asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will redefine the clasification of information about Polaris warheads.

No, Sir.

If the multiple warhead is now fitted on to our Polaris, is it not true that the more we talk about it in terms of a deterrent, the better; or is it true that the Government agree with the Lord President of the Council that Britain's role is to be a spokesman for the non-nuclear powers? Could we have an answer to both those questions?

I am sorry to inform the hon. Gentleman that it would not be right for me to talk about what is a highly cassified matter. Classification standards were agreed with the Americans in the 1958 Exchange Agreement. They still stand. They have worked amicably, and I do not see any reason to lower them.

How far does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister's statement yesterday that the use of nuclear weapons was sheer adjectival lunacy?

I agree precisely with what he said yesterday and with his reiteration of what he said in Washington.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the allocation of responsibility for the maritime security of the Cape route between the British, South African, and other allied forces.

Under the Simonstown Agreement, Her Majesty's Government and the South African Government share responsibilities for maritime security in the South Africa area.

Since the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy told us on 8th February of increased responsibility given by Her Majesty's Government to the South African Navy, is it not arrant hypocrisy to maintain the ban on the sale of the materials needed by the South Africans to discharge that responsibility? Will the Government help the trade mission now arriving in South Africa by ending the ban, which is largely disregarded by our Allies?

The answer to both parts of that supplementary questions is no, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman denying that his hon. Friend stated that additional responsibility has been allocated by this country to South Africa for the defence of the sea routes?

No. That was the prothesis of the apothesis of the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.

Can the Minister give a reasonable reason for our wanting to use the Simonstown base if we are not prepared to help defend it? Two weeks ago I was round the base myself and the authorities there were alarmed at the foolishness of refusing to sell them arms. Will he try to alter the policy?

Her Majesty's Government's policies were announced and debated fully in this House and there was a substantial majority in favour of them.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is now prepared to report on the results of the inquiry into the recruitment of young Servicemen.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expect to announce a decision on the recommendations of the Committee on The Age of Majority that boys who join the Armed Forces shall be given periodical opportunities to obtain discharge before the age of 30 years.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now make a statement on his policy with regard to reducing the period of service of Servicemen who were recruited under the age of 18 years and wish to leave the Armed Forces.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has now completed his consideration of the Latey Report; and if he will make a statement.

I would refer the hon. Members concerned to the statement I made in the House on 5th February, 1968.—[Vol. 758, c. 43-50.]

The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this Question was tabled before the statement was made. May I ask the Minister when the first and third of the Latey Committee's recom- mendations will be implemented, the levels of which he accepted in his statement on 5th February?

As regard the period of six months for a youngster to make up his mind whether he wants to stay; virtually straightaway. Concerning raising the age to 18 for parental consent: as I said, if and when the general age of legal majority is reduced to 18.

Is the Minister aware that, while we welcome some improvement, many of us are still dissatisfied that the law protects young people against unwise hire-purchase commitments but allows them to sign away a substantial part of their lives? Would it not have been more courteous for his Department to inform hon. Members who had tabled Questions for answer today that he intended to make his statement last week?

I informed all Members who have been in touch with me. I regret not informing the hon. Gentleman who had a Question down for today. I gave a fairly full statement on 5th February. I have nothing to add to that. As I have said before, I am not prepared to argue on the moral question involved, because I accept that the argument against me is very strong indeed.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if, in view of the proposed manpower cuts for the Armed Services, he will give immediate and special consideration to those Servicemen who have persistently applied for discharge by purchase or on compassionate grounds.

We always give such consideration to applications for compassionate discharge. However, we have to consider applications for discharge by purchase in the light of our current manpower needs.

May I ask the Minister what are his general intentions about future recruiting policy for the Armed Services?

This is a slightly different question, but our intentions are to carry on recruiting, if we can, the numbers required to maintain the various units in all three Services up to the strength laid down for the appropriate years in the announcements of Government policy which have been made.

In existing circumstances would my hon. Friend still consider it justifiable to refuse purchase of discharge to an aircraftman who had by self-education won himself a place in a university?

