asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will improve the equipment and training periods for the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve III in order to meet the tasks of the force.

The equipment and the training planned are appropriate to its rôles.

Does the hon. Gentleman think that 27 out-of-camp evening training periods and four day-training periods are adequate for training in what we hope will be this wonderful force? Will he not give encouragement by providing good equipment and decent training to those who are so enthusiastic as to join the force?

This is appropriate to the new rôle.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has made to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council to alter the forward defence strategy of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

None, Sir.

Does not the Secretary of State realise that if he intends to reduce the number of troops much more than at present this means a trip-wire strategy, meaning nuclear war or nothing in Europe? Does he think this is sensible? Why has he changed his mind so much from when he was in opposition?

The hon. Member is wrong on all three points. There has never been any question that N.A.T.O. would be able to defend Western Europe purely with conventional weapons against all the forces which the Soviet Union could launch against it. The question is: what is the best balance of risk compatible with the military needs, the political intentions of a possible aggressor, and the economic resources of the Western side?

Will not the Secretary of State realise in time that by pressing, against the advice and views of all his allies, for a reduction in the assumed length of a conventional conflict in Europe, he is virtually committing this country to instantaneous nuclear reaction?

That remark is characteristic of the right hon. Gentleman in its extravagance and irrelevance.

Answer.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he recognises that we have a treaty obligation not to reduce our forces without the approval of our partners in Western European Union, not merely after consultation with them?

Yes; I certainly recognise that, as did the previous Government when they reduced their commitment from 80,000 to 58,000.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what total reductions of forces in the Far East are planned by 5th April, 1967, and by 5th April, 1968.

At the moment I have firm plans for bringing home at least 10,000 men, most of whom will have returned to this country by 5th April, 1967. I cannot yet give a similar firm forecast for April, 1968.

Were the right hon. Gentleman's plans for this year's reductions agreed beforehand with the Australian Government?

Yes. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman will know, the then Foreign Secretary and I explained our plans in great detail to the Australian Government almost exactly one year ago.

Will the plans reduce by 1970 the total of £2,000 million at 1964 prices as set out in the Defence Review of 1966?

These plans were calculated in relation to the Defence Review target of £2,000 million at 1964 prices for the financial year 1969–70.

How is the 10,000 allocated among the three Services? How does the figure of 10,000 out of the total of about 60,000 square up with the Prime Minister's statement that massive withdrawals would take place?

I made it clear that this is not the end of the road, but these first 10,000 are primarily teeth arms and immediately supporting units of the Army, although some naval and air forces are also involved.

How are the remaining men to be employed—in playing bingo? Would it not be better to bring them home and employ them usefully in British industry?

I do not know whether my hon. Friend thinks that they should be producing bingo machines. All these men who are in the Far East at present are usefully employed in supporting the foreign policy and the defence policy of Her Majesty's Government, but I expect to be able to reduce their number further over the coming year.

Is the Secretary of State seriously suggesting—or is he still in this absurd, hilarious mood—that the next tasks for British industry under his Administration are the making of bingo machines?

If the right hon. Gentleman seriously thinks that I was suggesting that, he should think a little harder next time.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what changes are planned in the working of the Simonstown Agreement.

We envisage no changes in the terms of the Simonstown Agreement, but discussions are being held on certain aspects in the light of the projected withdrawal of the Commander in Chief, South Atlantic and South America station.

Will the Secretary of State say on what date it is intended to withdraw the British Naval Commander-in-Chief?

No, I cannot say that now. All these matters, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, are being discussed at the present time with the South African Government, and a British mission is leaving on Friday to carry the discussion further.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman in danger of sacrificing the long-term defence needs of this country because of a temporary embarrassment with the South African Government?

I do not think so at all.

Would my right hon. Friend tell us how far is our next nearest base to Simonstown?

Not without notice, Sir. I can tell my hon. and learned Friend that we do not anticipate having to carry out tasks in that part of the world for which we will need facilities which we expect to withdraw from that part of the world.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what reduction in overseas expenditure in 1967–68 compared with 1966–67 he estimates will result from the withdrawals from Cyprus announced on 30th November.

I hope to include in the Statement on the Defence Estimates information about the overseas foreign exchange costs of our forces.

When are we to be told the details of the plan which we were told had been worked out in detail last July for a reduction in next year's Estimates of —80 million in overseas defence costs?

In the first place, the House was never told anything in precisely those terms, but I will, of course, give the House the fullest information possible of the plans for the defence contribution to the saving of £100 million in Government overseas expenditure during the coming year when the White Paper is published in a few weeks' time.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how he proposes to save the promised £80 million a year in overseas military expenditure.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state the progress achieved in effecting the reduction of £80 million per annum in overseas defence spending promised by the Government.

