asked the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he has had with the West German and United States Governments on the publication of information on military aircraft crashes; and if he will make a statement.

None,Sir.

Is the right hon. Member aware that the security arrangements regarding this information in the United States and West Germany are far less stringent than in this country? What value does he think the information that I have mentioned would be to a potential enemy? Is it not time that we reviewed these ridiculous secrecy arrangements in this country?

I do not regard them as ridiculous. It is not only a question of security and secrecy. This policy has operated since 1927. It has been reviewed from time to time and is being reviewed at the moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether, in reviewing the pay and allowances of Naval personnel serving in dollar areas, he will take early action to avoid hardship; and whether he will pay special attention to the cases of those who have their families with them and so are not necessarily covered by his formula that only three-quarters of two-thirds of all pay is spent abroad.

I take it that the Question refers to the review of local overseas allowance now taking place.

My right hon. Friend, the Minister of Defence for Administration, explained during the defence debate on 5th March how interim rates of these allowances had been assessed to compensate for the devaluation of the pound.

The normal cycle of reviews has been speeded up and I am satisfied that there will be fair treatment for all Servicemen abroad, with retrospection for increases including, of course, those serving in dollar areas and those serving on accompanied tours of duty.

May I take this opportunity of congratulating the hon. Member on his appointment and of wishing him every good fortune in it? Is it not becoming increasingly difficult, with the constant defence cuts of this country, for our Service men abroad to compete with their opposite numbers, especially when they have had to suffer a pay decrease of 6 per cent. at the same time as their American opposite numbers have had an increase of 6 per cent.?

I thank the hon. Member for his earlier remarks. The Government are very conscious of the need for speed in this review and we intend to introduce the results to the House as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state approximately the total cost of the military reinforcement exercise planned for the Far East in 1970 and for such exercises planned for subsequent years.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the details of the exercise to be held in South-East Asia before the evacuation of British forces, with the object of demonstrating the United Kingdom's capability for reinforcement.

I am not yet in a position to add to my statement on the Five-Power Conference. The precise details of the exercise, including costs, will have to be worked out between the Governments of the five participating countries and this will naturally take some time.

Is the Minister saying that he has accepted this very big reinforcement without counting the cost? Secondly, does he accept the view of The Times defence correspondent that this is a considerable modification of the position taken by the Government on I6th January, which most of us warmly welcomed?

On the second part of that supplementary question, I made it absolutely clear in January and in the defence debate that followed that we planned to train our defence forces regularly overseas after our withdrawal from east of Suez was complete. On the first part of the question, I am satisfied that since all forces participating in this exercise will be forces which would be training that year overseas in any case the incremental cost of their training in the Far East will be small, but the advantages in carrying out a large-scale exercise of this nature will not only be substantial, operationally, but also of political importance, as I explained in the White Paper.

Will not the great problem in connection with these new ideas about reinforcement be the problem of acclimatisation? Exercises or no exercises, how do the Government propose to cope with that?

That is another matter. One of the great advantages in carrying out this type of exercise is that it enables us to learn more about dealing with the problems of acclimatisation and to some extent to acclimatise troops and to familiarise them with the circumstances in which they may have to operate.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Brussels conference with particular reference to the strength of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces on the continent of Europe.

asked the the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Brussels conference and on the consideration given at that conference to the future strength of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces in Europe.

I assume that the questions refer to the Ministerial Meetings on 10th May, 1968. N.A.T.O. Defence Ministers reaffirmed the need for the Alliance to maintain an effective military capability and to assure the balance of forces between N.A.T.O. and the Warsaw Pact in Europe and elsewhere. They adopted a series of force goals for the period 1969–73; these mark a further stage in the adaptation of N.A.T.O.'s force structure to the strategic concept of a balanced range of appropriate responses. Welcoming the fact that studies were now proceeding within N.A.T.O. on the subject of possible balanced force reductions, they agreed that the overall military capability of N.A.T.O. should not be reduced except as part of a pattern of mutual force reductions balanced in scope and timing. On other problems, N.A.T.O. Defence Ministers adopted a concept for external reinforcement of the flanks to supplement local national forces in an emergency, and agreed that present circumstances did not justify the deployment of an anti-ballistic missile system in Europe.

Order. Long Answers mean fewer Questions.

But, at a time when America and Russia are beginning to talk sense and N.A.T.O. and Warsaw Pact troop reductions are at least being discussed, is it not crazy for Britain unilaterally to increase her commitment to N.A.T.O?

No, Sir, that is not the case at all. There are certain gaps in N.A.T.O.'s existing capability. If we want to negotiate effectively on force reductions, we must be certain that we are starting from a firm, secure base; one of the purposes of the increased force commitments made by Britain is to fill those gaps to provide a basis from which negotiations can sensibly begin.

