asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will review the procurement procedure between industry and the forces in the light of answer 797 by the Electronic Engineering Association in their evidence to the Select Committee on Science and Technology.

No, Sir.

What is the Government's thinking on the specific question of third party intervention, referred to in the published evidence to the Select Committee?

I am aware of the reply given to a question when the Select Committee was investigating this matter, and perhaps in any case my hon. Friend should wait to see whether the Select Committee itself makes any recommendations.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will consider arranging a number of open days in 1969 at the Microbiological Research Establishment, Porton.

Yes, Sir.

I thank my hon. Friend. Would it then be possible to bring this forward to 1968? May I say that I welcome this Answer, in so far as a full open day would help to remove part of the mystery from biological warfare activities?

I am glad of my hon. Friend's words of welcome for my reply. I hope that the open day will be held in the autumn of 1968, or possibly early 1969.

Will the hon. Gentleman explain what value he considers that open days can have in the examination of microbes at Porton?

What I am seeking to do —and I hope that this meets the wishes of the hon. Gentleman—is to balance national security and public interest. I have been to Porton myself recently and I have concluded that there is merit in my proposal, and I commend it.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many experiments on animals have teen conducted on animals at the Porton Microbiological Station in 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967, respectively; and what were the animals.

As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Could the Minister raise the veil a little? What kind of animals are experimented with in this place which has become a Belsen for the animals concerned? Is it not time that the Government had a thorough inquiry into this horror place, in which, thank goodness, the British public are getting more and more interested, and about which they are becoming more enlightened?

The scientists at Porton have been subjected to quite intemperate attacks recently. They are doing valuable work, and it is in the interests of the citizens of this country, who must be defended. I hope the open days which I announced a few minutes ago will relieve any public anxiety which may exist. As regards the kind of animals, they are mice, voles, guinea pigs, hamsters, monkeys and sheep.

Would the hon. Gentleman not agree with those of us who have seen the way in which these animals are looked after, and the efforts which are made to avoid any unnecessary suffering whatsoever, that for those who are looking after the animals there can be nothing but praise?

I am sure that those who have charge of these animals will appreciate the words of the hon. Gentleman, and indeed the Littlewood Report highly praises the standards at the Porton establishments.

While praising the enlightened decision which my hon. Friend announced earlier this afternoon, may I ask him if he can explain why it was that the B.B.C. in its recent film was not allowed to show television pictures of the animals, pictures it could easily get and in fact got from Sweden? Why was that decision made?

The explanation is quite simple, in that there are, I understand, legal restrictions, not confined to Porton, which apply generally to experiments of this kind, and there are restrictions under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876.

Could my hon. Friend consider the suggestion that Members of this House should have more facilities for seeing what is happening at Porton to allay—

We have them.

We have not. Could my hon. Friend please consider how Members of Parliament who want to see exactly what is happening at Porton may do so without any restrictions on them?

On a point of order. The Minister just attempted to give an answer to a question about B.B.C. responsibilities in this matter. There are other matters about the B.B.C. we should like to question—how Bendit-Cohen got into this country. Why should one Member get an answer and not another?

Order. The Chair cannot be responsible for Ministers' answers.

As regards Members of the House, I hope that the statement which I made earlier about open days will be generally welcome, and I hope that Members of the House will be invited to go along to see the establishments at Porton when the open days come.

Without any restrictions?

Will the Minister give the House an unequivocal assurance that he will do nothing to inhibit bacteriological investigation at Porton so long as there are dangers in the world at large of a bacteriological attack on this country?

I think in one of my earlier answers I made it clear that one had to balance public security, on the one hand, with the interest of the public, on the other. I think that I can satisfy the hon. Gentleman on that.

Referring to the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), has my hon. Friend got it right? Is he really saying that there is an Act of Parliament of 1876 that does not allow films to be shown?

No. This is really a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Speaking off the cuff, I gather there are certain restrictions about photographs of animals, to which I believe that the Act of 1876 applies. If my hon. Friends wish further details, I would ask them to direct their questions to the Home Secretary, who is the best person to answer them.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce the pay increase due, after a two-year standstill, to Her Majesty's Forces on 1st April, 1968.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my right hon. Friend's statement to the House on 30th May.—[Vol. 765, c. 2163–71.]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government have a statutory obligation adequately to reward people serving in the Armed Forces and to remunerate them according to the rise in remuneration for comparable work outside and that 3·1 per cent. is still owed to our defence forces? Can he now say when this extra 3·1 per cent. will be paid, an increase for which they have waited more than two years?

