asked the Secretary of State for Defence which local authorities have been officially consulted during the present review of Royal Naval dockyards and their future.

None, Sir.

Is my hon. Friend aware that for the whole world of dockyard communities, such as that in my own constituency, it is really most important that they should not be presented with a fait accompli by the Ministry and that proper consultation with those communities should take place?

The social and industrial implications of possible changes in the dockyard organisation are being fully taken into account, and full consultation is going on between Government Departments. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the normal channels of communication between the Government and the regional planning councils' chairmen will also be used.

May I ask why, since I gave evidence before one of the Committees dealing with dockyard technical colleges, I am not allowed to receive any information?

That does not arise out of this Question. It is not related to the dockyard review but the report on the dockyard technical colleges.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether, in view of the United States Government's recent publication of the numbers of deliverable nuclear weapons in the possession of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America, details of which are in his possession, he will give the details of the additional British contribution to the Western nuclear superiority over the Warsaw Pact Powers.

The British contribution to the collective Western strategic nuclear deterrent has until recently been provided entirely by the V-bomber force. As the Polaris force comes into service it will progressively take over this rôle.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but does he have any evidence to support the accuracy of Mr. Mark Clifford's statistics, particularly in relation to the U.S.S.R.? Were consultations carried out with N.A.T.O. members before these top secret details were disclosed publicly?

The nuclear deterrent strength of the U.S.S.R. is, I suppose, top secret in the Soviet Union, but it is not necessarily top secret in other countries which found they had information on it; but the information given by Mr. Clifford has been generally available to N.A.T.O. for some time.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when the Government will renegotiate the Nassau agreement as promised by the Prime Minister?

No, not now.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress is being made in the run down of British forces in the Persian Gulf.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence by what date he now estimates the withdrawal from the Gulf will start and be completed.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state to what extent British forces are being reduced in the Persian Gulf.

The withdrawal of British forces from the Persian Gulf will be completed by the end of 1971. Initial steps to effect this withdrawal are already being taken.

Can the Secretary of State say what part he believes the Trucial Oman Scouts may play as British forces are run down?

I hope very much that the Trucial Oman Scouts will play some role in the forces of the units of the Arab Emirates.

If the Gulf States are not properly organised defence-wise by the time withdrawal is due to be completed, have the Government got a contingency plan till such time as they are properly organised?

The British Government do not intend to maintain commitments in this part of the world after our withdrawal is concluded by the end of 1971.

Is the Secretary of State aware that I found in the Gulf this autumn that the keenest supporters of the Government's policy for withdrawal are the ordinary Service men, separated as they are from their families [Interruption.]—this is an absolute fact which can be confirmed—and that they say, and I ask, why wait three years if we are to move?

The Government believe that we must give the local countries, particularly those to which we have present commitments, some opportunity to reorganise their forces before our withdrawal. I am glad to say that this was very well reported, if I may say so, in an article in last Sunday's Sunday Times —that more progress has been made in the last nine months towards reaching a viable political arrangement in the Gulf than had been made in the last twenty years.

The Secretary of State did not really answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). Is not the position this, that if successful arrangements for local defence are concluded between the Sheikhdoms we may or we may not have a title to stay, but if they are not concluded the Government will certainly be obliged to stay?

I have already made it clear that the Government have reached agreement with the Ruler of Kuwait on the termination of the British defence arrangement.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of the remaining units of the Northamptonshire Yeomanry.

This title is now borne only by "A" Company (Northamptonshire Yeomanry), the Northamptonshire Regiment (Territorial). When this Regiment disbands, its title may be preserved in the way explained in my statement of 28th November, by being conferred on a cadre.—[Vol. 774, c. 739–48.]

Would the Minister consider re-forming the Northamptonshire Yeomanry as a squadron based on the county, with another two squadrons based on the two neighbouring counties, so that the three squadrons can form a three-counties regiment and so keep the yeomanry spirit of those people in those counties who long to serve in a yeomanry regiment?

I fail to see how that will be possible within the plan recently announced.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in 1939 the Northamptonshire Yeomanry was expanded from one squadron into two very fine regiments? Would he not consider it prudent to keep it in existence, even in a very small form, in case a similar expansion is needed in future?

What the hon. Member has just said applied to pretty well every Territorial unit in the country in 1938.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Army reserves.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my statement on 28th November.—[Vol. 774; c. 739–48.]

Do the Government propose to extend the commitment of any of the 160,000 men who would otherwise be released from the Army General Reserve in June 1969?

I have nothing to add on that point to the statement which I made on the 28th, namely, that I shall be making a statement on it in due course.

