asked the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received for the release for civilian use of land in military occupation in the Woking constituency; and what reply he has sent.

During the last 12 months we have had 25 specific requests, of which we have been able to agree 18; we have been unable to accept two; and the remaining five are under consideration.

I hope that the Minister will continue to give sympathetic consideration to these representations, particularly in the case of Ash parish where very little land has been released for community use. Has he received any approach from the Central Electricity Generating Board for the release of a substantial acreage of military ground for the purpose of constructing a new power station?

On the last point, no, Sir. As regards Ash Parish Council, I have written to the hon. Gentleman; we cannot do anything about that. On the broad principle, whenever the Ministry of Defence can release land, it will.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance his Department is giving to the Housing Management Sub-Committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee in its review of local authority practice in allocating council houses, with particular reference to the housing needs of ex-servicemen.

My Department has submitted a written memorandum to the subcommittee on the housing needs of ex-servicemen. I would also refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Equipment on the forces assisted house purchase scheme on Tuesday, 24th June.—[Vol. 785, c. 250.]

Does the memorandum include specific case histories of the kind of case about which the Minister and I have corresponded in recent years? May I take this opportunity of renewing my offer to come and talk to him about these cases to see what I can do to help?

On the last part, yes, I shall be pleased to see the hon. Gentleman. On the first part, it was a general statement regarding how we should like local authorities to deal with Service people on the basis of housing need, as they do with every other applicant.

I welcome the statement which was made yesterday, but could the hon. Gentleman say how well the local authorities are co-operating in providing houses for Regular ex-Servicemen who obtain employment in their areas and whom the Government have asked should be put on housing waiting lists?

Most local authorities are good, but there are some black sheep we remonstrate with them as hard as we can, and very often we succeed.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Commonwealth Five-Power Conference on Far East defence recently concluded in Canberra.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what decisions were reached at the Commonwealth Five-Power Conference on Far East defence on 19th and 20th June; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his official visit to Canberra.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what subjects were discussed with Australian, New Zealand and other defence Ministers during his tour overseas.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on his recent talks in Canberra concerning the future defence of South-East Asia.

I expect that my right hon. Friend will make a statement on his return. Meanwhile, I would refer the hon. and right hon. Members to the official communiqué of the Five-Power Conference, which I shall, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

In the meantime, is it now Government policy that all three Services shall be in the Far East almost continuously, even after our withdrawal, on exercises; and what support as a result of the conference shall we now give to S.E.A.T.O.?

The position is clear. We shall be exercising troops in the Far East; it will not be continuous, but it will be for a substantial part of the year. We shall be using, in particular, the jungle warfare school, and we shall have a number of ships there from time to time.

Why was the Prime Minister so anxious yesterday to try to differentiate between training in this area and a commitment to be there? Is he suggesting that the troops which are training out there will not be available in any circumstances to come to the aid of our allies?

My right hon. Friend was making the position quite clear yesterday, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises. He was distinguishing between using certain facilities in the Far East to ensure that we could fulfil our training responsibilities, and an automatic commitment.

Before my right hon. Friend makes a statement could we have an account placed in the Library of two matters—first, precisely what commitments have been made in Canberra, so that we can enter into sensible discussions, and, second, some estimate of the costs needed to meet the proposals of the Leader of the Opposition, who said in Australia that he would maintain a force capable of taking part in resisting the Chinese?

It is not for me to answer for the Leader of the Opposition, but, on the first part, I would expect my right hon. Friend to make a statement to the House when he returns.

Could my hon. Friend suggest to his right hon. Friend that, in addition to making a statement, he might issue a White Paper? Although the Government appear to have come to a decision to withdraw from east of Suez, the communiqué and the Press reports seem to suggest that we have entered into many commitments which are likely to be costly. Would it not be wise to issue a White Paper to remove the ambiguity?

On the second part, there is no question of our altering our basic decision to withdraw from Malaysia and Singapore by the end of 1971. I will certainly put the point about the White Paper to my right hon. Friend.

