asked the Minister of State for Defence whether it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to work for a distinct European defence capability within the framework of the Atlantic Alliance.

We aim to foster European defence collaboration within N.A.T.O. so as to improve the military capability of the Alliance as a whole.

Will the Minister of State confirm that this will ultimately involve sharing control of nuclear weapons with other countries of the Western Alliance.

That takes the matter much wider than the original Question. Our object is to improve the defence capability of N.A.T.O. as a whole, and, in so far as European defence can be strengthened, that is a contribution to that wider objective.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that, with the excessive cost of modern weaponry now, we must have greater integration and co-operation with our European allies within N.A.T.O. for the production of weapons, each country, perhaps, taking on a specific task for the future development of sophisticated weapons of this type?

I entirely agree. I am sure that such an objective, if achieved, would be of value to all members of the N.A.T.O. alliance. It is difficult to achieve, and there is substantial room for improvement, but we shall play what part we can in achieving it.

Will the Minister of State assure the House that we shall not share our nuclear knowledge with France, as this would be a breach of the Non-Proliferation Treaty whether France was inside N.A.T.O. or outside?

Discussions between France and ourselves about nuclear collaboration must depend upon a better understanding between us on the broad strategic objectives at which we must aim.

As the M.R.C.A. is the most important single item in the practical development of a European defence capability, may we be told what is the reaction of our European partners to the Rolls-Royce situation? Does it affect contractual arrangements? As the Minister's last statement on the matter was on 22nd July, when does he intend to bring the House up to date on progress, development and costs?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question on that specific point, or seek to catch Mr. Speaker's eye during the debate this afternoon.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on recent trends in naval recruiting.

In 1968–69, the Royal Navy, including the Royal Marines, recruited some 4,700 men, the lowest number for many years. Recruitment for 1969–70 showed an increase of 15 per cent., and during the first nine months of the current financial year there has been a marked increase over the same period last year, in the order of 23 per cent.

I thank my hon. Friend for those encouraging figures. Will he confirm that, as a further stimulus to naval recruiting, it is the Government's intention to maintain the widest possible naval presence throughout the world, whatever may be their decisions about particular fixed bases or installations in different areas?

We have an ocean-going navy and, as my hon. Friend knows, we are maintaining a presence in Singapore and east of Suez generally.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether it is the Government's intention to maintain parity with the French Polaris Submarine Fleet.

The Government intend to maintain the effectiveness of our contribution to the Western strategic nuclear deterrent. I cannot answer for the intentions of the French Government.

Does the Minister of State agree that it is as unlikely as it is undesirable in the interests of non-proliferation that the French Government should be able to acquire submarines with missiles unless receiving information from N.A.T.O. or the United States Government?

As I say, it is not for me to answer for the French Government regarding the development of their nuclear programme.

In July, the Minister could give me no assurance that the Government would not build a fifth Polaris submarine. He has now had some time to think about the matter. Can he give that assurance now?

The option to build a fifth Polaris submarine remains open to us and is under continuous review. No decision one way or the other has been taken.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether information regarding the development of Polaris missile warheads has been obtained from the United States of America under the Polaris sales agreement.

No, Sir. The Polaris sales agreement does not cover the provision by the United States of information about warheads.

Is it correct that Polaris submarines are now equipped with multiple warheads? If so, can the Minister of State tell us when, where and how provision was made for this in the Defence Estimates? Can he give an indication of the cost incurred, either as a sum or as a proportion of defence expenditure, and can he say when such multiple warheads are likely to become obsolete?

I cannot give the technical information for which the hon. Gentleman asks. As to the number of warheads, there has been no change since the previous Administration.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what stage has been reached in the development of the multiple independently-targetable re-entry vehicle warhead for Polaris missiles.

Measures required to maintain the effectiveness of the Polaris force as our contribution to the Western strategic nuclear deterrent are kept under constant review and will be introduced as and when they are necessary. It would not be in the public interest to disclose details of these measures.

