asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many German civilians are employed by the British Army of the Rhine; and what is the estimated cost for the current year.

At 1st April, 1969, the latest date for which figures are available, some 27,800 whole time and 1,640 part-time locally engaged civilians were employed by the British Army of the Rhine. Of these some 21,800 whole time and 1,130 part-time were German nationals. The estimated cost of all locally engaged civilians to be employed by the British Army of the Rhine in the current financial year is £33,800,000 including £28,800,000 in respect of German nationals.

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that that is a very large number and, when added to the number of dependants, gives Rhine Army an exceptionally long tail? Will he institute an inquiry to see what can be done to reduce the number? Will he bear in mind the possibility of employing wives of British Servicemen in some of these jobs to reduce the costs across the exchanges?

Wives of British Servicemen are employed where that is suitable. The proportion of civilians to military in Germany is only half as high as the proportion of civilians to military in the British Army as a whole. Secondly, in Germany 80 per cent. of our forces are in one Corps and forward units. It makes sense to use highly professionally trained soldiers for military duties and leave the less military duties as far as possible to civilians.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind in any notice that he takes of his hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) that the numbers have already been cut to such an extent that in Germany soldiers are employed on menial tasks?

If he compares the menial tasks carried out by soldiers six or seven years ago with those carried out today, the hon. Member will find that there has been an enormous reduction in Germany.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent it is his policy to segregate the families of seamen, privates and airmen from those of noncommissioned officers when allocating married quarters.

There is no policy of segregation but when an Army unit is allocated multiple blocks of hirings, junior and senior other ranks are customarily housed separately.

While recognising that different standards of accommodation may properly represent different rewards for different responsibilities, will my right hon. Friend do everything possible to discourage artificial social barriers between the families of N.C.O.s and junior ranks? Will he consider what was said by Kipling:

"the Colonel's Lady an' Judy O'Grady Are sisters under their skins."

Order. Questions must be short.

They may well be sisters under the skin, but the whole social life develops round different buildings in the compound.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how long it is estimated to take to move the brigade from the British Army of the Rhine, stationed in the United Kingdom, all the reserves required to bring the British Army of the Rhine up to war establishment, the Third Division and other troops earmarked for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to their war stations on an alert being given.

It is not our practice to disclose details of operational contingency plans.

While I do not, of course, expect the Minister to do that, can he say whether he is satisfied after the technique of Czechoslovakia that these troops can be moved in due course?

Yes. If I may comment on the Question, as already stated Six Brigade can carry out its move in days. The time it took to deploy all the forces to which the hon. Member has referred would depend on whether they were concurrent or consecutive, and how long it took the division to move to war stations would depend on where it was. This is essentially a division which can be used by SACEUR where the commander wishes in the light of circumstances at the time.

Apart from the Brigade and the Third Division and problems of moving them and difficulties of increasing tension in certain circumstances, how many of the 60,000 reserves needed to bring B.A.O.R. up to wartime establishment would be immediately available?

We would expect them to be immediately available to move from stations in England. The time it took them to get to their units would compare quite favourably with the time it took Germans to get to their stations, and our reserves are better trained than the German ones.

Has my right hon. Friend considered—I am sure he has—the slight awkwardness which results from the fact that the Russians could get to these deployment positions a lot faster?

I recall that before the Czech crisis the Russians took a very long time to move their reserves to their units in Eastern Europe. The importance of having as many people as possible on the ground all the time is one of the many answers to the extraordinary argument in The Times in recent days.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence why United States rather than British radar sets are being installed in Great Britain's Phantom aircraft.

No suitable British radar system would have been available in time. We therefore chose a system which had been developed for the U.S. Navy Phantom.

Will the Minister of Defence ensure that any future avionics, if not designed in this country, can at least be built here and supplied to our forces?

Yes. These are matters that we take a great deal of account of. A great deal of British equipment is in the Phantom. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology has announced, Ferranti has been given a contract for the long-term support of the radar equipment installed in British Phantoms.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence in what circumstances he decided to purchase the French SS11 anti-tank guided missile for the purpose of arming British helicopters.

The SS11 is being bought because it is the only proved system now available to meet an urgent operational requirement in B.A.O.R. The question of weapon systems for the next generation of helicopters will be considered in the light of all the operational and financial factors, and the capabilities of Swingfire will be taken into account.

When will this Government accept that when it comes to ordering defence equipment we do not owe France or any other country a living, particularly when, as in this case, there exists a perfectly good British alternative with a markedly better guidance system? When it comes to placing follow-up orders, will the Government ensure that Swingfire gets them?

