asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now announce details of the reductions in overseas defence expenditure which form part of the firm programmes decided on by the Government which will reduce overseas Government expenditure by at least £100 million.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now give details of how he proposes to save £80 million a year in overseas military expenditure.

No, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House has been told repeatedly since July that firm decisions were then taken, but that time was required for consultation with other countries concerned? If firm decisions were taken in July, how is it that the consultations have taken so extraordinarily long?

Because there are two difficult questions here. The first is to agree with our allies the nature of the action to be taken to implement the decisions. The second is to agree with our allies the nature of the publicity to be given to the action taken. Both these are difficult questions which take time.

Does my right hon. Friend's very unhelpful Answer mean that only if West Germany agrees to cover our expenditure there will there be any large saving in this expenditure beyond the £10 million achieved by bringing home troops from Borneo? Why does not my right hon. Friend say that any expenditure uncovered in Western Germany will be cut?

This is a much larger question than West Germany, but my Department has undertaken to find savings to cover the great majority of £100 million savings in foreign exchange during the year concerned, not only in Western Europe, but in other parts of the world as well.

Is it not clear from the right hon. Gentleman's reticence and his supplementary answer just now that there was no firm programme in July, as was then alleged, and there is none now?

No, Sir. That is totally untrue, and the right hon. Gentleman will know that I have already announced certain savings which have been made, or are under way, but I am not now in a position to announce the make up of the total savings to which I am committed.

Will my right hon. Friend tell me whether it is correct, as stated, that the United States Administration propose to deduct any saving on exchange by withdrawing troops in Germany from the offset payments which they have promised to make.

No, Sir. That is totally untrue, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity of denying it.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what decision has been reached by Her Majesty's Government about the number of British forces which are to be withdrawn from the Continent of Europe; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will take steps to redeploy the Rhine Army so as to help to remedy the shortage of labour in some export industries.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what decision has been made about the strength of the British Army of the Rhine; what financial economies will flow from this decision in the short and long term, respectively; and if he will give an assurance that no reductions will be made in the British contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation without full consultation with all its members.

No decision has been taken about withdrawing British forces from the Continent of Europe. As the Prime Minister made clear in his statement on 20th July, any proposal to withdraw forces would be made through the prescribed N.A.T.O. and W.E.U. procedures.—[Vol. 695, c. 633.]

In view of the Government's desire to join the Common Market, and the fluid political situation in Germany, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is unwise to go on giving the impression, as his colleagues are doing, that we shall withdraw any forces from Germany whose cost in foreign exchange is not fully covered?

No, Sir. I do not think that that conclusion can be drawn at all, and I think that when we examine these questions we must take into account the value which other countries in Western Europe put on a military contribution to defence in N.A.T.O. As the hon. Gentleman will know, our contribution is second to none but the American one in this respect.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the withdrawal of these troops would be a major contribution to peace in Europe—[Interruption.]—whatever hon. Gentlemen opposite say—and does he agree with me that many of these men would welcome the opportunity of using their technical skills constructively by contributing to British exports?

As my hon. Friend will know, all these men have chosen to make their contribution to the national welfare as members of Her Majesty's Forces.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise the damage which was done to Britain's cause in Europe, and especially to our prospects of joining the Common Market, by the panic announcement last July that we would cut our forces there unless means were found for others to pay for them?

No, Sir. I am not aware of any such thing. It is my impression that the Prime Minister's announcement of the present Government's policy was welcomed throughout Europe, and, indeed, received a very much better welcome among some of the countries in the Common Market than it did on the benches opposite.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the cost of British Indian Ocean bases.

We have no programme for creating bases in the British Indian Ocean territory. I can give no estimate of what such a programme might cost.

Does this mean that the concept of island bases has been given up?

For so long as I have been Secretary of State there has never been a concept of island bases. There has been the idea of establishing certain staging and other military facilities in certain territories in the Indian Ocean, and I have already given some figures about the sort of cost which might be involved. The only facility that we have at the moment in Gan—as I stated the other day—has cost us a total of only £6·25 million over the last 10 years.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Gurkha Brigade.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of the Gurkha Brigade.

My right hon. Friend is considering this matter and will make a statement as soon as possible.

Is the Minister aware that a very early decision is needed on this because of the effect it will have on the morale of Gurkha troops and on the financial position of Nepal, since the intention was that Gurkhas should remain at their present strength only to the end of confrontation? Is the Minister aware that last week the Commonwealth Secretary said that the confrontation ended last August?

