asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the engines proposed for the multi-rôle combat aircraft.

I am glad to say that the Rolls-Royce RB 199 engine proposals for the M.R.C.A. project were accepted last month by all the countries concerned, subject to the conclusion of satisfactory contract negotiations. The development and production of the engine will be undertaken by a joint company in which Rolls-Royce will be associated with the German firm of Motoren und Turbinen Union, and the Italian firm of Fiat. An initial contract has already been placed with this new company.

While I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement, may I ask whether he can say that there will be British participation in the airframe and avionics, as there is common participation in the engine?

Airframe participation has been settled. There is major British participation. The avionics are slower to develop, but I am assured there will be no difficulty in British firms getting their fair share.

Are discussions still taking place with other prospective partners about this deal? Are there prospects of sales to third parties in future?

There are certainly prospects of sales to third parties, although I doubt whether any countries other than the three at present involved would wish to participate in research and development.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of the Press release issued by his department on the 14th May relating to the estimated cost of the multi-rôle combat aircraft.

No official Press release was issued by my Department on 14th May relating to the estimated cost of the M.R.C.A.

But on 15th May did not The Times, The Guardian and the Daily Telegraph all quote my right hon. Friend by name as estimating the cost at £575 million plus £150 million development costs? Were they imagining it? Is it not seriously undermining parliamentary democracy if information about this vast expenditure is refused us in the House and yet given outside in the Press where it cannot be questioned?

If my hon. Friend will look carefully at those reports, he will see that a great deal of background information, including an estimate of cost, has been added by the air correspondents to my personal announcement in the House. No doubt air correspondents have many sources of background information of this sort. They do not quote their sources, and it is not for me to attempt to do so.

Will the combined development costs of this multi-rôle combat aircraft be between £670 million and £1,500 million?

I am not in a position to give these costs to the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the development of surface-to-surface weapon systems for the Royal Navy.

We are developing an improved 4·5-inch gun, which will have a better performance than existing guns of this calibre. The Seadart surface-to-air missile system, which is also under development, will have a useful surface-to-surface capability.

The Minister's reply shows that there is no such development. Can he explain how he can protect British shipping out of range of land bases against attack from modern Soviet destroyers when carriers have been phased out?

We have traversed this ground on innumerable occasions. I set out the case explicitly in the last defence debate.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of withdrawal of forces from the Middle and Far East.

I refer the hon. Member to the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1969—Command 3927. Good progress is being made.

On the Middle East, can the Secretary of State say how far the leaders are getting on with their joint force, and, turning to the Far East, is he satisfied that there will be stability in the Malaysian Peninsula to enable us to withdraw from a military point of view rather than the political point of view?

As to the Middle East, progress on the political side has been satisfactory and we hope that it will be possible for the new defence forces of the Union of Arab Emirates to absorb the Trucial Oman Scouts. This has not yet been finally decided. As to international stability, progress in the five-power Commonwealth talks was very satisfactory this summer. There are problems of internal stability which must be the concern of us all but which are not the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the French Government about an Anglo-French nuclear force.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made towards the co-ordination of the British and French nuclear forces.

I have nothing to add to the very full statement made by my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 25th July.—[Vol. 787, c. 2378–82.]

If this question of the Anglo-French nuclear deterrent came up, for example, in the Common Market negotiations, what would be the Government's attitude towards such a proposal?

The difficulty is to know what sort of proposal the hon. Member has in mind. The central problem, as I made clear when the Leader of the Opposittion ventilated this idea two years ago, is to know whether such a force would be inside or outside of N.A.T.O. There seems to be no chance of the present French Government, so long as it holds to its present policy, agreeing to such a force being inside N.A.T.O. To have such a force outside N.A.T.O. would be deeply damaging to the solidarity of the Alliance.

Would it not be hypocrisy if we were to proceed with the joint nuclear force on the one hand and back non-proliferation on the other?

I do not know how wise I am to answer these hypothetical questions, but the fact is that co-operation between Britain and France in this sphere, as they are both nuclear Powers, would not be affected in any way by the non-proliferation treaty.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if there is the will on the part of both Governments a great deal more practical co-operation is possible? Will he tell the House what the Government's proposition is?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman, who knows something of these matters, must accept that any attempt to build such a force outside the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation would be a sheer disaster for the solidarity of the Alliance, and there is currently no prospect of building such a force inside the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite must face this fact.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in disposing to Australia and New Zealand the communications equipment at present in use in Singapore.

This matter is under discussion with the Australian and New Zealand staffs in Singapore, with the object of ensuring that they are able to meet their requirements for communications facilities. I am confident that satisfactory arrangements can be made.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that this complex of communications is of a very special value not only to ourselves but to others? Can he explain how it is that we are not applying to our negotiations with Australia and New Zealand in this respect the same attitude of mind as we are over certain installations which we have, in my view rightly, given to Singapore and Malaysia, whereas we propose making a charge in the case of communications?