While I entirely approve in principle of my right hon. Friend's statement about our increased commitment to N.A.T.O. in Brussels, at the same time, would he make it clear that such increased commitment is not used as a reason in future years for reductions in United States commitments to N.A.T.O., which would have the effect of transferring the defence burden from the United States to our own unhappy shoulders?

Yes, Sir. The American Administration has always made it clear that one of the problems which they face in the Congress is the feeling of many American Parliamentarians that Europe is not pulling its weight in defence. The fact that Britain is now carrying a slightly larger share of the allied burden is helping the American Administration to resist pressure for unreasonable cuts in its own commitments, but I have made it clear to the Ministers in Brussels, and have said publicly, that our readiness to continue this form of commitment will depend on other members of the Alliance carrying their fair share of the burden.

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of Mr. McNamara's thesis that there is now a rough balance in conventional forces between N.A.T.O. and the Warsaw Pact powers. As this appears to call in question the whole of the present N.A.T.O. strategy, will the Government give us a definitive explanation of their assessment of Mr. McNamara's assessment?

Mr. McNamara's assessment is not shared by any of the other N.A.T.O. members, nor by the military advisers in N.A.T.O., including the Commander-in-Chief, but we are, of course, in touch within the Alliance about some of the factors which Mr. McNamara has raised on this matter. We shall hope to reach an agreed view of the relative force capabilities on both sides in the near future.

In view of the eminence of Mr. McNamara, and his information, will the Secretary of State explain to the House why and in what way the Government differ from his assessment?

To give a very simple example, simply to compare the total number of effectives on both sides is one way of assessing capability. Another is to find out what number of effectives on each side are actually fighting units and what their fire power is. Mr. McNamara's assessment does not, for example, allow for the very great superiority in tanks in the forces of the Warsaw Pact.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is now the strength planned for each of the three Services in 1973.

I should not want to be precise at this stage for a breakdown between the three Services because this will depend on detailed decisions to be taken during the next few years. But our planning figures, and I would expect these to change in detail, are in round figures for the Royal Navy about 79,000, for the Army about 166,000 and for the R.A.F. about 96,000.

On the Army total, how many brigade groups available for deployment does this embrace? More generally, does not the introduction of the latest Government White Paper make it clear that these target strengths are derived from the need to cut manpower for financial reasons and are not related to any true defence needs?

I am not prepared at this stage to give any further breakdown, but, as the White Papers and my right hon. Friend and others on this side have constantly explained, we are tailoring our future forces to the commitments and it is the commitments being reduced which allow us to reduce the number of men.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence why Vigilant has been withdrawn from infantry battalions in the British Army of the Rhine; and if he will make a statement.

:Vigilant was introduced to assess the suitability of a medium range anti-tank guided weapon portable by its crew. Its range fell short of the requirement for mechanised operations. However it is adequate for other operations and is therefore being used in non-mechanised battalions outside B.A.O.R. The exception is one battalion in B.A.O.R. which will continue to develop techniques there until a weapon with a longer range than Vigilant becomes available.

In view of what the hon. Gentleman said about deficiencies in range, is the Vigilant still being used mounted on the Ferrets, as announced in the 1967 White Paper? Can he assure us that the infantry battalions in B.A.O.R. from which it has been withdrawn will get the improved type of Mobat, the Conbat?

Yes. On the second part of that question, there are likely to be developments, but there has been no decision whether to improve Vigilant, develop Swingfire or adopt a French system.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what further representations he has had regarding the future of Scottish regiments; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend and I have received three deputations since 3rd July.

Has the hon. Gentleman used the time since Monday to reflect on the tremendous strength of public feeling in Scotland, particularly as reflected in the House on Monday? In view of this, is he prepared to reconsider his decision, or is it absolutely final?

The Ministry of Defence is given to much reflection. On the second part of the question, if the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, my right hon. Friend made a statement during the debate which offered the possibility of amalgamation or disbandment.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, in common with many other Members for industrial constituencies, I have had no representations at all on this subject, and that among those who have feelings on it are many who would much prefer the disbandment of one regiment to the scrapping of two in the shape of amalgamation?

I do not follow my hon. Friend's language in the second part of his question. As to representations, he has made representations to me in the corridor.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now make a statement on the future of the Scottish infantry regiments.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if, in view of the further representations he has received regarding the future of Scottish regiments, he will now make a statement about his plans in this respect.

I have nothing to add to what I said in the debate on Monday.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the fury aroused in Scotland by the speech of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) about the Argylls on Monday? Will he come to the House and make a full statement completely refuting those unworthy allegations?