Will the right hon. Gentleman elaborate on something which he did not answer on Monday on the cadres of eight men. In what circumstances does be visualise these being expanded, and what categories of men would be called into these cadres?

The principle role of the cadres is to support designated TAVR II units with whom they will be working. Once that task is finished, after mobilisation they will be available for any other military purpose for which they are required, but their main task is to support the TAVR II.

Will the right hon. Gentleman assist us all by confirming that these tongue-twisting categories among the voluntary reserves, which we all find so difficult, need no longer be bothered about, because all units now in the voluntary reserve, including the cadres, will form part of the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve?

The right hon. Gentleman is almost right; there will be two categories. People tend to forget Category 4 in which there are a number of unusual types of units. So far as the tongue-twisting side is concerned, there were three categories before 1967.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the role of the carrier to be added to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces in the Mediterranean.

As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration informed the House on 14th November, an aircraft carrier will alternate with a commando ship or an assault ship in providing an almost continuous large ship presence in the Mediterranean from January, 1969. The rôle of all three ships will be to make a major contribution to the forces immediately available on the southern flank of N.A.T.O.—[Vol. 773, c. 146–7.]

Will the carrier alternating in the Mediterranean be able to carry fixed-wing aircraft after 1971?

After the carrier force phases out in 1972, there will be no carrier in the Mediterranean. The amphibious force by that time will be permanently stationed in the area.

Does the Mediterranean include the Black Sea?

Not for these purposes.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy with regard to the commitment of ships of the Royal Navy to the Mediterranean in the foreseeable future.

asked the Secretary of S: ate for Defence what action he is taking to strengthen the naval forces of the United Kingdom on the southern flank of: he North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration on 14th November, in reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon).—[Vol. 773, c. 146–7.]

But are not the Soviet forces in the Mediterranean far too small to justify any increased commitment there? Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the real danger is that, in the foreseeable future, the Soviet Union might establish an air force presence in Egypt or Algeria and that the correct way of dealing with that would be through diplomatic and economic measures?

The tone of that supplementary question is almost exactly the opposite of the tone of my hon. Friend's previous one, to an almost identical Question. It is, of course, true that there is no military action by the West which could influence the desire of the Soviet Union to put air forces into Egypt or Algeria, or the readiness of the Egyptian or Algerian Government to receive those forces. I am glad to say that there is no current evidence available to me that the Soviet Union has any such intention. On the other hand, the increase in Soviet naval activity, of a seasonal nature, as we have made clear, in the last year or two has required a certain increase, particularly in the long term reconnaissance capability of N.A.T.O. forces in the Mediterranean. I am very glad to say that the British Government are making a major contribution to the increase in this reconnaissance capability.

Is it the Government's opinion that the southern flank of N.A.T.O. rests on the Mediterranean regardless of changing circumstances?

It is true that the Mediterranean is to the south of Europe, and that is likely to remain so for a very long time.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that it is an adequate use of re- sources to spend £30 million on refitting "Ark Royal" for only about two years' use, or is he now planning on a longer period?

No, Sir. I agree that this might well seem an odd decision, but I am not prepared to expose our forces to the risk of being without this type of cover before we have provided the type of capability that we will need when the carrier goes. For that reason, in order to make the general saving possible through the phasing out of the carrier force in 1972, it is necessary to maintain a credible and effective military force up to that date, and the refit of "Ark Royal" is one necessary means of doing that.

We all appreciate the strengthening of the southern flank of N.A.T.O. and the presence of ships in the Mediterranean, but is it not wasteful to use an aircraft carrier? Is this not an area where shore-based aircraft can carry out this reconnaissance, thus releasing the carrier for other parts of the world where it may be invaluable and essential?

As I made clear at the time of the original announcement, the aircraft carrier will not be continuously in the Mediterranean but will fill in the gaps there when an assault or commando ship cannot be there. The periods during the next few years when a carrier will be in the Mediterranean are comparatively short. I myself strongly share the view of the American admiral quoted in a Times interview this morning that a visible capability in the Mediterranean is an important counter to the visible capability provided by the Soviet Union. In this respect, the aircraft carrier has a unique value.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory and frivolous nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Order. Notice must be given in the conventional way.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what capability is being planned to enable the Royal Navy to counteract the Soviet Navy's cruise missiles.

Besides direct engagement of the missile ship, the Royal Navy's counter to cruise missiles will be provided by the Sea Slug surface-to-air missile system and by the new close range Sea Wolf and medium range Sea Dart systems now under development. Electronic countermeasures against this form of attack will also be available.

