asked the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution was made by all Royal Ornance Factories and the Royal Ordnance Factory, Barn-bow, respectively, to Great Britain's export earnings in 1967 and 1968.

Royal Ordnance Factories administered by the Ministry of Defence completed export work worth £4,628,000 during the financial year 1967–68. As export orders are often spread over several factories it would be misleading and invidious to quote figures for individual factories.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the figure of £4 million out of an R.O.F. turnover of over £40 million is a modest percentage? Will he ensure that these factories, particularly Barnbow, do not offer extraordinary inducements to skilled engineering labour, such as Sunday overtime, so that export firms nearby are starved of labour?

This is very much in mind in the Royal Ordnance Factories and is being done.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what future increases or decreases in work loads for the existing Royal Ordnance Factories he estimates will result from the Government's current defence plans and policies.

None in the next few years.

How is this so, in view of the forecast made by the Secretary of State that defence expenditure is going to decline substantially? Does this mean that the Royal Ordnance Factories are to be kept open doing civil work when they might do better to release skilled engineering labour for work elsewhere?

There is a considerable possibility that the competitiveness of these factories will enable them to take a bigger share of Service orders and exports also may be increased. It is also hoped that civil work will increase.

Are the Government planning any large scale rationalisation of the whole organisation of Royal Ordnance Factories consequent upon the decision to run down the Armed Forces?

They are under constant review and every attempt is being made to improve their efficiency.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about negotiations for the building of the multi-rôle combat aircraft.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a further statement about the Anglo-German multi-rôle combat aircraft.

The major results of the feasibility study were presented by the firms at the beginning of this month. They are now being evaluated and discussed.

Has there been agreement on the number of engines the aircraft should have and on whether it should have variable geometry?

It has been agreed that the aircraft should have variable geometry. There is still some discussion about the number of engines and their origin.

Does this mean that the R.A.F. is at last to have a long range all-weather low-level strike capability? Or is this aircraft, like the AFVG, the TSR2 and the F111, likely quietly to disappear after the defence debate?

In so far as that supplementary question was intended seriously, my reply is that if the Governments agree to proceed with this project and it reaches an advanced stage in the next year or two, we can be confident that the Royal Air Force will have a large number of these aircraft in the 1970s.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the differences of opinion about design do not amount to various countries putting forward entirely different operational requirements? Can he also give an assurance that if agreement cannot be reached—although we hope it can—we will be prepared, if necessary, to produce this aircraft ourselves?

It is well known that this is to be a multi-rôle aircraft, like the Jaguar, which is very successful and is being produced by Britain and France together, for five separate rôles—three French and two British. There are differing requirements among the countries participating in this project, but feasibility studies show that their requirements can be obtained in a aircraft of 80 per cent. commonality, particularly as regards airframe and engines. The right hon. Gentleman's final supplementary question is hypothetical, and no wise politician ever answers a hypothetical question.

Is the estimate of £2,000 million roughly correct? Are not such estimates nearly always exceeded? Is it not nonsense for us in our present economic situation to be considering such expenditure?

We must consider any expenditure necessary to guarantee our peace and security and to make our proper contribution to the alliance. I can give no authority to any of the widely differing estimates of cost that I have seen in the Press.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent he has studied the requirement for the purchase of the Lockheed C5A transport aircraft; and with what result.

We are still examining the size of transport force we shall need after the date of 1972, when the withdrawals from east of Suez are complete. It is too soon to say whether or not we shall need an aircraft like the C5A.

Does not the Russian use of heavy transport aircraft during the invasion of Czechoslovakia last August show the importance of having aircraft which can embark not only men but heavy equipment as well?

I note that point, but my hon. Friend seems unaware that we have just re-equipped our transport force.

In any discussions we may have about future United States military aircraft purchases, will the Government ensure that the United States understands that we will not buy any more American aircraft unless this is tied to a firm offset agreement whereby the Americans will buy some British aircraft?

We have done very well with offset agreements under my right hon. Friend, and we shall continue to seek to do better than the last Administration.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the British defence facilities remaining in Malta; and what plans he has to renegotiate the defence treaty with the Maltese Government.