I expect to be able to give further information in next month's Defence White Paper.

But was not that promise made six months ago? Is it to be kept—may we have an assurance on that—or is only a negligible fraction of our military overseas expenditure of £605 million a year to be saved?

I am not sure whether I should say "Yes" or "No". The fact is that the Government committed themselves to make savings during the next financial year at the rate of £100 million a year, and defence will carry by far the major part of those savings. I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall give such details of the way in which these savings will be secured as we are able to give in next month's Defence White Paper.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on these benches regard this cut as the absolute minimum that we can accept in the forthcoming financial year? Will he use his very best endeavours to insist that the Government's defence policy is kept broadly in line with the official policy of the party which he supports?

It has been my constant endeavour for the last two and a half years to bring our defence expenditure into line with our resources. I am fortified by the knowledge that I have the support of many of my hon. Friends in doing so.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that considerable technical advantage accrues to industry as a whole from expenditure on defence equipment?

I certainly do, and I think that that is a consideration to be borne in mind, although I think that many of us would feel that often these advantages could be gained at very much lower cost if we attempted to secure them directly by investment in civil research and development projects.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has to acquire additional land for training purposes.

None, Sir.

Does the Minister of State recall saying about two years ago that this was a desperately urgent problem; that it was due to the political cowardice of the Tories that it had not been solved before? Does he realise that we have less training ground now than we had under the Tory Administration? Would he now care to choose a word to describe his own conduct in relation to this important matter?

The hon. Gentleman seems to be unaware of the fact—although I thought that he knew it—that there has been a major reorganisation of the Territorial Army since then, and the spare training land arising because of that reorganisation will satisfy, at least for the time being, the demands of the Regular Army.

Is the Minister aware that this Answer will be warmly welcomed on this side of the House? We appreciate the great need for land for building purposes and land used for training is almost entirely waste.

I cannot agree that land used in this way is almost entirely a waste, because about two-thirds of the land owned and used by the Services is let for agricultural purposes in some way or other, and during the past two years we have surrendered a large area of land to the Greater London Council and other authorities in the London area for home building.

Is the Minister satisfied that we have enough training land to meet the requirements of the Armed Forces in this country?

At the present time, yes.

Can my hon. Friend tell us about the German and Italian forces training in Wales and occupying useful land?

To an extent, this is on a reciprocal basis. We have large training areas in Germany.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the value of order for new naval vessels placed by Her Majesty's Government with British shipyards in the years 1965 and 1966, respectively; and what are the comparable figures for Scottish shipyards only.

For British shipyards, £42 million and £48 million respectively; for Scottish yards only, £14 million and £6 million, respectively.

Are not these figures very disappointing, bearing in mind the fact that for ten years after the war about half of all new naval vessels were built in Scotland. Is not this another Government example of neglecting Scottish interests?

No. It is because of the changing demands of the Royal Navy and the fact that the nuclear shipbuilding programme represents much of that, and none of these orders is in Scotland at the moment.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the capacity of Harland and Wolff in Belfast and consider the placing of orders with them?

Yes, if they are competitive with the rest of the yards.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will give an estimate of the total number of civilian dependants of the Armed Forces and civilian staff attached to the Armed Forces at present living abroad, and the approximate cost in foreign exchange to this country of their expenditure.

About 168,000. It is the individual Service man who finances most of his dependant's expenditure; I cannot say how much foreign exchange he would save if they were not abroad with him.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that it is of the utmost importance that the foreign currency expenditure of this civilian staff attached to the forces should be brought drastically under control in view of the severe strain on our foreign exchange which it represents?

I would not limit this control solely to the area about which my hon. Friend has asked the Question. A figure of £120 million is drawn by way of pay by the Service men themselves. Any estimate which I tried to make of how much of that they would not draw overseas if their families were not with them would be, at best, a poor guess.

Is the estimate of any additional overseas expenditure under this head, other than Forces' pay, included in the estimates of overseas defence expenditure?

We know, of course, the total amount of overseas defence expenditure in foreign countries of which such things as schools, married quarters and things of that nature form a part, but it is not possible, without a large amount of work, to separate these contingent items right down with any degree of accuracy.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many troops the Government intend to maintain in Kuwait and Bahrein up to 1970 to fulfil the commitments laid down in the Defence White Paper; and what is the estimated cost in each financial year from 1967–68 to 1970–71.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future size and cost of British forces in the Persian Gulf.

I would refer to my replies to the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) on 10th November, and to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) on 14th December, 1966.

Would the Minister care to explain what is the point of the policy of dismantling expensive and long standing military installations in Southern Arabia in order to build up installations in the Persian Gulf?