My right hon. Friend is making a thorough and speedy investigation.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, as Scotland has made its contribution to the defence cuts, there is a certain feeling that there is need for a Scottish contribution to the United Kingdom defence forces? Will he, therefore, assure us that Scottish regiments will play an important part in this new United Kingdom defence force?

Indeed, yes, Sir.

But surely there is no need to start an investigation over events which took place a year ago. As the officers and men of the Argylls cannot reply, and the hon. Gentleman is in a position to reply for them, will he categorically deny the statements made by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)?

My right hon. Friend will make a statement before the Recess. These things happened some time ago, and it is necessary to consult all the parties engaged in this operation.

May I welcome the permission given by the Ministry of Defence to Colonel Mitchell to reply to Mr. Chapman Pincher? I warmly welcome this. But is my hon. Friend aware that these matters, like others in this field, should be determined by one criterion only—whether there is a credible operational requirement?

Of course, that is one of the matters to be considered.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now make a statement on the future of the Royal Scots Greys.

I have nothing to add to what I said in the debate on Monday.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there will be grave concern in the Greys until they know that their future is assured? How soon can he put this regiment out of its misery?

When full discussion and examination of the problem has taken place.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now define the rôle of the Royal Navy in the 1970s.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the rôle of the Royal Navy in the 1970s.

As announced in Cmnd. 3540, Britain's defence effort will in future be concentrated mainly in Europe and the North Atlantic. The main rôle of the Navy will be to play a leading part in the maritime defence of the Atlantic Alliance.

Is not the main rôle of the Navy to protect sea communications, without which this country cannot eat or trade? By depriving the Navy of its aircraft carriers, how can this possibly be carried out? Has not the Secretary of State made the surface Navy a coast defence force?

The main classes of ships announced in July last year, together with our growing force of nuclear fleet submarines, will strengthen our contribution to the maritime forces of N.A.T.O. and add significantly to the defence of the oceans.

Bearing in mind the increasing evidence of the vulnerability of all surface ships to ship-to-ship missiles, is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that his Department is giving sufficient attention to developing this capacity and also developing an effective defence against it?

As my hon. Friend knows, this has been the subject of a number of debates in the House. We believe that we can have an effective defence force by using helicopters, and this has been announced to the House.

Does the maritime defence take into account the possibility of prolonged operations at sea or not?

Yes. The Navy of the future will be able to operate at sea for a long time.

The Under-Secretary said that the rôle of the Navy will be mainly European and Atlantic. What rôle or capability do the Government propose for the Navy east of Suez and what air cover will be available for it in that area?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have a commitment in, for instance, the Beira patrol. As was made clear in the 1966 White Paper, we would not expect to provide another country with military assistance, unless it was prepared to make the necessary facilities available for the support of our forces, and this could include shore facilities or airfields. This applies particularly east of Suez.

How far will the American naval vessels now lying in Victoria Harbour, Hong Kong, and the aircraft carrier lying off the New Territories take up the rôle formerly occupied by British naval units in that part of the Far East?

I cannot see how they would be taking up our previous role, but we are in full consultation with our American allies.

Will the Undersecretary remember that the decision to plan a reduction to 79,000 in the Navy will bring our Royal Navy strength to the lowest point it has been since the end of Ramsay MacDonald's regime, and that nearly lost us the Second World War? On this occasion there are no reserve ships, whereas at that time there were many.

We are concentrating our forces in the European area and in the Atlantic area. The Government believe that this will make an effective contribution to the defence of this country.

Will the Minister arrange with the Secretary of State to make an early statement about this tremendous departure from the traditional rôle of the Royal Navy which for centuries has been to defend British trade worldwide and not just in the Atlantic?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman will have an opportunity in next week's debate to deploy his argument, but he is aware that the Government's policy is to concentrate our defence commitment in the European area. [An HON. MEMBER: "Scuttle."] This in no sense represents a scuttle but is a realistic assessment of our capabilities.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the estimated total strength of the British Army of the Rhine in 1969, 1970 and 1971, respectively.

Recruiting difficulties and the demands of other theatres have kept the posted strength of B.A.O.R. below its establishment of about 55,000 men. We intend to make good the shortfall as soon as possible.

Can the Under-Secretary assure the House that there will be no further reduction in B.A.O.R. in the next three years? Can he reassure the House by saying that there will be sufficient R.A.F. aircraft to give these soldiers adequate air cover? Is he aware that there is grave anxiety on this score?

We shall do our best to bring B.A.O.R. up to strength.

Although it made sense to have a large force in Western Germany when there was a threat, even though it contributed very largely to the German balance of payments, does not my hon. Friend agree that it makes very little sense today when there is no immediate threat and when the balance of payments disadvantage is to ourselves?