I think that I would be in very serious trouble with the Public Accounts Committee if I agreed that we gave away to anybody who asked for it any equipment that happened to be in Malaysia and Singapore. Fixed installations—things that cannot be moved from Malaysia and Singapore—and equipment necessary to make them operable are being handed over free of charge to the Malaysian and Singapore Governments if they wish to use them for defence or economic purposes. But the equipment to which the hon. Gentleman refers is largely movable operational equipment of great sophistication and complexity, and there is no reason why Governments that wish to use it rather than ourselves should not pay for it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that under the present Government there is a need for a general capability in that part of the world and also for major exercises, and that sophisticated communications are essential for both these operational needs? If Australia cannot pay the very large sum being asked of her for the equipment, will the right hon. Gentleman leave it on a care and maintenance basis so that it can be used for the purposes to which the Government are committed?

That is another hypothetical question, and I do not accept the hypothesis. The negotiations on this matter between Britain and the other Governments concerned are proceeding satisfactorily. I have no reason to doubt that the communications equipment required will be available on the terms we suggest.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when the military exercises to test the mobility of British forces in the Far East will start.

Exercises to test the mobility of British forces in the Far East are taking place all the time. The major Commonwealth exercise is planned to take place in Malaysia in the summer of 1970.

Is not that exercise intended to show that we can operate our general capability to intervene by bringing British troops to Malaysia unacclimatised and making them instantly operational? If the results of the exercise show that, as medical opinion believes, to be faulty, will it change Government policy?

We have here another hypothetical question. We have planned the exercise to prove that we can take troops out fast and in a condition to be able to participate in a major Commonwealth operation, and I have no doubt at all, having seen something of the plans for the exercise, that the demonstration will be effective and very encouraging to our Commonwealth partners.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the necessary equipment and facilities will be there when the troops are sent out?

To a large extent we shall be taking out the equipment, because this is essential to demonstrate that we have the capability to take it there. Some facilities already there will be used. As I told the House on a previous occasion, the forces already in the Far East will primarily be playing the rôle of the enemy in the exercise.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in the proposed exercise in the spring the troops will be kept six weeks to acclimatise before being committed to the Malaysian jungle? Is not this a fact?

I cannot comment on details of the exercise, because they are still being worked out. We have not yet, for example, had full details of the troops the four other Commonwealth countries plan to commit to the exercise.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution has been made, or is to be made, by other members of the United Nations towards the cost of the Beira patrol; and what requests for such contributions have been, or are to be, made by Her Majesty's Government.

None, Sir.

Are the reports true that the ships have been withdrawn, or are the Government continuing this costly charade, which is having no effect whatever on either subduing the Rhodesians or impelling them to fruitful negotiations?

The reports are not true, and the ships are on patrol. The patrol has been fully effective in cutting off the most direct route for the supply of oil to Rhodesia. As a result, the pipeline to Rhodesia and the refinery at Umtali have been closed.

Will the Government consider, as a contribution towards the cost, sequestering the property in this country of Rhodesians who are in a state of rebellion?

That is a question which should properly be directed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of recruits to the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve II are issued with 1945 pattern uniform.

None, Sir.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his recruiting posters show modern equipment, whereas I can give him details of recruits who are being equipped with the 1945 pattern equipment? Would he look into this?

If the hon. Gentleman has details of troops in the TAVR II, which is what the Question refers to, being equipped with the 1945 battledress, perhaps he will let me have them.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what increases in infantry battalion equipment have been made to the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve II units where an additional company has been added in the recent re-organisation.

The additional companies have been formed within the infantry battalions' establishments. Each battalion has its full scale of equipment and there is therefore no need to increase it.

If there is the equivalent of an additional company added to a battalion, surely it needs further equipment? Is the Minister satisfied with the position where a platoon has no mortar, no wireless and too few rifles?

The additional companies are within the battalions' establishment, and the battalions are properly equipped. If the hon. Gentleman has a specific matter in mind, perhaps he will let me have the details and I will look at it.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans he has for a Pembroke replacement for the Royal Air Force;

Of the R.A.F.'s effective stock of 26 Pembrokes, 19 are grounded as a result of the discovery, earlier this summer, of micro-cracks in the main spar assembly. Possible solutions, including resparring, are being studied and we hope to reach a decision shortly.

Are we to understand that the seven other aircraft are being flown? If so, is the hon. Gentleman satisfied of their safety? Would it not be a great deal more economic to provide the R.A.F. with a modern communications and casualty evacuation aircraft?

