asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement as to the lessons which have been learnt as the result of exercise "Coral Sands".

Since the exercise involved the combined Services of four nations it will be some time before the final report, from which the lessons will be drawn, is completed, but initial impressions suggest that the exercise was a success and provided valuable practice in the co-ordination of combined forces.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the report by The Times correspondent, which brings out clearly the fact that aircraft carriers are essential to any British action to assist Australia in this area? In those circum stances will he reconsider his decision to scrap in 1972 all the carriers—

Order. There is another Question on aircraft carriers.

—all the carriers, including the "Ark Royal", on which the right hon. Gentleman is at present spending £30 million?

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that I am not responsible for the views of The Times correspondent, or any other newspaper correspondent.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what changes he intends to make in relation to the children of former aliens who wish to join the Armed Services.

The reasons for the present rules were stated by my hon. Friend in the Adjournment debate on 21st October last, and I have no proposals for changing them.

I appreciate that some safeguards are necessary and desirable, but does not my hon. Friend agree that in the case of children of families which once had connections with Communist States those rules are working harshly, especially when those families make it clear that they are totally out of sympathy with these régimes?

There is provision for individual cases, where the nationality rules are not complied with, to be reviewed by the Minister concerned. Such cases are reviewed with all possible sympathy, but we have to bear in mind the security aspect and also the fact that a restricted career may not be for the good of the individual.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the re-engagement rate in the Army in the current year; and what has been the rate in each of the previous five years.

Over the last five years the per- centage of men who prolonged their service on reaching the 6, 9 and 12 year option points when they could ask for a free discharge was:

(a) At the 6 year point

• in 1964 36 per cent.
• in 1965 36 per cent.
• in 1966 42 per cent.
• in 1967 50 per cent.
• in first half of 1968 50 per cent.

(b) At the 9 year point

• The figures which are available from 1967 onwards are:
• in 1967 56 per cent.
• in first half of 1968 53 per cent.

(c) At the 12 year point

• The figures which are available from 1966 onwards are:
• in 1966 87 per cent.
• in 1967 92 per cent.
• in first half of 1968 89 per cent.

In view of the failure of Government recruiting for the Services is it not all the more essential to ensure that every possible man re-engages? Is the Minister satisfied that there is a sufficient pay differential to induce people to re-engage?

These figures are reasonably satisfactory. I agree that some improvement is desirable, but it shows that serving men are satisfied with the Army and the figures of those serving who re-engage are increasing.

Are the percentages which the hon. Gentleman has given the percentages of those eligible to re-engage at the particular point? If so, has he any further comment on this situation, as to whether or not he is satisfied with this rate?

Naturally, one would like better figures, but they are better than they have been in the past.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many officers, by rank, have applied to leave each of the Services under the latest redundancy arrangements; and how these numbers compare with the numbers of vacancies in each rank.

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

Do these figures represent a scramble to get out? What reassurance has the right hon. Gentleman for serving officers that they can have a worth-while, full-time career?

I completely disagree with any suggestion that there is a scramble, as the hon. Gentleman will see when the figures are published in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow. In some areas, there are more applications than vacancies, but there is certainly no scramble.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence in connection with the unnamed frigate built by Yarrow on the Clyde for ex-President Nkrumah of Ghana, at a cost of £5 million and put up for sale by his Department more than a year ago, what offers he has received for purchase; and what disposal arrangements he is now making, including consideration of use by the Royal Navy.

I would refer to the reply to the similar Question by the hon. and gallant Member for Arundel and Shoreham (Captain Kerby) on 6th November, 1968.—[Vol. 772, c. 103.]

That reply was entirely unsatisfactory. Why is the Department permitting this vessel, which I dubbed more than a year ago the "Ghanaian Gin Palace", to lie immobilised on the Clyde? Why can it not be put to useful purpose, and converted, if necessary, for Royal Navy use?

It is obvious that the hon. Member has not read the Question and Answer to which I referred him. As to the last part of his question, the Royal Navy has no requirement for this frigate. This is entirely the responsibility of the Ghana Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent on arms bought from the United States of America in the 12 months ended 31st October, 1968, or latest convenient date, including Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force arms supplied from the United States of America; and, having regard to the policy of imports substitution by Her Majesty's Government, what plans he has to reduce United States arms purchases in the next 12 months.