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that these cruise missiles have a range of 300 plus miles and, since they are air controlled in the initial stages, is it not vital for the Navy to have control of the air space within a reasonable range of its ships?

I am satisfied that the Royal Navy is being provided with the most effective defence against missile attack, and support for Her Majesty's ships subject to such attack would be available from fixed-wing aircraft operated from shore bases after the carriers phase out, and from fleet submarines.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the Canberra replacement to enter service.

The tasks undertaken by the Canberras will be taken over by the Buccaneer and the Vulcan, which are already in service, and in the later 1970s by an advanced combat aircraft.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that had the TSR2 not been cancelled by the Government in a Budget statement it would have been in service this year, even on the Prime Minister's most pessimistic calculations? Is he satisfied that the R.A.F. can go on with no proper low-level all-weather strike capability, in view of the undertakings given by the Foreign Secretary and the threats to Russia in N.A.T.O. recently?

As the House is well aware, this is well-trodden ground. The Royal Air Force would have preferred an aircraft like the TSR2 or the F111, but as a low-level strike aircraft the Buccaneer is very good indeed and represents a substantial advance on the Canberra, and the hon. Member should accept that.

What is the estimated cost of providing an all-British Canberra replacement?

If my hon. Friend is referring to the advanced combat aircraft, we are now in the middle of discussions on that, and I have nothing to add to the statement made recently by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what improvements he is making in plans for the future defence of British merchant shipping; and whether he will make a statement.

Measures for merchant ship protection are under constant review and the situation is discussed regularly with shipowners in the Shipping Defence Advisory Committee.

Does the Minister appreciate the tremendous concern among ship-owners and service planners on the extent of this problem? Will he consider, as a constructive suggestion, that selected merchant ships should be gradually fitted with platforms from which helicopters can operate in emergency?

We will consider all constructive suggestions, particularly those from the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

In view of recent Press reports of foreign ships in and about the North Sea what are the Government doing to increase the strength of the protection squadron there?

We have a very adequate protection squadron which is constantly at sea, and we have had no complaints that they are not carrying out their duties satisfactorily.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has now given consideration to raising the level of pre-1956 service pensions; and if he will make a statement.

We have been considering the problems of the older pensioners for some time, and any action we take will come within the context of a Pensions (Increase) Measure. I would therefore refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General on 27th November to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes.—[Vol. 774, c. 117.]

When the promised pensions increase Bill appears, will the Minister bear in mind the pledges made by his party when seeking election that the purchasing power of pensions would not be eroded?

I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Gentleman must wait for the Bill, he will then see what is in it.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in the project for the Anglo-German multi-purpose military aircraft.

The position reached by the United Kingdom, Germany, Holland and Italy on a multi-role combat aircraft project, was explained by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Technology in reply to Questions on 27th November, 1968. I have nothing to add.—[Vol. 774, c. 469–70.]

Is it not time that the Minister of Defence took urgent action to fill the gap which will appear in the Air Force defences in view of the cancellation of the TSR2 and the misjudgment by the Government over the Phantom and the F111?

The misjudgment on the Phantom was the previous Government's decision to produce the 1154 as a maritime aircraft before they discovered that the law of gravity applied to such aircraft as well as to land aircraft. If I may answer the serious part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, we have, as I have told the House repeatedly, been working continuously on this problem for the last 12 months, but we are convinced that it is highly desirable that we should seek to fill the gap in common with our European allies in filling a similar gap in their own air forces. We have made substantial pro- gress in this direction, and I hope that the feasibility study will be completed within a month from now.

Will the Secretary of State now answer the Question which I put to him in the debate on Monday to which he did not reply, as to whether or not there is any truth in the report that there are two designs, one aircraft to be built in this country and a different one in Germany? Will he confirm whether or not this is true, and also answer the question put earlier by my hon. Friend as to whether in any circumstances we would consider going ahead with this aircraft ourselves, if necessary on our own?

Of course we would consider going ahead on our own if it were impossible to produce a common European aircraft, but I have every hope that we shall succeed in the venture. On the first question, the Jaguar aircraft is being produced in Britain and France in five versions, and it is being produced 33 months after development started. This is an example of what can be done by collaboration between countries. There will no doubt be more than one version of the multi-role combat aircraft as well; indeed, the name multi-role combat aircraft rather suggests that there might be more than one version.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on his detailed proposals for the future of Bovingdon Royal Air Force Station.

As already announced, R.A.F., Bovingdon, will close early in 1969. It is not yet certain that there is no further defence requirement for the airfield and therefore it is not possible to make a detailed statement about the future of Bovingdon at this stage. If the airfield itself is disposed of, certain peripheral sites containing married quarters may be retained.