I know that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about this issue. The plain fact of the matter is that the British alternative is not now available. We have an urgent operational requirement. The hon. Gentleman, who has criticised the SS11, should know that it it is now used by the Navy; it is used by Navy helicopters. It is not obsolescent; Swingfire in an airborne rôle has not yet been developed or tested.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from the National Council for Civil Liberties about morale and conditions in the Services; and what reply he has sent.

The National Council for Civil Liberties has asked to be associated with a recent request from the Parliamentary Civil Liberties Group to discuss with me the question of young Servicemen. I have advised the Group that I am prepared to examine and subsequently discuss with it detailed complaints; and I have kept the National Council for Civil Liberties informed.

Are the Government aware of a report and connected activities which tend to tamper with the morale and loyalty of Her Majesty's Forces? What advice has been taken from the Law Officers of the Crown?

I am aware of quite a number of things, but on the information that the hon. Gentleman has given the House now I would not like to say it has anything to do with what he is talking about. If he cares to let me have details, I will certainly look at them.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not tampering with the morale and loyalty of the forces to recognise that 15-year-olds who sign on for 12 years without really knowing what they are doing should be released, or given the option of release, at 18 in accordance with the Report of the Latey Committee?

This matter, as my hon. Friend well knows, has been and is still being examined by the Government. Despite all the publicity there has been, I am still surprised at the very small number of such cases in which there is hardship which has been so far forwarded to me in the last two years.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now publish the latest figure of the percentage of the gross national product represented by this year's Defence Estimates.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) on 1st May, which was, I think, about 5¾ per cent.—[Vol. 782, c. 266–7.]

Does not this figure omit entirely the American aircraft bought on the never-never to be paid for later under a Conservative Government? Does it not also omit the back-dated increase of pay for the forces which will no doubt come in due course? How can the right hon. Gentleman think that this is an honest figure to give to the House and the country?

If the hon. Gentleman read HANSARD regularly, he would find that the other figures were also given in the Answer made to my hon. Friend.

Is it not a fact that, if we cut our proportion to that for the rest of Western Europe—that is, 4 per cent.—this would mean £650 million a year to be spent on other and better things?

The European average is 5 per cent. We intend to get down to that in three or four years' time.

Does the Secretary of State agree from what he has just said that 5¾ per cent. is not the honest figure and that the honest figure is that which was given, as he says, in the Answer he has mentioned—a figure which he has not quoted?

I quote it now. It is about 6 per cent. That was the figure given in the earlier Answer. However, this is not money spent by the Government or raised by the taxpayer. I will deal in more detail with this point when I reply to Question No. 12.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what changes in the rôle of the Royal Air Force have been made to enable it to use Buccaneers as the backbone of its strike reconnaissance capability between now and the late 1970s.

Our defence effort will in future be mainly concentrated in Europe and the Buccaneer will provide a satisfactory overland strike/reconnaissance aircraft in the European theatre until the middle seventies. Following the phasing out of the carriers, the Royal Air Force will take over from the Royal Navy responsibility for operating Buccaneers in the maritime strike rôle.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that only last year the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force made it clear that the V-bombers required supplementing by a Spearhead type aircraft, which was to be the F111, and that the cancellation of the F111 left a serious gap? The Under-Secretary said, further, that the Buccaneer Mark II was not in the same class as the F111. How can the hon. Gentleman pretend that the R.A.F. can carry out the same rôle now?

The hon. Gentleman is aware that although the F111 would have remained operationally viable beyond the middle 1970s, and although the Buccaneer has some shortcomings as compared with the F111 range, they are of less importance now that the emphasis of our defence effort is concentrated in Europe.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he now expects to receive the report on Service pay from the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

I hope that it will be possible for the Board's report to be published, concurrently with an announcement to the House of the Government's views, about the middle of next month.

As the Government first referred this to the National Board for Prices and Incomes in November, 1967, and as after the interim settlement in May, 1968, they have therefore had a year, can we be assured that when this settlement comes it will not be yet another interim settlement but will be a final one which will put the Services on a pay and salary scale commensurate with their equivalents in industry?

I do not know as yet what will be the contents of the National Board's report. As the hon. Gentleman will remember, in May of last year the Government asked the National Board to give us its final report by the end of May of this year. I am confident that the National Board will meet that target. Thus, the report will come during the Parliamentary Recess. I am merely asking for about two and a half weeks for the Government to consider the report, to take a decision, and to make a statement to the House.