As I informed the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) on 1st May, 1968, expenditure on defence equipment in the United States in 1967–68 amounted to $148 million. Expenditure in the current financial year is expected to reach $235 million. We only buy from the United States—or any other foreign source—if no similar equipment can be produced in the United Kingdom within an acceptable cost or timescale. Any purchases involving foreign exchange are subjected to the most rigorous scrutiny.—[Vol. 763, c. 198.]

But has not the hon. Gentleman observed the trade figures published a few hours ago, which show a further decline? Why is the Ministry of Defence the only Department of State which can contract out of the Government's acclaimed policy of import substitution?

The Government—this includes very much the Ministry of Defence—are very conscious of the need for import substitution. We buy from the United States only when no similar equipment is available at the time the Services require it, or when the cost of going it alone would make it considerably more expensive.

But how much of these figures represent purchases sanctioned by the previous Conservative Government, especially for Polaris submarines? Could my hon. Friend give us full information about how this is crippling the nation's resources?

I cannot, without notice, give the details, but certainly the Phantom and the Hercules are significant portions of these items. Second, the dollar cost of cancelling the F111 is likely to be about 60 million dollars, and this is included in these increased figures.

We are glad to know that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about this problem. What we want to know is, what does he propose to do about it? Once again, in the light of the trade figures today, should not the Government look at this problem and try to do something more about reducing the import cost of defence?

I should have used the word "Polaris" earlier. We are certainly very conscious of this, but there is a limit to the extent that one can go it alone on these matters. What we can do we certainly do, but if we face an unreasonable cost through going it alone, if inter-relation is to mean anything at all, we buy from the best possible source.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many men are at present recorded as absent without leave from the three Services; what proportion this represents of the total strength of each Service; and how this compares with the situation three years ago.

As I have already explained to the hon. Member, the records of absentees differ from one Service to another and have been developed over a long period of time on a basis best suited to meet the needs of each individual Service.

To provide available information which has a bearing on the hon. Member's Question involves tabling a number of figures and footnotes. With permission, therefore, I will publish them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the incidence of absenteeism is probably the best guide to the state of morale in the Service, and that there is disturbing evidence that absenteeism is on the increase? Would he consider this seriously, so as to form an overall view?

I would not agree that absenteeism is the only guide. It is a guide, and is looked at seriously all the time.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give an undertaking that no more United States parachutes will be bought for use by Service free-fall parachute display teams.

No, Sir.

Is it not extraordinary that, if there is a British operational free-fall parachute developed for Service use, Service display teams should use an American parachute?

Existing stocks of these special parachutes have been bought for a number of years and they are sufficient to last several more seasons. Therefore, there is no requirement to purchase any others at this moment.

I do not think that the Minister has understood the Question. My hon. Friend was asking whether the Government would undertake not to buy any more from the United States; he said nothing about existing stocks.

With respect, this matter does not arise, in that, for a number of years, there are sufficient existing stocks of these special parachutes, which have certain advantages for the kind of displays for which they are used. If I might bring some comfort to the right hon. Gentleman, a number of orders have been made recently and are now being delivered for the operational parachutes which are entirely British.

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

I cannot at present make a statement. The review on the future of the Royal Naval dockyards is not yet complete. I am, however, very aware of the need for urgency on this.

Would my hon. Friend understand that this is a most unsatisfactory Answer for a city in which two in five working men are employed in the dockyard and where there has been acute uncertainty for more than a year? A statement is long overdue. When can we have it?

As has been intimated previously, we are fully alive to the need to reach a decision about the Royal Dockyards without delay. Nevertheless, a subject of this magnitude requires wide, detailed examination and consultation, which precludes reaching an answer immediately.

Would the hon. Member say what decision, if any, has been reached about the propositions for expanding Portsmouth Dockyard?

We are considering all options for the Royal Dockyards, and I cannot give any definite decision yet.

When can we hear something about Plymouth Dockyard? The hon. Member is one of the representatives of the city and he knows the great importance of this. Also, when are we to have the report of the working party on dockyard technical colleges?

The hon. Lady is welt aware that I would like to give a statement as soon as possible, but I cannot especially favour Plymouth. I cannot say definitely yet when we will be able to make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence in what respects the United Kingdom's military reserves fall short of present requirements and the target for 1970–71 when the proposed withdrawals from east of Suez are complete; what proposals he has for improving this situation; and if he will make a statement.

We are currently reviewing the Army Reserves in the light of our future requirements. When the review is complete, I will be making a statement.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that inadequate and rather complacent reply seems to show clearly that the needs of Socialist Party unity and the requirements of partisan political dogma have together over-ruled national security?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman can normally do rather better than that.