If he has not served the minimum number of years provided for under the Regulations currently applied to the Air Force, yes. In circumstances above that number of years, we will want to look at each case individually.

Is the Minister not aware that the National Council for Civil Liberties has sent his office many examples of Servicemen being retained when they have no special qualifications which are of use to the particular service? Why does he persist in refusing to give these people discharges?

I cannot accept the part about no special qualifications. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the National Council for Civil Liberties has sent me details of a little over a hundred cases which they have collected covering a 10-year period. I have to compare these with something in excess of 125,000 boy entrants who are at present serving in Her Majesty's Forces.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent British forces on the continent of Europe will be increased consequent on the proposed withdrawal from east of Suez.

The hon. Member will not expect me to prejudge the outcome of the work now being undertaken to establish the detailed implications of the recent decisions.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that in the current negotiations with the Germans on offset costs the Government will not this time threaten to withdraw from the Continent those forces whose costs are not offset?

There is no question of a threat in this particular case.

Can my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that, as a consequence of withdrawal from east of Suez, there will be no consequential in-crease in the size of the British Army of the Rhine?

I am not prepared to give any assurances on the shape and deployment of our forces after withdrawal from the Far East is complete. I hope to make a statement on this matter in some detail later in the year.

Is not the Government's policy in danger of becoming rather ambivalent? On the one hand they are on record as saying that they will only keep the same levels in Germany if the costs are met, and, on the other, as saying that Europe is to be the main future stance of our forces. Is it not time that the Government made the position clear?

No. Any inconsistency such as the hon. Gentleman appears to find would depend on a failure to resolve the offset agreement satisfactorily. I do not anticipate such a failure.

Would my right hon. Friend regard an increase in our forces on the Rhine as related to the possibility of aggression by the Soviet Union or rather because it is related to the proposed British entry into the Common Market?

I can assure my right hon. Friend that if any such decision were taken—I do not for a moment suggest that it would be taken—it would not be related to the second possibility that he has mentioned.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence by what amount defence expenditure in 1968–69 including cancellation and transitional charges, will now exceed that incurred in 1967–68.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to await the Defence Estimates for 1968–69, which will be published next week.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the Government's own White Paper on public expenditure shows that before these cuts were decided there would have been a reduction in defence expenditure of £51 million next year? Does his answer mean that there may be no such reduction?

We made it clear during the last debate that, as a result of the impact of cancellation charges following the, decisions taken in the recent expenditure review, we cannot guarantee that there will not be some increase in next year's estimates.

Why should it take four years to reduce arms expenditure when equally long-term expenditure for school and road building can be made in the twinkling of an eye?

First, I am not aware of any expenditure being cut in any Department in a twinkling of an eye. What I would point out to my hon. Friend is that the defence expenditure of most other Governments in Europe—particularly the Soviet Government—has been steadily increasing over the last four years and we have done well to hold ours where it was.

Is it not the result of the. Government's decision that Government expenditure will be increased above what it would have been in the very period when it is most crucial, on the Government's own showing, to restrain it?

This may be the case, but, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have made clear repeatedly in recent weeks, the problem is not only to reduce expenditure during the current year, but over the next four or five years. The reduction in defence expenditure over the longer period will contribute substantially to the solution of our economic problems.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how the Royal Air Force needs for a tactical strike and reconnaissance aircraft are to be met when the Canberra is phased out.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has to provide aircraft to replace those F111K aircraft that were destined for an operational role in a European theatre of war.

I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave on 2nd February to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Robert Howarth).—[Vol. 757, c. 440]

Would it not be more straightforward for the Minister to admit that the R.A.F. will no longer be able to meet these needs? Does he not see that his rectitude and honour might be more highly valued in the country if he were to resign?

The hon. Gentleman was no doubt present during the debate when we discussed both questions to which he has referred. He will be aware that the Government had a larger majority on that occasion than on many recent occasions.

The right hon. Gentleman, on 25th January, said:

"Our air forces will certainly require some reshaping to make up for the loss" —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th January, 1968; Vol. 757, c. 629.]

