arrange visits for him.

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that many such cadet forces inculcate into these young people the virtues of discipline, smartness and alertness, which are of great benefit to them?

They help to inculcate a great many virtues.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost to public funds of a travel warrant for a Service man on leave between London and Belfast and the cost of the same journey by air, tourist class; and if he will make arrangements to credit the lesser amount to the Service man who chooses not to use his free travel warrant but to fly on leave at his own expense.

The cost of a travel warrant at present varies between £4 0s. 2d. and £5 12s. 9d. return; the air tourist fare ranges from £6 14s. to £17 8s. return, excluding the cost of travel to and from the airport. The answer to the second part of the Question is No, Sir.

Bearing in mind that the granting of this credit would be no additional cost to public funds and the resentment which is felt by individual Service men about the present rules, will the hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter and try to do some justice to people who want to get on leave in a much shorter time than the 13 hours which it now takes to cross by sea?

As the hon. and learned Gentleman very well knows, successive Ministers have had an extremely good look at this matter. We have very good travel arrangements at present which benefit all the Services and I do not want to upset them by proposing changes.

Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to ask leave to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the extent of the delay between an officer being gazetted for the award of the Territorial Decoration and its presentation to him.

I regret the delay of some months in the issue of the insignia of the Territorial Efficiency Decoration. This is due to a shortage of craftsmen at the Royal Mint. I hope that the backlog will be cleared in about six months' time.

Is not the delay now 12 months? Is it not shameful that it has not been possible to plan ahead and to see that an officer receives his decoration when he qualifies for it and it has been gazetted by the Queen to him?

It is not correct to say that the delay is 12 months. They have been issued for September, 1965. There are 297 officers who are awaiting receipt of this decoration. Naturally, I am unhappy that this has happened, but I am assured by the Royal Mint that the problems are now settled and that in a few months' time issue will be brought up to date.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will conduct an inquiry into the present system of obtaining release from the Armed Services; and if he will end the practice of encouraging young men aged 16 years to contract nine-year engagements.

I do not think that such an inquiry is necessary; but I do think it undesirable that recruits should be allowed to commit themselves irrevocably to long engagements before they know what they are in for. Army and R.A.F. recruits already have the right to buy their discharge during the first three months of service, and I have now informed the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill that by regulation under the Bill when it becomes law we propose to bring Navy practice broadly into line with the other two Services.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree with me that there is one case, about which I have made representations to him, concerning a young man who now has permission to enter a university and who will lose his place because of the obstacles being placed in the way of his obtaining his release? Will my hon. Friend look into this?

I know that case very well and I have considered it, as has my noble Friend, with the greatest sympathy. Had the man concerned not deserted for a period, he would have been out by now.

As the young man, Mr. Mayhew, from whose case this Question arises, is a constituent of mine, may I ask the Minister whether he would agree with me that a reluctant soldier is seldom a good soldier and that this young man might be better employed on a university course, for which he has qualified, rather than missing it altogether as he will if he is not very soon released from the Forces?

I have great sympathy with this case which I have considered very carefully, but people cannot jump the queue. He will not miss his place at university.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what sales have now been successfully negotiated to offset the purchase of F111 aircraft from the United States of America.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what sales of arms have now been concluded with the United States of America in order to offset the cost of purchasing F111A aircraft from the United States of America.

No sales have yet been concluded, but I am pleased to inform the House that in addition to the items I mentioned in my reply to the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) on 18th July, we have now heard that the British bid for an ocean-going salvage tug was the lowest when the bids were opened on 21st July. British bids for two items of aircraft electronic equipment were also the lowest. These bids are now being evaluated by the United States Department of Defense and we hope to hear that we are getting the orders during this month. Their value would be about 24 million dollars. Hon. Members will also be aware of the prospect that Rolls-Royce will reach agreement with Allisons on the supply of Spey engines for the A7. The value of this is expected to be about 100 million dollars.

What action has the right hon. Gentleman taken to make inquiries beyond the defence departments of the United States Government to see whether procurement can be made through other agencies, such as hospitals, police forces and so on, of equipment which the United States Government and its agents buy?

That is not a matter for me, but, as I have made clear to the House, under the offset agreement with the United States we are identifying items of equipment, not only arms and military equipment directly, but also general supplies for military purposes, and some supplies of the nature which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned will no doubt arise under that head.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the possible order for Spey engines. If it is wrong to sell bombs to the United States, why is it not wrong to sell engines which fly the aircraft which drop the bombs?