I can explain that very well to my hon. Friend. The point is to ensure the continued stability of the Gulf until countries in the area are capable of maintaining stability on their own. We do not regard a base in Aden as being necessary for that purpose. But consequent on leaving Aden, we feel it necessary to make a small increase in our forces in the Persian Gulf to maintain our obligations.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the official policy of the Labour Party is how to secure the withdrawal from the Persian Gulf, from Malaysia and Singapore, of all British forces by 1970? Would he bear this in mind in his forward planning in the Persian Gulf and generally east of Suez?

I will certainly bear all relevant considerations in mind at all times.

What report has the right hon. Gentleman received from Her Majesty's representatives in the Gulf about the reaction to the British withdrawal from Aden?

I cay say that Her Majesty's representatives in the Gulf report the local Governments as being very satisfied with the steps which are proposed and to which I have just referred.

Does the right hon. Gentleman know that there are strong rumours that there is escalation of costs in the increase of numbers and facilities in the Persion Gulf? Would it not be wiser to restrict service in this area to unaccompanied service of short duration and not to build a complicated support mechanism in an area which is totally unsuitable for women and children.

I can assure the hon. Member that we have no intention of building married quarters in those parts of the Gulf where we are developing substantial new facilities. I do not know what reports he has heard, but I can also tell him that there is no indication of escalation in the cost of the building programme.

Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he did not consider that a British military presence in South Arabia was necessary for the stability of that area? Does he not realise that by withdrawing prematurely we are going to leave a power vacuum in that area which can only result in invasion or subversion organised by Egypt?

The House will be aware that we have debated this matter on many occasions, and we will no doubt debate it again in a few weeks' time. I referred to the stability of the Gulf, and I said that a base in Aden was not necessary in order to maintain our obligations to the States in the Gulf.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that our presence in these areas may be a provocation and that it means the opposite to what he suggested in his reply? Would he not think again about this matter; otherwise we may be there for ever?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making a point which is of great weight. The great question which the Government have to ask themselves continually is whether the presence of British forces in a given area is likely to contribute to the stability or is likely to derogate from the stability of the area. I am quite satisfied that the presence of British forces in the Gulf is a contribution towards stability.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has now reached agreement with the French Government on the joint production of a variable geometry strike aircraft.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the Anglo-French swing-wing aircraft.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now make a further statement about the future of the Anglo-French swing-wing aircraft.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Anglo-French variable-geometry aircraft.

When my hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation and I met M. Messmer the French Minister for the Armed Forces on 16th January, we agreed that the Anglo-French variable geometry project should go ahead. We decided to meet again in March to complete agreement on the technical specification and to take the further decisions required to implement the programme.

Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that this new aircraft will satisfy the needs of the Royal Air Force with its range, speed, weapon load and contour hugging? Can he say whether there is a break clause in this agreement?

The Air Staff is fully satisfied with the performance characteristics as so far defined for the aircraft, although we shall be consulting potential purchasers over the next few weeks to see whether any adjustments to these specifications are likely to attract a larger market. There is a break clause in the agreement because both the French Government and ourselves believe that it would be a great mistake to commit ourselves to a programme of this size without any right to review it at any stage later on.

Is the Royal Air Force getting these planes earlier than originally expected? If so, what is the cost of that early delivery? What is the cost of each plane calculated to be, and does that calculation include an allowance for escalation of costs?

The R.A.F. is planning to take delivery of these aircraft under this programme in 1974 or thereabouts, the time always envisaged over the last two years, although the French Government will be taking delivery of its version of the aircraft a little later than it originally intended. I do not think that I can give the House the current estimates of unit costs for the aircraft, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the French Government and ourselves have probed the cost estimates more carefully than the cost estimates of any previous aircraft project have been probed at this stage of development, and we have added a margin for contingency.

Will the right hon. Gentleman in due course give the House full details of what has been agreed—if not now, then by March? Will he say what order will be placed by the British Government and to what cancellations of other types of aircraft it is likely to lead?

I will, of course, follow the practice established by the present Government of giving far more details of cost and numbers of aircraft than were ever given in the past, and I will communicate such details as I feel to be appropriate to the House from time to time.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving a clear definition of the capabilities of this aircraft? Is it not a fact that we expect to use it as a strike aircraft and that the French intend to use it as a fighter aircraft? Is it not supposed to do rather too much? How much will be allotted in the way of finance in the coming financial year?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the great advantage of variable geometry is that great flexibility of rôle is conferred on the aircraft. The House must recognise, as I have said on many occasions, that the old idea that an aircraft can be built for a single role is now completely out of date. We require the aircraft primarily in the strike role, although we shall also use it for reconnaissance and to some extent for interception. The French require it primarily for interception, but at this stage we have succeeded in reconciling our requirements so far as is necessary. I cannot without notice give details of cost in the coming year, but it will be very small because we do not expect to authorise production of the prototype until the year is at an end.