As has been stated on innumerable occasions, it is the intention of the Government to keep B.A.O.R. up to strength; and this is being catered for.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now commission a special inquiry into the possibility of extended civil production in Royal Navy dockyards.

As the House knows a comprehensive dockyard review is at present under way. Its purpose is to ensure that the Royal Dockyards meet their primary task of servicing the Fleet as efficiently as possible. I intend looking at the feasibility of extending civil production in the yards when this review has been completed, but I must warn my hon. Friend that there are formidable difficulties.

May I join those who have wished my hon. Friend well in his future responsibilities? Is he aware that in the present passive attitude in the dockyards towards civil contract work there is no one responsible for seeking civil contracts? Has he studied the successful diversification which has taken place in Malta in recent years, and will he take some action as soon as possible?

I am aware of both the facts which my hon. Friend mentions. I repeat that there are formidable objections to having extensive civil contract work carried out in Her Majesty's dockyards.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now make a statement on the future of the Royal Navy dockyards.

I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that this is very unsatisfactory, especially in view of the high hopes for a statement before the House went into recess? Is he aware of the strain which this doubt is putting on dockyard workers and their families? Can he tell us how soon we shall have a statement?

I can assure the House that no statement about the dockyard review will be made before the House reassembles. I am fully conscious of the need for urgency over this decision; but it affects many men and it is very important that the right decisions are made.

What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "urgency"? This has been going on for a considerable time and is causing much unnecessary disquiet in the dockyards. Does he mean two months or three months or what?

I am in no position to give an exact indication when we will be making a statement, but I assure the hon. Lady that it will be as soon as we can do so. There must be consultations with other Government Departments.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence by what percentage the average earnings of general duty medical officers in the Forces exceed the present average net earnings of general practitioners in the National Health Service.

I regret that it is not possible to make a meaningful comparison as the effect of the 1966 award on the relevant earnings of general practitioners is not yet known.

Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously going to stand there quite happily for another two years waiting to calculate this? Is he not aware that successive Secretaries of State for Defence have accepted that to compensate for the inconvenience to medical officers in the Services they should have incomes 15 per cent. ahead of those in the National Health Service? What is he going to do about it?

The hon. Gentleman has his supplementaries mixed up. That should be for the next Question. On this Question he has asked me to carry out a calculation, requiring some information. One set of figures I have available. The other set is not available. The hon. Gentleman will surely agree that if one has not got the figures one cannot do the calculation.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Secretary of State with a view to joining the three medical services of the three fighting forces into one, thus saving medical manpower and paying better salaries?

That is a completely different Question, but I assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that we are looking all the time at all parts of the Services to see where administrative savings can be made.

In view of the shortage of doctors in the Services, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake when he gets the Kindersley Report in the autumn to make proposals for restoring the differential which experience has shown is essential for recruiting doctors? Has he got his Department back on speaking terms with the B.M.A. yet?

The Kindersley Report does not cover Service doctors. They are, as with all other Service officers, now subject to the general report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes. As the right hon. Gentleman will remember, the Government have asked the Board to try to deal with this matter within the next 12 months—that is, from the date of its previous report. I am always prepared to talk to the B.M.A., provided that I can get its co-operation in the usual way.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what action he is taking concerning the morale of the medical branches of the Forces, and to halt the outflow of experienced medical officers.

The National Board for Prices and Incomes has been asked to complete a thorough-going review of doctors' pay within a year. I am also considering what other steps can be taken.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman deeply concerned at the figures he had to give me on 1st July concerning the premature retirements of medical officers, the number of short-service commissioned officers applying for permanent commissions, and the number of qualified doctors applying for direct entry into the Services? Does he intend to sit back for another year and allow the Services to fall back in the number of doctors they have?

Yes, Sir. No, Sir.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the very great seriousness of this situation? Is it not about time that he recognised the fact that a G.P. in civil life can earn well over £3,000 a year, which is far in excess of what his military counterpart can earn?

As I explained in answer to the previous Question, there are no accurate figures available as yet as to the relevant effect on general practitioners of the Kindersley Report. I hope that there will be later in the year. That will be the time when the information will be available to the Board, which will then report to the Government. I am concerned about the position, as I hope I have proved.

The Minister said that he was; considering taking action. How soon will he make a statement to the House about this action?

The main part of any action must be to get the conditions of service of these men right; and I shall make a statement as soon as I can about anything that I am able to do in this direction.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the latest position concerning the amalgamation or disbandment of regiments.

The position is set out in the White Paper which was published last Thursday.

Will the Government look at this whole question again, both in the light of the debate last Monday and of the very serious recruiting problems now facing the Ministry of Defence?