I think that many hon. Members would feel that, rather than attempt to make mischief between Britain and the United States, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite might do their duty better by expressing some pleasure at the fact that Her Majesty's Government have enabled British firms to win contracts to a value of about 125 million dollars worth of foreign exchange.

Would my right hon. Friend consider selling back Polaris as part of the offset agreement as it was retained in the first place because we had already ordered it, although we do not really want it?

No, Sir. We regard out Polaris submarines as an important contribution to an international Western deterrent.

Is it not a fact that negotiations for the sale of these Spey engines have been in progress since long before the offset arrangement was entered into and that there is no reason whatever for connecting this sale, if it takes place, with the offset arrangement? Will he not further confirm that the sale of vital parts for the American A7 would be in breach of the policy announced by the Government in relation to the sale of arms for use in Vietnam?

The right hon. Gentleman is wrong on both points. Spey engines for the A7 were one of the items jointly identified by the two Governments, and without assistance from the Government the deal which we now hope to go through would have had little chance of succeeding. On the second point, the right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that the aircraft into which these Spey engines would go will not be flying for another three or four years.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what tasks are at present carried out by aircraft carriers in the British Far East Fleet.

Aircraft carriers provide for the mobile deployment of aircraft with the necessary maintenance and support. In the Far East this gives the Commander in Chief great flexibility in the deployment of air power and also enables him to meet contingency plans and unforeseen needs at short notice. Carriers are also available to participate in exercises with Commonwealth and other navies and to play their part in goodwill visits.

Would the right hon. Gentleman say with what aircraft and from what bases these important tasks will be carried out if aircraft carriers are no longer to be available in future?

I made this clear in the course of the debates on the Defence Review. In the maritime rôle there will be Phantom aircraft, the HS801 and helicopters and for land strike the F111A and V-bombers.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that £30 million is to be spent on refitting the Ark Royal? Could we not postpone this until the financial crisis has cleared up a bit?

That is another question.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he applies the same and what principles to the sale of arms to countries taking an active part in resisting Communist aggression in South Vietnam.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the offset agreement with the United States of America which he negotiated in connection with the purchase of F111As contains a clause to the effect that arms purchased by the United States of America from the United Kingdom would not be used in Vietnam.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is applying the same rules for the sale of arms to all countries with troops fighting against Communist aggression in South Vietnam.

I would refer to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend, the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) on 12th July.

How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile his own statement that he did not propose to supply arms for use, directly or indirectly, in Vietnam, with the Prime Minister's statement that there was no restriction on the supply of arms to Australia? If arms are properly supplied to the Australians, why are they refused to the allies fighting alongside them? Is not that making mischief with our American allies?

No, Sir. I know that it disappoints many hon. Members opposite that this issue did not arise at all between my right hon Friend the Prime Minister and the President of the United States. We are supplying arms to the United States, as I have just pointed out, providing that their supply is consonant with what we regard as our responsibilities under the Geneva Agreement.

If the Government's responsibilities under the Geneva Agreement prevented the Government from selling arms which could be used in Vietnam, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why members of his Department negotiated a sale of bombs and rockets with the American Government when it was clear that these bombs were to be used in Vietnam?

Members of my Department have never negotiated the sale of such weapons with the United States.

If it is wrong to sell weapons for use in South Vietnam, why did the right hon. Gentleman sign the S.E.A.T.O. communiqué, which welcomed the increase in military aid to South Vietnam?

Because we regard our responsibilities as a co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference as imposing certain restrictions on the extent to which we can supply arms for use in the fighting in Vietnam. This is fully understood by our American allies, and I feel that if hon. Members had the interests of the alliance at heart, they would cease trying to make mischief on this issue.

Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), is the right hon. Gentleman denying that his Department was engaged in discussing with the United States authorities, on or about the 22nd June, the sale of munitions for, or suitable for, use in Vietnam? Was the Department unaware of his policy or was he unaware of what was going on? What is the explanation?

The right hon. Gentleman will know that exploratory inquiries on a large number of issues are often received by Departments, but the final decision as to whether action should be taken on those inquiries must always rest with the Minister in the Department concerned.

Can my right hon. Friend tell us why it is, then, consistent with our obligations under the Geneva Agreement to sell or supply arms to Australia which is a belligerent in South Vietnam?

The hon. Gentleman should know that the Australian battalion in Vietnam is not equipped with British arms. It is equipped with American arms.

How does my right hon. Friend know that?