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises, there is no statutory obligation of the type he mentioned. The Grigg system was in operation until forces' pay was referred to the Prices and Incomes Board. We have received the full report of the Board and put it into operation, and it provides for the maximum permissible increase under the Government's present incomes policy.

Is it not a fact that people have been serving in the civil and Armed Services for two years now in the belief that they were working on the Grigg formula? Is not this, therefore, a breach of faith with them?

Considerable doubt was thrown on the Grigg formula by the report of the Prices and Incomes Board some two years ago, and the Government stated at the time that they were looking at this matter. It was announced in November that the whole question of forces' pay was being made a permanent reference to the Prices and Incomes Board. In future, the Board will report about this matter from time to time. I draw attention to the fact that the present report has been accepted in full by the Government and that we are still looking at it.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that if there was not a statutory obligation there was a clear-cut moral obligation?

Yes, a moral obligation which was broken in 1962. We have carried it out in full.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence which of the units committed to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation as a result of announcements to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Conference on 10th May will be based in Malta.

The Canberra reconnaissance squadron will continue to be based in Malta for the time being.

The right hon. Gentleman has spoken about the number of ships coming back from the Far East which would be based in the Mediterranean. Can he now say whether they will be based at Gibraltar, Malta, or elsewhere?

They will not be based in the Mediterranean. As was explained in a recent Answer, some of them will be in the Mediterranean for certain periods, but they will be based primarily in the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when the present tactical nuclear weapons in the British Army of the Rhine will be replaced.

We plan to replace our current capability in the 1970s.

With what? Will it be American tactical nuclear weapons, or are we planning to develop our own?

No decision has yet been reached, but we are watching with interest American developments in this field.

Is there not a much earlier requirement for tactical nuclear weapons? Is this not a matter of years but rather of months?

No. I would reject that completely. We are quite able to fulfil our N.A.T.O. commitments with what we have.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of British amphibious forces.

In the short term, that is to say until the withdrawals from Singapore, Malaysia and the Persian Gulf are completed, we shall continue to deploy units of the amphibious forces East of Suez. For the period of 1968 they will also be earmarked for assignment to N.A.T.O. The longer term rôleof the forces in the N.A.T.O. setting remains under consideration as part of our force level studies.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that any amphibious forces stationed in the Mediterranean take a long time to get to the Indian Ocean if the Canal remains shut?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what additional steps are being taken to stimulate recruitment to the Armed Forces.

We are using all the means at our disposal to explain the revised rôles of the three Services, and why we need large numbers of recruits, emphasising that the Services still offer an interesting, attractive and worthwhile career. I hope that the increase in Forces' pay will help.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what he has just said is about as useless as it could be? Is he further aware that the recent figures on recruitment are extremely poor? Is he aware that this is brought about by constant changes of policy by this Government and until he can offer young men a tenable career he will not get the right men coming in?

If we can have the assistance of hon. Members in convincing the general public, careers masters, head masters, juvenile employment officers and others, that there is a worth-while career in the forces, as I believe there is, this will help the position. I am aware of the present position and I am not in any way satisfied with it.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the Government decision on pay is disastrous in this context? Is not the total failure to keep faith about keeping comparability with civilian employment bound to have the worst possible effect on recruitment?

I do not accept that it has a disastrous effect. The interim report by the Prices and Incomes Board is only one of the matters which affect recruiting.

Would not one method of stimulating recruitment be to cease eliminating those regiments which have the best recruiting records?

If we are to stimulate recruitment—and we need 35,000 recruits every year—we have to make sure that they go into units which have a worthwhile rôle and not simply maintain units just because they have a long record.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what estimates he made for 1967 and 1968 of defence expenditure which was attributable to United Kingdom membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and what steps he is taking to reduce this part of defence expenditure.

The only readily identifiable costs directly attributable to British membership of N.A.T.O. were estimated at £14·66 million in 1967–68 and £13·43 million in 1968–69. Since these represent the net British contribution towards common expenses and infrastructure projects, their level is not determined solely by Her Majesty's Government. I can nevertheless assure my hon. Friend that we play our part in ensuring that the level of this expenditure is kept under very strict control.