Order. We cannot have quotations in a Question.

If I may comment on what was said—

Would the right hon. Gentleman put his question?

What did the right hon. Gentleman mean by saying that our air forces would require some reshaping to make up for the loss of the F111?

As I made clear in the debate to which I have just referred, the loss of the capability for deep strike and reconnaissance during the 'seventies will require some adjustment in the shaping of our forces in various respects; but I am not prepared at this moment to say precisely how those forces will be reshaped. It may well be that the net saving, which might otherwise have been achieved by the cancellation of the F111, will be somewhat reduced by the consequential reshaping of the Air Force.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long the V-bombers will have to remain in service as a result of the reshaping?

I do not believe that the reshaping of the air Force will require the V-bombers to remain longer in service than would otherwise have been the case.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what Royal Air Force element will be included in the general capability for deployment outside Europe after 1971.

The deployment outside Europe of particular elements of the Royal Air Force will depend on the circumstances at the time.

What bases does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be available east of Ascension Island?

We do not plan to have any bases in the technical sense in which that word has been used in defence debates in the House of Commons for the last 20 years, but we expect to have staging posts which will enable the Air Force to enjoy a variety of route options if it is required to serve in the Far East.

What staging posts are we likely to have?

I am afraid that my hon. Friend must await the White Paper later in the year for an answer to that question.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations with the Territorial Army Council take place before changes are made in the Territorial Army.

It depends on the changes. Her Majesty's Government determine the policy for the Army Reserves, that is, their role, size and shape, but consult the Council of Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations on the method of implementing that policy.

Surely it requires some consultation with the Council of the Territorial Army Association if it is expected to operate with a large slice of the Territorial Army cut out. Is not this a shabby way to treat the T.A. Council? How can the Minister possibly expect future co-operation when it has been treated like this?

If the hon. Gentleman reads my Answer he will see. I main- tain it is the job of the Government to determine general policy, role, size and shape. As regards the administration of the policy, my right hon. Friend and I are consulting the Council of Territorial Army Associations. I do not take the rather cynical view which the hon. Gentleman appears to take about its reaction to the matter.

How much notice was given to the T.A. Council of the drastic decision announced on 16th January? Is it not disgraceful that it should have been brought to the knowledge of those most concerned only an hour or two before the announcement that a fundamental change was intended?

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would have used more adjectives than disgraceful if other people had been told of my right hon. Friend's statement on the 16th more than an hour or two before the House was told.

How will the Minister explain to the T.A. Council that the British Government of all the N.A.T.O. Allies is the only one that does not find it necessary to have adequate military reserves?

The military reserves of the Regular Army are provided in the T. & A.V.R. I and II. The Reserves to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is referring are the home defence element of the T. & A.V.R.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what action is to be taken with regard to the dispersal of stores and equipment on withdrawal from Singapore.

Stores and equipment belonging to the Services will be withdrawn, transferred or disposed of in the Far East.

Will the Minister assure the House that the shambles which occurred in Aden will not be repeated? Would not he agree that if, in the future, we are to go to the help of Australia and New Zealand, it will be necessary to stock our arms and equipment on the Continent of Australia?

There was no shambles in Aden—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—hon. Gentlemen opposite might like to say how many tens of millions of pounds worth of military equipment were left a: the Suez base.

Is it not true that in almost every withdrawal we have made there have been scandalous losses an the eventual disposal of stores? Can the Minister give an assurance that this will not be repeated in Singapore?

There have not been scandalous losses. This matter was dealt with by debate in the House. If the hon. Gentleman had been present a few weeks ago, he would have heard all the details.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for expediting the introduction of surface-to-surface weapons before the aircraft carriers, are phased out.

We are pressing ahead as rapidly as possible with the plans for developing new tactical ship strike capabilities which I described to the hon. Member on 13th November last.—[Vol. 754, c. 177.]

Is the Minister aware that no surface or helicopter-borne weapon has sufficient range at the moment, and that in future the Navy will be at risk against smaller navies armed and equipped with Soviet weapons once the fixed-wing plans are phased out?