If the principle is comparability with the civilian rates and the civilian rates have ipso facto already been sent to the Prices and Incomes Board, what is the point of referring Service pay for the second time?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is anticipating what might be in the report. I do not know in any detail what the National Board is likely to report. I suggest that we wait until we get the report and the Government's views on it. Then I have no doubt that hon. Gentlemen will wish to discuss the matter in detail.

Is it not extremely unsatisfactory when Ministers continue to dissociate themselves from responsibility for the eventual level of Service pay and push the question on to the National Board, when everybody knows that it is a determining factor in the level of recruitment, which at present is very unsatisfactory?

I made it perfectly clear in the recent defence debates that the Government must accept responsibility for the level of Service pay and any effect that it has or does not have on recruiting. We have asked the National Board for advice. We expect to receive that advice by the end of this month. It will take some time—about two and a half weeks—for us to consider the advice, take a decision, and then report the matter to the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what were the final other rank recruiting deficits in the last financial year for each of the three services.

2,300 for the Royal Navy; 10,700 for the Army; 2,000 for the Royal Air Force.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that a shortfall of 15,000 in the very modest target which was set by the Government is a devastating revelation in view of the dangerous situation which exists all over the world, a determining factor in the level of recruitment, which at present is very unsatisfactory?

I would not say that it was devastating or desperately serious for this sort of thing to happen in one year. It is far from satisfactory. We hope to get it right. I announced in the defence debate some of the measures we are taking: and, with the report which we expect shortly to receive from the National Board, we hope to get matters right later on this year.

To put these figures into perspective, will my right hon. Friend publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the annual shortfall since 1951?

If a Question were to be tabled, I have no doubt that the information could be provided.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for manning the forces in the event of sufficient volunteers for all Regular forces not being forthcoming.

As I have told the House before, we are not planning for the hypothetical situation of a breakdown in the voluntary system. It is better to emphasise the fact that the Services have a clear and worth-while future, and that young men of the right quality are assured of an absorbing and rewarding career.

Since recruitment is still deplorably low—with the Army 15,000 men short of its established strength—has the right hon. Gentleman asked the staff to prepare contingency plans for the introduction of selective service?

I answered that in my main answer. No, Sir.

Do the Government plan any further economies in defence spending in this matter? If so, how can they say that the reorientation of defence policy is completed?

The economies in our plans have all been announced to the House in the last 18 months or so.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the future of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, in light of the Second Report from the Committee on Public Petitions.

No, Sir.

Did not the Report, by accepting more than I million valid signatures, demolish the critics of the petition? Does it not bring our system of Parliamentary democracy into disrepute if the Government are not prepared to find a place for the Argylls in their future planning, in view of this massive demonstration of public feeling?

The hon. Gentleman asked me what light the Committee on Public Petitions had shed on the petition. The Committee said that there were I million signatures. I have never disputed that.

Could my hon. Friend state, in the light of the scrutiny which was made, how many inaccuracies and actual forgeries were discovered?

Fortunately, that is not a matter for me.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated increase in the total sum of the defence budget for 1969–70 if cash was paid by Great Britain on delivery for aircraft purchased for the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy from the United States of America and on the percentage of the gross national product devoted to the defence budget.

£73½; million and under 0·2 per cent.

On a study of the previous Written Answers, should not the answer be much nearer £200 million, and, if that be so, is not the statement that defence expenditure has been reduced rather misleading?

With respect, it is not. The answer is £73½ million, and under 0·2 per cent.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what sums were spent on United States aircraft in 1968–69 and what sums he intends to spend in 1969–70 and in what ways he is contributing to imports substitution.

In 1968–69, £48 million, and an estimated £50 million in 1969–70. These amounts represent the repayment of sums drawn under the American aircraft credit, together with payment of interest, cash payment for certain spares not covered by the credit agreement, and the payments arising from the cancelled contract for the F111. They do not include the cost of British-produced items.

On the second part of the Question, I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 13th November last.—[Vol. 773, c. 378–9.]

But has not the economic position worsened since 13th November last, and is it not the duty of the Minister of Defence to try to make a contribution, a real financial and economic contribution, to the policies of his own Government in matters of import substitution?

One is always conscious of the need for import substitution. I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is now suggesting—whether we should cancel delivery of the Hercules or the Phantom. The Hercules has already been completed, and the Phantom order is well on its way to completion.

What is the sum now outstanding for the remaining purchase of United States military aircraft? Have any British Government ever spent so much foreign exchange on not having weapons with which to equip their forces?

The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester has a Question down today for Written Answer about the sum outstanding. I am sure that he will not object if I give part of the Answer now in reply to the hon. Gentleman. The sum still outstanding on amounts borrowed up to 30th April, 1969, is £237 million.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the future of Whitley Committees in the planned reorganisation of Royal Naval Dockyards.