Will the methods employed in building this aircraft be modelled on those employed in building Concord?

I am not quite sure of the implications of that question, but what I can tell my hon. Friend is that we shall use the most up-to-date methods with the best chance of producing the aircraft as fast as possible at the minimum cost.

Is there to be a joint statement from the two Governments upon what has been agreed? What is the division of cost between the two countries in respect of research and development?

A joint statement was issued by the two Governments on Monday afternoon and was published in yesterday's Press. Agreement was reached on Monday and the communiqué was published. Development costs will be shared equally between the two countries, and it is expected that the two countries will take roughly the same number of aircraft and production costs will be shared in proportion to the number ordered by each country.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is widespread satisfaction at the announcement of this agreement? Is he aware that the absence of congratulations from hon. Members opposite is rather significant? Will he ensure that this project, which is so important to the British and French aircraft industries, is pursued with the utmost vigour?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not want to make any party points on this matter. I hope that both sides of the House will agree that this agreement lays the basis for the long-term future of the British and the French aircraft industries in cooperation with one another. I hope that, whatever disagreements we might have had about this matter in the past, we can now agree that the industry has a stable programme of military aircraft carrying it through the 'seventies and that both the industry and the Government have an equal responsibility from this stage on to see that nothing occurs which brings new instability to the programme.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House something about the arrangements for the avionic equipment for the A.F.V.G.? Which country is to take the lead on that? Secondly, as we understand that the helicopter agreement is tied up with the A.F.V.G. agreement, can he say anything about the effects of that on the British helicopter industry, and, in particular, can he assure the House that quick administrative decisions will be taken about the British helicopter WG13?

The details of the requirements for the avionics of the aircraft have not yet been finalised between the two Governments, but we have agreed on the very important general principle that both research and development and production work should balance out across the programme as a whole. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the helicopter package is in no way dependent on the first. The helicopter package stands on its own feet as an agreement for the joint production of three aircraft which both countries need, balanced in such a way as to ensure that they both get a fair share of the development and production work in relation to their orders.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been paid in compensation for cancelled military contracts from October 1964 to the present time.

Something less than £3 million has been paid in compensation for unavoidable terminal costs due to cancellations. In addition, full payment has been or is being made for equipment delivered or in course of manufacture, and materials and equipment obtained for the purposes of the contracts prior to cancellation.

Why was the right hon. Gentleman so coy about giving this information to his hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Woof) last November? Can he tell us whether these cancellation charges are included in the costs which are now to be given for aircraft to replace those cancelled?

No, the £3 million is an addition.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence, to what extent the defence policy of Her Majesty's Government now envisages major operations of war east of Suez in the 1970s otherwise than on the authority of the United Nations.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent Her Majesty's Government's defence policy in the 1970s envisages any major war operations other than on the authority of the United Nations.

We cannot exclude the possibility that such operations may take place. Our policy would, of course, be governed by the first of the three "general limitations" set out in paragraph 19 of "The Defence Review"; and our ability to participate might well be affected by the other two.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the idea of our military intervention on the mainland of Asia, outside the United Nations, with dwindling resources, is becoming an increasingly doubtful and dangerous proposition? Is he also aware that this insistence on a world military rôle is increasingly making nonsense of the Government's policy in Europe?

As always, I have some sympathy with the points raised by my hon. Friend, but, as always, he fails to balance the good points that he has to make with other considerations which he ignores. I do not think that the majority of Members on either side of the House would wish the Government, in advance and without knowing the circumstances, to renounce all future capability for making a contribution to the peace in the part of the world which we all agree is likely to be the main source of international instability over the next ten years.

Would my right hon. Friends agree that it would be a very major contribution to world peace if this Government categorically said that they would undertake major military operations only on the authority of the United Nations? Would he further agree that it would be an even greater contribution if we could get our American allies to do the same?

With respect to my hon. Friend, to make such a pledge, and even more to carry it out, would be to tell countries which are capable under the United Nations Charter of preventing the United Nations from taking action, if there is a threat to peace, that they were perfectly free to go ahead and use their military forces as they wished to commit aggression.

Will the Secretary of State try to make clear to his hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) that in his close discussions with the Australians, to which he referred a moment ago, he did take the point that they have made so strongly, that the States in South-East Asia need the assurance of strong friends to enable their economic and constitutional systems to evolve in a way we all hope to see?