Will there be satisfactory arrangements to protect Service property when the station closes, and will the Minister bear in mind the offer of the local authority to safeguard at least some of the Service installations from vandalism?

The hon. Gentleman in fact wrote to me about this matter a few weeks ago. If I remember rightly, I replied saying that we were prepared to discuss any proposal with the parish council. I have since heard nothing.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will set out in the OFFICIAL REPORT the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation regulations which ensure that arms supplied to North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies are restricted in their use to North Atlantic Treaty Organisation purposes; and if he will make a statement.

There are no such regulations.

Can my right hon. Friend give the House a categorical assurance that arms supplied for the defence of freedom and democracy will never be used for the suppression of freedom fighters in Portuguese territories of Africa and elsewhere, and, if not, why not?

I cannot give an assurance on behalf of all Governments in the world. But what I can say is that Her Majesty's Government have for some time pursued a policy of not providing the Portuguese Government with arms which are primarily relevant to colonial war. I must remind my hon. Friend that this may not be the view of Her Majesty's Opposition.

Since Her Majesty's Government rely on the security of such territories for communications round the Cape, is not this attitude a lot of humbug? Is not an extension of the responsibilities of N.A.T.O. to overseas territories vital to the security of Europe?

No. The hon. Gentleman must accept that many considerations of foreign policy as well as security have to be borne in mind when decisions on this type of matter are taken. I believe that it is important for the interests of the United Kingdom that we should be seen to be in support of the natural desire of the African peoples for independence.

Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer a question that I put to him on Monday which he did not then answer? Will he confirm that the Government are now reconsidering their ban on the export of arms to South Africa for external defence?

I am delighted to be able to answer that question with an unequivocal no.

On a point of order. On two separate occasions I have heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman refer to a question which he put to my right hon. Friend on Monday. Are we dealing with Monday Club questions or today's Questions?

Order. That is a most interesting point of order.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total cost of American equipment for the Armed Forces of the Crown delivered during the 12 months ended 30th November, 1968, compared with 12 months ended 30th November, 1964; and what is the value of planned acceptances of United States equipment for 12 months ending 30th November, 1969.

I regret that information in the form requested is not available. The amount paid from Defence Votes for American equipment in 1964–65 has been estimated at £21 million. The figure for 1968–69 is now estimated at £90 million.

At a time when everyone in this country is being squeezed for imports by the import deposit scheme, is it proper that the Government should be spending vastly increased sums on American equipment, the great bulk of which could be produced in this country with a little intelligence and foresight?

If we had gone on with the plans of the Conservative Administration, which the hon. Gentleman supported and which we inherited, we would have had a much larger Polaris and Phantom force and the deliveries would have been at their peak this year. Therefore, the total dollar bill for 1968–69 would have been much heavier. In addition, we would have been paying vastly greater sums on aircraft and equipment at home as well.

Can the hon. Gentleman say why imports of military aircraft which are paid for in dollars are not included in the balance of payments figures for this country?

That is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it is clear how it is dealt with.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of his plan to purchase $1,000 million of arms from the United States of America over the next 10 years.

There is no plan such as my hon. Friend seems to have in mind. As he well knows, it is not the practice to give detailed forecasts of expenditure beyond the current financial year.

Immediately, then, can, the exact nature of offset agreements be made public?

If my hon. Friend will put down a particular question on offset agreements I will try to answer it. But, as he knows, the present offset agreement has worked remarkably well, despite cancellation of the F.111, and we are at the same time making strenuous efforts to increase sales of equipment to the United States.

Is the figure of £90 million for purchases of American equipment during 1969 after taking into account offset supplies to the United States of America, or before?

The question which I have answered refers directly to the matters about which the hon. Gentleman asked, what were these sales—

Answer the question.—[Interruption.]

Order.

The arrogance of the hon. Gentleman is very unbecoming. I have sought to answer him already, and I have done so in the terms of the question he asked.

Surely the Minister can do a little more to help the House? My hon. Friend asked a perfectly clear question. Has not the Minister the information to give the House in answer to it?

I have made it clear to the House that the question asked by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) was primarily related to the question of arms that we had bought from the United States. The answer referred directly to the question asked by the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he is aware that there is no room for a parade ground at the new headquarters of No. 78 (Wembley) Squadron, Air Training Corps in Harrow Road, Wembley; and what steps he is taking to rectify this;

Air Training Corps squadrons do not have an entitlement to the provision of parade grounds at public expense. This squadron occupies a small part of a surplus Territorial Army centre. The remainder of the centre, including the derelict buildings, is being disposed of. Demolition of these buildings will be a matter for the next owners.