Would the Minister not agree, however, that we should have the total of these figures available by April 1969, when we have to make a vital decision? Would he accept that on that date the Government can make a major contribution to Britain's economic salvation and a major contribution to world peace by telling N.A.T.O. that we are getting out?

I completely disagree with the second part of my hon. Friend's question.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the present position of the recruitment of doctors for the Services; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied that the pay of doctors in the Services offers a sufficient inducement to maintain sufficient numbers; and if he will make a statement.

The recruitment of doctors for the Services has been unsatisfactory. As regards pay I would refer the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) to the statement made by my right hon. Friend on 30th May.—[Vol. 765, c. 2163–71.]

Has not experience shown that the recruitment of doctors can be maintained only with the help of two factors, co-operation with the B.M.A. and the lead in Service doctors' rates over comparable civilian rates? As neither of these two factors were present before the review, and are certainly not present now, is not the situation very disquieting? What are the Government doing about it?

I would agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but one difficulty is that we shall not know until the autumn what the civilian doctors' rates are to be as a result of the Kindersley Report. Two years ago the B.M.A. decided not to cooperate with us, but I hope that it will change its mind in the near future.

Will the right hon. Gentleman dare to tell the House the number of doctors who have been recruited up to the last convenient date? Is he aware that many Service doctors would like to get out in view of the disgusting way in which they have been treated by this Government?

If the hon. Member wants the actual figures perhaps he will put down a Question. There is a shortage of 257 doctors as against establishment in the forces at present.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many warships, and of what type, are to be earmarked for the Beira patrol this year; and from what base they are to be maintained.

As the House knows, the Beira naval patrol is maintained by two destroyers or frigates. Ships will be selected for service on the patrol as opera- tional circumstances require. While engaged on the patrol, H.M. ships; rely on afloat support.

As no fewer than 46 ships were used over the last two years, would not some of them be better employed in the Mediterranean?

In so far as they have achieved the purpose, namely, that there is no oil going into Beira, we are quite satisfied.

Will my hon. Friend consider inviting Commonwealth Governments to assist us in this patrol by making available vessels of their navies?

That is not a matter for me, but I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary to it.

What instructions have these ships about the use of their armament in the course of activities?

The answer has been given already. They are required if necessary to use force to prevent tankers getting into Beira.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether, in view of the presence now of a Russian Fleet in the Mediterranean, he will reappoint a Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean.

No, Sir.

Is not the present naval force in the Mediterranean quite inadequate? Are not the Government relying to an undue extent on the Italian Navy?

The Western Fleet of the Royal Navy can be moved to the Mediterranean if required.

Is there not an enormous American fleet in the Mediterranean? Why should we assume that the Mediterranean is a purely British-owned lake?

Most of the waters of the Mediterranean are international and there is a fleet of the American Navy in the Mediterranean.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state the reason for the revised North Atlantic Treaty Organisation strategy requiring 20,000 additional British troops and the amphibious force; what is the extra cost; and why this step has been taken in view of Her Majesty's Government's policy of securing the mutual reduction of forces in Europe.

The purpose of our additional contribution is to fill gaps which have existed for some time in N.A.T.O. force plans. In so doing we help to ensure that, if the process of mutual force reductions should commence, N.A.T.O. will start from a position more stably balanced than existed before. As the additional United Kingdom Forces now formally committeed already exist, the extra cost is very little indeed.

If the Minister genuinely wants mutual reduction of forces, is it not an odd way of going about it to move in the opposite direction? If, as the Government have several times stated, Russia offers no threat in present circumstances, what on earth is the purpose of augmenting B.A.O.R. and N.A.T.O.?

The fact that the threat in Central Europe and in Europe as a whole has declined over the years is largely due to the effectiveness of N.A.T.O. troops in that area. As to mutual reductions, we brought home a brigade from Germany in the last few months.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what consultation he had with the other six members of the Western European Union before deciding on the increased British contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

None, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members are deeply disturbed by the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in Brussels on 10th May that this new contribution would help our entering the Common market? Is this trying to buy our way in by soldiers, sailors and armaments?

I am not responsible for the Common Market. I can only say that the statement my right hon. Friend made in Brussels and which I made in answer to a Question in the House on 10th May flows logically from the White Paper earlier this year, which announced that we should be concentrating our facilities and forces in Europe.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the N.A.T.O. policy will go on for ever? What conditions must obtain in Europe before that policy can be changed?