I did indicate that general line of policy when I was in Australia, and I think my hon. Friend is well aware of that.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he has had with the United States Government regarding the fulfilment of Great Britain's defence commitments in Asia in the 1970s.

None on this specific question. We do, however, keep in touch with the United States and our other allies generally about future defence policy.

In his previous answer, my right hon. Friend acknowledged that we cannot carry out these commitments, except in association with the Americans. What has been done to get joint intelligence, joint contingency planning and so on, and at what level is this taking place, or is nothing being done at all?

With great respect, my hon. Friend should remember that we already have an arrangement, and have had for a long time, to interchange intelligence with the United States on many parts of the world. Equally he must be aware, because we have proved this capacity, that there are many situations outside Europe where it is possible for us to play an invaluable rôle in protecting the peace and stability not in co-operation with the Americans. We have just concluded successfully, in co-operation with our Commonwealth allies, a three-year campaign of this nature in Malaysia.

Arising out of the Minister's consultations with the United States Government, does the right hon. Gentleman think that there is likely to be a significant increase in the British involvement in Thailand?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether plans have been made for British participation in possible United Nations peace-keeping arrangements east of Suez, particularly after 1970.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the then Minister of State for Foreign Affairs to the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) on 17th June last [Vol. 729, c. 353–4.], which sets out the Government's policy on the creation of a permanent United Nations Peacekeeping Force, and what we are already doing or stand ready to do to assist peacekeeping activities of the United Nations. This statement applies as much to the area east of Suez as to any other part of the world.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that if we are serious about rationalising our overseas commitments, particularly east of Suez, we must give a great deal more dynamic thought now to how international and collective agreements can specifically operate in that area under the United Nations?

I would agree in principle with my hon. Friend, although I hope that his suplementary question did not imply that the Government are not giving a great deal of dynamic thought to this question. I would say, and I know that my hon. Friend will agree, that the Government's support for the United Nations decision to send a mission to Aden in the near future may, and I hope will, lead to the United Nations accepting some responsibility for the security of that part of the world when British forces are withdrawn.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the annual cost of regular social, medical and educational services to the local populations, other than those connected with military action, provided by British Armed Services east of Suez.

The Armed Forces do not provide regular services of this kind to local populations, except at Gan, where the cost is £5,000 a year.

Would my hon. Friend agree that in many ways this work is more important and more valuable than military operations undertaken by forces and contributes more to security? Does he not further agree that it could be more effectively undertaken with a civil programme in the area which could be assisted rapidly if we were to reduce our military commitment?

My hon. Friend asked for regular services and the answer I gave is the only regular service. A lot of work of this nature is done in connection with military operations. This was done in Borneo and is being done in South Arabia, but basically it is not a matter for a charge upon the Defence Vote to carry out this kind of work but on the Vote of the Department dealing with that kind of thing.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total cost to the British Government of British military forces in the German Federal Republic and in West Berlin since 1955; and what has been the cost over the same period in foreign currency.

For the period from 1st April, 1958, the respective figures are £975 million, excluding the cost of unit equipment, and £575 million. I regret that comparable figures for earlier years are not available.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the accumulated effect of this expenditure is to impose an intolerable burden upon our economy and upon our foreign exchange reserves? Will the Government see that this expenditure is either brought to an end or drastically reduced in the very near future?

My hon. Friend will be well aware that the Government consider a continuation of a burden on this scale as being intolerable and have made clear when they propose to take decisions on this matter. I would point out to the House that as against this, the German Government paid something like £300 million to offset our costs over the period to which I referred, and the net cost to this country over the whole period, without deducting German offset, was less than half our expenditure on an average year of the last world war. Expenditure which is necessary to prevent the occurrence of a third world war is fully justified on these grounds.

Does the Minister really think that the present Soviet Government will ever attack Western Europe; if not, why does he not bring those troops home at once?

One of the things which many of us on both sides have learned over the years is that to use the word "never" on a matter of this nature is very unwise indeed.

Will my right hon. Friend say when the Government intend to take this decision? When do they propose to carry out the undertaking which the Prime Minister gave to the House on 30th July last year?

My hon. Friend will recall that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made clear in December that the Government have undertaken not to take any decision leading to a change in the force levels it currently maintains in Germany until 1st July so as to give a chance for the current multilateral discussions in N.A.T.O. and the tripartite talks between the British, German and United States Governments to reach agreed conclusions.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear, in view of some of the things that have been said, that the security of Western Europe is a supreme interest to this country, and that it can only be guaranteed if there is firm evidence of this country's determination to participate in its defence?