Are the figures for recruitment to the Reserves, which were declining when we last debated this, still showing a similar trend, or have they picked up?

I published some more figures in answer to a Question only about a fortnight ago. I would not like to say off the cuff what the figures were. I think that there was an increase over the figures published last month, but the right hon. Gentleman must have a look. I would not want to commit myself.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what action he has taken to strengthen United Kingdom defences following the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for reinforcing the British Fleet in the Mediterranean, in view of the considerable increase in the strength of the Russian Navy there.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review the reductions in the Armed Forces proposed in the last Defence White Paper, in view of events in Eastern Europe in August.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's strategic planning as a result of the Czechoslovakian crisis.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what modifications will be made in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's plans as a result of the recent invasion of Czechoslovakia.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy regarding the British contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and regarding British defence forces, following recent events in Eastern Europe.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent it is planned that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation naval forces will be strengthened in the near future; and what discussions he has had with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries concerning this matter.

Following the improvements in our N.A.T.O. contributions which we announced in May and July of this year, we have been reviewing our present and planned defence resources to see whether we can further improve our contribution to the collective defence effort of N.A.T.O. as a whole. As the House knows, N.A.T.O. Foreign and Defence Ministers are meeting in Brussels tomorrow and Friday to discuss the European situation following the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia.

The House will not expect me to anticipate the outcome of this meeting. I will arrange to tell the House by written Answer of any increase in United Kingdom defence contribution.

Hon. Members will have noted that there are several questions about N.A.T.O. on the Order Paper for answer by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on Monday next, 18th November, and these will no doubt also provide an opportunity for the meeting to be discussed.

Will the Secretary of State assure the House that he has drawn the attention of our allies to the importance of the security of the flanks of N.A.T.O.? What conversations has he had in order to secure our oil supplies so that the cost may be shared and not borne by us alone?

The hon. Member can be assured that I have drawn it to the attention of our allies. He will recall that both in the May and in the July improvements in our contributions, we paid special attention to our capability for action on the flanks, both in the commitment of 3 Division and 38 Group, as well as in improvements in the Ace Mobile Force and improvements in the Mediterranean.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that in the new circumstances, both in the Mediterranean and elsewhere, it will be necessary for all N.A.T.O. Powers to make a contribution and that we must be seen to make our contribution?

Yes. Certainly I have well in mind the encouragement which Britain's example of improvements has given to some of our allies in this respect. I hope that we shall be able to give similar encouragement tomorrow.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he has not answered my Question, No. 31, which was not related to N.A.T.O.? As both the Prime Minister and he himself months ago stated that we were reducing our Armed Forces to an extent which was taking serious risks, should not the Government very seriously reconsider the position outside Europe?

I believe that most people on both sides of the House think that the events in Czechoslovakia confirmed the Government's wisdom in deciding to concentrate Britain's defence effort in Europe.

Is it not a fact that the events in Czechoslovakia and certain other security defects have shaken confidence in N.A.T.O.'s intelligence system? Is it not a fact that the additional contribution which the British Government are making in the Mediterranean would not affect the Czechoslovakian position? Should we not consider redeploying the armoured brigade and helicopters in Germany?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong on both points. The intelligence system of the allies worked extremely well during the whole Czechoslovakian crisis. That is agreed by all our allies. With respect, I think that the allied Governments may know more than does the hon. Member about what information in fact was circulated.

On the second question, we made it perfectly clear that the commitment of 3 Division, the Parachute Brigade and S.A.S. Regiment was for use by SACEUR wherever he decided—in the central zone just as much as on the flanks, if be should wish to operate there.

Is there not a case for saying that the military and politicial significance of the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia has been exaggerated? In view of the United States' coming reappraisal of its rôle in N.A.T.O. and its tendency to negotiate directly with the Soviet Government, is there not a danger that European interests in N.A.T.O. may be neglected in the future? Is it not desirable that we should establish some collective European view on what is happening in N.A.T.O.?

My hon. Friend will be aware that I am meeting some European members of N.A.T.O. tonight in Brussels to discuss certain European implications of the Czech crisis. Unfortunately the French Defence Minister is unable to be present tonight. I do not agree with my hon. Friend that the importance of the Soviet action has been exaggerated. In some respects it may have been misinterpreted by some commentators. It would be a great mistake not to take note of the fact that the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia indicates the possibility of further upheavals in Eastern Europe which might well present an even more direct threat to N.A.T.O. than did the last invasion. That is a fact which the Ministers meeting in Brussels tomorrow will have very much in mind.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we had had four times our present ground forces and eight times our N.A.T.O. expenditure, we still could not have deflected the invaders of Czechoslovakia by a hair's breadth? Will he reject this panic campaign by the hawks?