British defence facilities remaining in Malta include berths for naval vessels, fuelling, victualling, and some maintenance facilities; domestic accommodation, training, welfare and recreational facilities; airfield and associated facilities for resident squadrons and aircraft in transit; joint-Service communications facilities. The negotiation of treaties is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the defence treaty with Malta, signed on independence, has been abrogated? Are the British Government going to have talks with the Maltese to see what the defence position is?

No, Sir. The defence agreement is in force until September, 1974.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what studies are being made of flat tops operating vertical or short take-off aircraft.

Trials have demonstrated that vertical or short take-off aircraft could operate from the existing aircraft carriers and commando ships and that VTOL aircraft could take-off and land on the "Tiger" Class cruisers after conversion. Design studies of the new surface ships will, of course, take account of developments which may occur during their life in aircraft as in other weapons systems.

After the Secretary of State's remarks about the Mediterranean, can the hon. Gentleman explain how British shipping interests in the Indian Ocean can be defended without aircraft carriers? Will he at least go so far as to maintain "Hermes", "Ark Royal" and "Eagle" in service until the mid-1970s?

That goes wider than the Question on the Order Paper. We have conducted successful trials from carriers, but no decision has been taken about the future of these ships beyond 1972.

In view of the failure of design staffs at present, can my hon. Friend assure us that, both in sea work and air work, the design staffs concerned will match up to the need?

The Harrier is a first-class aircraft and has VTOL capability, and we are surveying the possibility of its use in small ships.

Will the hon. Gentleman be more specific about the studies being made of a new generation of aircraft carriers for this purpose, whether he describes them as "flat tops" or "mini-carriers", or whatever?

We have no plans for designing a ship for the specific purpose of operating VTOL aircraft.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he now expects the Royal Navy's first nuclear-powered surface warship will be laid down.

I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to a similar Question from the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 11th December, 1968.—[Vol. 775, c. 150.]

Is it not time the Government did something about this? Is he aware that not only the United States but Russia, Germany, Italy and Japan all have nuclear-powered surface vessels either in use or in preparation for use?

Within the resources we can devote to the Royal Navy in the next few years, we simply cannot afford a programme of nuclear surface ships using the reactors available at present.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for building a further Polaris submarine.

None, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in view of the complexity of maintaining these Polaris vessels, there is a real risk that we shall never have more than one permanently on patrol at any one time, with only four in use?

No, Sir, I do not accept that at all. We plan to have two on patrol the great majority of the time. I agree that the maintenance and refitting of these ships is a great deal more complex than that for normal naval vessels, where with a force of four we would expect to have over two permanently on patrol.

Is my hon. Friend aware that that is a very gratifying reply? Can he tell the House that we do at all times have two on active patrol and away from the bases where they would be subject to sabotage?

My hon. Friend did not listen to my answer. I said that we would have two on patrol for the great majority of the time, but not absolutely all the time.

Will the right hon. Gentleman keep an open mind on this question, bearing in mind the importance of ensuring that we have a sufficient number operational at the critical moment. and also remembering the very splendid defence he made recently of the cost-effectiveness of the Polaris force, which is equivalent to 30,000 Hiroshimas yet only costs 1 per cent. of the defence budget?

Yes, but if one built more Polaris submarines the cost-effectiveness would be a great deal more open to argument. I was talking about the running costs of the force of four, the capital cost of which we have now completely paid or else committed. On the earlier question, I would like to make it clear that in normal circumstances we would expect to have two on patrol for the great majority of the time. In times of tension we would be pretty certain of having two and might well have three.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many of Great Britain's Polaris submarines are contributed to the collective Western strategic nuclear deterrent.

When operational, all four of Britain's Polaris submarines will be contributed to the Western strategic nuclear deterrent.

Can the Secretary of State say whether we still have the right to withdraw this British deterrent from the collective rôle if Britain needs it independently for her own purposes?

Yes, as I have made clear many times in this House, we have the right, but we cannot conceive of any circumstances in which we would need to exercise it.