This question is now under review, and I shall consider changes as the reorganisation develops.

Will my hon. Friend agree that in the modernisation of the yards communication and consultation are crucial, and that if this is to be successful the Whitley Committees will in future have to be chaired by the general managers, with their increased responsibilities?

To stimulate productivity, it is our intention that general managers will be given greater powers in their yards; they will, however, exercise these powers within their own departments, and their position in relation to the Whitley Committees will, as I have already said, be considered in this context.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations are now taking place following his recent announcement about reorganising Her Majesty's Dockyards.

Consultations are now taking place between the Navy Department and the Departments of Economic Affairs and Employment and Productivity.

Discussions have also been initiated with the dockyard Whitley representatives on both the national and local levels. In addition we have held a symposium about the details of the decisions concerning the dockyards. This symposium was attended by members of the Whitley Councils and Committees and by a number of district union officials.

Will my hon. Friend accept that the humanity as well as efficiency with which this reorganisation is being carried through is very commendable? What progress is being made in the talks with the trade unions, particularly on the question of retraining men made redundant? When will the outcome of the talks be revealed?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. We have laid great emphasis on the need to get adequate retraining facilities in agreement with the trade unions in the discussions which have arisen over the whole range of the current dockyard review, and the progress made is satisfactory.

What is the expected rundown in the labour force during the coming year?

If the hon. Lady will put down a Question on that, I will endeavour to answer it.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the accident rate in Portsmouth dockyard during the past year.

In 1968, there were 458 accidents to industrial staff in Portsmouth dockyard. The great majority of the consequential injuries were of a minor nature. Nevertheless, we are not relaxing our efforts to improve safety, and, as my hon. Friend knows, a Yard Safety Committee has recently been established.

Is this not a deteriorating record of work safety, and, at a time of modernisation in the yards, is it not most unsatisfactory? Will it receive the closest possible attention?

I am not complacent about any accidents. As I have said, we are looking at the matter closely. We have instilled into the dockyard industrial labour force a safety consciousness of a pretty high level, and our record compares very favourably with that of outside industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many working dogs are employed by Her Majesty's forces in the United Kingdom; and what saving in the cost of feeding alone will result from the decision to feed them on canned meat.

Including those being trained, 758.

The main object of the change was to provide a better and consistent diet. Economy was not the primary aim, though there should be modest economies as canned meat is easier to store, handle and prepare.

Was the assessment of cost carried out before the recent increase due to 22½ per cent. purchase tax, and is it the Government's policy to feed working dogs on pet food?

Tenders will go out for the type of food which we require for these dogs. As the Ministry of Defence does not normally pay purchase tax on supplies for defence purposes, it makes no difference when the costing was done.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the working dogs employed by Her Majesty's forces in the United Kingdom are attached to establishments where there are catering units.

Many of the working dogs employed by Her Majesty's forces in the United Kingdom are at establishments where there are catering facilities. It is not possible to be more precise without detailed inquiry.

As their normal food, or the food upon which they have been fed in the past, will be available, was advice from veterinary inspectors or veterinary surgeons taken into consideration in the switch to pet food or tinned meat rather than the diet the dogs have been used to in the past?

The food which they have normally been having will no longer be available because it will not be purchased in future; it was fresh meat and other materials. A scale has been worked out for the amount of meat and other materials which dogs of different weights require. We are now applying that. There will be no wastage of food in establishments with catering facilities because any waste is sold as pig swill. If the hon. Gentleman wants the dogs to have that, he ought to look at what it does to the pigs.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if his review of the conditions and opportunities of work in Army detention barracks is now complete; and if he will make a statement.

No special review of Army detention barracks has taken place, but the probation service has been assisting detainees returning to civilian life, both during their detention and afterwards.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if his review of the conditions and opportunities of work in Naval detention quarters is now complete; and if he will make a statement.

We have decided that the number of hours spent by detainees in their rooms will be reduced. All detainees will have discussion periods as well as lecture periods. Detainees will in future eat and talk together, and the standard of food has already been improved. More visitors will be permitted. The effect of these changes, which will be introduced over the next few months adds up to a considerable modernisation of the Royal Naval detention quarters.

I thank my hon. Friend for that welcome announcement of improvements. Can he say something about the tasks performed in these detention quarters? May we take it that it is not now only the archaic task of picking oakum which is available to some of these men?