I am satisfied that the aircraft being flown are flown with safety. Those aircraft which have been grounded are grounded as a measure of safety. We are looking at the possible solutions—and there are more than one—to meet this contingency.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are his contingency plans with regard to the operational aircraft stations at Royal Air Force, Wyton, and United States Air Force, Alconbury, and with regard to the Royal Aeronautical Establishment, Thurleigh, in the event of Thurleigh being chosen to be the Third London Airport.

It is not the practice to disclose contingency plans for the movement of operational flying tasks. I can however assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if Thurleigh were chosen and if it became necessary to move tasks from the R.A.F. stations at Wyton and Alconbury, they would go to other stations that are expected to be available at the time.

But would it not cost millions of pounds and cause great inconvenience to move these three important establishments, and would it not be better to say here and now to the Roskill Commission that because of the expense and inconvenience it would do much better to drop the proposal that Thurleigh should be the third London airport?

No, Sir. The object of the Commission is to look objectively at and report to the Government on the advantages and disadvantages of a number of sites. That makes it quite impossible for any Government Department or the Government as a whole to comment on the advantages or disadvantages of one or the other, even if they subscribe to the views the right hon. and learned Gentleman has stated, which we do not necessarily do.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the pay and productivity deal for naval dockyard workers.

Negotiations on a productivity deal in the Royal Dockyards are about to be resumed following the recent announcement of new basic pay rates which have been agreed with the trades unions.

I thank my hon. Friend for news of the improved basic pay, but can he assure us that the dockyard workers will never again be allowed to fall so badly behind comparable earnings in outside industry, and also that the productivity discussions will not be taken as an excuse to whittle away the improvement in basic pay?

I recognise the part which my hon. Friend has played and his sustained interest in these matters, and I pay tribute to him for that. The award itself, an interim award, is a very satisfactory one, and I hope that it will restore the good will which is so necessary in the dockyards. I hope also that the productivity negotiations will now be pressed ahead and brought to a conclusion.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now make a statement on the appointment of the chief executive for the naval dock-yards.

Mr. Leslie Norfolk took up the post of chief executive of the Royal Dockyards on 2nd September. He will be responsible to the Admiralty Board for the overall management of the dockyards at Chatham, Devonport, Portsmouth, Rosyth and Gibraltar. This appointment was foreshadowed in paragraph 43(a) of Chapter VIII of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1969.

What will the effect be on local management, and, in particular, will opportunity be taken to examine the growing anxiety among skilled and unskilled workers that administrative overheads in the yards are too high?

These are matters for Mr. Norfolk to investigate. He has started on his appointment, and, as my hon. Friend knows, he will be responsible for the management of the dockyards and the general managers will be subordinate to him. I had the opportunity of visiting Portsmouth in his company, and I was glad to see the courtesy and, indeed, cordiality with which he was welcomed by both management and men.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements have been concluded with the Government of Northern Ireland apropos the costs involved of the presence of British troops to maintain law arid order in that province.

The arrangements are those which apply on the rare occasions when the Services are called in similar circumstances to the assistance of the civil power anywhere in the United Kingdom: that is to say, the defence budget will bear the costs of tasks attributable to the preservation of law and order.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he satisfied with the off-duty accommodation and with the normal welfare facilities which ought to be provided for our troops in Northern Ireland? Second, is he satisfied that the amount of leave, in such a tense situation, is sufficient for our troops?

No, Sir; I am not satisfied in either regard, and I spoke at length on these matters in winding up the debate on Monday. I also indicated the steps which Her Majesty's Government are taking, in conjunction with the Government in Northern Ireland, to improve, in particular, the accommodation, which is the greatest single problem at the moment.

Will the Secretary of State consider one possible way of improving living accommodation for our troops as a matter of urgency; namely, that large caravans, which are best described as mobile homes and could be obtained off the shelf, as it were, could be sent over to Northern Ireland for the use of the troops?

I said in reply to the debate on Monday that that is one of the possibilities. In fact, it is one of the steps which we envisage taking to deal with the special problem of what I would call operational accommodation in areas where troops are on active riot duties, areas which may change from day to day.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many troops are currently in Northern Ireland; and how soon it is expected to withdraw them.

Some 9,800 of all three Services, including some 4,900 army personnel and 600 Royal Marines, whose presence is solely due to the present situation in Northern Ireland. These will be withdrawn as and when their presence is no longer required for the maintenance of law and order and the security of the Province.

As these troops are likely to be there for years rather than months, is it not important that their morale should be maintained at a high level, and is that not likely to become increasingly difficult as the months and years go by? Will my hon. Friend read the article in The Times this morning about not only living conditions but the inadequate pay supplement which he has suggested and review it with a view to increasing it?

I have read the article in The Times today, and I dealt with these very problems at length in my speech on Monday. I should strongly welcome my hon. Friend's support for any increase in the defence budget, but I have not had it absolutely consistently over the last five years.