My right hon. Friend is not, of course, prepared to look at the whole question again, but he is certainly prepared to consider—I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was in his place when I mentioned this earlier—the question to which he referred in the debate on Monday; the amalgamation of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders with some other regiment if this should be the general wish.

Would my hon. Friend give an assurance that when the cuts proposed in the recent White Paper are completed, the number of Scottish regiments which will lose their separate identity will be less than the number which lost their identity under Conservative administration?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the success of Coastal Command in finding a small rubber dinghy in the Atlantic and rescuing its occupant, and on the availability of aircraft for such purposes.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost to public funds of mounting search and rescue operations necessitated by the transatlantic solo yacht race; and what contribution has been offered by the sponsors of the race towards this cost.

Following reports on 18th June that M. de Kat was in difficulties, Shackletons from Ballykelly and Kinloss maintained a search until his dinghy was sighted late on 20th June. Sea rescue apparatus was dropped, the Norwegian ship "Jagona" was directed to the spot and a Shackleton remained on task till M. de Kat was rescued.

Subject to Service requirements and practicability, Shackletons are available to assist any vessel or individual in distress in waters surrounding the United Kingdom.

Although it would be possible to cost the flying statistically, the figure would be misleading since the effort involved was largely in substitution for normal operational training. In accordance with long-standing maritime tradition, no charge is made for assistance given when life may be in danger at sea.

While Coastal Command is to be warmly congratulated on the success of this life-saving operation, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he does not consider it desirable that the organisers of such ocean races should arrange for prior basic vetting of the seaworthiness of vessels taking part? Would he also agree that there should be radar beacons in the life-dinghies?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments about the work of Coastal Command. To answer the latter part of his supplementary question, any conditions that might govern ships going to sea—I refer to ships of any kind— would be a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, to whom he may care to address a Question.

While applauding the Sunday Observer for its initiative in organising this event, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will look closely into the whole question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) of vetting vessels for seaworthiness, since this would be an important factor and might save a great deal of the taxpayers' money, and later, possibly, the risk to life?

I agree with the noble Lord about the importance of this and similar matters and assure him that we would be prepared to give advice. However, the responsibility is that of the President of the Board of Trade.

I, too, congratulate Coastal Command on this magnificent piece of seamanship and airmanship. Would the right hon. Gentleman say what part the French Government played in supplying aircraft or ships to rescue one of its own countrymen?

There was a total of 176 hours 44 minutes of flying time undertaken in this task by Coastal Command, and a total of seven sorties lasting 95 hours 54 minutes by other countries, two of which, totalling over 26 hours, were by the French Air Force.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statementon the latest Defence White Paper.

If I catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I hope to make such a statement at rather greater length than is appropriate at Question Time, in the debate before the Recess.

Would my right hon. Friend clarify the position as shown by paragraph 3, which appears to be somewhat confusing in that the 1969–70 figures are shown as being eventually at the target figure of £2,140 million while the figure for 1972–73 is £2,014 million, all at 1968 prices, whereas this is shown to be equivalent to a reduction of £210 million to £260 million?

I think that my hon. Friend, who is a great financier, will see, if he compares the figures, that the target which we have set for 1972–73 is £240 million less than the figure for this year.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it might be of assistance if we arranged to have these figures circulated in terms of 1964 prices, which I believe have been the base figures hitherto taken for the purposes of comparison?

I have been repeatedly asked by hon. Gentlemen opposite to stop using 1964 prices. I consider it ungrateful, to say the least, in view of their past complaints for the hon. Gentleman now to make this request.

Are we to understand that the reason for the debate and the White Paper issued by my right hon. Friend is because of some special event on the Rhine or in N.A.T.O.? On the other hand, is the debate to be wide-ranging and will it cover the whole of our defence organisation?

I suggest, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, that the debate will cover all the matters recorded in the Supplementary Statement published a fortnight ago, which I strongly recommend my right hon. Friend to read.

On a point of order. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that I have read the dccument and was merely asking for information so that I would know what the debate would be about?

The right hon. Gentleman cannot compel the Minister to give information.

While the build-up of our land forces in Europe is an indication that the Government at last appreciate that conventional war in Europe is a possibility, would my right hon. Friend explain how, after 1969—with the ending of the national service commitment and the ending of the Territorial Army ability— we will have this land force capability?

The Government have often made it clear—and this was the view of former Administrations—that we do not contemplate the possibility of prolonged large-scale operations in Europe. There is a possibility of prolonged small-scale or short large-scale operations, but not operations of the kind my hon. Friend has in mind.

As it is clear from the White Paper that there is great concern about the slump in recruiting, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is foolish to select for disbandment the units best recruited?

