asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement outlining the extent to which the manufacturers of military aircraft are free to disclose information about those aircraft to the Press; and what action is taken against those firms which reveal information which is subject to security restrictions.

United Kingdom manufacturers of military aircraft are prohibited from disclosing information without the consent of the contracting authority. The action which would be taken against a firm for disclosing information without such authorisation would have to be considered in the light of all the circumstances.

Is it not true that the management of Panavia, being in full possession of all the details on the M.R.C.A., then gave information on costs to the Press based on that knowledge? If the House cannot, partly for security reasons, be given the facts on the costs, is it not time that we seriously looked at the Panavia leak in terms of the Official Secrets Act?

We have canvassed this matter on a number of occasions. The statement made by the manager of Panavia is quite a different matter and one for which I have no direct responsibility.

Is the procedure on this any different from what it always has been, or is there something special because of the nature of this project?

The arrangements are the normal ones made in every collaborative project.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) does not seek to raise it on the Adjournment, I shall seek to do so.

Order. Notice must be given in the conventional form.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent the Government keep under review plans for reintroducing conscription.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what study he is making of contingency plans involving the reintroduction of conscription.

None. As I said during the defence debate on 5th March, I have no doubt that with concentrated effort we can expand our recruiting to meet all the obligations that this Government accept.—[Vol. 797, c. 650–2.]

Is it not a grave dereliction of duty not at least to keep it under review? Will the Minister confirm, whatever he thinks about that, that if it was in the national interest to reintroduce conscription the Labour Government would not hesitate to do so?

The Labour Government have never hesitated to do what was in the national interest, but the Labour Government take the view that realistic commitments can be met by a voluntary professional Army.

However strenuously the Opposition may seek to deny it, is it not a fact that the obligations which the Opposition say that they would undertake mean, whether we like it or not, that a degree of selective conscription at any rate would have to be introduced?

I think that that is the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from the figures. Were they to get the opportunity, it would be up to the Opposition to decide whether to abandon their policy or to introduce conscription.

Are the Government aware that the policy of Her Majesty's Opposition is exactly the same as that of the Government in this respect? We do not envisage that our present policies would involve the introduction of conscription.

The policies that the right hon. and learned Gentleman outlines in terms of conscription or voluntary service are the same, but the policies that he advocates in terms of obligations are very different; and he has yet to convince the House and the country that those obligations can be met with voluntary service.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he will publish a new pensions warrant for Service personnel following the increased pay scales for serving officers and men;

(2) what are his proposed amendments to the terminal grants to officers and men on retirement in view of the increased Service pay scales; and if he will make a statement.

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) on 26th March, 1970.—[Vol. 798, c. 526.]

Is consideration being given in the preparation of the new pensions code to the position of widows, particularly those widowed before 50? Does the Minister realise that it is vastly important from a recruiting point of view that these matters should be fairly dealt with?

I dealt at length with the position of such widows in the Adjournment debate a month ago. I can only repeat that we understand the difficulties that such widows face, but the idea of backdating the new pensions scheme in the way the Question implies is very difficult and complex.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is aware that the shortfall of trained strength below requirement, at 1st April, 1969, was for the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, 1,600, the Army, 6,000, and the Royal Air Force, 2300, totalling 9,900; if he will now give the corresponding figures of shortfall at 1st April, 1970; and what steps he is taking, without resort to conscription, to prevent further deterioration in recruitment for all three Services.

Firm figures for 1st April, 1970, are not yet available.

The estimated shortfall of trained strength below requirement at that date is approximately 3,200 for the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, 4,600 for the Army and 3,200 for the Royal Air Force, totalling 11,000. These figures reflect the disappointingly low level of recruiting in 1968–69. There was, however, an improvement of 20 per cent. overall in the recruitment of male other ranks last year.

Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that the shortage in personnel of 9,900 on 1st April, 1969 and the shortage of approximately 11,000 on 1st April, 1970 both refer to a total establishment for the Armed Forces of the same aggregate figure—or do they relate to different figures?

What the hon. Gentleman brings out by referring to the levels of establishment against the shortfalls is the fact that acceptance of extra obligations imposes extra strains on the Armed Services, a point which I have been trying to make in supplementary answers arising on other Questions.

Does my hon. Friend realise that, while both Front Benches show a remarkable opposition to any thoughts of reintroducing conscription, at least some of us are much alarmed at the implications of the situation in which we have a very low nuclear threshold now in Western Europe, which could put this country in severe danger?

That does not arise directly on this Question, but I assure my hon. Friend that the fears which he expresses are contrary to the changing policies of N.A.T.O., about which my right hon. Friend has spoken on several occasions in the past few months.