I can assure the hon. Member that my right hon. Friend is aware of all the considerations that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, and that a statement will be made as soon as possible.

Will my hon. Friend accept that the Gurkha Brigade is held in very high regard both in this House and in the country, and that those who have had an opportunity of visiting some of their units know that their morale is also very high indeed, but that an early announcement is hoped for? Can he give us any idea when he will be in a position to make one?

Other than saying that it will be as soon as possible I am afraid that I cannot add anything at the present moment. But I can assure my hon. Friend that Her Majesty's Government value the many connections that we have with Nepal and the Gurkha Brigade.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he is making for streamlining the administrative and logistical costs of the British Army of the Rhine so as to reduce the cost in foreign exchange with the minimum effect on operational capability.

We are discussing our proposals for logistic and administrative changes with our allies. These proposals are expressly designed to minimise the effect on our operational capability.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are delighted that this sort of approach is being made, rather than any cutting of the forces? Many people believe that in these rather uncertain conditions it would be quite disastrous to cut our forces and thus to leave West Germany as the predominant military Power, unintegrated in a military alliance.

I am grateful to the hon. Member at any rate for the first part of his supplementary question. I can assure him that I am deeply concerned to ensure that the savings made will be calculated to contribute to the optimum strategy of an integrated alliance and have a minimum effect on operational capability.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether a firm operational requirement has now been agreed between the British and French authorities for the Anglo-French Jaguar aircraft.

Yes, Sir.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be a little more forthcoming and say when this was decided? We have the impression here that although the whole defence policy of the Government was founded on Anglo-French cooperation in military projects little progress has been made on these projects and it seems to me that gambles were taken to cancel British projects before these were firm undertakings.

No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken. Agreement on operational requirements was firmly reached last May, when I met the French Defence Minister, and, as was made clear in the communiqué published after the talks a week or so ago, production plans were presented to us and will be agreed at the end of this year or perhaps in January.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Anglo-French Jaguar aircraft and the swing-wing aircraft projects.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Anglo-French project for a military swing-wing aircraft in the 1970s.

I would refer to the reply I gave on 9th November to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall).—[Vol. 735, col. 289.]

If the French are now having reservations about going on with variable geometry—which I understand is the case—does not this point to one of the great difficulties in Anglo-European co-operation in relying on that for the defence of this country? Should not we have our own national aircraft industry?

This matter has been debated at length in the House on many occasions, and the majority of Members agree that the chances of survival of an effective airframe and aero-engine industry on this side of the Atlantic are bound to depend, in large part, on developing collaboration between the major aircraft industries here and in Western Europe. Of course difficulties arise in collaborative projects—even difficulties which do not arise in normal projects—but I am still hopeful that the French Government will see their way to continue with the proposed Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft, and I am determined that we shall do everything possible on our side to make a favourable decision likely.

Would it not be better for the right hon. Gentleman to recognise that he has allowed this country to be put over a barrel in this matter, and that this difficulty stems from the Government's original disastrous miscalculation about the aircraft industry and the rôle of British aircraft in Western defence, and that we now have the worst of all possible worlds?

That is an astonishing statement, coming from a member of a party which first initiated Anglo-French co-operation in aircraft production, and was responsible for the initial agreements on the Concord and on E.L.D.O.

Can my right hon. Friend say how far the question of finance is limiting the French attitude to this development?

It is not for me to say precisely what are the problems of the French Government in this respect, but M. Messmer, with me, signed the communiqué which was published after our last meeting, which made it clear that the only obstacle to progress was certain budgetary difficulties on the French side. I hope that these can be overcome, perhaps with help from us.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is one thing to wish to promote Anglo-French co-opera- tion and quite another to put this country in the position where, in the Defence White Paper, the Minister says that the guarantee of our long-term programme depends on the production of an aircraft about which we now seem to have no assurance whatsoever?

That is a surprising statement, although perhaps it is not quite so surprising in view of the particular responsibility which the hon. Member holds on the Opposition Front Bench. The fact is that the future of our aircraft industry depends on co-operation with France. This was recognised by the last Government when it made the Concord agreement. The difference between the Conservative Government and the Labour Government in this respect is that we have taken great care to protect our mutual interest on the financial side. If hon. Members opposite had taken similar care with the Concord the situation might now be very much more favourable.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence on what date he agreed with the United States Defence Department a ceiling price for the changes in the basic F111A aircraft, which are required by the Royal Air Force.