In view of the fact that we have naval forces there, is the rôle of the Navy, in particular, in the Far East being looked into? Is the training of people from the Far Eastern countries going to be continued in this country?

The Navy will be deployed from time to time in the Far East. It is expected to amount to up to four ships or so for up to four months a year. This is the measure of the type of Navy training which we expect in the Far East after 1971.

In view of the fact that most of the ambiguity to which the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) referred stems, as usual, from the Prime Minister's observations, may we on this side support the suggestion of a White Paper? We should, for example, like to know why the forces that are to remain there most of the time should not remain there all the time.

There is no suggestion of any ambiguity in the Prime Minister's statement yesterday. He sought to distinguish between carrying out certain training in the Far East and an automatic commitment. He made the position absolutely clear. I am sure the country will be relieved to know that the Opposition will have no chance of putting into effect their incredibly expensive suggestions.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm specifically that the Government's plans for the rundown east of Suez and the timing of the rundown have not been altered at all as a result of these talks?

Both on the rundown and on the timing, there is no question of altering our basic decision to withdraw from Malaysia and Singapore by the end of 1971.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the despatches from the officer commanding the military forces which intervened in Anguilla.

No, Sir.

Why is that? Are they unpublishable, even in Punch? After that reply, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many troops are needed in Anguilla, how long they will remain there, and why?

On the first part, the dispatches from Anguilla are military dispatches and would contain a number of matters which, in accordance with usual practice—as the hon. Gentleman will know from his own experience—are classified information.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement about future defence co-operation with Zambia.

Apart from the Zambian Government's request for the withdrawal of the British joint Services training team in Zambia by the end of the year, there has been no development since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a statement on his talks with President Kaunda in London last July.

Are we then to take it that it is incorrect that Zambia is asking Italy for assistance with military aviation?

I cannot answer for the Zambian Government. I have no information.

In the light of the deteriorating situation in respect of Rhodesia, would it not be wise, and have we not an obligation, to enter into some conversations with the Zambian Government about their defence problems?

The Prime Minister made a suggestion to the Zambian Government some time ago that there could be a joint study of Zambia's defence requirements, and the Zambian Government have not so far taken up that offer. It is a matter for the Zambian Government.

If the Minister cannot answer for the Zambian Government, will he answer for the British Government? What representations have the British Government made to the Zambian Government about their proposal for the withdrawal of R.A.F. officers? Will we tell the Zambian Government that if R.A.F. officers are not good enough for them they can do without our defence co-operation?

There is another Question about the withdrawal of R.A.F. officers. Certainly, they have made this request. It is a matter entirely for them in the terms of the agreement which was published as a Command Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the terms of the Treaty with Malaysia which permit or require the use of personnel in maintaining internal law and order there.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the provisions of the Treaty with Malaysia requiring the use of British personnel in maintaining internal law and order.

The provisions of the Anglo-Malaysian Defence Agreement are concerned with external defence and assistance in the training and development of the armed forces of the Federation of Malaysia. As has already been made clear by my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force in another place on 12th June, the maintenance of civil law and order in the country is entirely a matter for the Malaysian Government, police and armed forces.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords; Vol. 302, C. 771–2.]

May we, then, assume that it will not be the policy of the Government to supply either equipment or personnel designed to promote the existing domestic political arrangements of Malaysia?

My noble Friend the Under-Secretary dealt with the question of troops in another place. It is a hypothetical question. As regards the equipment, the Malaysian Government asked us whether we would supply some items of military equipment, and we have told them that we would be willing to supply the items requested, subject to their being available and to there being agreement on the method of payment.

May we have a clear understanding that not even any scope for excuse will be given for people saying that we can be drawn into a conflict between Malays and Chinese?

I am confident that this would not be our intention.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the approximate cost of each of the 330 multi-rôle combat aircraft he proposes to order, and, separately, the total approximate development cost; and if he intends to publish such estimates before finally deciding to proceed.