Will the hon. Gentleman now give a sensible and factual answer to a question which was asked to elicit information and not in a partisan spirit? Will he tell the House what he was asked; namely, whether the establishment against which the shortfalls were calculated in the two years is the same, and what figure it is?

In the first part of my answer I made that clear. The establishments have changed. The point I made on the shortfall figure is that the changed establishment is a function of the obligations which one expects the forces to undertake. The greater the obligations, the greater the implied establishment, and, therefore, the greater the chance of a shortfall.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total net recruitment to the Armed Forces in 1969; and what further plans he has to improve recruitment in 1970.

The number of recruits joining the Services in 1969 was 33,887. The net number of recruits is not assessed separately since wastage affects the strength of the Services at all stages of engagements.

On the second part of the Question relating to plans to improve recruitment, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) on 4th March.—[Vol. 792, c. 390–1.]

Why cannot the Minister give us the figures of net recruitment? This is a simple exercise of counting the number of people who join the forces and the number who have left for various reasons.

The hon. Gentleman seems to think that the figure of net recruitment can be obtained by a simple arithmetic device, but it is a great deal more complicated than he suggests. Having regard to the recruitment changes from time to time and the short-term engagements introduced from time to time, which have been remarkably successful over the last few years, the net engagement figure has no meaning whatever.

To help hon. Members opposite with the increased recruitment that their policies would involve and to assist them to try to put a cost on some of their lavish plans for increased defence expenditure, will my hon. Friend confirm that a conscripted Army is cheaper than a volunteer Army?

I do not think that is a reasonable assumption to draw from the alternative as between a conscripted and a voluntarily-recruited Army. The real conclusion to draw from the parallel is that we have made no contingency plans for such a conscripted Army because with our policies it would not be necessary.

Does not the Minister accept that the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) was right when he said that all this talk about conscription by the party opposite is a political gimmick?

One of the things that make me doubt that judgment is that whenever the word is mentioned the right hon. Gentleman leaps to his feet with obvious embarrassment to deny it.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the present Gurkha establishment, its present strength, and on what date it is proposed to reduce it to 6,000; and, having regard to the continuing decline in British Army recruiting, whether he will now re-open negotiations for the Gurkha establishment to be revised from a future 6,000 to a future 12,000 men.

The present Gurkha establishment is six Infantry battalions and one regiment each of signals, engineers and transport. Its present strength is just under 10,000, and that will be reduced by about 2,000 a year to a figure of 6,000 by 31st December, 1971. As regards the last part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the written reply by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration to a similar Question on 30th January.—[Vol. 794, c. 405–6.]

Is it not calamitous to continue the policy to reduce these Gurkha regiments at a time when our own recruiting is meeting with such a dismal response in spite of all the Government's efforts, and could not the Gurkha policy now be reconsidered in the light of contemporary United Kingdom recruiting conditions?

There are two parts to the hon. Gentleman's question. First, as regards what he claims to be deficiencies in the Government's recruiting policy—[Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen to the answer, since he asked the question. He will know that recruiting is about 20 per cent. better this year than at the comparable date last year. To the second part of his question—namely, should not we now review the size of the Gurkha regiments in the light of those recruiting figures?—the answer is. No, Sir.

Why not?

But does not the hon. Gentleman agree that there is an increasing rôle which the Gurkhas can play, that there is ability to recruit more Gurkhas should it be necessary, and that we could easily maintain a strength of 10,000 Gurkha soldiers? Have they not a rôle not only in Hong Kong and the Far East but also, perhaps, in the European theatre?

The hon. Gentleman knows that it is the Government's opinion that for the rôles foreseen for the Gurkhas in the period till the end of 1971 a figure of 6,000 is appropriate.

On a point of order——

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice——

Order. Sir Gerald Nabarro.

In view of the unsatisfactory replies to Questions Nos. 7 and 8, on recruiting matters, including the Gurkha regiments, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Order. Notice should be given in the conventional form.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what action he is taking to bring the pay of British forces in the United Nations force in Cyprus more into line with that of other foreign contingents.

I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to the hon. Member's supplementary question on 25th February.—[Vol. 796, c. 1206.]

Has not the hon. Gentleman read the article in the Daily Mirror headed,

"The Scandal of Britain's poverty-stricken Tommies"?

Will he stop being so backward-looking, as the Secretary of State was in the reply to me to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and will he do something about it?

I have read the article in the Daily Mirror, though I did not agree with all its conclusions. The basic conclusion to which my right hon. Friend and I come is that British soldiers serving in different sectors should receive pay calculated on the same basis, and I am sure that that is right.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall continue to try to raise this subject on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on recruitment for the Ulster Defence Regiment and the disbanding of the Ulster B Specials.