We recognise the difficulties. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have the AS12 on order. These are air-to surface missiles and we have the possibility of arming new Sea King helicopters with Martel missiles as well.

Helicopters apart, is priority being given in the Naval construction programme for fast missile-carrying small craft capable of dealing with such Styx-type missiles as sank the "Eliat "?

A study is taking place, but it is too early to give any details.

What has happened about the surface-to-surface missile announced as far back as 1966 in connec- tion with the phasing out of the carriers? Has the Minister anything to say about that?

If the hon. Gentleman means the Sea Dart, or the extension of Sea Slug, which are surface-to-air antimissile missiles, perhaps he will let me know which one he has in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for preserving adequate reserve forces on which to build in war time.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for enabling rapid expansion by the Services in an emergency after the recently announced economies have taken place.

Plans for reserve forces will be considered in conjunction with the studies we are making of the role, size and shape of our Regular Forces.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the faster he runs down the Regular Forces, the more essential it is to maintain Reserve Forces on which to build? Why has he announced the virtual abolition of the T.A. before this review has been carried out?

The hon. Gentleman must know that the size of our forces overall, Reserve or Regular, must depend on the tasks they are called on to carry out. The Government have decided on a substantial reduction in the tasks of the Armed Forces, particularly outside Europe. This means that it is necessary, first, to consider the size and shape of the Regular Forces, and then to decide on adjustments if any Reserve organisation is required to meet them.

Will the Minister assure the House that he will not cause to be sold the drill halls which are so essential for the rapid re-formation of these Reserve Forces?

I take the point made by the hon. Gentleman. We are looking into this at the moment.

Now that we are confining ourselves largely to a European role, will my right hon. Friend take note of the fact that every one of our Allies considers a Reserve Army necessary?

My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that we have a Reserve Army, and a very much more efficient one than before the reorganisation of the T.A. was carried out by this Government only two years ago.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what alteration is planned in the programme of construction of nuclear-powered hunter/ killer submarines.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the rate of construction of hunter/killer submarines proposed before and since the decision announced in Command Paper No. 3515.

The rate of build of nuclear hunter/killer submarines is now under consideration. The current new construction programme for these submarines remains as stated in my Answer of 14th December.—[Vol. 756, c. 231.]

Is it not a strange priority to cut this programme, remembering that the White Paper describes these submarines as being the main striking power of the Navy for the future?

Although the rate of construction may be altered, I said on 14th December that the Forces would continue to grow, but we may consider the numbers.

If we are not to be told the previous intended rate of construction, and the rate of construction now intended, how is the country and this House to judge the consequence of the Government's decision? Or did they not know what the consequences were before they took the decision?

I think that the statement about slowing down new naval construction will be made much clearer when my right hon. Friend makes his statement later this year.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what agreement is in force between Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government re- garding United States aircraft carrying nuclear weapons over Great Britain.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if United States bombers have permission to fly over Great Britain with hydrogen bombs or atomic bombs on board; and on how many occasions they have done so.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the carrying of nuclear bombs by United States planes operating from bases in the United Kingdom.

Procedures were agreed in 1958 with the Government of the United States whereby, under strict precautions, certain flights over this country by United States aircraft carrying nuclear weapons are permitted. I am not prepared to give details of such flights. They include flights from bases in the United Kingdom.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, arising from the recent unfortunate crash in Greenland, there is great concern in Britain over nuclear flights? Has there been any recent consultation about this matter, and is my right hon. Friend satisfied about safety from the point of view of radiation danger?

Perhaps I might deal with the various points raised by my hon. Friend. First, we are continuously exchanging information with the United States on every aspect of this problem. Secondly, no nuclear weapons which are flown in aircraft from the United Kingdom are armed. Therefore, if there were, unfortunately, to be a crash, there would be no risk whatever of an explosion. We are satisfied that any risk of radiation which might follow the wrecking of an aircraft which was carrying a nuclear weapon could be met by the special R.A.F. safety teams operating in support of the police and fire services.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give a public assurance that the safety measures operated by the Americans in this country are at least as good as, and in some respects better than, those of the R.A.F. itself?