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that some small amount of drill is necessary for any Air Training Corps unit? How does he think this unit will obtain the drill?

A few A.T.C. units, where there is space which has had to be tarmacadamed to stop it getting derelict, have small parade grounds. But there never has been, and I cannot see any justification for making it, an entitlement for Air Training Corps units to be given parade grounds.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence in what overseas territories British infantry, including Gurkhas, are still serving.

As well as West Germany and Berlin, British infantry units (some of which are Gurkhas) are serving in Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, the Persian Gulf, Cyprus, Libya, Malta, Gibraltar and British Honduras.

The hon. Gentleman appears to have left Mauritius out of the list, and no doubt there are places in the Caribbean where they are serving. It does not seem to be a comprehensive list. Does not even that list prove that on the 66 occasions when British forces have been concerned since the end of the Second World War, it is the infantry which is so often essential for the preservation of peace? Therefore, is it wise to go on with the rapid run down of these forces?

Yes. The present arrangements are perfectly satisfactory for dealing with this situation, including Mauritius.

Can my hon. Friend tell the House the exact strength of British forces in Hong Kong and their purpose? Is it to defend Hong Kong against American naval vessels in Victoria Harbour or against any attack by China?

It is not customary to reveal the exact strength of forces in places like Hong Kong.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress is being made in the five-Power discussions and plans arising out of the Kuala Lumpur conference in June, 1968.

Confidential discussions betwen the countries represented at the Five Power Conference have been pro-ceding with a view to establishing effective co-operative arrangements for the defence of Malaysia and Singapore. As the Conference Communiqué made clear, it is hoped to carry these consultations a stage further at a Ministerial Meeting in the first half of 1969.

We understand that the Secretary of State initiated this conference in June last year and we learn that he is going there again in June this year. In view of the rapid rundown in this part of the world, does he not feel some sense of urgency to try to take some leadership so that we can co-ordinate our defence efforts in a very important part of the world for Britain?

I do not think that any of our allies would dispute that we have been very much in the lead in this matter throughout. But the Australian Government, for various reasons, have had some difficulty in deciding precisely what their policy should be in this part of the world after 1971. Until they are clear about their own position in these matters, certain aspects of five Power co-operation will be difficult to tackle.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the result of his further consideration of the position of boy recruits desiring release from Her Majesty's Services; and if he will make a statement.

A great deal of ground has already been covered in the studies to which reference has already been made in the House, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, while considering this matter, that possibly a more flexible attitude to the release of boy recruits might result in more young people being prepared to offer themselves for this service?

One can make allegations, statements or hopes about it, but one cannot have proof of the matter. However, I believe that we are flexible in the matter at the present time.

Will the Minister, like his hon. Friend, consider a constructive suggestion from me? In order that these boys, in considering their future careers, may be properly informed, will the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues consider publishing the facts about manpower over-stretch which were published in the Defence Review, 1966, but which he refused to publish last week on this subject.

I am not prepared to allow the hon. and gallant Gentleman to pre-empt a Question which he has down for tomorrow by a supplementary question today.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether in view of the short supplies, he will arrange for the production of vaccine for use against Hong Kong 1968 flu at Porton and Nancekuke.

It is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to decide whether any special arrangements are necessary for the production of vaccine. I understand that he has not asked for help from the Microbiological Research Establishment because in his view the necessary production, testing and distribution processes could not be completed in time for the final product to be available for use against any outbreak which may occur this winter. M.R.E. has facilities for producing only the primary material in bulk. Nancekuke is not equipped for biological work.

Could not Porton have taken the initiative in this matter?

This is entirely a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. If we had been asked to produce anything from Porton, we would have been, and are, willing to oblige any request from my right hon. Friend, but we have not been asked.

Will the Minister remember that Porton is fully occupied in protecting the population against germs far more serious than influenza?

I am aware of the load at Porton, but if there were a specific request, and we had the capability to meet it, we would have met any request from my right hon. Friend. The answer to the question is that we have not had such a request.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will offer travel facilities to the parents of the late Lance-Corporal E. Mills, Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, killed in the Persian Gulf, to visit their son's grave in Sharjah, in view of the fact that Lance-Corporal Mills's widow is unable to travel.

I wrote to the hon. Member on 20th November and explained why I cannot make this offer.