Yes, I am glad to agree with the right hon. Gentleman completely. I hope that our views in this regard will be made very clear in the forthcoming Statement on the Defence Estimates.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now announce his proposals for the housing of service families returning to this country from Aden next summer.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence in view of the general housing shortage, what arrangements he is making to ensure that families returning from Aden and Singapore have adequate housing accommodation.

We have been preparing our plans for the accommodation of these families for some time. In the longer term we aim to provide good permanent accommodation for all families who wish it within reasonable distance of the husband's station. We are building more married quarters, and we are buying or renting suitable houses to bridge the gap between the current needs and the completion of the building programme. If there are still not enough houses for all the families who need them immediately, we shall find other temporary accommodation for them.

In the short term, however, is it not true that many of these families may have to be housed in hostels and caravans and, if so, for how long?

I do not say that this will not occur, but I would dispute the word "many" in the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.

Is the hon. Gentleman getting in touch with the local authorities to see if they could build some of these houses? Is he aware that I very much dislike, as I remember the hon. Gentleman does, the cantonment of Service families, and I hope that they will be brought into the general population?

Management problems become more difficult if they are scattered too much. But I take the hon. Lady's point. Quite a large number of the properties we are buying will be on housing estates at present being built by speculative builders. Therefore, the Service people will be in with the normal population of an area, with perhaps 20, 30 or 40 in one place.

Has my right hon. Friend's Department considered using industrialised building methods to provide this kind of housing?

I can assure my hon. Friend that all three Services give a lead in industrialised building. The proportion of permanent married quarters being built by industrialised methods is probably greater than the building programme of any local authority in this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the gross national product Her Majesty's Government now propose to spend on defence.

A forecast of expenditure for 1967–68 will appear as usual in the 1967 Statement on the Defence Estimates. For later years an estimate cannot be given, as explained in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) on 9th November last.

Referring to the figure and the report which my right hon. Friend mentioned, would not he acknowledge that the ramifications of the figure, particularly in materials, manpower, energy and endeavour, can only have a crippling effect on the efforts being made by working people to restore the economy of our nation and that there must be a very serious look at what is involved, notwithstanding the fact that we have certain international commitments? Unless this is done, the probability is that we shall end up in a disastrous situation on the economic and defence fronts.

Of course, the Government are aware of the economic implications of defence expenditure. That is why last year it took a decision which saved the country £400 million on the defence budget planned by the previous Government.

When will the right hon. Gentleman at last abandon the pretence that the gross national product in 1969–70 is likely to be anything approaching the figure on which he based his Defence Review last year?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is not a question for my Department.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Fleet Air Arm.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now make a further statement on the future of the Fleet Air Arm.

I have nothing to add to the statement in Part I of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1966.

Since the Government have ordered the destruction of the Fleet Air Arm by the mid-1970s without giving the Royal Navy any alternative form of strike capability will he consider the provision of far less sophisticated aircraft carriers operating vertical take-off aircraft in the strike rôle for which helicopters are not acceptable?

We are looking at every possible way in which to meet the needs of the Forces, including the needs of the Royal Navy for support in the strike rôle, but I ask the hon. Gentleman—I know that he has the interests of the Navy and the Fleet Air Arm very much at heart—to recognise that at least half the Fleet Air Arm is concerned with flying helicopters and that the Government have already—the agreement which we reached on Monday contributes to this—developed a plan for the greater use of helicopters in the service of the Fleet.

Has my right hon. Friend any plans for using small carriers?

All these matters are under discussion.

Have not the right hon. Gentleman's replies disclosed that he deprived the Royal Navy of one form of armament before he had decided what form of armament it should have instead?

No. What my answers reveal is that this Government, unlike their predecessor, took care to take a decision on the replacement of the aircraft carrier force in time to meet the needs for replacing the capability when carriers had gone. We did not delay a decision year after year as the previous Government did in the hope that a future Government would grasp this nettle.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what action has so far been taken to reduce the cost of maintaining bases and forces in the Mediterranean area, and east of Suez.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how his plans for savings on the foreign exchange costs of Great Britain's defence commitments east of Suez are progressing; if he will estimate the foreign exchange costs in each of the years to 1970; and if he will make a statement.

I would ask my hon. Friends to await next month's publication of the Statement on the Defence Estimates.

As a former employee of Transport House, is not my right hon. Friend aware of the gravity of going against a conference decision which clearly instructed him promptly to get on with reducing the cost of our bases east of Suez and to make plans to withdraw them by 1970? Is he aware that he is the biggest single drain on our balance of payments and is the prime cause of our economic difficulties? Will he now try to reform himself?