This matter is currently under discussion with the United States authorities.

Since, according to the Defence Review of last February, this price was to be agreed as soon as practicable, is it now proving impracticable to agree a price? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that until he has such an agreement he has no assurance of the total cost of these aircraft?

No, Sir. The fact is that we have always agreed that we would reach agreement on the incremental cost of the changes in the configuration of the F111A which were required to turn it into the F111K—the aircraft that we want to buy. This involves assessing the price of a large amount of British and American equipment that we want to put in, and the implications of that on the configuration of the aircraft and on the cost, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that 80 per cent. of the cost of the aircraft, as we can now estimate it, is covered by the ceiling price of £2·1 million which we negotiated with the American Government last February. Therefore, I am still satisfied that the total cost of the aircraft, as we buy it in its British configuration, will be about £2½ million.

When these negotiations with the American Government about the F111 opened, did my right hon. Friend know that a financial crisis was coming? Is he aware that we are to have a period of severe restraint? Is it not time that he reconsidered all these heavy burdens of expenditure to help the economic situation?

I can assure my hon. Friend that these considerations are never out of my mind; some of my colleagues never allow them to fall out of it.

Have the Americans got the design of the compressor right yet? Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, without the powerful support of Mr. Robert McNamara, there would be at least some risk of the whole project being cancelled in the United States?

On the second question, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no evidence whatever that there is any risk of this project being cancelled. On the first question, as he knows, there are some difficulties with the engine, but we have every confidence that they will be overcome in the very near future.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will ensure that weather-affected industries as well as agriculture are made aware of the potential savings that can be obtained by using the local short-term and countrywide long-term forecasts of the Meteorological Office.

Yes, Sir. The Meteorological Office does publicise the economies which such industries can achieve by the use of meteorological services adapted to their needs. A recent study suggests that the benefits may outweigh the cost in various industries by anything from 10:1 to 200:1. Already further steps are being considered to publicise the work of the Meteorological Office and the recommendations in this respect of the Third Report from the Estimates Committee on the Meteorological Services will also be considered.

Since, with only 80 per cent. accuracy, the results are as good as the hon. Gentleman said, may I ask him to make certain that builders and other industries throughout Great Britain realise the potential benefit to our economy?

There is already the closest contact with the building industry. We are in touch with the Ministry of Technology and we will be in touch with the D.E.A., and through the "Little Neddies", to make our impact far greater than it already is.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now make a statement on recruitment for the Royal Navy and Royal Marines and the progress made in the last year on persuading serving men and women in these services to accept re-engagement.

Recruiting is still running at an annual rate a little better than 7,500, the same as last year. We seem at last to have stopped the downward trend of re-engagement rates. These remain at about the 45 per cent. level for 12-year men, and about 25 per cent. for 9-year men.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to ensure that aircraft carriers serving with the Fleet are capable of all the tasks facing a modern aircraft carrier.

As long as we have the carriers, we will keep them in a fit state to do the jobs we plan for them during the rest of their lives.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to ensure that defence expenditure for 1970 in the revised National Plan does not exceed that proportion of the gross national product provided for in the original plan.

I would refer to my reply of 9th November to my hon. Friend, the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett).—[Vol. 735, col. 288.]

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that when he produced the Defence Review, he defined it as a "continuing process", and that many of us believe that that process ought to be dramatically accelerated? Unless it is so accelerated, we doubt very much whether the 1970 level of defence expenditure can be anything but totally unacceptable to this side of the House.

I can assure my hon. Friend that all these questions are continuously under review both in my Department and in the Government as a whole. I can perhaps reassure him to some extent—in spite of the fact that we inherited a programme which allowed for an increase of £400 million over the following three or four years, we have succeeded in keeping the level of expenditure every year that we have been in office at below the level of expenditure in the year before we came to power. By so doing, we have already reduced defence expenditure by £300 million over the Conservative programme.

Would my right hon. Friend take into consideration the resolution passed at the Labour Party Conference, calling for the ending of bases and the cutting of expenditure east of Suez?

I can assure my hon. Friend that I shall always keep all relevant considerations in mind.

As the national income for the year 1969–70 will not now be that estimated nine months ago, will the right hon. Gentleman sacrifice his 6 per cent. target for that year or his £2,000 million target for that year? One or the other must go.

The right hon. Gentleman has made a number of statements based on a hypothesis which I cannot accept.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the estimated costs of Polaris production and maintenance in the next four years; and what is the purpose of this weapon.