The right hon. Gentleman has stated that he was taking a risk in the rundown of the size of our forces. Do not the serious repercussions which have resulted in other theatres as a consequence of this contingency show that they are already at a deplorably low level? As he is planning a further rundown, and as he has no uncommitted reserves at all, will the Secretary of State now cease the rundown until the matter has been reviewed?

No, Sir; the hon. Gentleman should know, as I said in the House on Monday, that there has been no repercussion so far on other theatres. I said that if there were a requirement for further forces we might have to draw on forces committed to B.A.O.R. When I came into office in 1964 I found that the level of manning in units in B.A.O.R. under the previous Government was 3,000 lower than it is today because units had been deliberately undermanned in order to provide forces for commitments outside Europe—in the Far East and Middle East.

How many units has the Secretary of State left in the Strategic Reserve here, and is it true that troops in Germany are now doing riot training in order to be prepared to be committed to Ulster?

I will not give the figures of men in the Strategic Reserve in this country. No Secretary of State would ever do so. The 3rd Division is complete in the Strategic Reserve at present. The Strategic Reserve as such has hardly been touched so far in the operation, but we are training some companies in Germany in case it is necessary to draw on them to relieve some of the forces now in Northern Ireland when their four-month tour is completed. This is the sort of measure which any provident Government would take; it has many parallels in the activities of the previous Adminisration during their 13 years of power.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the rate of withdrawal of British troops from Northern Ireland will depend largely on the degree of peace-keeping which the police forces in Northern Ireland can undertake, and, therefore, what one wants is a speedy implementation of the Hunt Report, and, in particular, that it is desirable that the pressures which are building up in Northern Ireland at the moment to impede or modify that Report should be firmly resisted?

As I made clear when I visited Northern Ireland a month ago, it will not be possible to withdraw the troops until the local police are able to take back the responsibilities which they surrendered to the troops some time ago. They will not be able to do that until they are acceptable to all sections of the community in Northern Ireland, and it is the purpose of the Hunt Report to produce a police force of that type. It is not for me to comment on the reception which the Hunt Report has had in Northern Ireland, but I am satisfied that the Government in Northern Ireland recognise, as do the British Government, the urgency of taking early action in carrying out its recommendations.

Will the Secretary of State agree that the total manpower available to him is far less than it was in 1964, and will he agree that in those circumstances he ought to halt the rundown of the forces and take immediate steps to restore the Territorial Army as the second line of reserves?

No, Sir, I do not, because although the total is somewhat smaller than it was in 1964—I think it is about 10 per cent. smaller—our commitments have already been reduced by 30 per cent. and will have been reduced by about 50 per cent. when the rundown is complete.

Will the right hon. Gentleman stop prating about 3,000 more?

In view of the unsatisfactory replies, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will give an assurance that the special contingent of British troops will remain in Northern Ireland until guarantees of equality and civil liberties for all subjects in the province are achieved and all forms of discriminatory practices are made illegal by the Government of Northern Ireland.

The additional troops will be withdrawn from their present special duties in Belfast and Londonderry when their presence is no longer required for the maintenance of law and order. There will continue to be a permanent garrison in Northern Ireland, the size of which will have to be reviewed.

I am grateful for the latter part of that reply. May I put it to my right hon. Friend that I hope that he will not take too much notice of some of the criticisms made of British troops by that curious alleged Christian called Paisley and of some of the bizarre utterances from what I believe are termed "Unionist Conservative" Members of this House who have contributed so much, by negligence of their duty to see that civil rights were established in Northern Ireland, to the present situation? Will my right hon. Friend therefore not allow British troops to be denigrated by Tories opposite?

Order. Long supplementary questions prevent other hon. Members from asking questions.

If I may say so to my hon. Friend, I think that the whole tenor of the debate last Monday showed that there is the deepest admiration on both sides of the House, and, I think, in all quarters, for the behaviour of our troops in Northern Ireland in what are some of the most difficult situations they have ever had to operate in.

As a strong defender of the British troops in Northern Ireland, I suggest that the Secretary of State might consider paying the fare of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) to Northern Ireland where he might not only perhaps encourage some British troops but see all aspects of this delicate controversy and thereafter refrain from putting such myopic and sometimes dangerous questions?

I do not know whether I am really intended to answer the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) but perhaps I may take the opportunity to apologise for misleading the House in an answer earlier. Five of the nine battalions of the 3rd Division are in Northern Ireland, contrary to statements made by hon. Members opposite.

The Secretary of State made a categorical statement that no troops in the 3rd Division had been touched. We knew this to be another deceit——

Withdraw.

It was. I do not withdraw. This statement was made half an hour ago.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the use of the word "deceit" in that context cannot be parliamentary.