On the first question, I learnt a good deal when I was at Transport House, and I have learnt a good deal by observing the fortunes of my hon. Friend as a result of his blind subservience to the decisions of party conferences. On the second question, total Government expenditure for all purposes overseas, including civil as well as defence purposes. represents only 8 per cent. of our total import bill. To regard that as the prime contributor to our economic problems shows a lack of balance.

Would my right hon. Friend say how his present plans differ from the 1966 Defence Review and how they differ from the statement of the Prime Minister on 20th July? Would he confirm that the cuts which he referred to in answer to questions by some of my hon. Friends do not affect the Estimates set out in the 1966 Defence Review?

The big difference between the decisions envisaged and reported to the House in last year's White Paper and some of the decisions which I have indicated to the House on recent occasions is that, because of the balance of payments crisis last July, the Government decided to accelerate many of the redeployments which they envisaged by up to two years compared with the 1969–70 target. That means that the country will be benefiting in its foreign exchange by decisions taken since the Defence Review to a very large degree.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what saving would be obtained, current and long term, by withdrawal of British forces from Malaysia, Singapore and the Persian Gulf by 1969–70.

So much would depend on the manner in which the withdrawal was effected that it is not possible to provide useful illustrative figures.

As the Ministry's own figures show that the cost is £235 million a year, and since confrontation has ended, why does not my right hon. Friend bring all the troops home from Malaysia? Is it because America, and Mr. McNamara in particular, say that we have to keep them there?

There are many factors, many of which we shall be discussing in the House in the debate on the White Paper in a short time. But I would point out to my hon. Friend that we are not talking about moving blocks of timber about the world. We are talking about moving human beings—soldiers, sailors and airmen, and very often their wives and children. We cannot move people in the same way as we move blocks of timber. I think that my hon. Friend is humane enough to recognise that.

Would the right hon. Gentleman explain to his hon. Friend that one of the reasons for retaining these men in Malaysia and Singapore is that the Governments of both those countries asked him for help?

It is certainly true that the Governments of Malaysia and Singapore are anxious for us to retain facilities in those countries and, as the House will know, we intend to do this as long as they remain willing for us to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when the British Polaris fleet will become obsolescent; and when he expects to announce proposals for the British deterrent to succeed it.

The British Polaris force, which will in due course take over our contribution to the strategic nuclear forces of N.A.T.O., will be fully deployed in 1969–70. The question of any successor weapon system is therefore premature.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the United States Government is at present considering the re-equipment of its own Polaris fleet with the more advanced design of C3 missile? In view of the reports that this missile is eight times as effective as the A3, which is the present equipment of our own Polaris fleet, would not my right hon. Friend accept that the reason underlying this American decision suggests that our fleet may be out of date by about the end of the 1960s?

My hon. Friend will, I think, find that although the United States is planning to produce the Poseidon to replace the A3 in some of its own Polaris submarines, it is by no means planning to take all the A3 missiles out of service. I am satisfied on the evidence available to me that there is no danger that the A3 missile will not be capable of carrying out all its functions during the period we envisage having it in service.

When does the Minister intend to renegotiate the Nassau Agreement, which set up the Polaris fleet in the first place?

When it is necessary.

Is my right hon. Friend committed to the renegotiation of the Nassau Agreement? Is not the Labour Party opposed to the possession of an independent British nuclear weapon? What is he doing in talking about deploying it in the immediate future? Will he not suffer a similar fate to that now suffered by my hon. Friend on the back benches if he persists in these wrong courses?

I do not know to which hon. Friend on the back benches my hon. Friend is referring. I can, however, tell him that we have always made it clear, both in Opposition and in Government, that we regard these ships as a contribution to the collective nuclear deterrent strength of the West, and we intend so to employ them.

How can the Secretary of State and that Government take a rational decision on this question if they cannot decide whether, as the right hon. Gentleman says, this is a massive contribution to the deterrent power of the West or whether, as the Prime Minister says, it bears the proportion of a pea on the top of a mountain?

All I can tell the right hon. Gentleman is that 64 Polaris missiles are a very massive pea.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements exist through the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation for ensuring that the military lessons learnt by British forces in East Malaysia are made available to the Thai authorities to assist them in resisting subversion in Thailand.

About 50 Thai soldiers a year attend our training courses. We also provide much written material on countering subversion to the Thais and to our other Allies in S.E.A.T.O.

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most impressive things about the campaign in East Malaysia was the way in which the British forces succeeded in winning the hearts and minds of the local population? Do the arrangements to which he has referred, and which I welcome, cover passing on that sort of lesson to the Thais?

I am grateful to the hon. Member. The whole House should recognise that the hearts and minds campaign, as it was called in Malaysia, played no less a rôle in securing ultimate victory than did the continuous jungle patrolling by our forces. We certainly made this point to all our allies of the area.