I am aware of the Minister's letter, but could not the Gov- ernment exercise a little compassion in cases such as this? Will the Minister accept that a mother's love for her son can be as great as a wife's love for her husband, and that if the wife was too emotionally upset to make this trip it would be reasonable to let the mother go instead?

The Government have very much improved the arrangements in this sort of case. The position is not as simple as the hon. Gentleman says. I am sympathetic to the case, but the fact, as he knows, is that Mrs. Mills, Junior, may feel inclined to visit her husband's grave at a later date, and it would be wrong to pre-empt that situation if, in say six or eight months, she feels able to go, and then wishes to go with her mother-in-law or father-in-law.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now reduce the Rhine Army expenditure in the light of the present financial situation.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what consideraton he now proposes to give to the reduction of British forces in Western Germany in 1969, in view of the need for public economy; what economies in cost will be sought; and what discussions he proposes to have with the West German Government on British support costs.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now reduce the British Army of the Rhine expenditure in the light of the present financial situation.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make proposals for reducing the cost of the British Army of the Rhine, in order to assist the British economy.

Our plans for British Forces in Germany remain unchanged, though we shall continue to seek more economical and efficient means of working. Discussions with the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany on offsetting the foreign exchange expenditure of our forces in Germany are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

At a time when the Government are arguing about another penny for building workers, and when we have been told that part of the world monetary crisis is due to the strength of the West German mark, does not the Minister think it preposterous that the people of this country should be asked to meet a penny of this cost? When are we going to get a Minister who will stand up to the West Germans and insist that they pay the full cost of this, or or else we shall withdraw our troops?

My hon. Friend will know that some building workers are still occupied in repairing damage caused in this country during the Second World War. The military contribution which we make in Germany is calculated to protect the whole of the Western world from war, and is as much concerned with the survival of ourselves in this country, as with the survival of anybody else. We are determined to maintain a suitable contribution.

Why does the right hon. Gentleman continue this feeble, flabby policy of giving money to our German industrial competitors for defence forces, which they ought to be paying for themselves? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not only preposterous, as his hon. Friend said, but a national disgrace?

The hon. Gentleman's alliteration is no more attractive than his arrogance. The fact is that we are making a contribution in N.A.T.O. for the protection of ourselves and of our Allies in Western Europe. I think that the overwhelming majority of people in this country, people of all classes, ranks and trades, believe that a contribution to the peace of the world is fully justified.

On top of the £205 million a year direct costs, is not there an indirect cost for weapons and overheads of at least an equal amount? Secondly, is not the offset mainly purchases which the West Germans would have made from Britain in any case?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for referring to the offset. The fact is that the foreign exchange cost of forces in Germany has been met this year as to 90 per cent. by offset purchases by the German Government.

Would not the Minister agree that of that 90 per cent. to which he refers a large proportion refers to credit and not to direct sales? Is it fair that we should be running into indebtedness in the interests of a country which is embarrassed with such large reserves?

With respect to my hon. Friend, I ask him to accept, and I should have thought the unanimity of the House in its reaction to the Czechoslovakian crisis would have lead him to accept, that N.A.T.O. is an indispensable guarantee of the security which all of us in this House enjoy at the present time. The contribution that we make to the solidarity and strength of N.A.T.O. through the B.A.O.R. is a direct support of the immunity which my hon. Friend enjoys at this moment.

I support the firm response which the right hon. Gentleman has given about the need to maintain forces in Germany in the present circumstances. Will the Minister take this opportunity to confirm that neither the Prime Minister nor anyone else has threatened that we shall withdraw any forces from the B.A.O.R., as a form of blackmail in relation to support costs? Will the Minister at the same time say that he understands the feeling on both sides of the House, that we think one of the greatest contributions that Western Germany could make to the Alliance is to adopt a reasonable attitude about support costs?

On the question of support costs, as a result of negotiations with Her Majesty's Government the West German Government are making twice as large a contribution to offset foreign exchange costs as they made four or five years ago. I should have hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have paid tribute to them and to us for that achievement.

Whilst all of us on this side of the House at least would welcome a reduction of military expenditure in Germany or elsewhere if it were judicious and in the interests of the country to effect such an economy, may I ask my right hon. Friend to tell us what reduction in military expenditure has been effected by the Soviet Union in West Berlin, or in other parts of East Germany, which is still under her military domination?

The Soviet defence budget went up 6 per cent. this year, and her scientific budget went up by about 14 per cent. A great deal of the scientific budget is concerned with military research and development, and Soviet forces in Eastern Europe now number 50.000 more than they did six months ago. These are facts of which many people are aware, and which many people believe are relevant to the questions which have been asked this afternoon.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether he will state the total cost to Great Britain in foreign currency of maintaining British forces in Germany from 1958 until the end of the last financial year;

The estimated net cost from 1958 to the end of the last financial year is about £310 millions. The latest estimate for 1968–69 is about £10 millions.