I withdraw "deceit" and use "cheated".

If I had had any intention of misleading the House I would not have corrected my earlier statement. I think that the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) must be overexcited, because he has forgotten that he himself said that there were no troops left in Britain at all. I have just pointed out that four battalions of the 3rd Division are still on this side of the Irish Sea.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for issuing additional anti-riot equipment to the soldiers carrying out internal security duties in Northern Ireland.

None at present.

As the Army is almost entirely dependent on C.S. gas for riot control, does the right hon. Gentleman intend to develop or purchase any more sophisticated anti-riot weapons for the future?

What the hon. Gentleman states is not at all the case. The C.S. gas is used only when other methods are inappropriate and when the alternative to using it is the use of batons or bullets, which, in one or two cases, has unfortunately proved to be necessary. The forces in Northern Ireland have a full range of sophisticated equipment, and I cannot think of anywhere in the world where so few troops are dealing with riots on such a large scale with so little damage to human life.

Have the paratroops sent to Northern Ireland been trained in anti-riot practices? Will the right hon. Gentleman perhaps consider making another apology to the House, because he said that no troops had been withdrawn from B.A.O.R.? Surely the parachute troops are committed to B.A.O.R. but are now serving in Northern Ireland.

The Parachute Brigade is not committed to B.A.O.R., as I have said on many occasions. The hon. Gentleman is wrong again.

Well, to N.A.T.O.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the combined forces exercises in Gibraltar in August.

I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to Exercise Rock Climb, which took place on 7th and 8th August. This was one of a series of exercises conducted by the Gibraltar garrison, and on this occasion 41 Commando, embarked in H.M.S. Bulwark, also participated for the purpose of training in assault techniques. The forces defending Gibraltar included elements of the 2nd Battalions of the Royal Irish Rangers and the Royal Anglian Regiment, the Gibraltar Regiment and 60 Field Squadron, Royal Engineers. H.M.S. Eskimo and R.A.F. Hunter aircraft also participated.

Will my hon. Friend agree that these exercises and the subsequent well-timed appearance of the Navy off the Rock afforded great comfort to the residents of Gibraltar? Does he intend to hold further exercises in the spring?

I agree only that the intention of the exercises was purely military. If there are further exercises in the spring, or at any other time, they will still be intended to obtain a military rather than a political result.

In view of the arrival of virtually the whole of the Spanish Navy off the Rock in recent weeks, is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that British naval forces now available, comprising, I understand, one aircraft carrier, fully equipped, and two frigates, are sufficient to meet any threat to the Rock which may develop?

I think that all the evidence suggests that we are able to meet that sort of threat, but I do not think there is much evidence to suggest that we might have to.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any plans to move his Department to the Cardiff area; and whether he will make a statement.

The dispersal of Ministry of Defence posts from London to Cardiff was first announced by my right hon. Friend on 22nd November, 1967. I would also refer the hon. Gentleman to my hon. Friend's Answer of 3rd April of this year.—[Vol. 754, c. 368; Vol. 781, c. 180.]

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that a Select Committee queried the efficiency of having part of the Admiralty at Bath and part in London? As we now have an enormously inflated headquarters organisation of the three Services in London, would it not be better to streamline that first and try to get the parts together so that we get the higher efficiency to the need for which the Select Committee drew attention?

I am aware of what the Select Committee said and I am also aware of the obligation placed on the Government to produce as much employment as they can in the regions, and our dispersal to Cardiff is part of that policy. As the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question contains a hypothesis which is so wildly untrue as to be farcical, there is no point in my commenting on the conclusions he draws from it.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what restrictions on fishing for lobsters have been proposed by Her Majesty's Government owing to the extension of the Hebrides rocket range.

For safety reasons it has been necessary to increase slightly the size of the Hebrides range danger area. When the development of the range is complete it will be used more frequently and for a greater variety of weapons than during the past eleven years. For this reason it will at times be necessary to have the majority of the danger area clear between 11 a.m. and about 5 p.m. on not more than five days a week. Arrangements are being made to allow the lobster fishermen maximum access to the danger area whenever possible.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the anxiety and consternation that there has been in the Hebrides and on the West Coast of Scotland during the Recess among fishermen whose livelihood is affected? While it seems that revised proposals have recently been put forward, should not the whole subject have been handled with much more understanding by the Government? For example, why was the Press first banned from one of the meetings and later admitted after a change of mind?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's criticisms for a moment. He spoke of the way in which the matter has been handled during the Recess. He ought to know that a liaison committee has been established between the Ministry of Defence and the local fishermen to deal with precisely these difficulties.

Can my hon. Friend say whether the economic repercussions of these proposals were discussed with the Secretary of State for Scotland and whether information on the economic side, available to the Scottish Office, was considered before hard decisions were made?