This matter was fully dealt with by my right hon. Friend on Monday. Owing to the shortage of time, he was not able to tell the House that the Argylls had to be made up by a platoon of the Black Watch because it was not up to strength when it was necessary for it to go to Aden.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will appoint an independent arbitrator to consider the claim of Mr. A. W. Tucker, a former employee of the Sussex Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Association, to an award corresponding to that payable under the Redundancy Payments Act, 1965, in addition to the gratuity payable on termination of service, in view of the fact that neither Ministry of Labour Tribunals nor the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration have jurisdiction in this matter;

The answer in both cases is "No, Sir".

Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that these men, about 800 of them, have a serious grievance in that they feel that the Minister of Defence has acted as judge and jury in this matter? Is he aware that the refusal to appoint an independent arbitrator to clear up this highly complicated matter has accentuated these feelings of gross injustice?

I understand many of the feelings to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers. A number of hon. Members have written to my right hon. Friend and me on behalf of these men and there have been discussions about the matter in the House. I do not think it is necessary to go further into the matter.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a very serious matter indeed for the men concerned? Is he determined to give nothing but wholly negative answers which are quite unsatisfactory?

The whole idea of the arrangement under the Redundancy Payments Act was to provide benefits to people who did not have them. These benefits do not apply to people who benefit by other arrangements.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the design and development of a supersonic vertical take-off and landing strike aircraft; and to what extent these plans run parallel with a known North Atlantic Treaty Organisation requirement.

We are discussing with some of our N.A.T.O. allies requirements for a future combat aircraft. But it is unlikely that this would combine supersonic and vertical, as distinct from short, take-off and landing characteristics.

Cannot my right hon. Friend say at this stage whether the Harrier has already proved of value, having a vertical take-off and landing capability? Would it not be wise to incorporate this in a future advanced combat aircraft?

The view of all our N.A.T.O. allies and potential partners is that there is a great need for a short take-off and landing capability for a future combat aircraft, but the price, in terms of cost and performance, for a vertical take-off aircraft other than the Harrier is likely to be too high. However, we are considering certain modifications to the Harrier to improve its performance, and this could be relevant to a future combat aircraft.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what bad weather and night flying restrictions will be imposed on the new naval helicopters carrying air-to-surface missiles; and, in this respect, how their performance will compare with missile-carrying patrol boats.

It will seldom be necessary to impose any restrictions because of weather conditions, since the new naval helicopters will be capable of day and night operations in all but the very worst weather. The helicopters will remain operationally effective well beyond the point at which the missile-firing patrol boat is likely to be an effective threat.

This is an extension, I suppose, of the argument about whether these missiles should be carried on surface vessels or in helicopters. Does not my hon. Friend agree that helicopters are more limited by the weather than surface vessels, and does not this affect his argument?

No, Sir, I do not agree. The helicopter-borne attack system is in no way inferior to a system of comparable size mounted on a ship. In fact, the reverse is the case. It has a high flexibility and range.

Is the Minister saying that the advantages of helicopters will apply not only to missile-firing patrol boats but to larger missile-firing destroyers?

No, Sir. The missile-firing destroyers will be dealing with air defence. The helicopters will be able to deal with surface ships, including patrol boats.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the Government arms salesman was appointed; for what period; on what remuneration; what staff and premises he employs; what are his total annual sales; and what profit has been made up to the most recent convenient date.

The Head of Defence Sales was appointed on 16th May, 1966, for an initial period of two years at a salary of £8,000 a year. The total staff employed under the Head of Defence Sales are 197 civil servants and six Service officers. They occupy premises in three Government buildings in London, at an establishment in Derby and at three overseas posts. Total annual sales are running at over £150 million a year of which some two-thirds are made by firms and about one-third by the Government. As regards sales made by the Government, we look to these to recover, in addition to our direct costs, a proportion of our expenditure on research and development and to make a contribution towards other fixed overheads.

Do I understand the profit to be £150 million a year?

No. I said "sales".

Then, before I ask a supplementary question, could I ask what was the profit made?

The hon. Gentleman will know very well that it is difficult to calculate profit when one is dealing with sales by private firms where one may not have full information of the profit that they have received.

rose—

Order. Mr. Emrys Hughes.

May I ask my right hon. Friend, first, if this arms salesman is responsible for any sales to Nigeria, and, second, what justification the Government have for paying a man £8,000 a year to act as a commercial traveller and salesman for private arms interests?

We believe that it is important, both for financial and political reasons, for this country to play a part in providing arms and equipment for its friends in the world. One of the purposes of having a Head of Defence Sales is to enable us to do this, taking into account all the political factors which may be relevant to a possible sale.