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that as the co-ordination of our nuclear policy with the Americans is absolutely vital it is most unwise to make the kind of remarks he did about blasting Russian ships out of the Eastern Mediterranean with nuclear strikes? Did he clear these remarks with the allies?

The hon. Gentleman is, as usual, grossly misinformed. I said nothing about nuclear strikes in the Eastern Mediterranean.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to ensure that arms supplied to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies are not used outside Europe.

Members of N.A.T.O. obtain their military equipment either from domestic sources or, in the case of external supply, under individual arrangement which may include specific agreements between member countries. There is no N.A.T.O.-wide policy regarding the procurement or use of arms by member Governments.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there ought to be such a policy? Is he aware that I have here part of a N.A.T.O. rocket used by the Portuguese to kill citizens in Zambia? Does he realise that N.A.T.O. arms such as Sabre jets, small arms, ammunition and so forth obtained from N.A.T.O. sources are being used against the British Commonwealth? Is it not time that we had a policy in conjunction with our allies to stop this?

With great respect to my hon. Friend who produced some very interesting and important evidence on his recent visit to Africa, I think he would agree with me that the fragment of a shell which he holds in his hand was provided by a country which, although a member of the Alliance, is not a member of N.A.T.O.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the negotiations undertaken by his Department for the sale of warships to the Argentine.

No, Sir. We do not as a rule reveal any details of negotiations in progress.

However desirable it may be to sell such ships to the Argentine, will the Minister agree that it would be a very shoddy thing to incur such a sale as part of a barter arrangement involving the destiny of the Falkland Islands?

The hon. Gentleman is a man of great initiative and great courage. He should not bring his own skeletons and put them in our cupboard. At no time have we linked any negotiations on warships with either the Falkland Islands or the issue of meat.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when, according to his plans, the capability based in this country for the purpose of assisting our friends and allies in the Middle and Far-East will be ready; and if he will make a statement.

We have no plans to maintain a special capability for use outside Europe after our withdrawal from the Middle and Far East is completed. We shall rely on our general capability which can be deployed overseas as, in our judgment, circumstances demand.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the former Foreign Secretary, not much more than a year ago, put great emphasis on the existence of this capability as an answer to the suggestion that we were abandoning our friends and allies in the Far East? Have we lost "Capability Brown" and now got only "Incredibility Healey?"

The right hon. Gentleman's information is not as good as his wit. The fact is that we have, as I have just made clear, the capability to deploy forces from the European area to the Far East as, in our judgment, circumstances demand. We shall demonstrate this capability in practice in an exercise with four of our Commonwealth partners in the Far East next year.

Who are our friends and allies in the Middle East?

Answer.

If my hon. Friend recalls, I talked about our partners in the Far East.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether ships of the Royal Navy and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary will be part of the general capability to which he referred?

Of course.

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the capability to which he referred includes the 170,000 ex-National Servicemen who are to be retained after July next as a result of legislation introduced by the Government? Does this not mean that conscripted men will exceed the number of volunteers in the Armed Forces and that conscription still remains the policy of the Government?

No, Sir. If my right hon. Friend looks at what was said by my right hon. Friend, or if he looks at tomorrow's White Paper, which I cannot anticipate, he will see that out of the 170,000 ex-National Servicemen who have a liability for service under the Army General Reserve, there are no plans for calling up more than 15,000, and those would be called in only in circumstances—[Interruption.] These were plans laid by the previous Government, as the right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Rams-den) will know, as he was Secretary of State for War. I think that he introduced this proposal. These men would be called up only in cases of grave national emergency, primarily as individual reinforcements for our forces in Germany.

What do the Government have to say about this legislation to which the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) referred? What legislation have they in mind? Has this been revealed only to the Parliamentary Labour Party?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman should recall that my right hon. Friend referred to the possibility of legislation in a speech he made before Christmas. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman was dozing at the time.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is now the shortfall in Army recruiting; and what action he is now taking to secure an improvement.

Allowing for recruit wastage there will be a shortfall of about 9,000 adult males on 1st April, 1969. I shall shortly be announcing measures to improve recruiting and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the pay of the Forces is now being reviewed by the National Board on Prices and Incomes.