I assume that my hon. Friend refers to the teasing out of short pieces of ordinary stranded rope. As I have said in the House before, what is done in this establishment is to make mats and fenders which are used by Her Majesty's ships. This work is, therefore, productive and of assistance to the Fleet. In any case, men do not remain indefinitely on this work but go on to perform other duties around the establishment, and on entering stage IV, which is after about 84 days, they go out daily to work at their trades on Her Majesty's ships in the dockyard.

Will the hon. Gentleman pay a tribute to the staff at naval detention quarters for all that they do to help the men who have to serve sentences there and for the results which they achieve?

I gladly do that. The Report of the Working Party which looked into the whole question of detention quarters concluded that very valuable work had been done in the past.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many Concorde aircraft he proposes to order for delivery in the mid-1970s to replace slower troop-carrying jet aircraft.

None, Sir.

Before the Government commit themselves to buying jumbo jets or other American troop-carrying aircraft for the 1970s, would it not be a good idea if they set about thinking that British aircraft should be employed, such as the Concorde, which is at least largely British, as an alternative to pouring out our treasure to buy foreign machines which we can build ourselves in the first place more cheaply and more efficiently than any American firm can build them?

I am not sure when the hon. Gentleman discovered this new form of indignation. The Military Aircraft (Loans) Act was discussed in 1966, and it is not recorded that the hon. Gentleman voted in any Division on it. Second, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman understands the purpose of the Concorde. Third, as regards British transport forces in the air, our present force is now composed of new aircraft and will not need replacing for some time.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the shortage in recruitment to the infantry divisions of the British Army; and what is the difference between their peacetime and war establishments.

On 1st April, 1969 the infantry was deficient in strength by some 2,400 soldiers. Infantry divisions do not have peace and war establishments; however the difference in this respect for each infantry battalion is about 100 soldiers. Some battalions also receive a further increment from TAVR Reservists.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this puts us in a very grave position? This is one of our teeth arms, and to be 2,000 short is a grave situation, particularly as we lack reserves. What is he doing about it?

The hon. Gentleman should not exaggerate the situation. In the last few weeks, recruiting has picked up.

If infantry divisions do not have peace or war establishments any more, can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Government are working on the basis of three companies or four companies for infantry battalions?

It varies between the divisions at the moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many Regular British officers will be in the permanent cadre of the Gurkha Brigade on 1st June, 1969; and what are his plans for recruitment to the brigade.

163. On officer recruiting to the brigade, I have nothing to add to my letter to the hon. Member of 31st March. We shall continue to recruit sufficient Gurkha soldiers to maintain our target strengths.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that by phasing out the permanent cadre and having only temporary officers going to the Gurkha Brigade, it will lower the level of recruitment, and is it not disastrous? When we are 10,000 short in the Army and 2,000 short in the infantry brigades, surely it is madness to cut the Gurkha Brigade?

I do not accept either of those two points. It is a reflection on the short service officers to make that remark. Several of the corps in the Gurkhas are run by seconded or short service officers.

rose—

Mr. Biggs-Davison.

rose—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Wait.

Mr. Biggs-Davison—[HON. MEMBERS: "Point of order."] Order. The point of order was not raised.

Will the Government show some Commonwealth solidarity and consider stationing some British Gurkhas with the Australians and New Zealanders in Malaysia after 1971, and will the Government do nothing to discourage the recruitment of these splendid soldiers?

There is a great deal more Commonwealth solidarity now than there was in the days when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we regard his answer as very unsatisfactory and that a Conservative Government will seek to review the position as soon as we have the opportunity and try to put right the damage that present Government policy has done?

Since the Gurkhas seem actually to enjoy serving in H.M. Forces—

So do many other people.

—and since they make very good soldiers, anyway, why confine them to the Gurkha Brigade? Why not bring some of them to the United Kingdom to replace the reluctant teenage Servicemen whom my hon. Friend will not release?

That would raise many difficult problems, and I doubt very much whether the Gurkhas as a whole would like it.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the still unsatisfactory nature of all those various replies, I beg to give notice that I will seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence at what strength he now plans to maintain the Gurkha Brigade after 1971.

As announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 16th January, 1968, the Brigade of Gurkhas is being reduced to a strength of 6,000 men by the end of 1971. Its future after that date will depend on conditions at that time.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the strong feelings in the House and in the country as expressed a few minutes ago? Will he have particular regard to the pleas of his hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) and reconsider this deplorable decision to reduce the brigade?

The hon. Gentleman exaggerates what is said to be the feeling in the House.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are great differences in our recruiting position which have developed since 16th January, 1968, which is 16 months ago, and that we are now 15,000 men short? Following the question of the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), will he not undertake to open negotiations in Nepal to see whether we could not recruit an additional 6,000 Gurkhas, who are the best possible auxiliaries to the British Regular Army?