As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Technology stated on 16th April, it is not the normal practice to give cost estimates of this nature.—[Vol. 781, c. 1133]

But is it not very serious that, outside this Chamber, on the day after a statement was made in this Chamber, an estimate was given by the Ministry of the little sum of £675 million as our share of the cost? Since these estimates have been wildly exceeded in the past, may we have some guarantee that it will be less than that sum and certainly not more?

At this very early stage in this most important project it is not possible to give detailed estimates of the kind my hon. Friend requires. There are a number of stages in this project. We have completed the first stage and are now in the project definition stage. That is all we are committed to now, and the object of this, among other things, is to obtain more accurate estimates of the aircraft costs to be incurred. Our financial commitment so far is only to the project definition phase and should amount to £4 million.

Is it not time that some of the ancillary sophisticated equipment used by the Services, particularly the R.A.F., was provided by British firms which for some time ahead have no orders for this advanced type of aircraft?

Naturally, I am sure that we are all concerned to ensure that British firms have a proper share of this major collaborative project. British firms will be invited in due course. There is another Question about the engine.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to give notice, that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the latest recruiting figures for the Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force; and if he will make a statement.

In April this year recruits to the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force numbered 87, 1,932 and 667 respectively. Further details are available in the Vote Office. The figures for May are not yet available. There is no total recruiting requirement in the 1969 Statement on Defence Estimates.

Are not these figures much below what is needed even to fulfil existing commitments? Are we not 10,000 men short in the Army alone? What do the Government intend to do to improve the position? Is the three-year engagement working? Does the hon. Gentleman think that the new pay proposals will help?

Yes, Sir; I agree that the figures are below what we require. However, there has been a very slight improvement over the last few months, although it is so slight that it would not be right for me to place too much emphasis on it. We hope that the pay proposals we have announced will play a significant part in improving the situation, and we are doing a number of other things as well.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the present trend in Army recruiting; and if he will make a statement.

The introduction of the shorter engagement announced in the House during the defence debate has already helped to improve recruiting, and I hope to see further improvements as a result of the increases in pay and the proposed review of the pay structure which were announced in the House last week.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, although we have not debated this subject for a few months, concern in the House and the country about the continued disappointing trend in recruiting as evidenced by the figures given earlier is still grave? Will not the Government give the appearance of a rather less leisurely and more urgent approach to the problem and at any rate give the impression that they are proposing more constructive measures to tackle it?

The Government's approach is not leisurely. The three-year engagement has only recently been introduced and appears to be a success. The Press reception of the new pay arrangements has been favourable, and from my discussions with soldiers I believe that they are looking forward to the new pay arrangements. All these things seem to be helping considerably.

What is the shortfall? Is the hon. Gentleman able to give an assurance that even now we are able to meet our commitments not only in Europe but in the Near East?

We are certainly able to meet our commitments, but we should like considerably more recruits. It is much too early yet to say how we shall get along.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what further action lie intends to take in 1969 to improve recruiting for the armed forces.

Substantial pay changes were announced to the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 16th June.

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the main reason for leaving the Services given to the Prices and Incomes Board by officers and other ranks was uncertainty about career prospects? Does he recognise that this has an inhibiting effect on recruitment? Will he urgently turn his attention to reshaping the career structure of the Services in the coming months?

Career prospects play an important part in recruiting men to the Forces, but pay, too, is very important. I know that the hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming the adoption by the Government of the proposals of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on military salaries.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total net recruitment to the Army in the first five months of 1969; and what were the comparable figures in the first five months of each of the previous four years.

Figures for May are not yet available. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will circulate the figures for the first four months of 1969 and the comparable figures for the previous four years in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Are not the figures of net recruiting disturbing and disappointing, particularly when we have a big increase in unemployment? Is the Minister certain that we shall be able to fulfil our responsibilities without resorting to conscription?

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how long it is since Minley Manor was vacated by the Staff College; what has been the annual cost to public funds of maintaining the property since then; for what purpose it is now being used; and what plans he has for its future use.