As at 3rd April, 5,393 applications to enrol in the Ulster Defence Regiment had been received. So far, 1,800 applicants had been enrolled and a further 1,001 had been accepted for enrolment. As regards the disbanding of the Ulster B Specials, I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to his Question on 4th March.—[Vol. 797, c. 401–2.]

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that we are securing the proper balance in the force which was indicated in the debate when the regiment was first introduced? Second, is he aware that many people support some of the statements which he made in Ulster about the desire and need to maintain a well-balanced force of this nature?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said in the second part of his supplementary question. We are obtaining Catholic recruitment—the point which my hon. Friend has in mind, I think—at about 20 per cent., which is better than I expected and, therefore, a great deal better than some of my hon. Friends feared. How-ever, 20 per cent. is not an ideal figure. I hope that more Catholics will come forward to join the regiment, and I hope that the leaders of the Catholic community will continue to encourage them to do so.

Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the speed or rate of enrolment as opposed to the speed of recruitment?

The distinction between speed of recruitment and speed of enrolment involves the processes through which each applicant must go between offering himself for service in the regiment and being accepted. The period between the two is almost entirely taken up by security vetting and the medical check. I am sure that these processes are vital and that we should not skimp them.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the number of troops at present stationed in Northern Ireland, indicating their main duties in internal security operations.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the number of troops in Northern Ireland; and what increases or reductions there have been in establishment there since September 1969.

The number of Regular Army uniformed personnel now serving in Northern Ireland is about 7,000. In October, 1969 the garrison was increased by one major unit. Since then three major units have been withdrawn without relief. Recently, however, the garrison has been reinforced with one major unit to provide an additional element of continuity during the coming weeks in which three other units are due to be relieved. The main internal security duties of the Army include crowd control, the manning of road blocks, conducting cordon and search and anti-arms-running operations, and the carrying out of border patrols and mobile patrols in both urban and rural areas.

Does my hon. Friend realise that the majority of people in England admire the way in which the British Army is behaving and acting in Northern Ireland, and is he aware that we look forward to the time when there will no longer be any need for the British Army to be there, but while there it has the full support of people in this country?

I am grateful for all those points.

First, as regards the number of applicants for the Ulster Defence Regiment which assists the military, can the hon. Gentleman say how many have been refused? Second, can he confirm that there will be no withdrawal of troops from Northern Ireland so long as there is any danger of violence from Republican rebels?

The last point was dealt with very clearly yesterday, and it would be impertinence on my part if I were to attempt to confirm the categorical statements made in the House by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary. The position is now beyond argument and dispute.

As regards the number of men who have been refused membership of the U.D.R., I cannot give the precise figure without notice, but I can tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that any refusals have arisen because of the professional checks by either the security service or the medical service. When there has been refusal, it has been for that reason.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next proposes to attend a meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Defence Ministers.

I shall be going to the meeting of the Defence Planning Committee of N.A.T.O. which is planned for early June.

When my right hon. Friend attends that meeting will he raise the question of Greece and what steps N.A.T.O. can take to restore democracy there, because it was the N.A.T.O. strategic plan "Pericles" which was used in Athens to overthrow the democratic régime?

I cannot at all accept the implications in the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. I must remind him, however, that I shall be attending the meeting of the Defence Planning Committee of the N.A.T.O. Council, and the job of N.A.T.O. is to ensure that a war does not break out in Europe. I am not prepared to take any steps at that meeting which would make the outbreak of war more likely.

Is the Secretary of State aware that reports are appearing in the national Press today of his recent speech to N.A.T.O.? Will he place a copy in the Library, as that speech appears to show that he feels that we are desperately vulnerable because of a shortage of conventional troops, and therefore desperately dependent on nuclear weapons for any form of retaliation?

I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is referring to a broadcast I made on Tuesday on the Radio 4 programme of the British Broadcasting Corporation. I will certainly ensure that he is able to read it, and confirm that the views I expressed were those which were supported by his right hon. Friend the Opposition spokesman on defence during our last defence debate.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether Greek military officers accredited to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation have the same access to classified information from British sources which is made available to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation as other accredited officers.

Yes, Sir.

Is it not a disgraceful state of affairs that military officers of a régime that has usurped power in what was previously a democratic country should have access to British military secrets which is denied to Members of the House?

No, Sir. I cannot agree with my hon. Friend, because no officers accredited to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation from whatever country have access to classified information from British sources unless it is necessary to them in the performance of their rôle as members of an organisation whose function is to prevent a war in Europe.

Will the Government resist any of these somewhat snide attempts to get rid of Greece from N.A.T.O., which might well be disastrous for the defence of Europe, of which the right hon. Gentleman has just spoken?