No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman should read what his right hon. Friend said about this situation in 1963.

Has my hon. Friend had conversations with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development on the effect of this reduction on Nepal's external balance of payments in view of the remissions which have always been sent by Gurkhas to their relatives and dependants in Nepal?

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration has been to Nepal three times and this matter has been very much under consideration in his discussions with the Government there.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now make a statement on the rôle to be played by aircraft carriers in the early 1970s.

asked the Secretary of Slate for Defence what further consideration he now proposes to give to the rôle of the aircraft carriers after 1971.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what rôle is now proposed for H.M.S. "Ark Royal" in the seventies.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when it is intended that H.M.S. "Eagle" shall go out of active service in accordance with Her Majesty's Government's policies in regard to aircraft carriers.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will consider making available H.M.S. "Ark Royal" for international peace-keeping purposes when she is phased out of operational use with the Royal Navy in 1972.

The Government's plans for the aircraft carriers remain unchanged; that is to say, they will be phased out of their present fixed-wing flying task after the withdrawals from Malaysia, Singapore and the Persian Gulf have been completed in December, 1971. As we have said before, no decision has yet been taken about their future after that date.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the fact that well over £32 million will have to be spent on the refit of the "Ark Royal", it would be the height of madness to get rid of her when she still has an operational potential, which I understand will persist into the middle 1970s?

I do not think that that is the case. When the Government decided not to continue the carrier force, it was because the running costs annually and the cost of replacing carriers as they became obsolescent were out of all proportion to the military value which could be obtained, particularly once we decided to leave our bases east of Suez.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that there has been confusion in some Press reports about the future of the carriers? Would he clarify the position and confirm that an alternative way of dealing with this would involve greater cost with no greater benefit in terms of our defence policy?

If one decides to retire an equipment from its existing rôle, it is possible to scrap it, to sell it or to give it a new rôle. Each of those possibilities is still open for the carriers, particularly the smaller carrier "Hermes", whose overhead costs when operating are very much less than those of the larger ones like "Eagle" and "Ark Royal".

Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate what vessel or type of vessel will replace the aircraft carrier which has been carrying out anti-evasion of Rhodesian sanctions patrols off Mozambique, once the carriers have been withdrawn?

The functions which were carried out by a carrier in the Beira patrol are being carried out very satisfactorily at the moment by Shackleton aircraft.

Will my right hon. Friend give serious consideration to the possibility that this ship might form part of some future peace-keeping exercise, and will he explore with the Committee of 33 how it might be done?

As my hon. Friend knows, we are very anxious to assist the United Nations in any practicable way in its peace-keeping operations. However, this possibility has never been raised with us, and I would doubt whether it made sense to use a ship of this size and complexity in the rôle to which my hon. Friend refers.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that we on this side of the House share the anxieties expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks), and will he confirm that the Super Harriers will be available for operations from these aircraft carriers and perhaps from other ships after 1971?

When the Pegasus engine is up-rated, which is what I assume the right hon. and learned Gentleman means by Super Harriers, the Harrier will be available for any purpose which is considered suitable at the time. One such purpose might be operating from the decks of ships. However, I doubt whether it would operate from the decks of larger ships, because the advantages of the short take-off would be lost by using a very long runway.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has yet discussed the effects on West European defence of the United States' decision to proceed with a thin anti-ballistic missile system and if he will make a statement.

No formal discussions have been held on the decision announced by President Nixon on 14th March, but as with the many other subjects of common interest in N.A.T.O., some informal discussion has taken place. I am unable however to disclose details.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that for the Americans to invest £3½ billion in a system designed to protect the Minuteman missile sites is bound to increase tension, is bound to accelerate the arms race, and may well involve a strategic reappraisal of the whole cold war situation, which would be very damaging to us? Is he aware that in The Times this morning there is a report that apparently the President of the United States, in certain circumstances involving this so-called safeguard missile system, might delegate his authority to order the firing of these weapons?

My hon. Friend must recognise that the Soviet Government are proceeding with the deployment of their anti-ballistic missile system. I know that the American Administration are deeply anxious to negotiate with the Soviet Union a mutual agreement that neither side will deploy new strategic weapons, offensive or defensive, such as the A.B.M. system. But the rationale given by President Nixon for the deployment of this system is to ensure that America never has to fire strategic weapons systems first. I should have thought that that was an objective which commanded the support of all hon. Members.

I am delighted to hear the right hon: Gentleman say that. Since our security as well as that of the United States rests upon an invulnerable second strike, what is wrong with the Americans guaranteeing that that second strike should be effective?