Does the hon. Gentleman now appreciate that a great deal of the shortfall is due both to the Government's attitude of discouragement towards the voluntary forces and their deliberate destruction of famous regiments with fine military tradition? Will he give assurance that, whatever steps the Government are to take, they will include a revision of these decisions and that their decisions will be given first to the House and not, as in the case of the three-year recruiting period, to the Press?

No, Sir. There will be plenty of opportunity for debating this in the very near future. Far from accepting what the right hon. Gentleman says, some hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House have, by their constant criticism of the Forces, to take some responsibility for this shortfall.

As to the recruits with which we are helping to defend certain sheikhly countries in the Persian Gulf, in view of the petty-minded anti-Semitic restrictions which these countries have placed on them, instead of being grateful, will he give a firm statement that we will withdraw troops from defending these countries unless they stop these racialist activities?

Order.

How can the Minister be surprised recruiting is so bad when he continually destroys the regiments which produce the most recruits? Is he not aware that last year the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders produced nearly 40 per cent. of recruits to the Highland Regiments alone? Will he in his measures to improve recruiting reprieve that regiment from the axe?

That is misleading, as I shall tell the hon. Gentleman in answer to a later Question.

Is it not a fact that so long as the Government dilly-dally and fail to introduce measures to increase Forces' pay, the effect of this is deliberately to repress the level of recruits, since Forces rates are held way below comparable civilian rates? Is this not scandalous in view of the present shortage—

Order. There are Questions on Forces' pay later. We should not anticipate Questions.

asked the Secretary of State for defence whether, arising out of the 11 per cent. purchase tax imposed by the German Government, he will reconsider the rates of local overseas allowances made retrospective to March 1968 in the British Army of the Rhine with a view to increasing such rates; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir. The added value tax to which the hon. and learned Member presumably refers was first imposed by the Federal Government of Germany on 1st January, 1968, and its effects on prices in that country were therefore taken into account in the full review of local overseas allowances for officers and men serving with the British Army of the Rhine which took place in May last year.

In view of these kind of measures taken by a foreign country which affect general prices, will the Minister see that a revision of the rates takes place? When are the Government to get a fair deal for Servicemen and their families abroad?

I thought I had explained in my original Answer that this increase in tax took place on 1st January and that the increase in local overseas allowance in B.A.O.R., which among other things takes account of this extra expenditure, came into effect in May, very soon afterwards.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what action he proposes to take after publication of the forthcoming White Paper on Defence to ensure the fullest possible consultation between his Department and the civilian workers affected by its implications.

There will be the fullest consultation through existing Whitley Councils and Committees which are specifically constituted for the purpose.

Is my hon. Friend aware that after a long and anxious wait dockyard workers and the local community will want absolutely clear-cut information on redundancy, pay, prospects, the long-term rôle of the yards and policy on consultation with other Ministries about alternative industry in the area?

I am making arrangements during the next few days to answer pretty well all the questions the hon. Member raises.

Will there be a full statement about the outcome of this review of naval dockyard capacity? In particular, will it explain the method adopted by the Government in reducing this capacity, where necessary, and the choice of method as between running down over the whole area or closing down individual establishments? There is great public concern.

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there will be a White Paper on Defence published at 11.30 tomorrow morning. I must ask him to await that.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence why armaments are supplied by Great Britain to Portugal.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister repeated to the House on 11th February, it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government not to supply arms to Portugal for use outside her N.A.T.O. responsibilities in Europe.—[Vol. 777, c. 1117.]

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he recalls his Answer in this House on 18th December? How can we be seen to be in support of the African peoples' desire for independence if a close N.A.T.O. ally is using standard N.A.T.O. equipment for wars of colonial repression in Africa? What representations axe we making to Portugal?

With respect, that is a completely different question, which I answered to a Question put down by another hon. Member a few moments ago.

Can the Minister give us an assurance that none of the terrorists operating in the overseas territories of our Portuguese allies are being supplied, directly or indirectly, with British arms, bearing in mind that many are trained in Commonwealth countries?