The Army Staff College moved out of Minley Manor in August last year and it has since been under care and maintenance at a cost of £7,174 to date. Future plans for the building remain at present as stated in the 1966 Defence White Paper.

Is not this disgraceful? The house has been on the hands of the Ministry for over a year standing empty. Is there just one officer stationed in this enormous place? What does the hon. Gentleman think he is going to do with it? Surely the Ministry cannot go on paying this cost.

Money is spent on such items as the minimum of heating and ventilation in order to prevent deterioration and on keeping the garden tidy and cultivated. It would be a false economy to do less.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what forces are

The figures are not as good as we would wish, but, comparing 1969 with 1968, the inflow of adults and young soldiers is 500 up. The inflow of juniors in 1969, 1968 and 1965 was much the same. Therefore, the situation is not as bad as some hon. Members make out.

It is not the practice to give this kind of information. We have, however, made it clear that we shall not declare forces to S.E.A.T.O. contingency plans when the withdrawal of our forces from Malaysia and Singapore is completed.

Like the Prime Minister yesterday, the hon. Gentleman has insisted today that there is no automatic commitment in this area after 1971, whereas Lord Shepherd last month was saying that Britain would maintain a capacity to send a significant force to the area after our withdrawal from Malaysia and Singapore. Who is right? What is going on? Are the Government saying that they regard themselves as committed to S.E.A.T.O. or not?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman fully understands the distinction. This matter has been canvassed from time to time in many defence debates in which he and I have taken part. There is a difference between an automatic commitment and what my noble Friend was referring to as our general capability. This has been made clear in our defence debates and is one of the points which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was emphasising yesterday.

By deciding to maintain capacity to send forces to the area rather than maintain them permanently on the spot, are not the Government putting themselves in the same position as many other members of S.E.A.T.O., including the United States until the Vietnam war began?

We have declared our policy. The basic policy of withdrawing from the Far East on the terms I have referred to stands completely unchanged.

Did Lord Shepherd's speech in Bangkok represent Government policy or do the Prime Minister's statements yesterday? They both cannot.

I have been pointing out in the course of answers to three questions that there is no inconsistency. There is a complete distinction, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to yesterday, between an automatic commitment and a general capability.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what conversations he has had with our North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies with a view to making good reductions by Canada in the conventional forces she contributes to the Alliance.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what reductions the Canadian Government has proposed to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in Canadian forces in Europe; and what discussions Her Majesty's Government has had with the Canadian Government on the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what action he is taking in connection with the proposed withdrawal of Canadian forces from Europe.

The Canadian Government have put forward proposals for the conversion of their present brigade group in Germany to an air-transportable combat group as well as a separate air element. Consultations on these proposals are in progress within N.A.T.O. but it is not yet possible to say what the outcome will be. In company with the Defence Ministers of other N.A.T.O. countries, my right hon. Friend has expressed his concern at the proposals to the Canadian Government.

Does not this decision leave a serious gap in Germany, in particular in the British-Canadian quarter of the Allied Forces Central Command? Is it not essential that other troops should be found to replace the Canadians?

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. If the Canadian proposal went through—and it has so far only been tabled for discussion—it would leave a gap, and, obviously, the N.A.T.O. countries would have to consider the position.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that the British decision to concentrate all our defence forces on Europe was inherently likely to produce some sort of reaction like this from North America? Will he join me in expressing the hope that the Americans will not get the same idea?

Because we are showing a lead in concentrating on Europe, I hope that this will be an example which other N.A.T.O. countries will follow. It is important to stress that, within our economic resources, we should ensure that we make the most effective military contribution possible in Europe.

Did the Secretary of State explain to the Canadians that one cannot defend one's country in these days from within one's own frontiers? Did he emphasise to them the important rôle filled by British forces east of Suez in the defence of the West as a whole?

I cannot express in detail what was discussed in the course of the deliberations on this proposal. All I can say now is that we did express our concern.