I cannot state what negotiations and discussions took place between the Ministry of Defence and the Scottish Office. However, I can tell my hon. Friend that the range brings into the islands each year about £200,000 worth of civilian wages, which is about five times the value of the lobster harvest from all the waters around the islands.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether British forces in Libya are to remain in that country; and for what purpose.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement about the future availability of training and other defence facilities in Libya.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what future arrangements have been made about British bases in Libya.

We look forward to continuing our co-operation with the Libyan Government in all fields including the defence sphere where the presence of our forces and their training rôle is of mutual benefit to both countries. We have no bases in Libya.

Does the treaty with the present Libyan Government provide for the defence of Libya? As the present Libyan Government has associated itself with Cairo in declaring war on the State of Israel, is there not some complication here which perhaps could be disentangled by my right hon. Friend?

I will do my best to disentangle any complications I discover.

In view of the uncertainty over Libya, will the Government look again at the desirability of retaining some kind of training facilities in the Persian Gulf area after 1971?

I do not believe that this would be the answer if the unfortunate contingency of which the hon. Gentleman is thinking arose.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I asked my right hon. Friend a question, but he has not ventured to give me a reply.

That is not unknown in the history of Parliament.

In view of the British Government's policy of keeping some kind of balance in the delivery of arms to the Middle East, and in view of the change of regime in Libya, is Libya now considered part of the Middle East for the purpose of keeping this balance in arms supply?

That is a completely different question. If my hon. Friend will put it down, I will see what I can do about answering it.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what part of the consignment of Chieftain tanks to Libya had been delivered before the change of Government and whether there has been any change in the contractual arrangements?

That is a totally different question which has nothing to do with any of these three Questions.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied with defence measures in the Middle East for the protection of British interests in the event of a renewal of war between the Arab States and the State of Israel.

I hope I get better luck with this Question than I did with No. 24.

I am sorry to dampen my right hon. Friend's hopes.

Is not that a hypothetical answer? What is the matter with my right hon. Friend? Is he unaware that the situation in the Middle East is highly inflammatory and that our interests may be assailed at some time? What is to safeguard our interests? Has he any idea about that at all?

Yes, Sir. I have many ideas about it, but, as my right hon. Friend will know, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is deeply engaged in the four-Power talks whose purpose is to try to bring a permanent settlement of the Middle East problem. I am certain that in this task he will have the support of both sides of the House, including my right hon. Friend.

Does the Secretary of State sometimes consider that there may be a need for what is called contingency planning? Does he regard every military question as hypothetical? Whatever happened there, however hypothetical, what troops or forces should we have available?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman, as so often, is confusing two completely different matters. My archives are stacked with contingency plans of all types, but I am no more prepared than any previous Minister of Defence to reveal them to the world at large. Answering hypothetical questions in the House is totally different from considering hypothetical contingencies, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman in 20 years' time, if he ever comes to occupy my post, may discover.

Have we gone into Libya without assuming any commitments or proposing to assume any?

We have a mutual defence treaty with Libya.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take account of the overall situation in the Mediterranean? Remembering the facilities available at Malta, have there been any discussions with the Maltese Government with a view to retaining additional facilities which might be useful at a future date at very little cost?

No, Sir, this question has not arisen.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has to develop nuclear and conventional military co-operation with signatory States of the Treaty of Rome.

The European Economic Community is not a defence institution. We work towards closer co-operation in European defence matters within the framework of the Alliance and we have made important progress during the last two years.

As a great deal of stress is now being laid on the supposed political advantages of joining the Common Market, and defence is one aspect of political involvement, would it not be helpful to the House if the right hon. Gentleman gave us some idea of what prospects he thought there were for nuclear co-operation with the signatory States of the Treaty of Rome, and particularly Germany?

The hon. Gentleman does not attend defence debates as regularly as do some other hon. Members. If he did, he would know that I have dealt at length with this problem on at least two occasions in earlier debates this year. I hope that he was present during my exchange with hon. Members who raised the question of Anglo-French co-operation. The important question is that we are developing extremely intimate links with the non-nuclear European members of the Alliance through the Nuclear Planning Group of N.A.T.O. It would be disastrous to jeopardise the progress made in this connection by discussing the establishment of some nuclear arrangement outside N.A.T.O.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members on this side of the House who are supporters of Britain's entry into the E.E.C. do not, nevertheless, in any circumstances wish it to be a condition of entry that we should have any nuclear arrangements with Europe?

I do not fully understand the purport of my hon. Friend's statement. We are, of course, deeply engaged in nuclear co-operation with all our allies in N.A.T.O., because nuclear weapons are an essential element of the strategy of N.A.T.O. But I understand very well what I take it my hon. Friend was meaning to say—that he would not wish entry into the Common Market to be conditional upon the establishment of a European nuclear force.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of his consideration of alternative future uses for the facilities of the Royal Naval Air Station, Arbroath.