The policy changes in response to circumstances all the time. It is to a large extent because of changes over the past year or two that the need has arisen for the additional forces which we have now assigned, but they remain stationed in this country.

Is it not a fact that any increase in the commitment of conventional forces to N.A.T.O. is likely to contribute to a reduction in the dependence of N.A.T.O. on nuclear forces? Should not this be welcome to every hon. Member, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun)?

That is exactly the change of concept of two or three years ago that I was thinking of when I made my answer to a supplementary question asked by an hon. Member opposite a few moments ago. N.A.T.O. is trying wherever possible to give a longer period of grace before having to resort to nuclear weapons. Often this means an emphasis in some parts of the N.A.T.O. area on increased conventional forces.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the commitment of additional United Kingdom forces to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation for the defence of Greece.

Our commitment is to the integrated military organisation of the Alliance and not specifically for the defence of a particular member nation.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a great welcome has been given by the Greek Foreign Minister to this, which he interprets as a N.A.T.O. commitment to the defence of Greece? Will my right hon. Friend recognise that Greece's membership of N.A.T.O. is totally alien to the concept of freedom contained in the Treaty and confirm that not one penny or drachma will be spent on the defence of the Greek military dictatorship?

Our obligations to Greece have not changed recently. They remain exactly the same as the obligations which we expect other members of the organisation to accept towards us.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what Scottish regiments will be affected by the reorganisation of Army units.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will give an assurance that the Royal Scots Greys will not be amalgamated with another regiment or disbanded during the next three years;

asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what proposals Her Majesty's Government have for the future of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders; and if he will make a statement;

I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) on 1st May, 1968.— [Vol. 763, c. 1105–6.]

Why cannot the hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the House that no Scottish regiments will be affected? Will he please tell his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence that he would be well advised to keep his hands off Scotland in this matter?

The Statement on Defence, which will be fully debated in this House, will be ready in about a month. It will contain all the necessary information about Scottish and other regiments.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the statement he has made is almost identical with that made by his right hon. Friend 13 months ago, but that his right hon. Friend a few weeks later scrapped the Cameronians? Is he aware that Scottish hon. Members have no confidence at all in the Government's attitude towards Scottish regiments? [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]

My hon. Friends said "Nonsense" to the second part of that supplementary question, and that is right. There is a list of what happened last year in the White Paper of last July.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is great foreboding in Scotland about what the contents of the White Paper will be, and that any threat to abolish those great regiments would be strongly resisted by the country?

The traditions of the British regiments, Scottish, Welsh, Irish and English, are taken into consideration in these decisions. Naturally it grieves the Ministry of Defence and popular opinion to take the unpopular steps which have to be taken, but they follow logically from the defence cuts.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are a great number of Scots who want this decision taken on one criterion, and one criterion only—whether there is any credible operational requirement for these regiments?

Yes, Sir, and that is done. It is also done on a basis of fairness as between the different areas of the United Kingdom.

Is the Minister aware that the Government have already announced changes bringing about a reduction of eight battalions in the infantry of the line? If they are bent on further reductions their reasons will require the most searching examination by us on this side of the House. If the reasons are seen to exist and they choose a method of Buggins's turn, it will almost certainly turn out wrong.

The right hon. Gentleman will have every opportunity of debating this in a month's time.

Is is not a fact that young people in Scotland are becoming far too intelligent to join the Army because they do not know its purpose in the nuclear age?

Scottish regiments are quite well recruited.

Will the Minister give a categorical assurance that there will be no cuts in the Gordon Highlanders and that they will not be disbanded, because they have the highest recruiting and re-engagement record in Scotland and are well worthy of retention?

I shall not add to what I have already said.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I wish to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated cost of his proposals for increasing the size of the British Army of the Rhine.

We have no plans for increasing the peacetime size of B.A.O.R. As I said in the House on 10th May, we have earmarked for assignment to N.A.T.O. certain units and formations of the British Strategic Reserve. While continuing to be stationed in this country these forces will require additional training abroad and this is expected to cost about £400,000 a year.—[Vol. 764, c. 152–53.]

Will my right hon. Friend recognise that many of us on this side of the House would feel much better if he could announce a reduction of £400,000 rather than an increase by that amount? Would he like to offer some reflections on what our attitude would be if the Soviet Union announced a corresponding increase in expenditure on Warsaw Pact forces?