As indicated by the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle), would not the Government be in a stronger position to protest against the Canadian action if they had not done the same thing themselves? Will the hon. Gentleman reaffirm that it is not the Government's intention to contemplate any further reduction in B.A.O.R.?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that what we have sought to do is increase the forces available to Europe. So his supplementary question does not arise.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he is making in securing a European policy on defence questions within the North Atlantic Alliance.

A third informal dinner, attended by the Defence Ministers of a number of the European members of N.A.T.O., including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, took place in Brussels on 27th May, 1969. A wide range of defence matters was discussed, including the possibility of greater European co-operation in arms procurement.

While giving the Secretary of State full credit for these working dinners, may I ask whether they could not now progress to formal meetings?

What is important is that the European Defence Ministers, whether in formal meetings or at working dinners, should work together as much as possible. I do not think that the form of meeting matters so much.

Is it not desirable that the outcome of the discussions should be an approach to the other side with a view to scaling down armaments all round? Is it still the policy of the Government to bring this about with a view to securing a general withdrawal of forces?

Certainly it is the policy of the Government to try to ensure on both sides in Europe a reduction of armaments.

Is it still the Government's policy to secure an independent European defence capability, nuclear as well as conventional?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows exactly what the position of the Government is.

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. The Minister has just made reference to information apparently possessed by him and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). Can the rest of us know what it is?

That is a point of curiosity, not of order.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he plans to take to prevent overflights by espionage satellites and orbiting missiles which infringe the air space of the United Kingdom.

The transit of satellite vehicles cannot be prevented. Our defence against any misuse of them in contravention of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 lies in detecting them promptly and in the maintenance of a credible Western deterrent.

Does my hon. Friend recall that the Soviet Union, quite understandably, regarded the U2 overflight as an infringement of sovereignty and took appropriate action? Can he clarify what is the position in international law if Britain or, for that matter, any other country, similarly takes appropriate action against an espionage satellite?

My hon. Friend has put his finger on a very difficult point. As the House was informed in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend himself on 21st March, the height to which national control of air space is exercised is a question of international law which has yet to be resolved. There is thus no generally agreed basis on which an infringement of British air space by satellite vehicles could be claimed. That is the position.

Is it not part of the difficulty that an orbiting satellite can be of great value to mankind when it is searching out the resources of the earth and that it is difficult to distinguish between one which does that and one which may be looking for military matters?

The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. What is important from our point of view is that in the interests of our defence we should know what is happening and have speedy detection.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost to the Exchequer in terms of cash and foreign exchange, respectively, of the maintenance of the Majunga air base in Malagasy during the last 12 months, and since its inception.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the annual cost to the Exchequer of the Royal Air Force installations and operations from Malagasy in connection with the Rhodesian policies of Her Majesty's Government.

Extra costs, in budgetary terms, of operating the detachment of Shackleton aircraft at Majunga have amounted to about £360,000 in the last year and about £920,000 all together. In foreign exchange terms the two figures are £176,000 and £500,000.

Irrespective of the wider policies involved in whether we should have sanctions, can the Minister say how long Her Majesty's Government will continue to justify a policy which involves the spending of money to this extent on preventing petrol from going through Beira when it goes through Lourenco Marques just the same to supply the Rhodesians with all they want and when they can buy petrol in Salisbury more cheaply than it can be bought in this country?

The policy will continue so long as it is needed.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the blockade of Portuguese ports in Mozambique and air operations from the territories of the Malagasy Republic.

I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) on 7th May.—[Vol. 783, c. 87.]

As this costly charade is supposed to be in furtherance of an international policy of sanctions, how much money, or assistance, has been contributed by any other member of the United Nations?

I cannot answer that question without notice. The additional cost to public funds of our patrol has been £1,500,000 and, in accordance with the United Nations resolution, our contribution has been successful.

Is my hon. Friend aware that we on these benches would wish him to intensify the blockade and step up sanctions against the Smith régime in Rhodesia?

My hon. Friend will know that that question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I shall raise the matter again.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has considered the recent South African defence programme, details of which have been sent to him; and whether he will seek to secure a substantial proportion of the orders arising from this programme for British companies.