About £200 million; the purpose of these weapons was stated in my answer to the hon. Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks) on 10th August.—[Vol. 733, col. 357.]

Is the Minister aware that to spend vast sums of money in this way, building unusable weapons to fight imaginary enemies, while at the same time relying on charity for many social purposes like cancer research, is quite incompatible with the form of society which we on this side of the House are out to build?

I would simply say to my hon. Friend that the value of any form of society depends on one's ability to protect it from destruction in war. In so far as this programme contributes to that end, it is well justified.

In view of the antimissile missile, would not the value of the TSR2 have been far greater than that of the Polaris submarine in the full time?

I have met nobody holding this view who has held responsibility and known the facts on either side of the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many British officers and men took part in a recent exercise on the River Elbe on or about 18th October; and if he will make a statement.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) on 7th November.

Does not my hon. Friend think it absolutely disgraceful that British troops should be used in this way to violate the frontier of a friendly State which is a valued trading partner of ours? Is this what British taxpayers pay for troops to be kept in West Germany for? Will my hon. Friend give an undertaking that, under no circumstances, will British troops be used in this provocative way again?

I regard it as disgraceful that hon. Members should allege that British troops have violated the sovereignty of another country when, of course, no British soldier did violate the sovereignty of any other country. It is, of course, our responsibility to maintain and keep properly marked the border between the two zones of Germany.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied that land-based aircraft will be able to provide the same or greater protection to Army operations in areas where this protection is at present afforded by Royal Naval aircraft; and if he will make a statement.

I am satisfied that, in the post-carrier era, the land-based aircraft then in service will be able to provide adequate protection for Army operations in the areas in which we are likely to accept commitments.

Does not this Answer nullify the value of the commando ships and assault ships which the right hon. Gentleman said, in the Defence Review, would greatly strengthen our forces?

Of course it does not. We made it clear in the Defence White Paper that we did not propose to make assault landings against sophisticated air attack in areas beyond the range of our own land-based aircraft. Of course, there are many potential areas of operation where the amphibious forces will be of great value under these conditions.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what type of aircraft he propses to use for the air defence of the fleet in Far Eastern waters in the late 1970's; where these aircraft will be based; and what these bases will cost to construct.

Phantom aircraft will be used for the air defence of the fleet in the late 1970's; those deployed permanently in the Far East will on present plans be based in Singapore where bases are already available.

Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously expect us to believe that land-based aircraft in Singapore can sufficiently cover the vast areas of ocean in the Far East to enable the Royal Navy to move ships without cover from our allies?

The hon. Gentleman, who I think is a student of these matters, will be well aware that the Royal Navy moves ships about vast areas of the world all the time with no air cover whatever. We are satisfied that, in any operations which we would regard it as wise to undertake, we can provide the necessary fighter cover with these aircraft.

Is it proposed to base any of these aircraft in Hong Kong?

It is not proposed so to do.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence in what circumstances and on what terms the order for F111's could be cancelled; and what is his estimate of the effect such a cancellation would have on the dollar offset agreement with the United States Government.

We could cancel aircraft ordered at any time up to the point of delivery. The financial and other consequences would depend on the circumstances.

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean by that that there is a minimum specification which the F111 must achieve and that unless it does we have a right to cancel? Can he tell the House whether that minimum specification is in any respect inferior to the operational requirement originally laid down for the TSR2?

There are two separate questions there. On the first question, our right to cancel is independent of whether or not the aircraft meets the specifications. We can cancel in any case, although the nature of the cancellation payments and the other consequences would depend on a large number of circumstances, many of which the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) will be able to estimate.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he now proposes to revise the 12-year contracts signed, with their parents consent, by boys entering the Royal Navy.

When the Armed Forces Bill becomes law, we intend to make regulations to give all naval recruits the right to buy their discharge during the last 14 days of their third month of service.

Will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of allowing options out of contracts at three and five year intervals? Does he not agree that it is unfair that a boy at the age of 16 should be able to sell his life away for 12 years? Does he not agree that buying out is no solution, because at the age of 21 the boy might be married and have children? Will he consider this matter again?

I assure my hon. Friend that an almost continuous review of these engagements is taking place, but there are difficulties. Some of the training is lengthy and expensive, and I believe that the Service has a right to some return for this training.

Does not the hon. Gentleman recall that in answer to a Question put by his hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) about a fortnight ago he held out the hope of bringing in regulations to allow boys' service to be counted in full? Would he give the House his thoughts on this subject?