While I appreciate the last part of the Minister's answer, may I ask, does not he agree that as these ghastly weapons develop, if there is to be an intention, to put it euphemistically, as the hon. Gentleman does, to maintain Britain's contribution to the strategic rôle of N.A.T.O., it will be necessary to develop a multiple independently-targetable vehicle? Does he envisage that the British so-called independent deterrent will ultimately become dependent upon the United States for the supply of suitable warheads?

The main burden of the hon. Gentleman's question is whether the re-entry bodies are in any way targetable. I am not prepared to give that information, as I do not regard it as being in the public interest to do so.

Can the Minister give an assurance that the Government are closely following the S.A.L.T. talks on limitation of strategic armaments between the Soviet Union and the United States?

Yes, Sir. We are following them very closely and have been kept closely informed on the matter.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will place Her Majesty's ships and aircraft engaged in the Beira control operation on other duties.

The Beira patrol is one of the means of enforcing sanctions imposed on Rhodesia. It will continue as long as necessary.

Since the security of the Indian Ocean demands not only the support of the South African and other friendly navies but a continuous British armed presence in the Gulf, will my hon. Friend reject any advice that we lack ships for the Gulf while these frigates are frigging around the Mozambique Channel?

That is another question.

Can the Minister say how many frigates are now involved in the patrol, including those on station and those on rest or recreation?

No, Sir. That is information which we do not disclose.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Servicemen are accustomed to doing their duty through thick and thin, but that the airmen and sailors involved in this patrol are absolutely much-sick of their pointless duties?

Sailors never fail to tell me what they feel about anything when I visit them.

We on this side congratulate the Government on maintaining the Beira patrol. Is it not a fact that the patrol has been one of the most successful naval blockades in history? It was aimed solely at stopping oil from flowing into Beira. It has achieved that aim, and it must be maintained.

It is certainly true that in this case, as in many others, the Royal Navy has carried out its task.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if it is intended to maintain the active seagoing rôle of the Admiralty Ferry Crew Association; and if he will make a statement as to the future organisation of the Association.

The active section of the Admiralty Ferry Crew Association became List III of the Royal Naval Auxiliary Service in 1963. Its future is currently under consideration.

Will my hon. Friend consider the danger that if the sea-going rôle of the association is ended there is likely to be a considerable loss of good will and of experienced membership of the association?

That is one of the factors we are bearing in mind in the review. We are anxious to use these volunteers in the most effective means for the support of the Fleet.

asked the Minister of State for Defence (1) what communication he has received from the French Ministry of Defence regarding nuclear weapons; and what reply he has sent;

We have received no communication from the French Ministry of Defence about nuclear weapons and we have made no proposal to it.

Since the Government have received no proposal from the French Ministry of Defence for co-operation in the use or manufacture of nuclear weapons, will the Government take that as an indication that the French Government wish to have no such co-operation? Will the Minister accept that, in view of this, the Conservative Party's previously-proposed policy for Anglo-French nuclear co-operation should be dropped? If he is not prepared to do so, does he at least agree that before any such co-operation is proposed or negotiated the United Nations should have a chance to examine whether it would involve a breach of the non-proliferation treaty?

The whole basis of the hon. Gentleman's question is hypothetical, because, as I have already explained to the House, discussions between ourselves and the French Government on nuclear collaboration must depend on establishing a closer identity of purpose as to the broad strategic purposes in which we are both interested. That does not exist at present, and therefore the question is hypothetical.

Will the Minister confirm that under the Nassau Agreement as the communiqué made clear in paragraphs 6 and 8, Polaris missiles were assigned to N.A.T.O. nuclear forces and targeted according to N.A.T.O. nuclear plans, and that, therefore, while the French continue their present attitude to N.A.T.O., it would be impossible to conduct any discussions on nuclear collaboration?

The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that the British Polaris force is assigned to N.A.T.O. and that any proposal such as has been put forward for Anglo-French nuclear collaboration would require the most careful consideration.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what proposal Her Majesty's Government have made to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation for co-operation with French forces in the use of nuclear weapons or for pooling of French nuclear weapons within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

None, Sir.