The Soviet Union has announced quite big increases in the past few years. With reference to the question of the £400,000 reduction, my hon. Friend should give a certain amount of credit for the many tens of millions of pounds by which the defence budget has already been reduced over the past few years.

How can the right hon. Gentleman expect to increase the size of the British Army if he talks a lot of nonsense about a worthwhile career without giving soldiers worth-while pay?

I do not expect to increase the size of the Army. I want to make sure that we get enough recruits for the future numbers that have already been announced.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what anti-tank weapons are available to the infantry in the British Army of the Rhine.

The 120 mm. Battalion Anti-Tank Gun; the 84 mm. Carl Gustav, and the Energa Grenade are standard equipment in all infantry units in B.A.O.R. Some units are also equipped with the Vigilant Anti-Tank Guided Weapon.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the publication of a recruiting poster featuring the Vigilant, and the reports, which those of my hon. Friends who have visited B.A.O.R. can confirm, that the Vigilant has been withdrawn from units as being too expensive to train with? Will he take this opportunity to clear up what seems to be a contradiction?

I will look into that. The right hon. Gentleman does not, obviously, expect an answer at once.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now take steps to station a second brigade from the British Army of the Rhine in the United Kingdom.

No, Sir.

Would my hon. Friend not agree that a move of this sort would allow a brigade to remain an integral part of the Rhine Army and free us from the wrangle on support costs, which we indulge in each year, and restore mobility to our defence arrangements? Will he not look at this matter again?

No, because our N.A.T.O. obligations and the general effects on N.A.T.O. have been fully considered and rest as they are now.

Is the Minister aware that over two years ago, in his Budget speech, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer said that unless 100 per cent. offset agreements were made with Germany other brigades would be withdrawn? In view of the fact that no such conclusion has been arrived at, is it not time the promise was implemented?

The offset arrangements with the Germans are reasonably satisfactory. I think we always hope for more, but the arrangements are as I have said.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what stocks of nerve gases are currently held in Great Britain; and which are the gases so held.

The only stocks of nerve gases currently held are small quantities necessary for the development and testing of defensive measures. It is not the practice to reveal which gases they are.

Will my hon. Friend take into account that stocks of nerve gases manufactured under British patent are not only held in other countries but are used in them. Will he, therefore, take such steps as are open to him to restrict the use of those licences to conform with the use he has described as obtaining in this country?

I am not aware of any gases manufactured under British patent elsewhere. If my hon. Friend sends me details I shall willingly look at any case he has in mind.

Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that there is no danger to the public in the areas where these gases are stored or to workers in the establishments concerned?

Yes, Sir. I am satisfied that the safety precautions are strict and entirely adequate.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many accidents there have been involving Lightning aircraft of the Royal Air Force.

It would be contrary to long-established practice to publish detailed statistics of R.A.F. accidents. As regards the Lightning I can, however, say that its accident rate has been relatively low and compares well with those of both the Javelin and the Hunter.

In view of that reply, is it not abundantly clear that certain Press reports, notably in The Guardian, have been grossly exaggerated and have shown a marked lack of responsibility in undermining the confidence of those serving in the R.A.F., their relations and friends, and denigrating a very successful product of the British aircraft industry?

I agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman. I stated that statistics are not published. It is very difficult for those drawing conclusions from non-existent statistics to get them right.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the latest re-engagement figures for all three Services; and what were the comparable figures for 1964.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what are the latest re-engagement figures for the Royal Navy; and how these compare with 1964;

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the latest re-engagement figures; for the Royal Air Force; and how these compare with 1964.

As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is it not a fact that this dramatic fall-off is due to lack of confidence and, until the recent announcement, inadequate pay, and in the Army the further disbanding of units and also of the T.A., so that all three Services must have grave doubts today as to whether the Government really want men to re-engage?

I would honestly suggest that the hon. Gentleman look at the figures. He will then find it difficult to talk about any fall-off.

Is the right hon. Gentleman confident that the rate of re-engagement is such that there will not be a shortage of technical personnel in the years ahead?

We are aware that some shortages of technical personnel are likely to arise in all three Services and we are doing our best to recruit people into those branches.

Are we really achieving re-engagement figures, which in 1963 were some 60 per cent. of the Royal Navy? Is not the reduction in re-engagement, which is also mentioned in the White Paper on pay, a direct reflection on the muddle and confusion, cancellation of weapons, and the rundown of our Armed Forces? Would not it be wiser, therefore, for the Government to get out and leave the defence of the country to an alternative Government?