I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that the security which we have enjoyed in Western Europe in recent years is due to the fact that we are members of an alliance—an alliance whose leader does not reserve the right to intervene by force to maintain a political situation of which he approves, as Mr. Brezhnev indicated that it was the policy of the Soviet Government to do. I hope that my hon. Friend will draw the implications of the Czech crisis and recognise that he is indeed lucky to be a member of a country which is not liable to that type of intervention.

I will buy the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) a single ticket to Moscow.

On a point of order. I think, Mr. Speaker, that you heard the remark of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro). I was quoting what was said by a Cabinet Minister speaking at Hyde Park. I ask that the hon. Member should withdraw that remark and that the Minister should reconsider the reply which he made to me.

Order. I did not hear the remark to which the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) referred.

Further to that point of order. The remark which was addressed to my hon. Friend was quite clearly heard and it quite clearly was, "Go back to Moscow".

indicated dissent.

Should not that remark be withdrawn?

Order. Asperities in debate are not unknown to the House.

May I ask my hon. Friend whether he is satisfied with the N.A.T.O. naval organisation? Is there any likelihood of France coming in? In view of the fact that at W.E.U. there were two observers from Norway and Denmark, is there any chance of N.A.T.O. discussions with countries outside N.A.T.O.?

On the naval contribution, the hon. Lady will be aware that we have made two improvements in our naval contribution in the Mediterranean, in the statements which I made in May and in July. She may also be aware that at this moment there are 22 British naval vessels and 46 maritime aircraft participating in a N.A.T.O. naval exercise in the Mediterranean.

While not necessarily decrying the need for retaining the N.A.T.O. alliance, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he recalls that in the three previous White Papers on defence he explicitly stated that there is no evidence that the Soviet Union has aggressive designs on the West? [HON. MEMBERS: "He was wrong."] In those circumstances, is there any need—unless he knows of a special reason—why we should increase our defence expenditure in N.A.T.O.?

I have always made it clear that the reason why we believe that the Russians have no aggressive intentions against the West is that the strength and solidarity of N.A.T.O. would pose such risks to the Soviet Union if it changed its intentions as would be totally unacceptable. What I believe the Czech crisis has demonstrated is that Russia's inability to disengage peacefully from her colonial position in Eastern Europe may present threats to peace in the future even more serious than that last August. In those circumstances, it makes very good sense for the N.A.T.O. countries to ensure that those deficiencies which still exist in their organisation are made good.

Reference has been made to the oil supplies of the N.A.T.O. countries. As most of these come from the Middle East, would the Minister say how the routes over which those supplies move will be defended in the 1970s?

It has never been the Government's intention, and certainly was not the intention of the last Government, to defend the whole of the oil route around the Cape of South Africa. The fact is that access to the oil depends on a very large number of factors, many of which are far more political and economic than they are military. Hon. Members opposite should have learned some lessons from their attempt to protect our oil interests in the Middle East by force in 1956.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the increase in Russian military strength in Europe since the occupation of Czechoslovakia; and what plans he has for increasing the British contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and to improve the plans for the re-enforcement of the British Army of the Rhine in an emergency.

There have been substantial withdrawals of Warsaw Pact ground and air forces since the ratification of the Soviet/Czechoslovak Treaty on 18th October. The situation, however, is still fluid and it will be some time before a final assessment is possible. As regards the second part of the question I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to a similar question earlier today. As regards the last part of the question I must ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to await the forthcoming statement on the review of the Army Reserves.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect the Home Secretary's view earlier in the year that the Cuba crisis blew up very quickly and it was possible to form a judgment, but that other crises will take longer to develop? In view of the speed and strength of the Soviet move against Czechoslovakia, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he agrees with that ridiculous assumption?

The possibility of Soviet military intervention into Czechoslovakia has been apparent to the West since February this year. The physical possibility has been apparent since July. In a situation like this, of course, when troops are actually assembled on a frontier and have a dry run for intervention, it is possible that the final decision to intervene may be taken without any notice at all, and we have always recognised that, in such circumstances, that would always be the case.