Studies on the possible future use of Arbroath are not yet complete but I hope to be able to make a statement before long.

These delays are becoming abusive. It is now less than nine months before the Royal Navy is due to leave. It is not the case that the Royal Marine Commandos are anxious to go to this station? It is widely believed in the area that that is so. If it is so, may we have an assurance that the Ministry will do nothing to prevent their doing so?

The right hon. Gentleman should give credit for the considerable and serious work which is being put into this matter. The Fleet Air Arm will leave H.M.S. Condor on 31st March, 1971. The question of the use of the station by the Royal Marines is one of the options we are considerating. We a re fully aware of the concern felt in Arbroath but the most important thing is to get the right solution.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for increasing the amount of training in internal security duties given to forces stationed in the United Kingdom.

Training requirements are kept under constant review and adjusted as appropriate.

As the British Army is strained and stretched, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, by dealing with a tragic but comparatively straightforward internal security problem in Northern Ireland, should it not be considering reviewing its internal security tactics as well as its internal security training? In view of the evidence, will the right hon. Gentleman revise his misguided policy of running down the Army by disbanding major units?

The stretch in the forces at present does not compare with the stretch they were enduring in 1964, under the Conservative Government, who were not then facing a situation in Northern Ireland which at the moment is soaking up nearly 10,000 men. There is no comparison between the situation now and the situation then. However, the internal security tactics are continuously under review, and the fact that the Army was able to arrest so many of those responsible for the trouble last weekend is a tribute to the new tactical organisation it has developed.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the ratio of uniformed personnel in the three armed forces to the total number of uniformed civilian personnel in the head-quarters organisation in October, 1964, and October, 1969, respectively.

18·8 to 1 in 1964 and 24·8 to 1 in 1969.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these figures are being adjusted by people being posted officially to strengths of units outside London while continuing to work at headquarters? This—I am afraid I have to use the same word again—is cheating. Can we have the actual numbers, including those posted to other establishments, who still work at headquarters?

The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that he does not ask the right questions. But now that he has asked a different question in the form of a supplementary, I will be happy to answer it. I can tell him now that, allowing for the transfers, the figure of 18.8 to 1 in 1964 would have been 27·0 to 1.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence why boy soldiers absent from their units have their belongings sold by auction without their parents being given notice or consenting.

If my hon. Friend has an individual case in mind, perhaps he would write to me, but I can tell him that in general we do our best to keep in close touch with parents.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that this is an outmoded practice based upon concepts which are at least 50 years out of date? Will he take it from me that this has happened, and will he ensure that in future cases where boys are missing from their units their parents will be informed before their belongings are sold?

My hon. Friend will know that one of the Queen's Regulations provides that a commanding officer must notify the parents of an absentee junior after three days' absence. If there are specific instances where this has not taken place, I agree with the comments of my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions are in force for those military units in Great Britain or overseas holding stocks of C.S. to ensure that stocks are not released to police or other civilian users except on evidence that these users are instructed in the use of C.S. devices.

None. It is normal practice for police forces to obtain their supplies of C.S. direct from the manufacturers; only in exceptional circumstances which would need Ministry of Defence authority are issues made from Army stocks. In no circumstances would C.S. be issued to civilian users other than police.

In view of the contrast between non-military units in Londonderry which, through no fault of their own, were uninstructed in firing these things and, on the other hand, the Army units in Belfast which, in similar circumstances, found that it was sufficient to discharge only seven—a contrast greatly to the credit of the Army—is there not a case, if an emergency arises and it is found necessary to discharge these things, for this to be done by armed forces which are instructed in their use, instead of handing them over to other people?

Questions of how the police behave are not for me. During the original Londonderry riots, where a very large number of cartridges and grenades were fired, the police were not under the command of the Army. They had been instructed—although I regret to say that there had not been time to give them detailed instruction—in the use of C.S. gas. At that time they were using C.S. gas issued by the Army rather than C.N. gas, which is a great deal more toxic, and no blame can be attached to them on that account. Since then, the police have come under the G.O.C. Northern Ireland, and they are getting much more detailed instruction in the use of C.S. gas. As my hon. Friend will recognise, in incidents in which the R.U.C. have used gas since the events in Londonderry, they have observed exactly the same restraint as the armed forces.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Londonderry the police withstood for six hours, from 6 p.m. till midnight, a hail of stones and petrol bombs in a vicious and sustained attack before firing one canister of C.S. gas in their defence, whereas recently in Belfast a church parade not intent on violence had C.S. canisters thrown at it by the police? Will the Minister ensure that in a situation as tense as that in Northern Ireland, where it is easy for mistakes to be made, this gas is not used in such a way as to lead to a hardening of attitudes and retaliation?