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has for an international agreement on the integration of the British and French nuclear forces within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

None, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his consistent stress upon the case for the use of nuclear weapons for the defence of Western Europe must lead many of us to suppose that he envisages this deterrent remaining credible in the 'seventies even in the event of an American fall-back from Europe? Does he, therefore, envisage at any stage an Anglo-French entente emerging on lines that have been suggested?

One must accept the French position on the relationship between France and N.A.T.O. as stated and defined by the French Government, and for a British statesman or Minister to make proposals for the integration of French nuclear forces into N.A.T.O. would not only be futile but might even appear offensive to one of our allies.

Has the Secretary of State ever discussed this question with the American authorities?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he proposes to continue to obtain the total enriched uranium requirement for Great Britain's nuclear armament from gas diffusion plant.

No, Sir. The assessment made in 1963 that supplies of fissile material already available or assured would be sufficient to meet all defence requirements for the foreseeable future is still valid. Production of U235 for military purposes at Capenhurst Gas Diffusion Plant ceased in 1963, and there are no current plans to resume this production.

Will not my hon. Friend agree that if this new and very exciting technology, which many of us welcome as an expression of European collaboration in the peaceful uses of atomic energy, were to prove very successful economically in relation to the old technology, it could precipitate a very new and grave turn of events in the European and worldwide nuclear arms race?

My hon. Friend will be aware that the agreement we have reached with two other countries is a civil agreement and not a matter for the Ministry of Defence?

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how much of the foreign exchange costs shown as £61 million gross in Annex H of Command Paper No. 4290 in respect of the Far East is attributable to each of the following, namely, Hong Kong, Gan, defence of remaining dependencies, exercises, general capability and the Beira Patrol, respectively.

Hong Kong £11 million, Gan nil, exercises £¾ million, Beira Patrol £30,000. The remaining £49 million is local defence expenditure of forces stationed in the Far East in fulfilment of our treaty and other obligations.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, though we shall have to examine the figures, it seems very surprising that the Beira Patrol, which employs a total of six destroyers—two on their way there, two on their way back and two on patrol—should cost £30,000 a year; and that that figure makes us suspicious that all the figures are as erroneous as others that have been given in this House?

With respect, I think that the offensiveness of the hon. Gentleman's remarks is due to a familiar confusion in his mind between the foreign exchange costs of a particular operation and its resource costs in the defence budget.

Does the Secretary of State recall that last year he told the House that defence costs could be reached by multiplying the foreign exchange costs by three? How, then, if existing forces east of Suez cost £50 million gross in foreign exchange, does he ever arrive at a figure of Conservative policy costing £300 million?

With respect, I never said that the resource cost was three times the foreign exchange cost in all cases. I said that it was only in the case of infantry battalions. There is a very big difference between the amount that people on ships of the Beira Patrol can spend and the amount that can be spent by an infantry battalion which goes every night into Singapore.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what sums have been allocated in each of the next five financial years for the payment of interest and repayment of the loans made by the United States of America to the United Kingdom for the purchase of United States military aircraft.

The following sums have been allocated: 1970–71—£55 million; l971–72—£56 million; 1972–73—£55 million; 1973–74—£50 million, and 1974–75—£41 million.

Is the Minister aware that I am most grateful that the country should know just what it has cost in American dollars to cancel a British aircraft and buy American aircraft; and how wise it is to leave it to the next Government to clear up the mess that is left?

The hon. Gentleman is equally aware that when this issue of the financing of the aircraft that we require was debated in the House, neither he nor any of his colleagues voted against the Measure.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that the original decision to order American aircraft was taken by members of the Opposition?

Yes, Sir, for some of the Phantoms.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the resumption of productivity talks in Portsmouth Dockyard.

This matter was discussed at a meeting of the Shipbuilding Trades Joint Council on 20th March, and the trade union side has recommended its local representatives to resume talks with the management.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that the Government are committed to significant pay increases as soon as the problem can be overcome? Does he agree that the men's doubts are related to anxiety about the long-awaited Prices and Incomes Board Report on the pay of industrial civil servants; and will he do everything possible to speed publication of the report, and consequent action on it?

My hon. Friend should make the distinction between a productivity agreement and negotiations on basic rates. His Question relates to productivity agreements, and there is no reason why meaningful discussions should not commence as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total value of work put out to private contractors by Portsmouth Dockyard in the last financial year.

The total value of work put out to civilian contract at Portsmouth Dockyard during the financial year 1968–69 was approximately £550,000.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he appreciate that when there is so much evidence of spare capacity, and so many men are still on waiting time, the men in the dockyards simply do not understand why outside contracts should be arranged to the amount he has just quoted?