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the balance of naval power in the Mediterranean.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what increase in British naval strength has now occurred in the Mediterranean; and what additional units he now proposes, having regard to the continuous increase in Russian strength.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what further steps he is taking to increase Great Britain's naval contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in the eastern Mediterranean.

The Soviet presence in the Mediterranean averaged 20 warships, including submarines, together with support vessels, during 1968. Our latest assessment is that it currently consists of 1 cruiser, 7 destroyers/escorts, 2 submarine depot ships, 2 landing ships, about 6 submarines, and supporting auxiliaries. Allied maritime forces in the Mediterranean, which include the United States Sixth Fleet, are considerably superior, both in numbers and fire power, to those of the Soviet Navy. As far as the Royal Navy is concerned, I have nothing to add to the reply by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration on 14th November, 1968, in reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon).—[Vol. 773, c. 146–7.]

As the right hon. Gentleman has told Der Spiegel that all Russian ships would be sunk in minutes, did he include in that rather snappy naval appreciation the sinking of missile-carrying submarines belonging to Russia?

Yes, I was including all ships. The House ought to understand that the function of warships in war—and I was taking a warlike situation—is to survive and sink the enemy before the enemy sinks them. N.A.T.O. warships in the Mediterranean outnumber Soviet warships there by greatly over 10 to 1. In addition, Soviet ships operate without any air cover whatever, while N.A.T.O. ships operate with hundreds of strike and fighter aircraft available from land bases in addition to the seaborne forces of the American Sixth Fleet.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is perfectly correct about the vulnerability of the Soviet ships in the Eastern Mediterranean? Is he also aware that their real importance is their political influence in the Eastern Mediterranean? What measures is he taking to increase the British naval presence there, and what programme has he for flag-flying this year around the Mediterranean ports?

I am aware of that, and I said it in my interview with Der Spiegel. I also said it in the House last autumn. The main function of the Soviet ships in the Mediterranean is not a military but a political function. One reason why we have already secured a very substantial naval presence in the Mediterranean is precisely to serve the purpose to which my right hon. Friend refers.

Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the functions of warships in war require effective naval bases? Would he renegotiate the Malta agreement to allow for the return of substantial naval establishments to Malta which would be highly welcome to the Maltese as well as to the British elements in the Mediterranean?

The hon. Gentleman's information is grossly out of date. Nearly all the naval vessels operating in the Mediterranean operate without bases in the Mediterranean but with afloat support. That applies to the United States, British and Soviet navies.

In view of my right hon. Friend's statement about the balance of naval power in the Mediterranean, is it not now clear that we do not require an aircraft carrier there?

We do not require an aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean to provide maritime support for the British fleet. It was never planned, even by the previous Government, to keep an aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean for this purpose. But as long as we have an aircraft carrier its capability in many other rôles in the Mediterranean is valuable, and that is why we have decided to deploy an assault or commando ship or strike carrier in the Mediterranean during the next two years.

In making his statement, did the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of the Soviet Union basing military aircraft in Egypt or Algeria?

Not only did I consider it, but I referred to it in my interview in Der Spiegel. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read it before our next Question Time.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what Western European Union member countries other than the United Kingdom have assigned aircraft for reconnaissance in the Mediterranean.

The assignment of forces to N.A.T.O. for use in particular N.A.T.O. areas is a matter for the N.A.T.O authorities and the countries concerned, and is not for me to answer in respect of other countries.

Would the right hon. Gentleman press on all those concerned, and our allies in particular, that it is important to assign forces and not merely to earmark them so that they may be properly trained in existing patrols in the Eastern Mediterranean?

Earmarked forces are properly trained and are trained in the Mediterranean. I think that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured when I tell him that he can safely assume that N.A.T.O. countries with frontiers on the Mediterranean seaboard have a reconnaissance capability committed in some way or other to N.A.T.O., but not all members of W.E.U. have frontiers on the Mediterranean and not all members of W.E.U. are members of N.A.T.O.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will propose the stationing of Royal Air Force units in Malaysia until approximately 1971, in return for Great Britain supplying Harrier jet aircraft.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will seek an agreement with the Malaysian Government concerning the provision of military aircraft for Malaysia.