Because we have military attachés in Saigon and we have a good deal of information about what is going, on. We take the trouble to obtain this information.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my question did not relate to the receipt of inquiries, but to detailed discussions between his Department and the United States authorities? Presumably these would be a waste of time if there were no possibility of a sale? Does he deny that such discussions were taking place?

As I say, when an inquiry is received, discussions take place about how to deal with it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that when the other side was in office, and when the Vietnam affair was in existence, it never offered to provide the United States with arms at any time?

I am not quite sure what my right hon. Friend means by that, but I will say that I am now very fully aware of the chagrin felt by hon. and right hon. Members opposite that Her Majesty's Government's policy on Vietnam has had no effect on the fulfilment of the offset agreement.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when the first F111 aircraft purchased for the Royal Air Force will become operational; where they will be based; and in what rôle they will be used.

The first F111 aircraft in the Royal Air Force will become operational early in 1969 and will be based in this country. As my right hon. Friend has often made clear, the rôle of the F111 will be to replace the Canberra as a tactical strike/reconnaissance aircraft.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, as the offset agreement with the United States has proved to be one-sided, and as the future rôle of this aircraft is entirely hypothetical and its cost enormous, in view of the country's present economic state, we should seek agreement with the United States allowing us to be released from our obligation to purchase it?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong about the offset agreement, and he is wrong about the aircraft's future rôle which is most important.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now make a statement on the progress of the Polaris submarine programme.

The first Polaris submarine, H.M.S. "Resolution", will be launched by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother at Barrow on 15th September. The second submarine, H.M.S. "Renown", will be launched at Birkenhead on 25th February, 1967.

Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether any of the cuts recently announced by my right hon. Friend will apply to the Polaris programme?

Some of them.

May I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on continuing with the provision of the British independent nuclear deterrent?

I will certainly accept congratulations on the remarkable way in which this project has been carried out, but it is not an independent deterrent.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence for what purpose the Polaris submarines are to be used when they are completed; and in what parts of the world they are to operate.

With regard to the first part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 1st March, 1966, to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd). On the second part, it is the intention that the Polaris submarines shall operate in the N.A.T.O. area.

But in view of the fact that we are in a financial crisis—if the right hon. Gentleman has not heard of it—does not he think that there is a strong case for postponing the completion of Polaris submarines as he does not know how they will be used when they are completed?

I know perfectly well how they will be used. I am very well aware, too, that the Polaris building programme is very tight, and any attempt to postpone it would lead to an enormous increase in its final cost.

Will these submarines be based conveniently close to the submarine training facilities at Londonderry? Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether he was denying the existence of the expert Committee which I mentioned and its report?

My hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy gave a very full answer to that question.

No.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether, in view of recent changes in naval building programmes, he will make a further statement on the rôle to be played by the Royal Navy in fulfilling defence commitments.

I do not think that we can any longer consider the rôles of the individual Services in isolation from one another; they are all mutually interdependent. In due course, the Navy will give up one of its present tasks, which is to provide air cover for the Army ashore. It will, however, retain in some measure all its other tasks, and we mean to provide it with the new ships and weapons which it will need, in cooperation with the R.A.F., to carry them out.

Would my right hon. Friend use his influence with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and seek to persuade him to provide the House with an opportunity to debate the rôle of the Navy at an early date?

I very much hope that my hon. Friend catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, during the next defence debate and is able to raise this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations to retain the Joint Antisubmarine Training School at Londonderry he has received; and what action he will take.

In addition to indirect representations by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, I have been pressed on this subject in the House by hon. Members opposite and had a personal interview with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark). After renewed investigations and discussion, I have decided to move the school to Plymouth, as originally planned.

Does the Minister deny that experts on the Committee at the beginning of the year were strongly against the abandonment of Londonderry and recommended its expansion? Will he publish the report so that those interested in defence, and the taxpayers, can judge the issue for themselves?

I have had a great deal of expert advice on this, some for the changes and some against. After a good deal of thought I have decided to maintain the previous decision.

Is it not a fact that information and advice received since the decision was announced last August was cast the gravest doubt on its wisdom? Will the Government not have the courage to reconsider this whole matter in view of the fact that the information and the considerations are now substantially different from what they appeared to be last August?

They really are not different. We thought that possibly decisions taken in the Defence Review might have a bearing on the previous decision, and we looked at it extremely carefully. We have decided that the previous decision is right and should stand.