Does my right hon. Friend see in the build-up in Thailand a sinister resemblance to the early stages in Vietnam?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent the changes in the disposition of United States forces in Great Britain are to be treated as part of the offset arrangements against the purchase of United States aircraft; and what is the amount involved.

I cannot at present say by how much United States stationing costs in this country will be increased as a result of the proposed changes in deployment. As to offset arrangements, the position remains as in my reply of 16th November last to the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne). [Vol. 736, c. 105–6.]

Would my right hon. Friend give the House some detailed analyses of the figures of offset to date so that the House can judge whether we might, perhaps, have sold these items anyway?

I have already given to the House details of every offset arrangement for which contracts have actually been placed. I can, however, assure my hon. Friend that no sales have been made to the United States under the offset arrangements which we could have reckoned to have a good chance of making without the relief from the Buy American Act provisions which we secured as a result of the offset arrangements.

For the convenience of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing in the OFFICIAL REPORT a collected list of the contracts so far obtained under the offset agreement?

I will certainly consider doing that.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will reduce British forces in West Germany in view of that Government's repeated refusal to meet support costs which place an unacceptable burden on the British people.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs on 12th December last. [Vol. 738, c. 44–51.]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that on this side of the House and in the country generally we are tired of the continued refusal of the Government to carry out the pledge that he has made to reduce our forces if the German Government did not pay this cost? Is he further aware that while the West German Government plead poverty and say that they cannot afford to carry out their obligations in this respect, they have recently reduced the Bank Rate in West Germany, which is something that we are apparently unable to do? Will my right hon. Friend now look at this matter again and give a firm assurance to the House that the undertaking given by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be carried out?

I can certainly give an undertaking that statements which have been made in the House by myself and other Ministers involving undertakings will be carried out.

When? That is what we want to know.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that we have been given that type of answer for the last fifteen years and that it is about time we had a more satisfactory answer? Is he also aware that there is a very strong suspicion, I believe in all parts of the House, that there is wasteful expenditure in Germany in connection with our military forces there? Will he consider inviting a few Members of the House who are intensely interested in this subject to conduct an independent inquiry into what is going on in Germany with a view to stopping this wasteful expenditure?

My right hon. Friend will be aware that Members of Parliament, both officially and unofficially, frequently visit Germany and investigate what our forces are doing. I also remind him that the Ministry of Defence has in recent years organised an inquiry, carried out by an independent firm of management consultants, to ensure that there is not waste of the type to which my right hon. Friend refers. If, however, he has any specific cases to raise, I will, of course, investigate them.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are his plans for the future of the South Atlantic Station.

I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 9th November.—[Vol. 735, c. 288.]

If the right hon. Gentleman has in mind withdrawal of the Commander-in-Chief, as, I believe, he said in answer to an earlier supplementary question, is he aware that he is taking a very serious step and that there is a very long distance between the full dockyard facilities at Gibraltar and those at Singapore and that once the Commander-in-Chief leaves, we cannot be sure for very long of the facilities at Simonstown.

I made it clear to another hon. and gallant Member earlier this afternoon that all these matters are at present under discussion with the South African Government and that a high-level mission is leaving on Friday to continue the discussion. All these considerations were, however, borne in mind before the Government took their decision, which we have no reason now to change.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what advice his Department has sought in respect of machine tool requirements of Royal Ordnance factories during the past two years; and what advice has been received.

As well as advice from our own professional engineers, we also got advice from the Ministry of Technology and the Royal Ordnance Factories Board, whose members include distinguished industrialists. This advice stressed the importance of our policy to replace obsolete machines with up-to-date ones, to increase productivity.

Is there not something wrong with the liaison between the hon. Gentleman's Ministry and the Ministry of Technology when it is known in the industry that of the 34 machines bought abroad costing nearly £½ million, 25 were obtainable in this country?

Personal examination of the technical requirements, the price of the machines and delivery requirements shows that none of the British machines fulfilled these conditions.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied that machine tools of similar type, function and price to the 34 machines ordered from overseas for Royal Ordnance factories during the year 1966 were not available from British manufacturers; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. If British machine tools are available and meet the technical, price and delivery requirements, we buy them.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is possible for the Royal Ordnance factories to write out a specification to fit a foreign machine, and that if it were varied slightly the machine would be available in this country? Is he satisfied that that sort of thing is not happening?

I must refute what the hon. Gentleman says. What he is trying to do is purposely to have a specification of the British machine tool industry's tools made solely for our own requirements. But we specify what we want, and then, on the technicality, the price and the delivery date, we make a purchase.