Do not forget Nigeria.

Order. Mr. Tom Price.

Does the Minister of Defence recollect that, ever since the days of Sir Basil Zaharoff, this party has rightly condemned the employment of merchants of death? Many of us still condemn the practice and are very disturbed to see senior Ministers of the Crown associated with it.

I am aware of the strong feelings on this matter. I am also aware of the fact that hon. Members on both sides protest very fiercely when a contract which might have gone to a British firm goes to a foreign one. If my hon. Friends will only talk to some of their supporters in their constituencies about the economic and technological consequences of renouncing all activity in this field, they might reflect a different view.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer his hon. Friend's question about Nigeria?

Yes, Sir. I think that I am right in saying that the contracts with Nigeria were undertaken before the Head of Defence Sales was appointed.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was not allowed a supplementary question. I was merely asking for information to enable me to frame a supplementary question.

Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his supplementary question.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have never questioned your Ruling, but my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) asked a Question of the Minister which the right hon. Gentleman specifically avoided. My hon. Friend then asked a supplementary question designed to get the right hon. Gentleman to answer the original Question, which was what profit has been made.

Order. Mr. Speaker, like the hon. and gallant Gentleman, was here when the exchange took place.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what study he has made of the evidence which has been sent to him that the gas CS, originated at Porton, has proved to be lethal in use in Vietnam; and if he will make a statement on the result of this study.

I understand my hon. Friend is referring to a letter written by Dr. Steven Rose and published in the New Statesman of 21st June, 1968. CS gas was first discovered in the United States. It was developed by Porton to produce an agent for riot control which is less toxic and more effective than the traditional tear gas, CN. No CS is exported from this country to the United States. While I am studying Dr. Rose's letter, I have found no evidence that CS as developed by Porton has been responsible for deaths in Vietnam.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Dr. Rose has offered to allow my right hon. Friend to sniff a quantity of CS gas recovered from Vietnam? Will he show his confidence in his Answer by accepting that offer?

I had an opportunity to sniff CS gas at Porton yesterday, and I am glad to say that I am here today.

May I thank the right hon. Gentleman sincerely for the remarks he made yesterday about the work of the scientists at Porton?

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what regulations govern the supply of CS gas or devices containing CS gas by his Department to police forces or other organisations in this country.

Under Section 17 of the Firearms Act, 1937, no one other than a Crown Servant may possess a CS device without the written authority of the Defence Council. Police officers, being Crown servants for the purposes of the Act, do not require authority under the Act. Authority for the supply of CS devices to the police is a matter for the police authorities.

I am delighted to see that after sniffing this substance my right hon. Friend retains his usual rude health. However, in view of public uneasiness about the substance, will he undertake not to release supplies of it to the police or any possible civilian user?

Whether the police acquire supplies of this gas is a matter essentially for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and not for me. The only civilian users who have received supplies since this gas was developed in Britain have been the firm which manufactures devices for firing the gas and another firm which wished to import certain containers in order to test their suitability for the police.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that not only in Vietnam but recently in Paris the use of this gas has had very detrimental effects on many students? Dr. Rose has done great service by highlighting the dangers of this gas. In the interests of health, will not my right hon. Friend restrict its use to the absolute minimum?

I have made inquiries about the possible use of this gas in France. There is published evidence that the French police used CN gas, which is tear gas and which is more toxic than CS. Whether they used CS I have been unable to confirm so far. However, I can tell my hon. Friend and all other hon. Members that whereas in the seven years during which this gas has been in use in riots not one death has been confirmed, at least seven deaths have been confirmed from the use of its predecessor, tear gas. I think that on reflection my hon. Friend would agree that it was far more humane for British forces and police to be able to use this gas in the Hong Kong riots last year and in some of the civil disturbances in Aden than to be confined to the use of, for example, rifles and machine guns, as was the case at Amritsar, for example.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total cost of the recent 7 per cent. pay award to the services.

In the current financial year about £23 million in pay and about £4 million in allowances.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the total cost of granting a 7 per cent. increase in pensions to all Service pensioners over the age of 70 years.

Such an increase would cost about £1 million.

Would the Minister not agree that this latter sum is very small compared with the sum mentioned in reply to my earlier Question? If it was subtracted and given to those pensioners over 70, it would avoid this wide gap developing between the pensions of those retiring now and those who retired in earlier years. Will he convey these figures to those responsible for fixing these matters?

While this sum is a comparatively small one compared with other figures, it is still very large. However, all public service pensioners are dealt with together. As for the general position, it is right that this group should remain in that of the public service pensioners, and I cannot add anything to what my hon. Friend said in the debate on 9th May.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what action the Services are taking to keep industry informed of the performance and reliability of equipment in the service with a view to improving it.