This is surely a very squalid story. If the Minister's own Committee has now said that he is wrong, the least that he could do is what my hon. Friend asks and publish the report so that we can judge whether the strategic decision is right. Is it not important when the future employment of so many people is at stake?

There is nothing squalid about it at all. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will know that experts frequently give contrary advice and it is the job of the Minister to make up his mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what aircraft will be used in the 1970s for air defence of maritime forces; and what arrangements have been made to train the Royal Air Force for this rôle.

Phantom aircraft will be used for air defence in maritime operations in the 1970's, both before and after the task is transferred from the Royal Navy to the Royal Air Force. R.A.F. aircrews are already trained in air defence duties. In particular, this rôle will be covered in the training given to R.A.F. crews at the Phantom Operational Conversion Unit and in subsequent exercises and squadron training.

What steps has the right hon. Gentleman taken to make sure that the staff requirements are dealt with as well, as they would be entirely different from those which prevail at the moment?

We are taking all the necessary steps to cover that problem.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that Gibraltar must play a great part in the training of Coastal Command aircrew, particularly under Mediterranean conditions?

I am well aware of the rôle of Gibraltar in our training and operational activities. I do not believe that this is a relevant consideration to the question that we are now discussing.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence, in view of its new responsibilities for longdistance maritime warfare, what proposals he has made to change the name of the Royal Air Force.

None, Sir.

As the strike reconnaissance and maritime rôle will be very different from anything undertaken by Coastal Command, should not something be done to bring home not only to the R.A.F. but to the people of this country the great increase in its responsibilities?

The Services are always dropping old responsibilities and taking up new ones. The people of this country fully appreciate the ability of our three Services to rise to this type of challenge.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest estimated monthly cost of the Royal Air Force airlift to and from Zambia; and what is the total cost so far, up to the latest date for which figures are available.

About £400,000 and £2·6 million up to the middle of last month.

Does not this huge unproductive expenditure point to the bankruptcy of the Government's policy of sanctions against Rhodesia? Will the hon. Gentleman urge his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to grant legal independence to Rhodesia now?

With regard to the first part of the supplementary question, "No". With regard to the second part, very much "No".

Will my hon. Friend remind hon. Members opposite that principle can have no price put upon it? Will he ask them to make the best economy by their telling their friends in Salisbury to stop their illegal adventure?

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will arrange for property and land at Hilsea Barracks, Portsmouth, to be released to the Portsmouth City Council for educational or housing purposes.

A renewed offer of the major part of Hilsea Barracks and of Rugby Camp has now been made to the Portsmouth City Council.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether any units of the Army, Royal Navy or Royal Air Force are receiving special training for service, if required, as part of an international United Nations Force.

No, Sir. Normal training ensures that British units are well able to play their part in peace-keeping operations of the type in which a United Nations force is most likely to become involved.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that peace-keeping operations by the United Nations are infinitely preferable to national military operations and that there is a case for some kind of special training for our forces to enable them to play their part?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend on the first part of his supplementary question. One of Her Majesty's Government's most urgent preoccupations is to strengthen the peacekeeping powers of the United Nations. On the second part of his supplementary question, I think that if he saw what the British troops did in the United Nations operations in Cyprus and elsewhere he would agree that they were admirably trained for this type of responsibility.

Since the Government are planning to leave South Arabia without any other help for its defence, is it their intention that it should rely on the help of the United Nations If so, how does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that with what he said recently, that the United Nations is not at present capable of taking over the peace-keeping operations in Asia which we have been performing ourselves?

There are so many hypothetical questions involved in that supplementary question that I am afraid I do not know how to answer it.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence why women in the British Armed Forces are paid only 85 to 88 per cent. of the basic pay rates for men of equivalent rank and trade.

Because, in general, Service women are not expected to share the same hazards and obligations as Service men. However, women medical and dental officers do receive the same rates as men, because their full duties are broadly comparable.

Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that in the N.A.T.O. countries of America, Canada, Holland and France women in the Armed Forces are paid the same as men of equivalent rank and trade doing the same work and with the same hazards? Can he justify the exploitation of British women?

The point is the rate for the same job. No women are being exploited in the Services.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what part of the firm programmes decided on by the Government which will reduce our overseas Government expenditure, military and civil, by at least £100 million relates to defence expenditure; and in what financial year that reduction will first arise.

As we must consult with our allies and Commonwealth partners before making the reductions, I cannot give any details at this stage.