Would my right hon. Friend not also agree that the invasion of Czechoslovakia has demonstrated very clearly that the Russians could no longer depend upon the peoples of the various countries in Eastern Europe and that this in itself creates an entirely new situation? Does this not mean that the time has come for this Government to get back to the principles laid down by Hugh Gaitskell and get cracking on a conference leading to a security pact for Europe?

My hon. Friend must recognise the fact that the Soviet leaders have asserted on two occasions recently—Mr. Brezhnev did it in Warsaw yesterday, I think—that the Soviet Government reserve the right to intervene with military force to prevent a change in what they call "the Socialist system" in a country which they call "already Socialist." I think that my hon. Friend will agree that in the case of Czechoslovakia the intervention was against the wishes of the Czechoslovak Communist Party, and I am afraid that one of the lessons of the Czech invasion which one must accept is the fact that the presence of Soviet forces in Europe is directed as much to the maintenance of Soviet colonial control over those countries as to posing a threat to the West. That being the case, the chance of the Russians being prepared at this moment to negotiate reciprocal reductions by agreement with the West is very much less than we would all hope.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether in view of the new situation created by the Russian armed invasion of Czechoslovakia, he propses to continue the rundown of British forces in West Germany.

No such rundown is in progress although, as regards the Royal Air. Force, there will be a temporary drop in the number of aircraft stationed in Germany during the forthcoming re-equpiment programme.

Did not the invasion of Czechoslovakia show the great mobility of Soviet forces? Does not that, therefore, make it more necessary that troops should be stationed in Germany rather than kept in reserve a long way away?

This can be so in some circumstances and the hon. Gentleman will be aware that 6 Brigade returned to Germany shortly after the Czech crisis and demonstrated its capability of reinforcement in case of need.

Could my right hon. Friend promise an early comment on the statement made yesterday by General Lemnitzer that, arising from Czechoslovakia, this country and other N.A.T.O. countries should reintroduce compulsory military training for their Services?

I am not aware that he addresed any such remarks to this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many military aid to the civil community projects were completed in Scotland in 1968; and what was their cost;

Some 60 projects were carried out in Scotland in 1968, and at present about 30 are under consideration for 1969. As they all provide good training for the Services, they are financed from Defence Votes. However, any expenditure additional to the normal cost of training is recovered from the organisations concerned; so far this year it amounts to some £15,000.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the undoubted success of this imaginative project, and is it not possible, in reference to additional funds, for the Government to provide some funds which are not on the Defence Vote, or loosen up the uses for which Defence Vote funds, are given?

The main effort is through training. This is an essential of the scheme, but it would be very much blurred if the costs were not on the Defence Vote.

Would the hon. Gentleman accept that the people of Scotland are delighted that these works are carried out by the Army, and will he make every effort to encourage them as they help the civilian population and also assist Army training?

Yes. That is what we are doing.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when it is intended that H.M.S. "Kent" will be taken in hand for boiler repairs.

As a result of the decision which we have now taken not to convert H.M. Ships "Kent" and "London" to carry Sea Slug II, the former will be given a long refit starting towards the end of 1969, in the course of which these repairs will be undertaken.

As the ship's boilers have been completely out of action for three months already, is the delay, to which the Minister referred, due to financial considerations affecting this financial year, or due to shortage of dockyard capacity?

The main reason for the delay is the change in the decision not to carry Seaslug II. There are still manning difficulties, but these are only a part of the reason.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I spent three days in H.M.S. "Kent", when she was taking a most vigorous and effective part in a N.A.T.O. exercise, so that the defect in the boilers can hardly be of real importance, and that, therefore, the delay is not of real consequence?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Of course, there is only a slight reduction in her maximum speed as a result of this boiler damage.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how the male adult strength of the Royal Air Force now compares with the strength in October, 1964.

The male adult strength of the Royal Air Force at 1st October, 1968, was 108,920. This compares with a figure of 123,669 at 1st October, 1964.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Defence said a year ago that we were taking a risk with this nation's defences and that since then we have this poor recruiting figure, this poor re-engagement figure, a further reduction in the Reserves, and the massive invasion of Czechoslovakia? In view of these factors, is it not time that the Government stopped the run-down of the forces and tried to get more recruits and to encourage re-engagement?

At the present moment, and up to next year, the Royal Air Force is not having any particular manning difficulties in meeting its responsibilities.

Would my right hon. Friend say whether the reduction of personnel has been compensated for by increased strength in other departments?

If my hon. Friend means in the strength of the Royal Air Force itself, the new aircraft equipment programme will mean that the aircraft will be of greater capability than existing aircraft.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the approximate estimate of his department's publicity and recruiting expenditure this year; what percentage this represents of total Government publicity expenditure; and how this percentage compares with the two previous years.