There is a later Question on that subject.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence why, now that confrontation has ended, out of 50,000 Service men in Malaysia only 10,000 are to be brought home by April, 1967, and a small number later; what is the purpose of retaining the majority in that country; how they will be occupied; and if he will reconsider the question of their return to Great Britain.

The peak figure of 50,000 covered Singapore as well as Malaysia, and included the crews of the Far East fleet and the bulk of the Brigade of Gurkhas. To bring back home much more than 10,000 men by April, 1967, would cause much waste, disruption and personal hardship. I am not ready to say how many will be brought home thereafter, but there is no authority for my hon. Friend's assumption that the number will be small.

As my right hon. Friend has given an indication that it will be half that number, is one reason for continuing this vast overseas drain on men and money the wish of Washington, publicly stated by Mr. MacNamara and others?

I must tell my hon. Friend that that conclusion is based on another false assumption. The further reduction in forces whom we will bring home from the Far East may be as high as the original figure of 10,000, but I am not prepared at present to say precisely what the number will be.

Has the right hon. Gentleman a treaty in existence under which these forces will be retained in Singapore?

No, Sir, although under the terms of the secession agreement between Singapore and Malaysia, Singapore undertook to carry out the obligations which that country held as part of the Federation of Malaysia.

But is it not highly unsatisfactory that these forces should remain in Singapore without proper treaty cover?

I have made the position quite clear; that, from the point of view of the forces themselves, treaty cover is provided in a satisfactory form by the undertaking of the Singapore Government. However, our own reciprocal obligation has not been defined and I hope that it will be possible to do so at a later stage.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what official records are now kept of requests for welfare assistance by Royal Navy personnel; and what improved arrangements are planned for the welfare of the wives of Royal Navy personnel serving overseas.

Very full and detailed records are kept by the Family Welfare Organisation, and by ships. Next month I expect to have the report of a working party on the Family Welfare Organisation, which has given particular attention to the welfare of naval wives whose husbands are serving overseas.

Would my hon. Friend agree that the keeping of individual Service records about such requests acts as a disincentive to seeking help with family problems? In view of the mental and emotional strain put on Service wives, should not Service men be reassured that these records will not be held against them?

These records are certainly not kept for the purpose of holding anything against anybody. They are kept for the purpose of trying to help families when they need help.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the extent and cost of work on Royal Navy ships and equipment in Portsmouth Dockyard at present being undertaken by civilian contractors.

A wide variety of jobs worth about £34,000 for which the dockyard has no resources or no spare labour.

Would my hon. Friend agree that certain resources of labour within the dockyard are not at present being fully utilised and that to bring in contract labour appears to contradict the Government's policy on productivity and serves to have an adverse effect on the morale of the regular labour force in the dockyard, since contract labour is often paid higher rates than the local labour force?

We try to do as much work as possible with dockyard labour. However, when the dockyard labour force is fully employed or when there is some specialist job that cannot be done by that force, outside labour is employed.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review the nationality rules for entry into the Armed Forces.

No, Sir. These rules were reviewed as recently as last year, they can be waived in special circumstances, and I see no present need to review them again.

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware of at least one case to which I have drawn his attention—concerning the son of a loyal Pole who fought gallantly with the Royal Air Force—would he not agree that if the rules were reworded they would be less offensive and that it could be simply said that, in the case of children of non-British parents, there might be need for a special security investigation?

If I am thinking of the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred, the boy concerned has not applied to join. I wish that he would. I will consider the hon. Gentleman's comments about the wording of the rules.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has made, in view of the agreement for offsetting foreign exchange costs of United Kingdom purchases of the F111, to the United States authorities regarding their withdrawal of an offer to allow British shipyards to tender for the construction of four 840-ton ocean minesweepers for the United States Navy.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether, in view of the permanent withdrawal by the United States Navy of its offer to allow British shipyards to tender for the construction of four 840-ton ocean minesweepers worth $25 million as part of the agreement to offset the British purchase of F111 aircraft, he will reduce the F111 order by a corresponding amount to protect Great Britain's balance of payments.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations have been made by the Government, in connection with the offset agreement, about the decision of the United States Government to cancel orders for four minesweepers from British shipyards.

I would refer to the Answer I gave on 9th November to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten).—[Vol. 735, col. 290.]

Would the right hon. Gentleman explain what happens in this matter? Is it not a fact that the United States has now put in a new order for small craft, and what happens if that is withdrawn? How does this process go on and how can we expect to fulfil the arrangements to offset the cost of the F111 under these circumstances?