With respect to the hon. Gentleman and to my hon. Friend, it is not for me to decide at the moment whether the American decision is wise in the light of America's problems. Certainly the rationale presented for the system is one that commends itself to both sides of the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he took to find staff to man the Regimental Pay Office in Edinburgh, so as to avoid its closure.

None Sir.

Does the hon. Gentleman recall the remarkable proposition he put in a recent letter to me that there was not sufficient expertise in Scotland to man this office? Is he aware that representatives of the Civil Service have said that there is a nucleus available of 35 men with records experience and 80 with experience in pay offices? What is wrong with that?

It is the relocation of pay and records offices that is the point of the reorganisation. If the Conservative Government had not closed the records office at Perth in 1964, there might have been enough people available but there are not now.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is great irritation in the development areas at the Government's failure to choose them for the establishment of these offices? So far, only one development area has been chosen for such an office. This is at Exeter, where the unemployment rate is half that of the North-East of England, where we have excellent computer training services.

There are many other factors to take into account than regional policy. In relation to broad regional policy, in the saving of 900 jobs through the reorganisation, 800 will come from London and the South-East, which will be a substantial contribution to regional policy in general.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the naval and air bases now used by British forces in the Mediterranean; and if he will make a statement.

The bases mainly used are in Gibraltar, Malta and Cyprus. I refer the hon. Member to recent statements on the Defence Estimates for fuller information.

Will the right hon. Gentleman list those former British bases and facilities, both naval and air, used by the Russian fleet in the Mediterranean area? Would it not include Alexandria, Port Said, Luxor, Salum, Mersa Matruh, Aswan, Cairo West and Habbannya, for a start? Has not our withdrawal from that area benefited no one and nothing so much as Russian imperial ambitions?

As the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery)—whom I see back on the Opposition Front Bench for the first time—will recall, it was the Conservative Government's responsibility that the bases in Egypt and the surrounding area were abandoned by the British Government at the time. But the fact is that they have not been taken over as bases by the Soviet Union.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what action he intends to take to expedite the supply of radar spares for "Leander" class frigates.

In general, there is no difficulty about the supply of radar spares for "Leander" class frigates. A redesigned power unit is currently being installed in one of the radar sets fitted on these frigates, and adequate shore stocks of this unit are now held to meet any emergency requirements.

Not in general perhaps but in particular there is a great shortage. Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that this shortage is not due to a general rundown in stocks and spares or war stocks through the economies of the Government?

I can give that assurance to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. There was no rundown of spares. Indeed, the reverse was the case. This concerned the installation of a new set in place of an old set. In the particular case which I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman has in mind—H.M.S. "Danae"—a replacement ordered failed on test. The position for the future is satisfactory.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many local authorities currently decline to allow service careers officers to visit schools in their areas; whether he has written to these authorities; and whether he will make a statement.

There are currently about 16 areas in which local authorities decline to allow careers officers to visit schools. The Services recruiting organisations continually take all possible measures to achieve full co-operation.

Will the right hon. Gentleman not think again as to whether it would not be constructive to write to these authorities and urge them to allow careers officers to pay such visits? May I point out, without carping, that he may find these authorities more liable to help now that so many more of them are in the hands of the Conservatives?

We are constantly in touch with the local authorities on this. The list of authorities is continually changing. It does not consist of the same authorities all the time. As one would expect with any list of local authorities at present, the majority of them are Conservative.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one school has become closely associated with a certain vessel in the Royal Navy? Will he encourage this kind of association between schools not only with vessels of the Royal Navy but also with R.A.F. units and regiments in the Army?

We have to consider the cost, both in particular and in general, but I am certainly prepared to encourage this kind of association. But policy in the schools not only towards Service visits but also towards visits by industry is a matter for the local education authorities and the head teachers concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans he has for defending vulnerable points in the United Kingdom during a period of severe tension in Europe;

(2) what plans exist for organising home defence in the United Kingdom should conventional war break out in Europe.

It would not be in the public interest to give details of such plans.

Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that nothing that has been said, certainly today or in the recent defence debates, has sufficed to allay the considerable public anxiety which exists about the apparent inadequacy or absence of plans for safeguarding the home base in the event of trouble developing abroad? Will he take steps to allay that anxiety?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman grossly exaggerates the degree of public anxiety. Anxiety has not been expressed to me in any form by any member of the public.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of defending a vulnerable home base would be to bring home B.A.O.R. and save £220 million at the same time?