Does not my right hon. Friend recognise that this enormous expenditure represents a direct subsidy to Germany's economic prosperity? Is he not aware that in the view of many people the economic threat to this country at present is much more serious than the military threat which we are supposed to be combating?

I do not think that anybody would regard a net expenditure of £10 million as an immense subsidy. [HON. MEMBERS: "£10 million?"] I am talking about the situation in the current year, and my hon. Friend referred to the economic situation in the current year. As this £10 million arises from our contribution to an alliance which is indispensible to our own defence, I think that it is well worth while.

Is not this expenditure an unrequited export? As the Government are so fussy about increasing exports which are paid for, will not the right hon. Gentleman do his duty and insist that the Germans, not the British, foot the bill?

Go to the Old Vic.

I would hope that the hon. Member, in spite of his histrionics, would recognise that security is something of value to this country as well as a healthy balance of exports. Since we succeeded in negotiating a much more favourable offset agreement with Germany than was ever achieved by the party of the hon. Member, I should have thought that he would be prepared to let it rest at that.

As the £10 million is presumably the net figure, what is the gross figure. Out of the offset how much will have been spent in 1968–69?

The gross figure is £90 million, and the German offset obligation is £80 million. I cannot say without notice how much will have been spent by the end of the current financial year.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the shortage of recruits for the Corps of Royal Marines; and to what factors he attributes it.

It is estimated that the shortage of recruits for the Royal Marines will be in the order of 170 in the current recruiting year. The shortfall can be attributed to the same causes affecting recruiting for the other Services, which were discussed during the debate on Monday.

Are not those causes the Government's dangerous and dispiriting retrenchments? Despite that, would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the Royal Marines offer an increasingly important career to some of the best of our youth?

I would certainly agree with the last part of that question. I believe that the high standards of the Royal Marines are justly famous and an attraction for recruitment. On the other part, of course, I do not agree. It is high time that hon. Members on both sides supported the development of a bipartisan approach to improving recruitment.

Will the Government recognise that the deficiency in recruiting to the Royal Marines, as well as to other Services, is primarily due to the fact that Service pay is now lagging about 10 per cent. behind comparable civilian rates? Will the Government do something about this situation soon and not leave it to some indefinite time next year, since, if they do, recruitment will continue to deteriorate?

We are constantly considering measures to increase the competitive pull of the Service. The House will know that the Government have asked the Prices and Incomes Board to complete its review on Forces pay within a year.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if it his intention to introduce legislation extending the period during which former National Servicemen are liable for recall.

I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await the statement which I shall be making shortly.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman be a little more forthright with the House? Can he not now accept, for instance, that this measure is probably inevitable and that, taking into account the ages of the people involved, it will be a very short-term expedient anyway? Does he not think that the time has come to be a little less shifty and to be fair to these people, who will find this an increasing obligation?

I will give the House the Government's full views on this matter as soon as we reach a decision.

Will my right hon. Friend not now see his way to elaborating on that answer, with particular regard to the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders?

The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders are not exactly in this part of the Army.

On a point of order. In view of that non-Reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Order. Notice should be given in the normal way.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied that he will have at his disposal sufficient manpower to fulfil the Government's undertakings to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. I have nothing to add to what I said in the debate last Monday.

Does not the right hon Gentleman think that there is any obligation upon him to clear this matter up and explain both to the people of this country and to our allies, bearing in mind what his right hon. Friend has just said, how we will meet the obligations which this Government have themselves accepted? The aims are not clear yet.

I do not believe that the hon. Member was here when I made my speech last Monday. I suggest that, if he reads it, he will see that I referred to four different categories of Armed Forces which would be available and said that there were tens of thousands of men in each category. I am not prepared to go further than that.

Are not the Government aware that we do not regard as anything like an adequate answer to a serious manpower situation the statement, which his hon. Friend made, that it was being left to the determination of the Prices and Incomes Board at some indeterminate date? Will Service Ministers turn their attention urgently to this problem, as otherwise we will be very seriously short of men?

We are well aware of the position in the Services, and I and my right hon. Friend admitted at this Box on Monday that the situation was most unsatisfactory. If people say that pay is one of the matters which will influence recruitment—I believe that it is important—we want to get it right and not just rush in with something.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that Reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment as well.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the future of the Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve III.