I estimate that about £3 million will be spent on recruiting publicity this year on the Votes of the Central Office of Information and Stationery Office. This is 48 per cent. of the total sum they expect to incur on Government publicity expenditure this year. In 1967–68 and 1966–67 the percentage was 58 per cent. and 59 per cent. respectively.

Does the run-down of 75,000 Servicemen in the adjustment of recruitment announced in January hold good? If so, why this lavish recruiting expenditure?

I think I have pointed out to my hon. Friend before that we still, despite the announced run-down, wish to recruit some 35,000 men every year for all three Services in order to make up a proper age and training balance within the Services. We must, by the very nature of armed forces, have a continual inflow of young men. I am convinced, and so are the Government, that despite the run-down there are still a good life and good training and career prospects in the forces for as many young men as we can get up to the 35,000.

Have not the results of recruiting been very disappointing, mainly because of the Government's general attitude and panic cuts in the last two years, including the intention to abolish the Argylls?

The constant references to defence reductions, I suppose, are inevitable in view of the Government's decisions and because it is always news of reductions and cuts which appear in the newspapers. This may be part of the reason, but a very important reason is that the number of young men in the age group is dropping each year at the present moment because the competition due to the Industrial Training Act makes it easier outside the Services to get the skilled training which at one time was available only in the Services.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the shortfall in officers and adult male other ranks separately in each of the three Services compared with the establishment strength.

As the Answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, publish it in the Official Report.

But is the Minister aware that when I recently visited the Services in the Far East there was great disquiet at the run-down, and uncertainty amongst all ranks as to their future, and that this affects recruiting very considerably?

I think the figures given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army earlier apply to the other Services as well. We are finding that re-engagement among the Services is increasing. This does not seem to back up the hon. Gentleman's allegations about uncertainty.

Would my right hon. Friend look at the problem of Service men discharged because of ill health, and consider pensioning those men—and women—who fail in health?

It depends on how much service they have got in before discharge through ill health takes place, but I do accept that, because people are housed by the Services, then in many cases of discharge through ill health there are difficulties which are quite different from the difficulties of civilians who lose their jobs through ill health.

Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the question which the Under-Secretary of State could not answer on re-engagement, namely, whether the percentages which the Government give represent the percentage of those available to re-engage at the date in question?

For the life of me I cannot offhand think of any other way of calculating it, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many infantry battalions are below establishment strength; and by how many men.

43 out of 59 British infantry battalions are below established strength; the average number of men short per battalion is 44.

Is not the Minister aware that many thoughtful people think that it is complete lunacy on the part of the Government to contemplate any rundown at all of those excellent and comparatively cheap soldiers, namely, the Gurkhas?

No.

Watkins asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to provide a Youth Service for British Service personnel and their dependants in Germany.

A Youth Service to cater for the needs of British Service families in Germany is now being established.

A Chief Youth Service Officer and three assistants are now being appointed. They will organise activities similar to those provided in Britain by local education authorities.

Every encouragement will be given to voluntary youth organisations and to the training of part-time youth leaders as well as to the directly sponsored youth clubs.

This is very welcome news. Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that the facilities will be sufficiently widespread as to be available for all young people, Servicemen and their dependants, at bases throughout Germany?

That is what we are aiming to do.

Have the voluntary organisations which form the C.V.W.W. and are at present working in Germany with the troops, been asked to co-operate by assisting with personnel and "know-how" in this new service?

I should want notice of that supplementary question, but they were certainly consulted in the early days when a review was made of the whole situation. I will write to the hon. Gentleman in detail.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many medical officers in the Royal Air Force have left in the last year; and what is the annual intake;

(2) how many medical officers in the Royal Army Medical Corps have left in the last year; and what is the annual intake.

In the 12 months ending 30th September, 1968. 73 medical officers left the Royal Air Force and 37 entered productive service. In the same period, 63 left the Royal Army Medical Corps and 75 entered productive service.

Do not the two figures, taken together, show an alarming decrease, and is not that decrease due to the emoluments in the medical services being so much less than what these officers can get elsewhere? Should not both medical services be put together in one corps, and well trained people be properly paid?