That amount must be set against a total of £92 million worth of work in the dockyards, so that it is a very small percentage. It is necessary only because of a shortage of labour in certain trades, or because the dockyard does not possess specialist resources in labour, material or facilities. We aim to reduce the amount of outside work to the minimum.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many white ensign ships and Royal Fleet Auxiliaries are now east of Suez; and what is the total cost to the Defence Estimates.

It is not the practice to disclose details of the area deployment of H.M. ships and Royal Fleet Auxiliaries. The running cost of ships and their local shore support east of Suez in 1970–71 is expected to be of the order of £40 million.

Is that figure based on the Defence Estimates, or on the slice method by which his right hon. Friend sought to cost the Opposition's defence policy?

It is based on the Defence Estimates.

Will my hon. Friend say what would be the cost of the Opposition's plans for defence east of Suez?

In the specific context of the Navy, I would need time to answer that, but we have estimated anything between £200 million and £300 million overall.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total cost of moving the Royal Supply School from H.M.S. "Ceres" at Weatherby to H.M.S. "Pembroke" in 1959; and what is the estimated cost of providing the required facilities when the school is transferred to Portland.

£25,000 and £1·5 million respectively. The intended move is not, however, to Portland but to H.M.S. "Excellent" at Portsmouth, and we would have to spend at least £1 million if the school were to be kept at Chatham.

Why is this increased expenditure necessary when the school is only 10 years old? What extra facilities will be provided as a result of the move and of the increased expenditure?

The £0·5 million relates only to capital cost. This is part of a comprehensive long-term plan to achieve economies in naval shore training, and economies will be achieved mainly in reduced maintenance and reduced personnel.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if it is the intention to transfer the staff of about 450 now employed in the Royal Supply School, Chatham, when the school is moved to Portland.

The naval instructors and students of the Supply and Secretarial School—which is only one of the establishments at H.M.S. "Pembroke"—should be transferred to Portsmouth in the late 1970s. Currently these number about 400.

Will redundancies eventually occur as the result of the move, and will those who have to move receive a full removal allowance and housing accommodation at their new base?

In reply to the latter part of the supplementary question, the normal arrangements will apply. This is a move for the late 1970s, and it is impossible to give a categoric assurance. The normal practice is to try to achieve this by natural wastage, and this has been achieved in most cases in the past.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied that adequate arrangements exist for the defence of British Honduras; and if he will make a statement.

We have made it clear on a number of occasions that we shall honour our commitments to our dependencies. I am perfectly satisfied that adequate arrangements exist for the defence of British Honduras should the need arise.

Bearing in mind the vulnerability of British Honduras to any hostile neighbour in the event of independence, will the Secretary of State say what contingency planning has been done?

The question of defence arrangements following independence will be a matter for any constitutional discussions which may take place.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the 11,000 boys, aged between 15 and 18 years, who joined the Armed Forces last year left within the permitted preliminary period; and if he will now ask the Donaldson Committee to expedite its proceedings and recommendations regarding boy soldiers.

Of the 11,000 boys, aged between 15 and 18 years, who joined the Armed Forces in 1969, about 1,400 had exercised their option to purchase their discharge by the end of 1969. It is estimated that a further 400 of these boys will purchase their discharge during the remaining period of the options expiring on 30th June, 1970. I am confident that the Donaldson Committee is fully aware of the need to report to me as soon as it has completed its study of this complex question.

Is it right that the remainder, many of whom may later change their minds, should be held, possibly against their will, for 12 years in the forces, and that the forces should depend so heavily on these boys, who provide one in three of all recruits?

Some of the implications of my hon. Friend's question are things which we should like to change and remedy, but I do not want to comment on his supplementary question until the Donaldson Committee has reported.

Do not the figures which have been given indicate that since the permitted period was raised from three months to six months there has been an increase in the number of boys opting out? Is it not, therefore, logical to draw the conclusion that if these boys were given the option at the age of 18, many Servicemen who are unwillingly retained in the Services for 12 years would not remain, and the morale of the remainder would thereby be improved?

It is certainly reasonable to draw the conclusion that the more options for withdrawal that are offered to the Services the more options are likely to be taken up. A further conclusion can be drawn from the figures which have been given, that rather more boys have the opportunity of withdrawal from the forces than is sometimes suggested in the House. In fact, most boys who are deeply disturbed by their experience in the forces leave the forces, and the figures which I have given today substantiate that.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he now has for the use of the aircraft carriers "Hermes" and "Ark Royal".

No decision has yet been taken about the future of these ships after their fixed-wing flying task has been completed.

Is any serious thought being given to the possibility of the civilian use of these fine ships, either for floating industrial exhibitions or for educational purposes, after they have come to the end of their military life?