In that case can the Minister confirm that the policy as enunciated at the election by his party, that of co-operation with the French in these matters, is to be dropped?

The policy is to secure a greater European contribution to the N.A.T.O. alliance. That has always been our policy and it remains our policy.

May I ask the Minister whether he is in a position to confirm reports that the French will have their first Polaris submarine operational this year, expect to have their fourth by 1975 and yet are lagging behind in techniques of missile warhead production? Can he give an assurance that any approach by the French Government asking the British Government to supply such warheads will be rejected? Can he further give an assurance that any approach to the United States will be discussed with the British Government, as a fellow-member of N.A.T.O.?

I am anxious to help the House, but I cannot answer questions on behalf of the United States Government or the French Government. The question which the hon. Gentleman raises is entirely hypothetical.

Can my hon. Friend give me any reason why the Opposition seem to be so much against the build-up of the defences of the West?

I have just said that I cannot answer for the French or United States Government. Thank heavens I do not have to answer for the Opposition.

Can my hon. Friend give me any reason why the Opposition seem to be so much against the build-up of the defences of the West?

I have just said that I cannot answer for the French or United States Government. Thank heavens I do not have to answer for the Opposition.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will call for a full up-to-date assessment of the Soviet threat to this country in all its aspects; and whether he will publish the results.

All threats to this country are kept under continuous review in association with our allies as appropriate. We do not disclose detailed assessments but general conclusions are published in the Defence White Papers from time to time.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that internal subversion, disruption and what I understand is referred to as "dis-information" are as much part of the Soviet threat to this country as continuing naval expansion abroad? Is he satisfied that the Government have adequate information on this aspect of the threat and that this information is adequately co-ordinated between Departments?

I do not think that any Minister could say that he is satisfied with the information at his disposal. Questions on internal security and internal subversion are basically questions which should be answered by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Does the Minister accept that while the threat might be global, the main area of threat is still in Europe? If so, what are the Government doing, apart from the small but welcome increase in the reserve forces, to bring our conventional forces more into line with the Soviet forces and to remove the necessity for our once again being the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the main shield that we should maintain is in N.A.T.O. and on the central front. I think that he underestimates the increased contribution we are making not only in the reserves he mentioned but in the running on of "Ark Royal" and the bringing into the front line of a considerable number of additional squadrons of Jaguar aircraft. This is a considerable contribution.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on his plans for rebuilding the naval detention centre at Portsmouth.

There are no plans for rebuilding the Royal Naval Detention Quarters in the near future. I am considering the long-term position.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that the inadequate and antiquated buildings in Portsmouth make the work of the staff at the detention centre very difficult, and that there is an urgent need to give them proper facilities with which they can approach their job?

The work of the staff in any institution as old as this is bound to be complicated. Unfortunately, our Victorian ancestors built to last, and the buildings are in very good order.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time to combine the detention services of all three Services into one service for the Armed Forces?

That is one of the matters we are looking into in the long-term review.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on staff training at the naval detention centre in Portsmouth.

The first qualification is a long experience of naval life which all the staff at the Royal Naval Detention Quarters possess. This is essential for the rehabilitation task for return to the service. Exchanges in visits and information with other penal establishments and the Military Corrective Training Centre at Colchester take place and the extension of specialised training is also under consideration.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that, in view of the new emphasis on counselling and rehabilitation by the staff of the detention centre, more extensive and specialised training will help them in the job to which they are deeply committed?

I agree. As a result of the conversations the hon. Gentleman and I had, the commanding officer has completed a course at the Grubb Institute of Behavioural Studies, and the senior instructor-designate is being sent on a prison officer course.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what assistance the United Kingdom Government are prepared to extend towards the establishment and maintenance of an International Peacekeeping Academy on the lines of the proposals sent to him by General Indar Rikhye.

I have agreed to consider sending an expert to a disaster relief seminar which the International Peace Academy Committee plan to hold later this year.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that these proposals are an excellent way of disseminating the peacekeeping experience of international peace-keeping operations for the future? Will he undertake to give substantially more support to the project than just sending one person to a seminar?