I do not accept that the figures I have just given are alarming in themselves. Of course, if carried on for any length of time, they would put us in a very unsatisfactory position. As to the conditions of service, the hon. Gentleman will realise that this is precisely the aspect that is at present being looked at by the Prices and Incomes Board, which will in due course publish a report. As for having one medical corps, I would say that whilst there are a lot of common functions which may be operated by one service on behalf of the other, or jointly by the two, there is, at the moment, no proposal to amalgamate the two, and there would be considerable difficulties involved in doing so.

Can the right hon. Gentleman, without notice, give comparable figures for the Navy?

If asked, I could.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the security and other implications for British interests of the theft of a Sidewinder rocket from a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation base.

Sidewinder has been in service for more than 10 years. It is used by many nations, and combat losses have occurred. The theft which occurred a year ago is, therefore, not considered to have any great military significance.

Whilst it has no military significance, would not the Secretary of State agree that it is very alarming that a Soviet agent can enter a N.A.T.O. base and steal such a rocket? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he has made enough security arrangements to make sure that such a theft could not be made from a British base?

We have had no such thefts from British bases, and I am satisfied with our security in this respect.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on preparations for the defence of the Persian Gulf area after 1971.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning local defence prospects for the Persian Gulf area after 1971.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution will be made by the United Kingdom to defence in the Persian Gulf after 1971.

After 1971, arrangements for defence in the Persian Gulf will be primarily the responsibility of the States in the area.

Since the States concerned are prepared to pay for the limited number of British troops required in the Persian Gulf, and since the Government continually press the German Government to pay for British troops in Germany, will not the Government reconsider this position and ensure that no vacuum is created in the Persian Gulf in 1971 which would be a temptation for another Power to occupy?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that since we announced our decision to withdraw there has been very heartening progress in the Gulf towards the creation of arrangements among the local peoples for their own defence, and I do not think that we should do anything to disturb the progress which is being made in this respect.

Can my right hon. Friend say what rôle he thinks the Trucial Oman Scouts may play in the independent union in that territory after 1971?

That will be a question for the local Governments, and particularly for the Government of the Arab Emirates, to decide, but I hope that they will recognise the great quality of these men and find a proper use for them.

Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the protection of the routes over which British oil will travel in the 'seventies can be safely left to the Powers in the area?

I cannot, of course, give such an assurance, but I would again remind the House that when members of the party opposite tried to protect routes in 1956 by the use of force they delivered a blow to oil supplies and to our influence in the Arab world from which this country has not yet recovered.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will reject the Opposition's suggestion that British troops should act as mercenaries paid by the nations of the Persian Gulf?

I have made my views on this matter clear.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are being taken to prepare the armed forces to fill the gap left by the abolition of the Civil Defence organisation and particularly to provide mobile units capable of providing rescue and other essential services in cases of major national disaster.

We have recently been reviewing our arrangements for assistance by the Services in peacetime emergencies to see how they can be improved. Details of the arrangements are included in a pamphlet covering all aspects of "Military Aid to the Civil Community", which is now being printed and will be issued shortly to local authorities and other interested organisations.

Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that in many cases the Armed Forces are not deployed either in the place or in the form in which they can give the best and most effective assistance immediately in time of national disaster? As the Government seem determined to destroy voluntary organisations, is it not essential that the Army is so deployed that it can go to the aid of the local authorities at such times?

It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman was not present during the debate last night. I sat through it all, and there was not a single criticism of this sort made. Such points as effected the Services were answered effectively by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether, in view of the agreed sale of defence land on Hendon Airfield to Barnet Council for £4·15 million for payment in the current financial year, he will allow access to the small portion needed whilst details of the negotiations are resolved, without levying interest charges on the whole purchase.

The Barnet Borough Council already has access to the site. I am considering representations it has made to me concerning payment of interest; but I am not yet in a position to give a reply.

Will the Minister bear in mind that as he appears to intend to release large numbers of acres and defence facilities in Singapore at no charge at all, it seems a little illogical to charge British ratepayers and British taxpayers very high sums for defence land not needed, and particularly levying percentage charges which will, of course, fall on the rents of local council tenants in our area?

There are legitimate precedents for giving away—if the hon. Gentleman wishes to call it that—overseas bases. When he himself was in office, some of the figures involved, in terms of value, were such that they would make anything we are doing now look very small beer indeed. There is also an accepted principle, which I am following, for arrangements for the disposal of Government land in this country. One problem at present is that the Public Accounts Committee of the House attacked myself and the Government last year for not pressing local authorities to pay promptly for land being handed over to them.

Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that in the Barnet area there is great concern about this matter? Will he be as bold as he can be, even in the face of the Public Accounts Committee?