Every possibility is being explored, but this is not one of the higher priorities.

Is the Secretary of State saying that he has no plans after 18 months for the use of the "Ark Royal", on which he has just spent £32 million of the taxpayers' money?

Nobody would have been more forward than the right hon. Gentleman if I had not made provision for the protection of the final withdrawal of our forces from the Gulf and the Far East. I hope that nobody in the House will grudge money spent to secure that that withdrawal takes place in conditions of security for the men concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence why the appointment of a full-time public relations officer for H.M.S. "Ark Royal" has been cancelled.

The complements of sea-going H.M. ships do not include fulltime public relations officers. No fulltime P.R.O. appointment to "Ark Royal" has been made or cancelled. As an initial step one officer for public relations is being appointed to the sea-going Fleet generally.

Is it not a fact that publicity about aircraft carriers has been deliberately played down, and would the Minister congratulate those in the "Ark Royal" who had the initiative to display a large banner over its stern the other day entitled "Fly Navy"?

In reply to the last part of the question, I have been away but I gather that that was on H.M.S. "Eagle". As to the question of deliberate reduction in the public relations effort, the situation is to the contrary. The fact is that we are now appointing a public relations officer for the seagoing Fleet where one has never existed before.

Would it not be convenient if the Prime Minister were to lend to the Navy a public relations officer from 10 Downing Street, where there seems to be a surplus?

asked the Secretary of State for Defence on what basis hon. Members are selected by his Department to visit British Forces overseas; and what steps are taken to ensure that all such Members are enabled to carry out the full programme planned for them, in view of the incidents which occurred on a visit to Her Majesty's Forces in Cyprus by Members in September, 1965.

The answer to the first part of the Question is that Members of groups on parliamentary visits to the British Forces in overseas commands are selected under arrangements made through the usual channels. As regards the second part, I can assure my hon. Friend that all commands have in the past done their utmost to ensure that the planned programmes are carried out in full, and will, of course, continue to do so in the future.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that on the occasion of the visit mentioned in the Question an hon. Gentleman opposite took the car of a commanding officer without permission and used it for his own private purposes, and that that hon. Member is now writing a book or pamphlet for the Tory Central Office on law and order, with particular reference to malicious trespass? Will my right hon. Friend undertake to read that pamphlet, which has clearly been written by a person of authority on the matter?

In reply to the second part of the supplementary question, I cannot in all conscience undertake to read the pamphlet. In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, I think the House will agree that I am not responsible for the behaviour of hon. Members overseas or inside the House.

But what the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for is his own Department. Can he give the House an assurance that there will be no repetition in Cyprus of the deprivation of Servicemen of their votes in the forthcoming General Election? When hon. Members visit Cyprus, will those deprived electors in the Armed Forces have absolute access to hon. Members, including myself, without let or hindrance from the right hon. Gentleman?

The hon. Member is obviously excited about some personal experience.

No, indignant.

If he will give me details of that experience, I will see if there is anything whatever that I ought to do or say about it.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if, following the official proposals of the United States Secretary of State on 17th March regarding United States troop withdrawals from Europe in 1971, he will make a statement about the size of future British force commitment in Germany.

The United States Secretary of State has made no such proposals.

But did not the Secretary of State say that the United States would give serious consideration to reduction of its forces in Europe in 1971? May I ask my right hon. Friend for an undertaking that at least there will be no increase in British forces in Germany?

No, I will not give that undertaking. I must point out to my hon. Friend and some of his sympathisers that it is no good on the one hand complaining about N.A.T.O.'s reliance on nuclear strategy and on the other hand insisting that we should reduce our conventional contribution to the alliance.

Will not the Secretary of State also point out to our mutual hon. Friend that if, hypothetically, the United States were to withdraw part of her forces from Western Europe, and if Britain were to follow the policy he is advocating of withdrawing part of the Army of the Rhine, the logical follow-up would be a much larger German conventional army, which would become the largest army in Western Europe?

This is certainly a factor but, if I might try to lower the temperature in which these questions are being asked, I am sure the whole House would agree that if there are to be reductions in the forces of N.A.T.O. in Europe, they should take place as part of a process of mutual force reduction which guarantees the same security for both sides as they enjoy today. I am sure that it would be much better to devote our attention and concern to persuading the Warsaw Powers to participate in negotiations for this type of mutual force reduction.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government that Great Britain will never be the first to use a nuclear weapon.

The policy of Her Majesty's Government in relation to the use of nuclear weapons remains based on their obligations to N.A.T.O.

Does not my right hon. Friend remember that on 5th December, 1967, the Prime Minister, in answer to a Question by the late Mr. Emrys Hughes, admitted that Great Britain would never be the first to use the nuclear weapon? How does that tally with the statements in the recent Defence White Paper about the initial use of nuclear arms?