There are already certain Royal Air Force units stationed in West Malaysia and they will remain there until they are withdrawn as part of our general rundown in the Far East. We do not consider that there is any requirement for Royal Air Force units to be stationed in East Malaysia at present. The Malaysian Government have been given all relevant information about British military aircraft, including the Harrier and we are in continuing consultation with them.

But would the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that nothing will be done by his Ministry or by his colleagues which might cause Malaysia and Singapore to order French and foreign aircraft in preference to British aircraft? Does he not realise that unless the Harriers are supplied early enough they will order foreign aircraft?

It is entirely for the Government of independent Commonwealth countries to decide which aircraft meets their needs. The Singapore Government have already decided to buy British aircraft—a number of Hunters and the BAC167. The Malaysian Government are considering a mix of British aircraft consisting of the Hunter and the Harrier and certain other possibilities.

Has my right hon. Friend seen Press reports that if the Malaysian Government bought Mirage fighters they would need French pilots to operate them?

I have seen reports that the Prime Minister of Malaysia suggested that if they bought Mirage aircraft they would hope to acquire French pilots with them. Whether that would be possible I do not know. No decision has been taken by the Malaysian Government in this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the value of export orders for British arms or military equipment, including military aircraft, in the years 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968.

The value of defence exports was £120 million in 1965, £152 million in 1966, £150 million in 1967, and is estimated to be about £185 milion in 1968.

Would the hon. Gentleman say what amount in the last year is due to offset agreements?

I cannot give the figures without notice. But these figures include matters which arise under the offset arrangements.

Can the hon. Gentleman say what amount of this equipment went to the Federal Government in Nigeria?

Not without notice.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give an undertaking that cuts in defence will neither affect the work-load nor the number of persons employed in Chatham Dockyard in the foreseeable future.

I must ask the hon. Member to await the publication of the Defence White Paper tomorrow.

Cannot the hon. Gentleman give a categorical assurance? In March, 1966, the Prime Minister—and I have the letter in my hand—wrote and said—

Order. We cannot have quotations in a supplementary question.

The hon. Gentleman's predecessor gave an assurance in July 1966 that there was a full work load for Chatham Dockyard in the foreseeable future. If there is not a full work load now, what is its foreseeable future in view of the Government's defence plans? The Government seem to be unable to look further than their noses.

I ask the hon. Gentleman to be patient and to await the publication of the Defence White Paper tomorrow.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what naval training facilities are currently being provided by this country to other European members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Last year over 600 personnel from European N.A.T.O. countries underwent training in United Kingdom Naval Establishments, and work up and other ship training was provided at Portland and Londonderry.

Is my hon. Friend aware that these naval training facilities have an extremely high reputation in Western Europe? Would he consider expanding them, which might make a contribution to our wider European policies?

The main limitation is the amount of facilities available for our own personnel. To a large extent, that governs the amount which we can make available to other countries. We are only too pleased to help when we can, but there are limiting factors of space and other considerations.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has completed his review of present practice regarding the publication of military aircraft accident statistics; and if he will make a statement.

I hope to be in a position to make a statement in the near future.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he should have been able to make a statement by now?

Generally I would rather have all the facts before making a decision.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is now in a position to give the total number of Army personnel who were court-martialed for absence without leave during 1968; and if he will make a statement.

958.

Since that represents an increase of over 15 per cent. on the 1965 figure, does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that there must have been a very significant decline in Army morale?

It is a serious increase, but it does not indicate a decline in morale. One of the reasons for it is that soldiers nowadays take far more interest in their own domestic matters. This is one reason why they sometimes go absent.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us the level of severity of punishment given in these cases?

That is hardly relevant.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how much public money is being spent on the development by his Department of special grenades for disseminating CS riot gas; and if he will now order this work to cease.

I presume my hon. Friend has in mind the report published in The Guardian on 22nd January about an American device for scattering CS. No public money is being spent on the development of this device and there is no intention to develop it.

Is my hon. Friend aware that that is a welcome answer? Can he give an assurance that this country will not indulge in this kind of scientific devilry?