The Public Accounts Committee has a responsibility to this House, and so have I.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of the Royal Navy's aircraft carriers.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the rôle that he plans for H.M.S. "Eagle" and H.M.S. "Ark Royal" in the 1970's.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether Her Majesty's Government will now reconsider its policy of eventual disbandment of the aircraft carrier force of the Royal Navy.

Our plans for the aircraft carrier force are unchanged, that is to say it will be phased-out as soon as our military withdrawals from Malaysia, Singapore and the Persian Gulf have been completed. These withdrawals are due to complete by the end of 1971.

When will the Minister realise that British shipping in time of war will have to be protected or we shall starve? Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that in certain areas of the world this is impossible without seaborne fixed-wing aircraft? Is not this the advice he is getting from all our allies?

When will hon. Members opposite realise that it has never been—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—the policy of Her Majesty's Government to be able to protect the seaways of the world alone?

Will the hon. Gentleman categorically deny reports that H.M.S. "Eagle" and H.M.S. "Ark Royal" are to be turned over to N.A.T.O. and re-equipped with American aircraft?

No decisions have been made as to what is to happen to the aircraft carriers when they are phased out in 1971.

On a point of order. I beg to give notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how the present male adult strength of the Royal Navy compares with the strength in November, 1964.

The adult male strength of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines at the 1st October, 1968, and 1964 was 80,870 and 84,570 respectively.

Observing what General Lemnitzer said yesterday about complacency in N.A.T.O. leading to a situation where we seem to invite aggression, will the hon. Gentleman consult his right hon. Friend who is engaged in discussions at the moment, to see whether the Government should overhaul their entire policy and stop reducing the strength of the Royal Navy and other forces?

As the hon. and gallant Gentleman will know the planned reduction under Vote A over the period 1964–65 and 1968–69 is of the order of 5,000. Strengths have fallen faster than planned due to severe shortfalls in recruiting.

asked the Secretary of State of Defence what cuts in expenditure have taken place in defence establishments in the County of Midlothian; and to what extent the cuts will affect industrial undertakings doing defence work in the county.

During the past 12 months the net change in Ministry of Defence establishments in the County of Midlothian, including the City of Edinburgh, has been small. The overall effect has certainly not been significant enough to make a measurable impact on local industrial undertakings.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that with the pit closures at present upon us and others which are looming on the horizon, employment prospects are vital to the constituency of Midlothian? Will he agree that if we are to have defence expenditure there are establishments in Midlothian which are entitled to fair consideration in view of employment problems?

With the contraction of the defence forces, of course, one continuously comes up against the effect that closeures might or might not have on specific areas. I can assure my hon. Friend that the type of problem he has in mind is fully considered in conjunction with other Government Departments.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is aware that ex-Royal Air Force men, after 30 years' service and living mostly in married quarters, are unable to get favourable consideration on local government housing lists; and if he will consult with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, with a view to introducing legislation, to give priority to such men at the end of their service.

I recognise that men leaving the Services require special consideration if they are to obtain council housing. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government have issued advice to local authorities that they should waive residential qualification requirements for ex-Servicemen in certain circumstances, and the whole question has been referred to a Sub-Committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee which is currently reviewing the practice of housing authorities in allocating tenancies. Any question of legislation must of course await the report of this Committee.

What notice are local authorities taking of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government on this recommendation? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that especially R.A.F. men, who have to spend much time abroad, are penalised when the local authority says that they are not on the housing list and these men cannot get on to it? Cannot he do something for them?

As a result of the Circular sent out by the then Minister of Housing and Local Government in 1965, when a mere handful of housing authorities throughout England and Wales and some in Scotland were operating the arrangement whereby a man can get his name on the housing list before he leaves the Service and does not have to have a residential qualification in the area, I am advised that now the vast majority of authorities, particularly those in Service areas, are doing a great deal in this respect.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that this difficult position arises partially from the diminishing stock of council houses due to their sale by Conservative-controlled authorities?

That could be the case in some areas.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will propose to the Government of Sweden the holding of joint exercises for international peacekeeping with the armed forces of Sweden.

As my hon. Friend will know, United Kingdom and Swedish forces are serving together in the U.N. Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus. The United Nations Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations is examining U.N. peacekeeping arrangements and I should prefer to await the outcome of that examination before considering what might be the best steps for us to take next.

While I welcome the generally encouraging tone of that reply, would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is important if we are to make progress in any international peacekeeping to have regular experiments and exercises between this country and friendly nations?