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, whose chagrin is always extreme when Her Majesty's Government organise sales for British shipbuilders and others under the offset agreement. The fact is, as I made clear in my previous statement, that the offer, which was withdrawn because the specification of the ships was being redefined by the American Navy, will be resubmitted and British shipbuilders will be invited to tender. In the light of that, I wonder what on earth the hon. Gentleman is up to.

Will my right hon. Friend inform the House, in view of the sacrifice that is involved in terms of unemployment, deflation, the wage freeze and our need to safeguard our balance of payments, whether he considers it fair to maintain the F111 order despite the difficulties which we face?

I wish to make it clear to my hon. Friend that, as a result of the order, work is already flowing in to Fair- fields and Thorneycrofts which would not have been flowing in without the order.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, contrary to what he told my hon. Friend, we on this side of the House are delighted when sales are made—[Interruption.]—but that we are a little anxious about the Buy American Act and other pressures exerted in the United States and that we are particularly somewhat suspicious when specifications are changed after British firms have been involved in very expensive and lengthy negotiations drawing up contracts?

I am not responsible for any suspicions which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends may feel. In the light of what he has just said, I think I can take it that hon. Gentlemen opposite are grateful to Her Majesty's Government for negotiating an offset agreement under which £50 million worth of work in dollars is already flowing to British firms.

Am I right in thinking that the value of the arms exports to Saudi Arabia is, for some extraordinary reason, counted in this offset arrangement and that exports of other British arms, for example to Iran, also count?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman must know that his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), the Opposition spokesman on defence, actually forced a debate on the question of the inclusion of the Saudi deal in the offset agreement. I am surprised that I am asked now to confirm this yet again. None of the arms in respect of Iran are in the offset agreement.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what I did was to force a disclosure of what he was trying to hide?

If the right hon. Gentleman wants to find one thing in the last 12 months on which he can pride himself, I will allow him to take credit for something for which credit is not really due to him.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what new variations are being introduced into the F111 offset agreement by the United States Government; and if he will make a statement.

No variations are being introduced.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in one case when a British firm won a contract on the American market in open competition against American firms protest was made to the State Department and a commission of inquiry was sent to Glasgow to see whether the firm, Fairfield's, could carry out the contract that it had won? Is that part of the offset agreement?

If my hon. Friend will give me details—

I am giving my right hon. Friend them.

—of any episode if it concerns a defence contract, I will look into it. But I can set his mind at rest about Fairfield's. The contract for building fleet auxiliaries for the United States is already there. Perhaps I might take the opportunity to correct an earlier Answer that I gave. The firm other than Fairfield's to which work is already flowing as a result of the offset agreement is Brooke Marine, not Thorneycrofts.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what increase there has been in the shadowing of British warships by Soviet vessels and of the approach to British coasts by Soviet reconnaissance aircraft; and what instructions he has given to safeguard national security.

An increase in the level of Soviet activity in both these directions has been observed outside United Kingdom territorial limits. I cannot disclose what measures are being taken to safeguard our position.

Is not this military snooping becoming increasingly embarrassing? Would it not be a good subject for discussion with Mr. Kosygin during his visit next March?

I will take note of the hon. Member's point.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what increases he plans in regular bomb disposal units.

None, Sir.

Will the hon. Gentleman then deny that he intends to abolish three reserve regiments of bomb disposal units for a paltry economy of only £20,000?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are retaining one Reserve unit in the T. & A.V.R.II, and our view is that this is absolutely adequate.

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

I have no immediate plans to do so.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that a few months ago he said that he would do his utmost to visit Malta, a small and loyal island which is more than concerned about the future of its defence? Under the mutual defence and assistance agreement it has the right to be consulted. Will the right hon. Gentleman make every effort to show these people that he is anxious to be helpful in the future regarding their defence?

I can set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. In view of the considerations that he has mentioned, I took the opportunity to discuss some of these problems with the Prime Minister of Malta when he was here the other day. My colleague the Minister of Defence for the Army visited Malta and participated at one stage in the consultations, which are still continuing.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are his latest estimates for the foreign exchange costs, net of offsets, of British forces stationed abroad, and the foreign exchange earnings, net of offset, from foreign forces stationed in this country, respectively, in 1966.

The latest estimate for 1966–67 of foreign exchange costs of British forces stationed abroad is £215 million allowing for German offsets and other receipts arising from our overseas commitments. Foreign exchange earnings from forces of other countries stationed in this country are estimated to be about £40 million.