As the right hon. Member will know, our policy on the export of arms to South Africa is in line with the resolution of the United Nations Security Council in 1964.

As what is now involved is a major rearmament programme, involving valuable orders for many years, will not the Government reconsider the matter? Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House what useful purpose is served by denying employment and orders to British shipyards and factories when our colleagues in the United Nations are only too glad to supply them?

Her Majesty's Government have no intention of changing their policy, which is in compliance with the United Nations resolution.

Will my hon. Friend also take note of the fact that honour and decency are involved—[Interruption.] I know that hon. Members opposite do not understand that. Will my hon. Friend remember that we are talking of a country which embraces many of the evil and repugnant features of the former German Third Reich, that our early attitude to that country was a mistake? The Tories are making the same mistake again. I hope that we shall not follow their example.

Will the hon. Gentleman answer my right hon. Friend's Question? What is the purpose of the Government's futile and stupid policy?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is entitled to express himself in whatever way he wishes. What we have decided is in accordance with

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied that the ground defence of aircraft and installations on Royal Air Force airfields in West Germany is adequate to meet all foreseeable attacks; and if he will make a statement.

Our aircraft in Germany would be protected in war against attack from the air by the N.A.T.O. air defence system, local antiaircraft defences, concrete revetments and the dispersal of aircraft. We are considering with the N.A.T.O. military authorities what further degree of protection may be required for R.A.F. aircraft and installations in Germany.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that considerable anxiety has been expressed about what are described as inadequate defences for our aircraft and installations on the ground and the inadequate strength of the ground forces necessary to protect airfields against sabotage? Is he saying that there is no ground for that anxiety?

I am fully aware of the importance of the hon. Gentleman's first question. I have seen these things at

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the overall strength, including officers, other ranks, young soldiers/airmen and women of each of the services separately, on 1st April, 1964, and 1st April, 1969, respectively.

As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, publish it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that these R.A.F. airfields would be far more secure in Britain than in West Germany?

I do not agree about that. The R.A.F. in Germany fulfils a very important part of our rôle in protecting the defences of the United Kingdom and the remainder of the territory which is part of N.A.T.O.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence why British H-bombs and Polaris missile warheads have not been fitted with electronic locks to prevent explosion by accident or without Governmental approval; and if he will now provide such locks.

I am satisfied with the present arrangements for the protection against accidental firing and for the political and physical control of British nuclear weapons.

If our precautions are adequate, why have America and Russia gone to the expense of fitting such locks? Might they not prevent an H-bomb accident which could trigger off a third world war?

I cannot answer for either of those two Governments, and they are the only authorities who could give reasons for doing this. My hon. Friend, who studies these matters, will know that the United States is in a special position in that it provides nuclear warheads allocated to launch vehicles and aircraft of other N.A.T.O. countries, and the fitting of electronic locks could contribute to the fulfilment of the United States legal requirement to retain custody and control of these warheads. I have no details of any electronic locks fitted by the Soviet Union to its nuclear weapons.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of us who live in the industrial belt of Scotland and who have these deadly weapons situated on our doorstep are made more concerned by his answer? Is not the best way in which to avoid an explosion not to have these weapons at all?

My answer will only add to the concern if the hon. Lady does not believe what I say.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the recent deployment of Russian forces in the Indian Ocean; and if he will make a statement.

Over the last six months the number of Russian warships in the area has fluctuated from six to the present level of one.

Would the hon. Gentleman comment on the recent Russian movement off the Seychelles reported recently in the Daily Telegraph? What action has been taken, up to 1971, to protect British interests in the Indian Ocean?

I understand that there has been movement of Russian ships, as the hon. Member said, off the Seychelles and that they have sited buoys on the high seas. Since these were the high seas, they required no permission and could not be prohibited.

Does the hon. Gentleman fully understand and appreciate that the Russian trawlers in the Indian Ocean are considered to be disguised supply ships servicing Russian submarines in the area?

I do not think that it would be in the interests of security for me to give details of our knowledge of this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he will now move to appoint a Select Committee on Defence.