The Questions generally, which are answered in the figures to be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT, refer to comparisons between 1968 and 1964. If hon. Members opposite look at them tomorrow they will see that they cannot make the type of criticism they are now making.

Will my right hon. Friend tell us in money terms what are the earnings of a private in the British Army?

I think that it would be much better if a Question were put down, because the earnings vary quite a lot depending on the trade, the length of the period for which the individual engaged and a number of other factors. If my hon. Friend puts down a Question I shall be only too willing to give him the figures. I hope to place details of the revised rates of pay in the Library next week.

The report of the Prices and Incomes Board refers to a serious situation which will arise on present trends in recruiting and re-engagement.

I am aware that some difficulties are likely to arise in certain specific areas in all three Services. The figures that I was asked for and am producing for the House do not back up the allegations which hon. Gentlemen opposite are making without having first looked at them.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what official reports he has received concerning the presence of Soviet naval units in the Indian Ocean since 1st January, 1968.

Soviet warships are known to have been present in the Indian Ocean over the past three months. They have visited various ports in the area. The hon. and gallant Member will not expect me to reveal sources of information.

Will this new interest of the Soviet Union in the Indian Ocean have any effect on the Government's east of Suez policy, or will it be completely disregarded?

Clearly one cannot disregard the situation, but we must recognise that the Soviet Union, like any other maritime nation, enjoys the freedom of the high seas. This will not interfere with the proposed dates for withdrawal from the Far East and the Gulf.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to complete his review of local overseas; allowances.

I hope to complete the current review of local overseas allowances for those overseas areas that did not devalue in line with the United Kingdom last November by the end of February, 1969.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many men and women serving overseas feel that they have been at a disadvantage, particularly in B.A.O.R., since devaluation? Why does this process take so long?

I am aware of that point. This sort of review usually takes five years, but we are doing it in less than 12 months.

Is it not the case that the spending power of forces' pay has been cut by 9 to 10 per cent. by devaluation? When will the Government put that right?

The devaluation aspect was dealt with earlier this year. I am now dealing with overseas allowances, which are designed to ensure that our Service men overseas have living standards similar to those at home. One must take into account not only devaluation but changes in standards in the United Kingdom as well.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has made for the utilisation of plastic armour panels to protect the crew and electronic installations in Phantom aircraft.

The use of plastic armour panels is one of several measures under study to improve the survivability of the Phantom.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Vietnam the Americans have learned that the protection of crew and vital electronics can be of great value? Will he take a close look at the Bristol Aeroplane Company plastics armour, which is lightweight and seems very effective?

We are aware of the advantages of this type of armour and also, of course, of the experience in different parts of the world in different operational environments.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he proposes to place an order for a prototype or prototypes of an advanced combat aircraft to fill the gap left by the cancellation of the TSR2, the Anglo-French variable geometry and the F111 aircraft.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence with which other European Governments Her Majesty's Government are currently consulting with a view to joint development of an advanced combat variable geometry aircraft; what is the current position; and if he will make a statement.

We are taking part in initial discussions now being held with officials of the German, Dutch, Belgian, Italian and Canadian Ministries of Defence with the aim of establishing a basis for joint development and production of an advanced combat aircraft for the later 70's. These have not yet reached a stage which would enable me to add anything to the answer given to the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 1st May, 1968.—[Vol. 763, c. 1094.]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that so much work has been done on previous proposed aircraft that these prototypes could be produced for a reasonable amount of money? Will he bear in mind that the interest of these foreign Governments is in getting the aircraft early and that it is vital for our export orders that we should be quick off the mark?

I am aware that a great deal of work has been done in the past, certainly on operational requirements, but I would not agree that only a limited amount of money is involved. A great amount of money is at stake. All these things, such as operational requirements and management of projects, have to be hammered out in detail.

Why do not we co-operate with the Americans in producing an aircraft which has some reasonable prospect of coming into existence?

Whereas it may be desirable to have the co-operation of five other nations, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the more nations co-operating the slower the progress of the project? Would it not be wise in this instance to leave Britain as the prime contractor to carry on with the development and production of this aircraft and leave other nations to buy it from us and to cooperate with us?