Can the Secretary of State tell us to what extent the earnings that he mentions are dependent upon the costs, and whether there is any danger of the cuts that are now proceeding in these costs leading to a reduction in these earnings?

To some extent, of course, the earnings are dependent on the costs in so far as they arise out of obligations to offset costs.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree in general that we get extremely good value for the money that we spend on our troops stationed abroad?

My belief is that we get better value per battalion stationed abroad than any other country in the world.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the £40 million that he mentioned in his Answer falls to be added to the £350 million which has accrued from the same source during the past 14 years?

I do not know for whom it falls to be added, but it is the case that £350 million accrued from this source over the period mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what recent action he has taken to plan the production of arms through an agency of Western European Union, such as the establishment of a European Armaments Board.

New and comprehensive machinery for arms co-operation has recently been introduced in N.A.T.O. We believe this should be given a fair period of trial before assessing finally the need for separate machinery of the kind suggested.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is support for this in French Parliamentary circles, and will he follow it up, because it seems a hopeful sign?

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that that support will have an influence on the French Government's decision about the variable geometry aircraft.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the review of the regulations for commuting Service pensions which was begun two years ago.

I regret that this review, to which I attach special importance, should be taking so long. But the subject is complex. I shall make a statement at the earliest possible moment.

I am grateful for that Answer. It has taken an unconscionable time. Is the working party really working, or is it a party?

It is working very hard.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state the number of Britannia aircraft employed in the Zambia airlift and the total number of gallons transported to date.

The Royal Air Force airlift consisted of five Britannias, with at certain periods a sixth in reserve. It carried 3½ million gallons of fuel into Zambia between 19th December, 1965, and 31st October, 1966.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us the transport cost per gallon that this represents?

By simple arithmetic, it would come to about £1 per gallon. There were difficulties of distance and type of aircraft. Very shortly now we shall have a much better type of transport aircraft, which would have brought down the price, though that is not true in all cases in other lifts.

Did the aircraft in transporting 3½ million gallons of petrol burn about 5 million gallons?

The amount of fuel burnt by the aircraft is not taken into account because I am advised that they did not refuel before returning.

Would the Government initiate another airlift if a request came from Zambia?

No such request has been made. We acceded to the request in the first instance. I think it is better to leave it at that at the moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give an assurance that he has no intention of cancelling, deferring or cutting down the order for the P1127 as the result of Her Majesty's Government's recent consideration of the matter.

There has been no change in the plan to replace the Hunter by a combination of the U.S. Phantom and the British P1127.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the Question. Has there been any consideration of cutting down or cancelling the present order which has been placed, or is in the process of being placed, for the P1127 aircraft?

With respect, that is not the Question and I did answer it.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the point of the Question, that there are constant reports circulating to say that the Government statement in the Defence White Paper about using the P1127 is being reconsidered?

Perhaps I can set the right hon. Gentleman's mind at rest by saying that full financial authority has been given for the programme to pro- ceed and contract negotiations for the first large production order are nearly complete.

In view of the potential importance of this aircraft for the protection of the Royal Navy, will the Secretary of State be a little more forthcoming and say absolutely specifically that no change is intended in the programme for this aircraft?

If I were to be specific in that sense, I would rule out the supply of this aircraft for the Royal Navy.

How many aircraft are concerned with the first production contract?

I am not in a position to give the exact number, but it is substantial.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will initiate discussions with a view to the amalgamation of the Libraries belonging to the House of Commons and the House of Lords in order to give better facilities for all who work in the Palace of Westminster.

The House of Commons Librarian is always willing to obtain books from the House of Lords Library which are required by Members. Members of the House of Commons are also always welcome by the Librarian of the House of Lords if they wish to go there personally to refer to any books which are in that Library.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is not a question of access to books but of space? The House of Lords Library is frequently empty and it is absurd to have two libraries separated by 100 yards.

I am aware that there are possibilities here. If my hon. Friend suggests that discussions should take place I am perfectly prepared to consider that and to consult with the Library Sub-Committee.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will recommend to the Services Committee that more space should be made available in the Library to allow hon. Members' personal research assistants open access.

A rearrangement of space in the Library is now being considered as a result of Mr. Speaker generously agreeing to make his Library available to hon. Members. Details of the proposed rearrangement will be announced shortly. The admission to the Library, however, of Members' secretaries and personal research assistants is a wider question, and will be considered in the first place by the Library Sub-Committee in connection with its present inquiry into the long-term future of the Library.