I am not sure what my hon. Friend has in mind when he uses the words "scientific devilry". All I can say is that we have no interest in this particular device.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make arrangements to transfer the Western Hill (Malaya) and Singapore military radar stations to Malaysia and Singapore; and if he will provide under contract the necessary technical assistance until local personnel can be trained.

We are discussing with the Malaysian and Singapore Governments the transfer of the radar stations at Western Hill and Bukit Gombak. We shall consider sympathetically any requests they put to us for help in maintaining and operating the stations.

That is the first time I have had a satisfactory answer.

rose—

Order. There is nothing to answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the £25 million in dollars agreed as a cancellation charge for the F111 will be charged to the defence budget; and whether other defence projects will be cancelled or postponed in order to make the necessary sum available.

May I express my gratitude for the very kind words just offered by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing). In reward may I tell him the dollar costs arising from the cancellation of the F111 have not yet been finally agreed but as a result of further discussions with the American authorities the estimate of £25 million previously given to the House is now likely to be reduced still further to about £16 million. We had in fact already paid about £20 million in progress payments on the F111 before cancellation which we originally borrowed under the American credit arrangement and repaid in January this year. This sum now exceeds the latest estimate of our total liability. The amount paid in excess of the final settlement will be refunded by the American authorities. The payment made was of course charged to the Defence Budget. In the light of all the foregoing facts, the answer to the second part of the Question is, of course, "No".

Is it not clear that we shall have spent some £16 million without receiving any hardware? Is not this a lamentable waste of defence money?

I very much regret this waste of defence money, but when I compare it with £100 million wasted by the previous Government on 30 separate cancelled aerospace projects, I feel at least a certain relative superiority to the hon. Gentleman.

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

The earnings of Service doctors vary according to rank and whether married or single. It is not possible to present a meaningful comparison by using averages. I will, however, with permission publish some sample figures relating to Service doctors in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As the hon. Member is aware, the pay of Service doctors is currently under review by the Prices and Incomes Board.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was originally agreed that the pay of Service doctors should be 15 per cent. higher than that for National Health Service doctors to make up for their disrupted careers? Now that the latest award has been made to National Health Service doctors, is not the pay of Service doctors 34 per cent. behind instead of 15 per cent. in advance? What is the right hon. Gentleman to do to restore the shattered morale of this vital branch of the Services?

The hon. Gentleman's statement was not quite correct. The analogy was not with National Health Service doctors as such, which is an expression covering a very wide range of doctors, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, but with general practitioners. As has been explained to the House on many occasions, it has only been in recent weeks that one has been able to measure the net effect on the salaries of general practitioners of the award of a couple of years ago. As I have said, the matter is now with the Prices and Incomes Board from which the Government will receive a report in due course.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when the pensions of retired Servicemen will be increased and by what percentage.

If the Pensions Increase Bill becomes law in its present form, we would propose to give increases to Armed Forces pensioners to take effect from 1st April, 1969. With permission, I will circulate details in the OFFICIAL

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many units in 1969 will be training overseas in the Middle East, in the Far East, other than Hong Kong, and in other areas, respectively; how they will be transported; how long the training period will last; and at what cost.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that existing pensioners who have been retired longest will get the greatest increase in pension, following the precedent set in the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned?

The percentages are exactly the same. When the hon. Gentleman receives the schedule later this afternoon, he will see the exact effects.

During 1969–70, of our Regular units stationed at home and abroad, 20 major and 30 minor units will train in the Near and Middle East; three major and 11 minor units in the Far East, excluding Hong Kong; and 35 major and 54 minor units in other areas, for periods from two to eight weeks. Transport will be mainly by R.A.F. Air Support Command aircraft and R.F.A. Support Shipping. The cost will be in the region of £2·2 million.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that these short training periods are enough to acclimatise troops to operations in theatres of war where the climatic conditions are very different from those of this country? Is he getting good value for money and should he not extend the periods of training overseas in both hot and cold climates?

These exercises are concerned more with gaining familiarity and experience and keeping up techniques rather than acclimatisation as such in the areas concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make an interim increase in forces' pay in advance of the completion of the review by the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

No, Sir. I cannot anticipate the Board's recommendation.