The hon. Gentleman has posed only some of the difficulties. Where-ever a number of collaborators are involved, operational requirements differ and the needs and capacities of their industries vary. These and other matters have to be examined before a conclusion is reached. We are looking actively at all the prospects of getting the kind of equipment needed in the necessary time scale.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the British aircraft industry is the only one in Europe capable of manufacturing the whole range of airframes, air engines and components, that it has done a great deal of work on this aircraft and that therefore the collaboration of all these other countries, valuable as it may be, may well be bought at too dear a price?

I am aware of that point. With all the other factors, it is kept in mind when discussions take place. On the other hand, there is advantage in looking at the prospect of getting wider sales both here and abroad. Naturally, in these discussions, other countries want to put forward their own interests both in operational requirements and in their individual capabilities.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence in view of the need for setting an example in the reduc- tion of public expenditure, what further proposals he has for reducing expenditure on H.M.S. "Britannia".

I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Gentleman on 22nd January, 1968; I also refer to my statement during the debate on the Navy Estimates on 12th March.—[Vol. 757, c. 40–1.]

If my hon. Friend cannot add anything, could he not at least subtract something from the £9,000 a week of the British taxpayers' money being spent unnecessarily? Is he aware that during its voyage in Scottish waters it cost the country £15,000 to take a Royal personage on something that was really a holiday? Will he not consider whether this ship should not be sold to America, where it would get a sum which could be used to build several advance factories?

As I said in the debate in March, the cost of Britannia is the minimum necessary to maintain her readiness for a wartime role as a hospital ship and to play her part on Royal occasions. Since then, the Royal Yacht as been used for a number of naval exercises and manoeuvres and we are examining further possibilities of utilising her crew when she is in port.

For the benefit of newer Members of this House, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that this vessel was ordered by the Attlee Government in the immediate post-war years? Why are some hon. Members opposite always complaining about it when statesmen like Marshal Tito, Colonel Nasser and the King of Norway have similar vessels? Why are they so petty and niggling? Why cannot they look at bigger things?

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

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the percentage increase in the cost of living since the last increase in Service pensions.

About 9 per cent. since the effective date of the last pensions increase measure.

Bearing in mind the certainty of further rises in the near future, has not the time come for an increase in public service pensions this year rather than next?

This matter was fully debated on 9th May and I have nothing to add to what was said then by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, when he pointed out that the necessary work was in hand for such a Bill but he could not give any commitment as to when it would be introduced.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the official spokesman in another place recently gave the impression that pensions had been increased by 7 per cent. for existing pensioners? Will he make it clear that there has been no increase?

If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to forces' pensions becoming due by next week, of course there will be an average of 7 per cent. increase. But these are a different block of pensions from those referred to in the Question on the Order Paper.

The Government spokesman in another place was referring to existing pensions of those already retired. Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that they are not getting anything?

The 7 per cent. increase only applies to future pensions which come into payment from a particular date onwards.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now announce the result of his study of the need for Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve, Category III.

I have nothing of substance to add at present to what my hon. Friend told the House on 15th May, 1968, but the hon. Gentleman will know from the Press that I saw the Duke of Norfolk yesterday and that discussions are continuing with the Council of Territorial and Auxiliary Volunteer Reserves Associations.—[Vol. 764, c. 1242–5.]

Looking about the world, does the right hon. Gentleman still maintain that it cannot happen here? If it does, does he think that the proposed reserves are sufficient to support the civil authority?

Generally speaking, the Territorial Army has never been used for strike breaking or in matters of that nature. In consultation with members of the Council of the T.A. and Reserves Associations, I am examining the requirement for a Volunteer Reserve to back up the Regular Army and for which there will be a long and continuing need for many thousands of men.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that former members of the Civil Defence Corps and the A.F.S. are being approached to join the T.A.V.R.III? Should not such recruitment be stopped until a decision about the future of the T.A.V.R.III has been made?

That may be happening in certain areas, and we are looking at the rôle of T. and A.V.R.III, but as has been announced, the home; defence rôle of that force has come to an end and the force is being disbanded.

Why could not the statements we read in the Press yesterday have been made to us during the recent debate when we asked precisely for such a statement?

The only statement I can think of was that when the discussions with the Council were going on, and it was the appropriate time at the end of such discussions to make such a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the defence discussions in the Far East are intended to lead to arrangements for British forces to be based in, or operated from, Australia.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for a British defence force stationed in Australia.