I am sure that the whole House is grateful to Mr. Speaker for the offer of his Library. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a widespread wish to have personal research assistants—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—it may not be shared by hon. Members opposite—and that this wish is being thwarted by our inability to house them and let them have access to information?

I think that my hon. Friend has over-simplified this problem. We all see the advantages of this to individual Members, but it has other repercussions and I am sure that the House would like to consider very carefully before making a major change of policy. I was, therefore, surely wise to say that the Library Sub-Committee should consider this as part of its viewing of the long-term future of the Library.

Surely the Library must remain for the exclusive use of hon. Members?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in view of the announcement he has just made, we should extend our thanks to Mr. Speaker for having acceded to a request that has been made over the past 44 years, since I first came to the House?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend represents the views of both sides of the House in that expression of gratitude.

asked the Lord President of the Council what is the estimated cost including all salaries and wages of the Commons part of the Palace of Westminster for each 10 minutes of Parliamentary time.

The total estimated expenditure in 1966–67 on the House of Commons, including allied services, is £4,550,100. I do not think that any calculations on the lines suggested by the hon. Member would have very much meaning.

The meaning which perhaps the Lord President could give if he were to do the sum for us and therefore answer the Question would give a clear indication to certain hon. Members of the cost to the nation of bringing forward Ten-Minute Rule Bills which have no prospects of reaching the Statute Book and which, furthermore, are largely brought forward for personal self-advertisement.

The bringing forward of Ten-Minute Rule Bills is not only done from this side of the House. Moreover, it has a value which should not be underestimated. I know no way of quantifying the value of a Ten-Minute Rule Bill since, in my view, it varies from Bill to Bill and from mover to mover.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he changed things to cut out self-advertisement we could do all our business in the Grand Committee rooms?

I am aware that if all of us became angels we would not do any business at all.

asked the Lord President of the Council (1) if he will take steps to ensure that when any Member of Parliament wishes to reserve a private room for the purpose of granting a television or radio interview he does not have to seek the per-mission of any official or employee of the House;

(2) on whose authority facilities have been provided for television interviews to be given by Ministers on the premises of the Palace of Westminster; and whether he will arrange for an inquiry into the entire problem of photography in the Palace.

Live television and radio interviews are not permitted within the Palace of Westminster under rules made under the authority of Mr. Speaker and the Lord Chancellor. A radio interview may, however, be tape-recorded for use later I will ask the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) to examine the existing rules relating to photography.

Will my right hon. Friend not go a little further and say that he will provide facilities inside the House for television interviews when he is introducing his proposals for televising Parliament under the closed-circuitarrangements he has in mind? Does he not agree that it is absurd that when hon. Members have bean asked for a television interview and could go into a room behind locked doors, interfering with nobody, they must go to an official of the House for permission, which is invariably refused?

The House would like to consider very carefully before it changed the rule about television interviews occurring in the House. This partly depends on accommodation, but I would like to reflect further before committing the House or myself on that issue.

Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that those of us who believe that we must come to a television edition of "Today in Parliament"—[An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, no."] desire that hon. Members taking part in our debates should be seen on television and that it should not be the prerogative of the television authorities to take selected hon. Members, who are often "offside" the general thought of their party, and interview them either in a studio or in a private room?

The hon. Gentleman has put forward the very point which needs careful consideration. We should not anticipate the debate on the experiment with closed-circuit television in the Chamber, but whether we have television of our proceedings here and whether an advantage should be given to hon. Members of being televised, not here but for companies outside, seem to be different issues, which we should consider very carefully.

The right hon. Gentleman has just said, quite rightly, that the House should not anticipate the debate which will take place. I ask him to go further and face the logic of that declaration—that the House has no right to anticipate the will of Parliament on the question of principle as to whether television comes to this House by installing the machinery of television before we have settled that question in a general debate.

Answer.

As far as I know, no anticipation has taken place in the installing of any machinery for television in the House.

asked the Lord President of the Council for what purpose electric cables are hanging from the ceiling of Committee Room 9 in the Palace of Westminster without any appliances attached to them; and by what authority they were installed.

In their Fourth Report of this Session which was made to the House on 9th August last, the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) recommended the installation of permanent equipment for tape-recording the proceedings of Standing Committees in Committee Rooms 9, 11 and 12. The cables in Committee Room 9 will in due course have microphones attached to them for this purpose.