I am not prepared to give the assurance that American practice in this respect is better than the practice operated by the R.A.F. I am satisfied that the American and British personnel involved in this type of operation are taking every possible precaution, and that the risk to life or property in this type of operation is minimal.

As my right hon. Friend has not answered my question about the number of occasions on which these flights take place, will he say "Yes" or "No" whether practice flights take place? Secondly, as there have been nearly a dozen accidents in recent years, will he ask Washington to end these over flying rights?

First of all, I will not seek to change the present arrangements, which I think are necessary for the security of our country and the Alliance. On the question of the type of flights with nuclear weapons—unarmed nuclear weapons, as I have made clear— they are either operational or logistic flights.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total of cancellation payments for aircraft ordered for the Royal Air Force in the last three years; how many aircraft these payments represented; and what number of new front-line aircraft have been delivered in the same period.

Since October, 1964, payments made in respect of aircraft ordered for the R.A.F. and subsequently cancelled were £41 million. Eighty aircraft were on order at the time of cancellation. In the same period 208 new front-line aircraft were delivered to the R.A.F.

Are these rather disquieting figures completely up to date, or are there further cancellation costs to come?

The full payments for the Fl 1 1are not yet finally agreed. Therefore the figure will be higher.

Is it not a fact that, in view of these cancellations and also the large costs of building barracks and other facilities at home for troops returning from overseas, defence costs are rising and our effective defence is going down? In these circumstances, would it not be better for the Secretary of State to resign, since he is wedded to cost-effectiveness and not greater costs with less effectiveness?

It is not necessary for me to keep reminding the House, but the hon. Gentleman should know, that when we cancelled the 1965 batch of aircraft we saved the country £1,200 million over ten years.

The right lion. Gentleman mentioned £41 million. Apart from the F.111, how much is still to come?

It covers only 80 aircraft, which are the TSR.2s and the F.111s. To be fair to the House, I have said that the F.111 total payments have not yet been agreed on, so they will be higher.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the fault in one of the generators of H.M.S. "Resolution" is due to design; and whether a modified version of generator will be fitted in later nuclear submarines.

The fault was due to a design weakness. The affected part will be modified in all machines, including those for later nuclear submarines.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a further statement about the movement of British troops from Singapore to Mauritius.

A company of the 1st Battalion, the King's Shropshire Light Infantry, stationed at Terendak in Malaysia, was dispatched from Singapore to Mauritius in three Hercules aircraft. The first of these left Singapore at 10.30 p.m. G.M.T. on 22nd January, and all three reached Mauritius during the afternoon of 23rd January. A fourth aircraft carrying two Sioux helicopters arrived early on 24th January. A fifth aircraft containing a platoon and a Sioux helicopter left Singapore on 5th February. I should like to pay tribute to all those concerned with this movement for their rapid and effective response. Since they arrived in Mauritius the company have assisted the local security forces by carrying out patrols and cordon and search operations.

But what will be the position over the movement of troops, say, at the request of Mauritius in future after we have left our overseas bases?

If such a request were made, and if, under any agreement which applied then, we met it, we could still do so comparatively easily, but the response time would, of course, be somewhat longer.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to ensure that Service personnel understand that the Services will still offer a good career to those who serve in them, with a view to maintaining recruitment.

We will do all we can to make it clear that the Services will continue to offer a thoroughly worthwhile career for those who serve in them; we are already emphasising this in current recruiting literature.

But is not the attitude of officers and men already serving the most important thing? Should not a Secretary of State, who has lost the confidence of these men, do the proper thing and resign?

The confidence of those already serving is, of course, very important, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman is, I am sure, aware that there is a very big turnover every year in the Services, so the attitude of the potential recruits is equally important.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side, despite our condemnation of the Government's policies, will do our best to support and encourage recruitment for the Forces? But will he ensure that in recruitment literature false statements are not made, such as the statement in the Army recruiting notice in the last couple of days that the new measures are only speeding up reductions announced in July?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the first part of his ques- tion. I have read the Army advertisement and can see nothing wrong with it.