I have nothing to add to my statement on 28th November.—[Vol. 774, c. 739–48.]

What recognition, financial or otherwise, does the Minister propose to reward those who have served Her Majesty through this year in the TAVR III?

Awards for service in the reserve volunteer Forces are well known, of course, to the hon. Member. I have no other proposals.

Does the Minister consider that the Government's provision of military reserves is now sufficient to completely set at rest General Lemnitzer's worry about complacency among N.A.T.O. nations?

The hon. and gallant Member was here when I spoke on Monday, when I said that we were adequately able to meet our commitments in Europe with the present reserves and present Regular Forces. That position is improving as our withdrawal from other parts of the world continues.

Would the right hon. Gentleman realise that we, of course, regarded his speech on Monday as just as unsatisfactory as his answers today?

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what further action is being taken, in view of the warning conveyed to the Soviet Government with regard to Soviet interventions affecting the situation in Europe and the Mediterranean in the final communiqué after the Ministerial meeting at Brussels on 15th and 16th November, by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to augment its forces and organise reserves to meet this new commitment.

The improvements to N.A.T.O.'s capability that are being made in the light of recent Soviet actions are described in paragraph 8 of the final communique.—[Vol. 773, c. 859.]

Would my right hon. Friend agree that this is a partial and limited reassurance? Is he not aware that, while this sabre-rattling at Brussels may or may not have frightened the Russians, it certainly frightens those who are aware of N.A.T.O.'s reported deficiencies at present?

I am not an expert on the degree of fear which my hon. Friend feels, but all our allies are immensely heartened by the fact that every allied Government offered at the Brussels meeting some improvement in its planned military capability for this year, although, as I said on Monday, no country made an actual improvement as large as the British improvement on its contribution this year. I hope that my hon. Friend will take some comfort from the fact that, on this matter, we led in the Alliance.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what evaluation his Department has made of the Blowpipe missile as a cheap and effective light defence weapon against attacks by low-flying aircraft; and what requirement has been formulated for the purchase of such a weapon as standard Service equipment.

We are considering whether we require a weapon system of this sort to supplement our existing and planned anti-aircraft capability. Amongst the factors we will take into account is the outcome of a special technical study of this project which is being carried out by Short Bros. & Harland and associated contractors under arrangements made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology.

While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he does not agree that this is an ideal small weapon for our Army in that it is simple, cheap and easy to maintain and operate? When will the Government back the efforts of the company to sell it overseas by placing a British order for it?

I have had a special study made of the operational value of this weapon, in conjunction with the other weapons which will also be available. I am also aware of the export potential of this important weapon.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if, in view of the increase over the past year of Russian naval strength in the North Atlantic and Mediterranean, he is satisfied as to the adequacy of the present United Kingdom naval shipbuilding programme to meet Great Britain's immediate future maritime defence requirements and contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's revised naval dispositions; and if he will make a statement.

As has already been announced, work is going ahead on the new classes of surface ships—the frigates, destroyers and cruisers—which the Royal Navy will require in the 1970s, and the order for the first destroyer has just been placed. Our eighth nuclear-powered Fleet submarine will be ordered early next year. The rate at which these ships will be built will depend on the review, on which we are now engaged, of the forces which we should contribute to N.A.T.O. after the withdrawal from east of Suez and the consequent run-down are complete. This review will take full account of the developments to which the Question refers.

While again thanking the Minister for that careful reply, may I ask him whether he does not agree that as the principal maritime nation in N.A.T.O. we have a particular burden in this respect? Will he not take all steps, in view of the statement already made at Question Time about the increase in the Soviet Navy, to expedite this matter, because time is not on our side?

I am grateful to the hon. Member. As he is aware, the Royal Navy is already contributing more ships to N.A.T.O. than any other European Power. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the operational factors earlier. I would remind the House that the total value of ships now on order, under construction or being tendered for runs to hundreds of millions of £s.

Why in all this discussion about the Mediterranean does the Minister turn a blind eye, like Horatio Nelson, to the fact that the biggest Power in the Mediterranean is the United States of America, which has two aircraft carriers there, able to carry nuclear weapons to the U.S.S.R., and 50 other warships. Instead of playing about with the arms race in the Mediterranean, will the Minister not return to Hugh Gaitskell's policy of a nuclear-free zone in the Mediterranean instead of an arms race?

I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept it from me that I am not playing about with an arms race. All that my right hon. Friend is seeking to ensure is that we have the ships available to defend the interests of this country and that they are in the right operational command.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps were taken to vet for security purposes the editors of the new British Defence Equipment Catalogue.

None was necessary.