The House must first of all recognise that C.S. gas is used only when it is preferable to using batons or bullets. Unpleasant as the consequences of C.S. gas are, I think most of us would prefer to have sore eyes for 10 minutes rather than be maimed by bullets for life. As to the events in Londonderry in August, these are the subject of an inquiry by Mr. Justice Scarman, and, with respect, I think hon. Members on both sides of the House would be wise to suspend judgment on these events till he presents his report.

Despite my right hon. Friend's reference to the Scarman tribunal, before which some of us have given evidence, may I ask whether he is aware that some of us were present in Londonderry on 14th August when we saw the use, or misuse, of this gas against the civilian population, and may I say that the control which the Army has exercised in these events since then is worthy of compliment? I hope that in future there will be very careful thought before this gas is used against civilians and that it will be used only in the most extreme circumstances.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not think it is for me to comment on the behaviour of the police, for whom I am not responsible. Both sides of the House recognise that more recently C.S. gas has been used as it should be used, in the last resort and with great discrimination.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the basic wage receivable by workers at Portland navy base; what representations have recently been received by him; what demonstrations took place in Portland in August; and if he will make a statement.

Negotiations on new pay rates for the Industrial Civil Service were already in progress when a partial stoppage of work took place in Portland Naval Base on 15th August. New rates have since been agreed with the trade unions. They range from f13 10s. 0d. for a 40 hour week for unskilled labourers to £20 16s. 0d., for craftsmen grade I.

In this year is not £13 10s. as minimum take-home pay an outrageous wage to offer? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that these steady and reliable men have a genuine grievance? Is there any reason why the Government should be the worst employer in the area?

I do not believe the Government are the worst employer. These new rates have been agreed by the trade unions, and there is the prospect of productivity negotiations which are now pending.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many Service personnel are seconded for service to the Zambian Government; for what purpose and at what cost to the British Government.

In January of this year the number of Servicemen on loan to the Zambian Government was 140. As the House was informed on 25th June, the Zambian Government have requested that the British joint Services training team should be withdrawn at the end of this year and personnel have been phased out as tours of duty have expired. The Army element was, in fact, phased out by July of this year. The number of R.A.F. personnel on loan at 30th September was 65, and these will be phased out by the end of the year. The training team has been helping with the training and development of the Zambian Army and Air Force. The contribution by Her Majesty's Government to the total cost of this assistance during the current financial year is likely to be in the region of £300,000.—[Vol. 785, c. 1477–8.]

asked the Minister of Technology if he will examine the implications for United States owned industry in Great Britain of the action by the United States Department of Justice in opposing the purchase by British Petroleum of the Standard Oil Company of Ohio, which will still leave much the greater part of the United States oil industry under United States control.

We are following closely the development of B.P.'s operations in the United States and hope that this merger will soon be completed satisfactorily. My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has received assurances from the United States Secretary of State, and the Chairman of B.P. has had talks with the U.S. Attorney-General in which the latter assured him that the United States Department of Justice has no intention of discriminating against B.P. as a foreign company. These talks have led the Chairman of B.P. to believe that a solution will be found which will bring the merger within the guide lines set out by the Department of Justice last year.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his reply is very welcome and that it is most important that this merger should go through to enable B.P. to exploit its finds in Alaska? If by any chance it were not to go through, it would be a very serious setback to international investment in general.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will be glad to know that the Government are keeping the matter closely under review. He and the House will appreciate that at this stage the less said on this matter probably the better.

Will my hon. Friend accept the view of a number of people concerned about this matter that, although he is pursuing his investigation thoroughly, it must be made quite clear that if this merger were not allowed it would be bound to have some repercussions in the way that American industry is treated in this country?

I can understand my hon. Friend's concern about this, but he must appreciate that this country, like others, has its own restrictions on inward investment and that in this case it appears that there is no question of discrimination and that it is purely a matter of trying to meet the guide lines, as foreign industry in this country has to meet the guide lines laid down by our Government.

I would remind the House that long questions and long answers prevent some hon. Member who expected to have his Question answered from having it answered.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is yet ready to make a statement on the Hunter Report on fishing.

No, Sir.

As it is more than three years since the report was presented to the Government, may I ask what action the Secretary of State is proposing to take on a pilot scheme for the new recommended method of taking salmon from each river? Further, will the Minister state whether the Government are taking any action on the recommendations concerning brown trout, which would greatly assist the Scottish tourist trade?

In reply to the first part of that supplementary question, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman puts it down as a separate Question. On the second part, the report has to be treated as a whole. The reason for the delay is that our consultations have been extremely wide, involving the principal organisations. I am sorry to report that there have been wide differences of opinion about how to apply the report. We are trying to resolve them.