Are Service personnel warned that if by any chance there were a Tory Government there is a possibility that they would be sent to fight in the American war in Vietnam? Are they warned of this possibility?

rose—

On a point of order. I have not received an answer to my question.

The Minister does not have to answer an hon. Gentleman's question.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence why his Department has proposed to the graziers on the All Arms Training Area, Senny-bridge, Breconshire, a 300 per cent. increase in the annual charges for grazing sheep within the range spread over three years from April 1968; whether he will revise this proposal and seek to impose a smaller increase; and if he will refer the matter to the National Board for Prices and Incomes for their observations.

Licence charges for grazing sheep at Sennybridge have not changed since 1947 and the proposed increases reflect the current value of the land for grazing.

Would my hon. Friend explain how he can determine that the price to the graziers has increased, when there is no hope of increased productivity on land on this range? The Ministry has not been putting fertilisers there but the sheep.

The price for grazing on this land was fixed at 2s. 6d. per sheep per year in 1947, and I believe that everyone will accept that the value of that grazing has increased since then. We have scaled the increase over the next three years, and we are prepared to take the advice of an independent valuer.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the purpose of Exercise Unison held at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, in August, 1967; and what was the cost.

The purpose of Unison Exercises are to enable the military heads of Commonwealth armed forces to meet to study defence problems of mutual interest. Exercise Unison '67 was the fifth in the series. The theme of the conference was "Partnership in Defence "and study was directed mainly to the means of resolving the related problems of increasing complexity and steeply rising costs of defence.

Does that cost include the entire renovation of the old building at Sandhurst for that purpose, and is the right hon. Gentleman really satisfied that, particularly on the periphery of the arrangements, there is riot considerable over-spending on this exercise?

I would like notice of the first part of the question, but I guess that most of it is covered by the normal planned maintenance. As to future exercises, we have looked closely at this and are trying to find a better and cheaper method of achieving the same ends.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the appearance of serving officers in Her Majesty's Armed Forces in uniform in commercial advertisements published in national newspapers and other similar publications.

:I consider that serving members should not normally be identified with advertisements for commercial products, but it is impossible to foresee all the circumstances which might arise and I do not exclude the possibility that permission might again exceptionally be given.

Is that not a very unsatisfactory Answer? Having undermined the power of the Services, are the Government now set on undermining their dignity? Should this be allowed to happen again in any circumstances?

Members of Her Majesty's Services can accept paid employment in almost any field, with permission under various regulations applying to the three Services and subject to the over-riding priority being given to their main job. I would not want to strengthen the regulations because they give enough scope to those who give permission in individual cases.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to ensure the effective protection on the high seas of the 650 British merchant vessels now trading east of Suez.

Her Majesty's ships are always ready to do everything possible to come to the aid of British merchant ships in distress.

Is it not a reasonable assumption that, as the power of the Royal Navy cast of Ascension Island declines, the incidence of acts of piracy increases? Are the Government taking any steps to deal with this in advance, or are, they waiting until there is some civil version of the "Pueblo" incident involving a British ship?

I do not think that the possible incidence of piracy is a sufficient justification for the maintenance of a large naval presence by the United Kingdom east of Suez. A very large number of merchant vessels of all countries pursue their courses in this part of the world without naval forces from their own countries being there to protect them. On the other problems raised in the protection of shipping on the high seas, we are, as the hon. Gentleman will know, in discussion now with the Shipping Defence Advisory Committee.

How many of these 650 merchant vessels have been subject to armed attack? Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this would be a very dangerous precedent, for example, with regard to Russian ships trading in British ports?

My hon. Friend has a good point there. Over the last five years, the Royal Navy has been involved in 36 incidents, but not incidents of piracy but of towing, fire-fighting or rescue, of which only nine involved British ships. In the 12 months ending September 1967, medical assistance was given by the Royal Navy to nine ships, five of which were British.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether, in the absence of a fifth Polaris submarine, he is satisfied of the effectiveness of the British sea borne nuclear deterrent; whether he will make a statement.