The Services fully appreciate the importance of feeding back promptly to industry information on the performance and reliability of equipment in service so that it may be improved; and so that new equipment under development and in production may benefit from experience in service. The best means of doing this are continually under review, in association with industry, and we are actively exploring the use of computers for processing the great volume of information involved. A very useful conference on the "Reliability of Service Equipment" was held in February this year and was attended by a wide cross-section of industry.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his terse reply to my Question. However, I thought that I had made reference to computers. Can he say what use is being made of computers in dealing with this information?

I think that I can help my hon. Friend. We already have a computer in use at Woolwich to process information on the performance and reliability of Army equipment. I have seen it for myself. This is now being programmed to provide output data which will be available to industry through maintenance advisory groups, A similar service will be provided by a computer which is to be installed for the Air Force, and the Navy Department is making a study of the use of a computer for processing information of this kind.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what obligations under the Official Secrets Act are placed upon the members of those university departments which are conducting defence research sponsored by his Department.

The provisions in the Official Secrets Acts relating to contractors are of general application. The attention of those concerned is, however, drawn to the provisions of the Official Secrets Acts when the contract is classified or likely to lead to access to classified information, and they are asked to sign a declaration to the effect that their attention has been drawn to the Act and that they understand its effect. None of the current Ministry of Defence research contracts with university departments is classified, and in all such cases there is a recognition in the contract conditions that it is scientific practice to publish results freely.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he not agree that classified research is incompatible with academic freedom and should properly be kept to a minimum? Will he indicate the position of those representative of university departments who come into contact with those engaged on research projects let by the Ministry of Defence who may subsequently wish to publish the results of the joint research?

As I told my hon. Friend, none of the present contracts is classified. While we cannot waive any statutory obligation when there is classified information, we would wish generally to have as few restrictions as possible, consistent with national security, which would be liberally interpreted if there were any wish to publish.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now make a statement about the co-operation of military personnel in civil projects at home and abroad.

As I said in answer to a Question on 12th June, consultations outside the Ministry of Defence are proceeding satisfactorily. I would not wish to go further until these consultations have been completed.

I welcome that Answer. However, what hopes has my hon. Friend of making an early statement on this subject, for there is a great deal of interest and a great deal of anxiety that there should be no unnecessary hold-up in this very exciting project?

There is no unnecessary hold up and nobody should be anxious. I cannot make a statement before the Recess, but I expect that statement and the resulting action to be non-controversial and well received.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it was said, rather surprisingly, by the C.G.S. on television the other night that there were 300 contractors engaged in Scotland and a comparable number in England? Can he confirm that?

It is not as many as 300, but a considerable number of activities of all sorts have been and are being undertaken. The difficulty is that they vary from very small to very big things. If the House will give me a little longer, I hope to be able to make a satisfactory statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence on what number of front-line aircraft in 1973 he bases his estimate of Royal Air Force manpower in that year.

It is not the practice to disclose such information.

Have the Government formed any view of the approximate strength and composition of the Air Force in 1973? If so, why are they not prepared to give the House of Commons that general indication?

Of course the Government are aware of these figures, but we see no reason whatever, on security grounds, for changing the policy, which has been adopted by all previous Governments, of not revealing the front line strength of the Royal Air Force.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, following the policy of the present and previous Governments, no racial discrimination will be involved in recruiting manpower to the Armed Forces?

I do not see the relevance of that question, even if my hon. Friend does, but I can definitely give that assurance.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence for how many regular infantry battalions in 1973 he is now planning.

Forty-six.

Will the Government, if not now at any rate in the course of the forthcoming debate, indicate the line of reasoning by which they have arrived at 46 battalions as being the correct size for the British Army in 1973?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will, but I would have thought that it was very clear from the Defence Statement.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Field Marshal Lord Montgomery has assessed a reasonable number of infantry as 150,000? Are not the Government arranging for 40,000 more? Is it not time that the number was reduced to the level suggested by Lord Montgomery?

Lord Montgomery occasionally talks to me about these things; I must talk to him about this.

Will the hon. Gentleman undertake that in the forthcoming debate a statement will be made by the Government relating decisions on the strength of the Army and the Air Force to defence considerations and not purely financial considerations?

Defence considerations and financial considerations are inextricably mixed. It is very difficult to get that lesson into hon. Members opposite.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of serving pay is given as retired pay to members of the Armed Forces in the United Kingdom and other member countries of the Western European Union, respectively.

With permission, I will circulate some United Kingdom examples in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am making inquiries about the position in the other countries, and will write to the hon. Gentleman.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he confinn that these figures will show that we treat our retired Servicemen worse than our allies treat theirs?