I have nothing to add to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury in the course of the debate on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill on 26th March.—[Vol. 780, c. 1467–71.]

When can we have a statement from the Secretary of State about this very important subject following the most sympathetic speech in the Adjournment debate by the then Patronage Secretary? Surely at a time when defence problems are becoming more technical and scientific, we need a bipartisan approach, a sharing of defence problems across the Floor of the House?

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's view and I have studied his speech. I am not without sympathy for what he says. As my right hon. Friend the then Patronage Secretary indicated, this was a matter for consideration, together with all the other Select Committees, to examine where we stood in this new and important experiment. As to defence, we have not been immune from probing by a select committee; hence the recent important report by the Select Committee on Science and Technology.

Would my hon. Friend not agree that this Government have gained considerable credit and good will in the country from their action in setting up a number of Parliamentary Committees, but that the real test of their intentions will be whether they are prepared to set up Committees on such important questions as foreign affairs and defence?

I am sure my hon. Friend's view will be noted by my colleagues responsible for these matters. I would stress that we have had a most important report on defence dealing with pertinent questions.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement about the payment of support costs for British forces in Germany.

I presume the hon. Member is referring to the offset agreement, and, as the House will know, negotiations on a new agreement are now in progress with the Federal German Government.

In these negotiations, have our representatives abandoned the recent practice of trying to persuade the Germans to buy British Government securities as part of the offset agreement as this may merely increase the long-term indebtedness of the country?

I cannot comment on this matter at this stage. The hon. Member would be the first to appreciate that these negotiations are going on now.

In these negotiations, will the Government take a firm line with the West German Government, in view of their superior financial position and their bragging about prosperity? Could not they afford to make a larger contribution, particularly to the civilian personnel ancillary to our forces in Germany, thus helping this country?

I hope that we shall have a good contribution. Certainly I hope that the final agreement will be at least as good as last year's.

If the hon. Gentleman cannot tell us about current negotiations, will he tell the House how much of the so-called offset costs are represented by German investments in Government bonds on which we have to pay interest, and which a future Government will have to repay altogether in about 1972?

If the right hon. and learned Gentleman puts down a Question to the responsible Minister I am sure he will get an answer to that.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the recent meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Nuclear Defence Committee.

At the meeting of the N.A.T.O. Nuclear Planning Group in London on 29th and 30th May, Ministers continued their review of nuclear defence planning. They welcomed the progress that had been made on the preparation of guidelines for the N.A.T.O. military authorities in respect of the tactical use of nuclear weapons within the concept of N.A.T.O. deterrent strategy; and gave instructions for the continuation of work in this field. Ministers also considered strategic aspects of N.A.T.O.'s nuclear defence and further arrangements for consultation within the alliance on the possible use of nuclear weapons.

Can my hon. Friend say what further discussions are taking place about the Anglo-German proposals on the use of tactical nuclear weapons? Could he also comment on the recent report of an international committee of experts that the Soviet Union would be able to counter United States Polaris submarines by the 1970s? What consideration has been given to that report?

Dealing with the first part of my hon. Friend's question, the Anglo-French paper on guidelines was generally welcome and is now being revised for the next meeting, in the light of comments, with a view to its adoption for general political guidance. On the second point about vulnerability, I am not sure to which report my hon. Friend is referring. If he is referring to a comment made by the American Defence Secretary, he was making the point that there is no permanence in the quality of some of our deterrents.

When are we to have a statement from the Secretary of State, whose absence from the House we regret, about the British independent nuclear deterrent?

I am sure that if the hon. and learned Gentleman puts down a Question asking for a statement, my right hon. Friend will, the next time he answers Questions, seek to deal with that.

Is it the Government's policy to encourage Anglo-French co-operation on nuclear defence, particularly in the light of this fresh approach to the new French Government?

We should wait for an indication of the views of the French Government on this. This is a matter for them and I am sure that they, having sometime in 1966 withdrawn from their rôle in N.A.T.O., would be very welcome to play a bigger part than they now do.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Defence Planning Committee in Brussels.