I am quite satisfied that the four Polaris submarines will provide an effective contribution to the Western nuclear strategic deterrent.

While felicitating the Secretary of State on at least maintaining the British nuclear deterrent, may I ask him whether, if he is unwilling to resign for the dishonouring of his own and repeated recent pledges east of Suez, he will consider resigning because of the breaking of the undertakings of the Labour Party to internationalise the nuclear deterrent?

As I pointed out in the recent debate, if Ministers resigned every time Government policy affecting their Departments changed, the Opposition Front Bench would be totally denuded of Members.

Has the right hon. Gentleman yet sorted out with the Prime Minister whether the British nuclear deterrent is a massive contribution to the Alliance or a pea on a mountain?

There is no dispute at all in Her Majesty's Government that the contribution made by the four Polaris submarines to the Western nuclear deterrent is a very substantial one indeed.

Are we to assume that the Prime Minister's definition of nuclear weapons—that using them would, adjectively, be lunacy—does not apply to the nuclear weapons used by Polaris submarines? Since America now has 40 of these submarines, nuclear powered, what on earth is the use of our spending £20 million a year in operating things that do not add to the deterrent?

My hon. Friend will be aware—and I take this opportunity to remind the House of this—that when the Prime Minister referred to the use of nuclear weapons being lunacy, he was referring to the use of them by United States forces in the current Vietnam situation; and I am sure that, on this matter, there is total agrement on both sides of the House.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of my right hon. Friend's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the highest number of anti-submarine vessels in commission at one time during the war of 1939–45; and what is the number of anti-submarine vessels in commission at the present time.

In March 1945, there were approximately 875 sloops, frigates, corvettes and destroyers. These included ships of the Royal Navy, and Commonwealth and Allied navies. I regret that I cannot break this figure down to show the Royal Navy contribution without the expenditure of a disproportionate amount of time and effort. Today, 71 Royal Navy ships with an anti-submarine capability are in commission; 27 of the 71 carry helicopters with an anti-submarine capability. Others are being converted to carry helicopters.

Does not the Under-Secretary find this contrast thoroughly alarming? In view of the giant strides that have been made in the effectiveness, as well as in the numbers, of submarines possessed by potential enemies, is it not very strange, to put it mildly, that Her Majesty's Government should have cut the Hunter nuclear killer anti-submarine submarines?

There are financial limitations on the amount of insurance that we can afford against any threat; but I am satisfied that we are making a major contribution to the allied forces available.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the classes of vessels and the number of vessels in each class which comprise the predominantly anti-submarine vessels in commission at the present time.

As I have already stated, a total of 71 Royal Navy ships have an anti-submarine capability. With permission, I will write to the hon. and gallant Gentleman giving the details he requires.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that several classes of these ships are of comparatively little Practical value in anti-submarine warfare?

Yes, Sir.

When my hon. Friend says that there are financial limitations on our anti-submarine effort, will he bear in mind that easily the most cost-effective way of contributing to our anti-submarine effort would be to carry on with the nuclear Hunter-killer submarines?

We are so carrying on.

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

I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said during his statement on public expenditure on 16th January.— [Vol. 756, c. 1583.]

I was hoping that the Minister might have had second thoughts about this. Can he say if there will be compensating aid to Nepal to make good the severe losses to the Nepalese economy which will result from these cuts? I there is to be this aid, will the saving in overseas currency be commensurate with the severe loss of fighting power which these cuts will represent to our forces?

We are compensating individual Gurkhas for loss of career Vol. 758 prospects in the Gurkha Brigade. The question of economic aid to the Kingdom of Nepal should be addressed to my right hon. Friend concerned with that matter. There is no direct link between the military capability we would require and the compensation we would have to pay for running down the Gurkha Brigade. The military capability is linked to the commitments we have in the area.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Nepalese Government are quite willing for the Gurkha Brigade to be disbanded because they have reached the stage when they do not want to hire out their subjects as mercenaries to other powers?