I regret to say that my hon. Friend is totally misrepresenting the Prime Minister's reply to that Question by the late Mr. Emrys Hughes.

Is the Secretary of State saying that neither he nor his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would be the first in certain circumstances to use the nuclear weapon if an invasion were to take place?

I have always made it clear, as have all Governments, that if N.A.T.O. were faced with an overwhelming conventional invasion of Western Europe N.A.T.O. would have to use the nuclear weapon in the course of replying to it. This has always been the policy of N.A.T.O. ever since it was set up in 1949. I am glad to see that the newspaper which is published by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament admits in the current number that there has been no recent change in the policy of the British Government or N.A.T.O. in this respect.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total expenditure of his Department in the United Kingdom in 1969; and what percentage of this total was spent in Scotland.

Figures are available only for financial years. In 1968–69 about 88 per cent. of the defence budget was spent in the United Kingdom. Of this proportion approximately 7 per cent. was spent in Scotland.

Is this percentage not disturbingly low? Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to review his Navy building programme, observing that five years ago four shipyards in the Upper Clyde were building naval frigates whereas at present the figure is only one?

I am sure the hon. Member knows that Scotland benefits generally from our development area policies. I hope he will tell the people of Scotland that if the Tories come to power they will wreck our development area policy. I am glad he has mentioned the naval programme. Of course, some of the development areas are able to produce certain articles on a much higher scale than others. As regards naval shipbuilding, the hon. Gentleman knows that the share which goes to Scotland is high.

Is my hon. Friend aware that if the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) had been here when we were debating the Navy Estimates, he would have heard me quote figures which gave a favourable impression of the contribution which my hon. Friend's Department is making to the progress of naval shipbuilding in Scottish yards?

I cannot answer for the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), whether he was here or not, but the figures of naval shipbuilding for 1966–67 show that almost 20 per cent. of our orders were placed in Scotland, in the following year they came down to less than 1 per cent., and in 1968–69 they went up to 64 per cent. The figures fluctuate because it depends on the number of orders actually placed in one year, but generally I have done my utmost to increase the share of our contracts placed in development areas. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman read my article only last week in the Glasgow Herald which sought to encourage Scottish industry to avail itself of the opportunities.

While the Minister is mainly concerned with defence matters—and I recognise that he was in the Cairngorms only a few days ago—does he realise that he has completely misrepresented and is quite wrong about Conservative development policy, which will have the effect of bringing a great many more jobs to Scotland with the money now being spent?

I know that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have a guilt complex as regards their plans to wreck our development area policy. They will have to answer for this at a General Election.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that answer, I shall seek leave to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied that adequate measures are taken to ensure that details of sophisticated British military equipment like the Chieftain tanks, are not communicated to a potentially hostile country; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to his supplementary question on the same subject on 4th February. Security aspects are carefully considered before information is made available to any country.—[Vol. 795, c. 425.]

If this is so, would it not be highly dangerous for Britain to sell Chieftain tanks to Libya because, bearing in mind Libya's military involvement with the U.A.R. and the U.A.R.'s close military involvement with the Soviet Union, what would be the point of Britain developing the world's most advanced tank if full information about it immediately went to the Soviet Union?

I can give a general assurance to my hon. Friend that we take full account of possible breaches of security by the transfer of any weapons system from one country to another before a decision is taken at any stage.

Since the Israelis have helped to perfect this excellent tank, will the Government consider selling them a few?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Why cannot the Foreign Secretary come clean on this issue? He always answers Questions on this matter by talking about negotiations when we do not know the nature of those negotiations. Surely the best way to take full account of the situation, to use the hon. Gentleman's words, is to prevent Libya getting the tanks. Is he aware that there is a good deal of feeling in this House against provision of Chieftain tanks to Libya, and if the Government refuse to see the wisdom of this and provide these tanks to Libya, I will give them all the trouble I can.

I am aware of the concern of my right hon. Friend on these issues, but surely this question arises purely and solely from the possible danger from the security point of view of the transfer of information from one country to another.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will order an independent inquiry into the circumstances in which an Air Training Corps cadet, particulars of which have been sent him, was injured while attending a training course at Royal Air Force Station, Scampton, and into his subsequent treatment.

No, Sir.

Are not many of the facts still in dispute? Did not the hon. Gentleman have to withdraw one departmental statement which was inaccurate? Is not he relying on the reports of those whose conduct may be in issue? Would it not restore confidence all round if he showed courage and submitted this matter to an independent inquiry?