The results of the meeting of the Defence Planning Committee in Ministerial session on 28th May, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence attended, are set out in the official communiqué, which I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Would my hon. Friend accept that many people will share his concern about the regrettable decision of the Canadian Government to withdraw unilaterally from Europe? Could he say what effect that is likely to have on the prospects of mutual force reductions? Can he specify what further consideration is being given to an approach to the new French Government, to get them back into N.A.T.O.?

Dealing with the Canadian position, this proposal by them, as I said earlier, is to convert and reduce their forces, not, as I understand it, to withdraw. They have a brigade group there. This issue is still to be determined. As for the French, it was a French decision to withdraw their forces in 1966 from the Alliance. We regretted it at the time and would welcome the return of France to play a full part in the affairs of N.A.T.O. This is a matter for France herself.

Regarding co-operation with France, can the hon. Gentleman confirm that Admiral Le Fanu was most warmly welcomed at the French Government's submarine missile station? Would he accept that an Anglo-French nuclear entente would be a very helpful step towards the European profile which the Government wish to see in N.A.T.O. and which might open the door to the Common Market?

I am not able to comment on Admiral Le Fanu's moves, but I am sure that he would be generally welcome wherever he went. On the second point, I repeat that we would welcome the return of France to play a full part in the affairs of the North Atlantice Alliance.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he will come to a decision with regard to the claims made by Royal Air Force personnel who were posted to the United States of America for work on the F111, on the cancellation of which their tour of duty there was curtailed with financial loss to the men concerned.

I hope a decision will be reached soon whether payments can be made additional to those authorised in February. My noble Friend will write to the right hon. and learned Gentleman as soon as possible.

Is it not a fact that these men were encouraged to go to the United States and to take their families with them, that they incurred great expense in establishing homes there for their families, and that when the F111 was cancelled 18 months ago they found themselves heavily out of pocket? Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that compensation is given quickly and adequately?

I am sorry for the delay. The gap between the claimants and my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force has been narrowed. Another look is being taken at the rules to see whether in future things can be done rather better.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is Her Majesty's Government's policy regarding the carrying by the United States Air Force of chemical and biological weapons in United States aircraft over British territory;

No stocks of biological or chemical warfare agents are maintained by the United States forces in this country, and no weapons of this kind are carried over British territory by aircraft of the United States Air Force.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that statement will be very reassuring to the people of this country? Will he give an undertaking that no such flights will be permitted by Her Majesty's Government or that no stocks of these weapons will be allowed to be maintained in this country? Would he agree that if we were to allow this to be done it would be a serious breach of our undertakings under the Geneva Convention of 1925?

Since we have received no such request, the question does not arise.

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. Since an hon. Member is responsible for the accuracy of his actions or statements, were not the last two Questions dangerous in the absence of grounds for the words in them?

The hon. Gentleman has answered his own point of order. An hon. Member is responsible for the accuracy of the information in his Question.

rose—

Order. Question Time goes on.

Is my hon. Friend aware that it was only with the very greatest difficulty that the United States Congress discovered many of the facts relating to the movement of these weapons across the territory of the United States? Is he absolutely satisfied that Her Majesty's Government are being provided with full and accurate information on this matter?

I have made my inquiries, and I am in no doubt whatever about the facts that I have given the House.

rose—

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would raise his point of order at the end of Questions.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the accuracy and quality of rifle ammunition provided to Her Majesty's forces.

I would refer the hon. Member to the Written Answer I gave on this same point on 18th June.—[Vol. 785; c. 106.]

Is it not a fact that the United Kingdom specification for 7–62 millimetre ammunition is higher than the N.A.T.O. equivalent? Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that these specifications are being adhered to?

I have not had representations from the sporting side of rifle shooting, nor from within the Ministry of Defence. I therefore assume that the position is much more satisfactory than it would appear to be from the newspapers.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he proposes to undertake further discussions in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation with a view to establishing an Atlantic nuclear force.