Last year, the Secretary of State said that it was essential that the Services should know that they would have fair increases at fair intervals. Why do the Government now leave Servicemen uncertain and with their pay falling further and further behind? Are they playing fair with the Services?

I cannot see that there is any uncertainty. The matter was referred to the Prices and Incomes Board on 30th May, last year, and the Government asked the Board to try to prepare its report within one year. That one year is not yet up.

May I now put to the right hon. Gentleman my earlier question? Is it not a fact that delaying an increase in Forces' pay at a time when comparable outside rates are rising is deliberately to depress the level of recruiting? Is not this scandalous at a time when the Army is so short of recruits?

There is no deliberate delay. As I have explained on 30th May last year, the Government asked the Prices and Incomes Board to let us have a report on this matter within one year. That year is nowhere near up. From my own knowledge I am confident that the Board is working as fast as it can and that it will do a thorough job.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence on what date new rates of pay were introduced and back-payments made to implement the increases in Forces' pay recommended for payment with effect from 1st April, 1968, by the National Board for Prices and Incomes in its First Report (No. 70).

Increases of pay and back payments were paid to officers by 31st July, 1968; they were paid or credited to a large proportion of other ranks by 30th June and to the remainder in July, 1968.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the transfer of responsibility for Forces' pay to the National Board for Prices and Incomes has resulted in the Forces falling further and further behind their civilian counterparts? Does the Minister now acknowledge that it was a great error to transfer it from the Grigg Committee in the first place?

I assumed that that would be the supplementary question, although it has little relevance to the question of back-payment. If the hon. Gentleman has any knowledge of any people who did not get back payment quickly, perhaps he will write to me about it, or wait for the report from the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether a British Serviceman who becomes the captive of a foreign Power is still required by Service Regulations to state only his name, rank and number.

Under current instructions, a Serviceman who is captured is required to give only his name, rank, service number and date of birth.

Will the Government discuss with their allies the suggestion that in future Servicemen should be absolved from these restrictions so that, when Communist propaganda is extracted under duress from any of our men who may have been taken prisoner, it will be known in advance to be nonsense?

I am willing to discuss this matter with any of our allies at any time, but it is nothing like as simple as the hon. and gallant Gentleman tends to make out.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for increasing the numbers of, and equipment for, the squadron for the protection of fishing vessels in the North Sea and in fishing grounds further north.

There are no plans for adding to the six coastal minesweepers in the Fishery Protection Squadron, based at H.M.S. "Lochinvar". These regular patrols are supplemented from time to time by other ships. Nor do we plan to increase the number of distant water patrols carried out by frigates from the Western Fleet during the main fishing season. Equipment in all H.M. Ships employed on fishery protection duties is adequate for the task.

Does not the Under-Secretary realise that there should be plans to increase the protection of our vessels, that other Powers whose vessels poach in British fishing waters are protected by air and sea and that they greatly damage British fishing fleets and prospects? Will he take steps to see that protection vessels are increased in number and kind?

I see no possibility of increasing the time spent on fishery protection duties, which is already considerable and, I think, greatly appreciated.

Has the Department considered the use of helicopters in this respect?

We have considered helicopters and hovercraft, but at present we are satisfied that the existing ships provide adequate facilities.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence in how many cases, and where, British merchant ships have been molested by foreign warships during the last 10 years; and what plans, he has for increasing the numbers of, and equipment for, naval vessels to provide further protection from foreign interference.

Reported cases of molestation of British merchant shipping by foreign warships over the last 10 years have been very few but any questions of detail should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. We are constantly reviewing our measures for merchant shipping protection and we discuss the position regularly with the Shipping Defence Advisory Committee.

However few incidents there are, does the Under-Secretary realise that molestation inflicts great damage on British fishing fleets? Would he take steps to see that British fleets are adequately protected?

If my hon. and learned Friend has in mind any particular cases, I should be grateful if he would let me have details and I will look into them.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that since the dissolution of the specialised Fishery Protection Squadron there has been evidence to show that there is not sufficient protection for British fishing fleets?