No, Sir. I take the opposite view, as I explained in the last defence debate, and it is a view which at least commanded the support of the Front Bench opposite. A situation in which there might be a threat to the home base is more likely to arise in Europe and we can best meet that by concentrating troops on the Continent.

If a foreign Power flew a civil aircraft loaded with commandos into London Airport, how would the right hon. Gentleman deal with the situation?

The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to answer that supplementary question.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to review the provision made for home defence following the recent acts of sabotage in Northern Ireland.

None. Our plans for home defence relate to general war.

Does the right hon. Gentleman still believe that an internal sabotage campaign would not coincide with a grave emergency abroad? Does not the lesson of Ulster underline the folly of slashing our reserve forces?

On the contrary, as I have explained in previous debates, tens of thousands of regular Servicemen will be available in Britain in case of war. The problem in Northern Ireland at the moment is being dealt with by a few hundred infantrymen partly because in Northern Ireland a large part of the police are caught up in duties which have no parallel, and would have no parallel, I hope, in this country.

is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is wrong to say that there is no public anxiety about the state of our home defences? Where are these tens of thousands of troops to come from if we are also committed to Europe? Has he seen what the Under-Secretary of State had to say recently—that all we have for home defence is the Household Brigade and storekeepers? The N.A.T.O. treaty places upon each country its own responsibility for home defence, and we are the only country in Western Europe which is making no proper provision for home defence.

We debated this in detail on the Defence Estimates and the House found against the right hon. and learned Gentleman. But as I said earlier, tens of thousands of professional Servicemen will be available in Britain in case of war, and I mean that this would be so after all those troops committed to N.A.T.O. for service outside the United Kingdom have left the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what training for peacekeeping activities is undertaken by Her Majesty's forces.

Peace-keeping activities call for high standards of discipline, basic training and morale. These qualities are developed in our military schools, staff courses and colleges for all our forces whether serving on peace-keeping or other tasks.

We also take account of the experience already gained in United Nations' and other peace-keeping operations.

Would not the Secretary of State agree that the previous belief that the permanent members of the Security Council were not likely to be involved in peace-keeping operations can no longer be held in view of British participation in Cyprus and the proposals for contributions by the permanent members in the Middle East? In view of the extensive preparation and training carried out in some other countries, notably Scandinavian countries, for this purpose, would he not agree that it would be valuable if we undertook special training for these purposes and co-operated with other Governments to that end?

British forces are extraordinarily well trained for peace-keeping duties, as is proved by the way in which they compare with the contributions by other countries to peace-keeping forces. I do not think that anyone who has visited Cyprus will dispute that. There was a Question about training with other countries which was put a month ago when I explained some of the problems and difficulties.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now make a statement on his discussions with the West German Government regarding the use of nuclear weapons.

The Anglo-German study designed to establish guidelines for the tactical use of nuclear weapons by N.A.T.O. will be considered at the Ministerial meeting of the N.A.T.O. Nuclear Planning Group at the end of this month.

While my right hon. Friend may believe that this collaboration gives N.A.T.O. greater control over future German nuclear activity, is it not possible that Bonn enthusiastically supports it for exactly the opposite reason?

Everything is possible, but I am convinced that the activities of the Nuclear Planning Group have done more to deal with the serious problems of nuclear control within the Alliance than anything that has previously happened. I think that the work which we are now doing is making a major political as well as military contribution to the solidarity of N.A.T.O. and peace in the West.

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that if discussions with the West German Government on the subject of the possibility of any control, or partial control, by the West German Government over nuclear weapons in Europe should occur, they will not be regarded as confidential and that the House will be fully informed?

There is no question of giving control of nuclear weapons to anybody who does not possess nuclear weapons now. The purpose of the study which we are carrying out in the Nuclear Planning Group is to ensure that all members of the Alliance share a common doctrine on how these weapons should be used if their use ever became necessary.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the aircraft carrier H.M.S. "Eagle" will be returning to the Beira sanctions' patrol; and during her absence what vessel or vessels are carrying out her duties.

I have no plans to make further use of aircraft carriers on the Beira Patrol. The patrol will continue to be carried out by destroyers or frigates and Shackleton aircraft of the Royal Air Force.

Where do the Shackle-ton aircraft operate from and at what cost, in terms of both cash and foreign exchange? Second, would the right hon. Gentleman care to comment on the efficiency of the present system, as petrol in Salisbury under sanctions costs rather less than petrol in England without sanctions but under his Government?

As is well known, the aircraft operate from Madagascar and have done so since the beginning of the patrol. The patrol has been totally effective for its purpose, which was to prevent any oil from reaching Rhodesia through Beira.