I think that there is a feeling of this nature in the Kingdom of Nepal. However, I have had discussions—and there is agreement on this—with Ministers in the Government of Nepal about the present rundown. It is clear that we have not gone beyond 1971 in these discussions, as was announced by my right hon. Friend.

Does not the form of the announcement, which carries the Government's policies up to 1971, inevitably place a grave question mark over the future of the Hong Kong garrison? Ought not this question mark to be removed, even if the present Government may not anticipate being in control of events in 1971?

There is not necessarily any direct interaction between the two points. The announcement was to continue the rundown to a figure of about 6,000 men by 1971. I wish to make it clear that no decisions beyond that date have at present been taken.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of reports alleging that a firm decision has already been taken to wind up the entire Gurkha Brigade by 1974? Would he care to categorically deny that?

No decisions have been taken beyond the date announced in the House, which was the end of 1971.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence where the depot of the Gurkha Brigade will be sited following the withdrawal from Malaysia and Singapore.

The present depots of the Brigade of Gurkhas will be retained at Paklihawa and Dharan in Nepal. The training depot in Malaysia may move to Hong Kong.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if the depot is moved to Hong Kong recruitment will be made more difficult and that the assimilation of families there will be more complicated? What talks has he had with the Nepalese Government about these two important matters, particularly if the Gurkha Brigade is to continue after 1971?

I merely said that the training depot in Malaysia might move to Hong Kong. No decision has yet been taken. Recruitment is dealt with at Paklihawa and Dharan, in Nepal.

Would the hon. Gentleman confirm what he failed to say in reply to an earlier Question; that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government fully to maintain the Hong Kong garrison after 1971?

I think I am right in saying that our intention to maintain that garrison was emphasised by my right hon. Friend in his statement of 16th January. If, by chance, it was not, I emphasise it now.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence on which port it is planned to base the Beira patrol after 1971.

H.M. ships, while engaged on the Beira patrol, are not dependent on short-based facilities.

Will the Secretary of State give a categorical assurance that it will be possible to maintain the Beira patrol for as long as is necessary to maintain sanctions against the illegal Smith régime?

I can certainly tell my hon. Friend that the maintenance of the Beira patrol does not depend on the availability of base facilities in the area.

To what extent do ships involved in this patrol make use of South African ports?

Without wishing to give a detailed answer without notice of that question, I can say that ships in this part of the world sometimes put into South African ports for rest and recreation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh]—and also into Mombassa in Kenya.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what agreement exists at present about the use of Mombassa, to which he referred?

Her Majesty's ships have used Mombassa on several occasions for rest and recreation purposes, but if the hon. Gentleman will table a Question on the subject I will try to answer it in greater detail.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what further reduction in British forces in Germany is being planned.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for reducing the size of the British Army of the Rhine.

None, Sir.

In that case, will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity today to do what he failed to do the last time I asked him this question and now give a categorical assurance that he has no plans, initiated before the announcement of devaluation, to reduce our forces in Germany by a half?

I have already given that assurance. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not disputing my good faith in giving it. [Interruption.]

In view of the remarks of Sir John Hackett, can my right hon. Friend say on what authority he communicated those views to The Times?

I understand that later Questions on this subject appear on the Order Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements for training of Regular Army units in overseas territories he intends to make after 1971 in view of Great Britain's continuing Treaty commitments overseas.

Regular training overseas will continue to be necessary for the Army, but it is too soon to make detailed arrangements for 1972 onwards.

Will the Minister assure us that, as soon as the arrangements are made, an announcement will be made in the House? Is he aware that our troops cannot be expected to operate in a tropical climate unless a training period is given beforehand? Does he therefore realise that it is important for him to report to the House as soon as his plans are made?

Arrangements are being made. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the necessity for different arrangements to be made. I assure him they are being made all the time.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the creation of a capability based in this country for use east of Suez after the withdrawal from British bases there; what heavy equipment will be provided; what arrangements he is making to move that equipment to places where is may be required; whether air support will be available; and what will be, for planning purposes, the time to be allowed for deployment.

I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or. 16th January.—[Vol. 756 c. 1.580–4.]