As the Government have repeatedly stated that these plans and intentions are firm and have been worked out in detail, why, even though other Governments have to be consulted, cannot the House be told what proportion of the saving relates to civil and what proportion to defence expenditure?

I think that it would be quite inconsistent with normal diplomatic behaviour to give any details on these matters without assuring ourselves that the other Governments concerned are prepared to have the details given.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what he estimates will be the capital cost of the new facilities to be provided at Sharjah; what sum will be paid to the Ruler in consideration of the British presence; and what will be the current annual cost of maintaining at Sharjah the forces contemplated under the Defence Review.

Provisional estimates of the cost of the additional facilities required are at present being examined and it would be premature to give figures at this stage. On the sum to be paid to the Ruler, I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden) on 27th July.

Since this expenditure, although the right hon. Gentleman has not worked it out, is bound to be substantial and incurred for the protection of Sharjah and other Trucial States and the preservation of peace in the Gulf, why is it right and fair that this country should have to pay £100,000 a year to the Ruler for the privilege of doing so?

Because it is always normal for Her Majesty's Government to pay for facilities provided in foreign States. I think that it is right in this case that we should make the sum of £100,000 a year available to the Ruler of Sharjah, which is a very poor State indeed and desperately in need of money for development, in return for facilities by no means related solely to the defence of Sharjah.

How long does the right hon. Gentleman think that we shall be able to maintain a British presence in the Gulf after we have given up our main base in Aden?

Long enough, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the recruiting figures for the Territorial Army for the six months' periods ended 30th June, 1965, and 30th June, 1966.

13,857 and 6,568 respectively.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable anxiety that the suggested terms of service for the A.V.R.III will make it extremely difficult to get enough recruits?

I do not accept that at all. Our impression is that there is excellent recruitment, or, rather, signing of declarations of intent. I believe that we shall have no difficulty in completing our complement.

Are not the figures which the hon. Gentleman gave dramatic evidence of that refusal of the Government to use voluntary effort which was offering for service in the Territorial Army, which is implicit in the Government's ill-conceived measures for cutting it down to less than half its size?

Not at all. The right hon. Gentleman's argument is totally disproved by the figures for re-engagement of those already in the Territorial Army indicating their intent to stay. These figures are extremely encouraging.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the estimated figures for recruitment and re-engagement, shown separately, in terms of man-years for 1966 if present recruiting trends continue; and what percentage fall these show on similar figures for each of the years 1964 and 1965.

Yes, Sir. In general the estimates show an expected rise, but this must not be taken to mean that the present recruiting and re-engagement rates are wholly satisfactory.

Is the Minister aware that the 1966 Regular Army recruiting figures, in terms of man-years, look like showing a short-fall of at least 25 per cent. on 1964? Is that not a very disturbing side effect of 18 months of Socialist mismanagement and muddle?

The forecast for the Army is that it will be 1 per cent. up.

Can my hon. Friend say what were the recruiting figures for the Royal Marines in the last 12 months?

They are down. The Royal Marines are the only category that is down.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the British contribution to the British Army of the Rhine.

I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 20th July.

Since, on 25th July, when speaking in Paris, the Minister described allied forces in Europe as barely adequate to carry out the tasks which they have been entrusted with, how does he square that with the threat to make substantial cuts in B.A.O.R. in certain circumstances?

I did not describe the forces as barely adequate to carry out the tasks which they have been entrusted with. What I said, in a private meeting of the N.A.T.O. Council, is that the forces required by the military commanders in N.A.T.O. over recent years bear no relation to what any of the member Governments are prepared to provide, and therefore it is essential to revise the contingency plans for the forces so that they are compatible with the forces available. I hope very much that the German Government will not make it necessary for Her Majesty's Government to reduce our forces in B.A.O.R., but I had to make it clear to all our allies that it is quite intolerable that Britain alone among the European members of the alliance should not only be making a very substantial military contribution to the common defence but also crippling her balance of payments to swell the reserves of another ally.

After bringing these men home, as I hope the Minister will, why is it necessary to build barracks for them in Britain, since every factory and town in the country is crying out for labour? Why not demobilise them and enable them to go into productive industry, thus killing two birds with one stone?

We also believe that it is important to ensure the defence of this country and that our foreign policy is supported by relevant military forces. Those are considerations which must also be borne in mind.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his hon. Friend's anxiety is unnecessary, since the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated that, if necessary, these men could be accommodated here under canvas?

I would make it clear to the right hon. Gentleman, as he well knows, that there is no question of that being necessary.