The right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is in three parts. As for the reliance which I place on reports, I place my reliance on the reports not only of Service medical officers but of National Health Service medical officers who are also involved in this case.

As for the withdrawal of a statement, I was very careful in my supplementary statement, which I offered to the Press out of courtesy to the right hon. Gentleman, to make it clear that all that we hoped to do was clear up any misunderstandings that he believed to have arisen. I do not believe that any misunderstanding arose from the first statement. I am satisfied that the matter was dealt with properly.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter in full on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many British troops will train in Malaysia according to his present plans; and what will be the estimated cost of that training.

Under our present plans about 3,000 troops, including Royal Marines and the R.A.F. Regiment, will train annually at the Commonwealth Jungle Warfare Centre in Malaysia from 1971 onwards. The estimated annual running costs of the Commonwealth Jungle Warfare Centre will be about £1½ million to £¾ million, of which the United Kingdom share will be in proportion to our use of the centre.

Will the Minister confirm that the number of units involved in training in the Jungle Warfare Centre amounts to two infantry battalions and 10 infantry companies a year?

That is broadly correct, but it may vary from year to year.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what items of British military equipment are being purchased by the Federal Government of Germany in order to offset the foreign currency costs of 6 Brigade when it returns to Germany.

The hon. Member may recall that it is not our practice to disclose information about arms sales.

As the precise cost of this offset agreement involves military equipment, as the Germans know what they are buying, as N.A.T.O. knows what is being bought, and as Russia probably knows what is being bought, why cannot the House be told?

The hon. Gentleman is familiar with our practice on particular items of arms purchased to which the Question refers. It has been the practice of successive Governments for many years.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence why in certain cases the Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve is unable to issue uniforms to new recruits.

There have been certain production difficulties in regard to both No. 2 dress and combat clothing which have affected issues to the Regular Army and the Reserve Army. Urgent action has been taken with contractors to remedy this situation.

Is not this scandalous? Does not the Minister realise that when there is a shortage like this people begin to wonder what else the Government are trying to cover up? Is he not aware that this is why many hon. Members ask for a Select Committee on defence?

It may or may not be scandalous, but the hon. Gentleman should know that the production difficulties are due to the failure of the contractors to meet their delivery dates and are not attributable to this Department.

Will my hon. Friend agree that this seems to indicate that it is a good job that we do not reach our recruitment figures?

I do not agree, since, as I am sure my hon. Friend will realise, had the orders placed with the contractors been met, they would have been sufficient to cover all the recruits we were asking for.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, how many people are now working in agriculture.

There were 308,000 regular whole-time workers in agriculture, including horticulture, in the United Kingdom at June 1969.

Will the Minister indicate how his much-vaunted selective expansion programme for agriculture has not succeeded in arresting the decline in employment in the industry?

There is no indication that the fall in the labour force has had any effect on the expansion programme. This last year the drop in the number of workers is down compared with the year before.

Will the hon. Gentleman explain the reason for the lamentable failure of the Government's expansion programme, which is lagging so far behind target?

I do not agree that it is lagging behind target, and I do not think that it has anything to do with the question of 308,000 regular whole-time workers.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the increase in food prices on a percentage basis each year for the last six years.

According to the Index of Retail Prices, the percentage increases over the previous year for each of the years 1963–1969 were 2·9, 3·5, 3·6, 2·5, 4·0 and 6·3.

Will the hon. Gentleman explain how the alarming increases in prices which have had to be accepted by the consuming public relate to the continuing embarrassment of the primary producers?

An increase in food prices of 21·5 per cent. compared with an earnings increase of 38 per cent. over the last five years does not give much weight to the hon. Gentleman's question.

Can my hon. Friend give comparable figures of food prices in E.E.C. countries, which will probably show that our prices are very much below those of the countries that we are asked to join?

Not without notice, but I know what my hon. Friend means.

Will the hon. Gentleman try to explain this extraordinary rake's progress of price increases and tell us how much is due to the Government's policies, including the taxation of food through S.E.T. and in other ways?

I presume that the right hon. Gentleman can still read and that he will have read the Reddaway Report, which shows that S.E.T. has had a negligible effect on food prices.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what further progress has been made in plans for improving terminal facilities at Turnhouse Airport, Edinburgh.

I regret that I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend's Question on 25th February.—[Vol. 796, c. 325–6.]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is time that he had something to add? Nothing to nothing makes nothing. Is he aware that he will be subject to constant pressure until there are some visible signs that progress is being made to satisfy the staff and the passengers who have had to use this slum of an airport for far too long?

Progress is being made, as I told my hon. Friend when he last raised this matter. Improvements are being carried out at Turnhouse, and plans for new facilities have been prepared. These will be carried out as part of the development of the airport as a whole.