Few countries have more experience than we have in this type of operation and our contribution of sending an expert has been warmly welcomed by those organising the seminar. It will serve a useful purpose.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that this is an interesting idea which needs encouraging, both nationally and internationally? Will he look again at the problems facing the Royal United Services Institution?

I shall be glad to look at anything my hon. and gallant Friend puts to me.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that those who met General Rikhye when he was here recently were impressed by the seriousness of his proposals? This is not an exercise in Utopianism but a practical exercise to find more effective ways of international peace-keeping. Will he look seriously at giving more positive financial help to make the project a success?

I, too, met General Rikhye and was impressed by his proposals, but as far as I know he is not seeking financial support from the United Kingdom Government.

asked the Minister of State for Defence when he proposes to visit Diego Garcia.

I have no plans to do so.

That is a pity, because I suspect that no one in the Government machine has the remotest notion of how costly it is to build any kind of a base out of coral limestone and rock.

Order. Is the hon. Gentleman asking a question?

Does any serious person in the Government machine disagree with the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), the former Minister of Public Building and Works, that a base at Aldabra or Diego Garcia would cost between £100 million and £130 million?

I agree that it is sad that I am not going there, because I understand that the best swimming in the world is to be found among the coral reefs there. The hon. Gentleman is concerned about the costs.

What are the costs? Tell us.

The question of costs does not arise, because, as the hon. Gentleman will be glad to know, the entire costs are being paid by the United States Government.

Will the hon. Gentleman take this question a little more seriously? Can he tell us what the costs are? What amount are the United States Government going to spend on this British territory?

I am not answerable for the United States Government. I do not take the matter of the Diego Garcia communications centre, which is being built, at all lightheartedly. The purpose is to close a gap in the United States' worldwide communications system and to provide communications for ships and aircraft in the Indian Ocean, which is of the utmost importance.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what overseas training areas he expects to be available for British forces after 1971.

A precise forecast is impracticable, though I have no doubt that we shall continue to satisfy our requirements. We shall, of course, continue to use existing facilities in Europe in cooperation with N.A.T.O.; and our forces in the Malaysia and Singapore area will train out there under the five-Power defence arrangements.

Before taking a final decision on the future of British forces in the Gulf, will my hon. Friend give full weight to the value of retaining some occasional training facilities in certain of the Gulf States which are highly suitable for inter-Service training?

The training facilities in the Gulf are valuable to the Services, but I ask my hon. Friend to await the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

But when are we to be favoured with that statement? We keep reading circumstantial reports in the Press, for which the hon. Gentleman is not responsible, but when will ate Government make a statement so that we can ask questions about their intentions in the Gulf?

I should ask my right hon. Friend if I were the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether in view of the strategic significance of the North Sea oil and natural gas fields and their vulnerability to sabotage during periods of international tension, he will ensure that the Royal Navy develops the underwater capability needed to defend them.

I am satisfied that the Royal Navy's underwater capability, which is under continuous development, will be adequate to meet this particular task if the need arises.

Whilst thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that this country now shares a common frontier with eight other European countries, including Spain? Would not he agree that the fact that we can now occupy and utilise the sea floor adds an entirely new dimension to naval warfare?

It does indeed.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that a single depth charge from a hostile submarine—and the Soviets have ten times as many operational submarines as we have— could destroy the whole of the means of transportation of all natural gas from the North Sea to this country?

That thought is very much in our minds and that is why we are taking this matter very seriously.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what evaluations of the Harrier have so far been made for naval and amphibious operations; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a state- ment on the progress of the sea trials of Harrier aircraft.

Trials of the Harrier have so far been carried out in a number of Royal Naval ships including aircraft carriers and a Tiger Class cruiser. A further series of trials in an aircraft carrier is planned this year.

Would my hon. Friend agree that it is tragic that this potentially prophetic design for naval operations should be without honour in this country so far and is yet without orders? It opens up a whole new dimension for maritime air operations which should be exploited.

I do not think that we can look on the Harrier as being without honour, because we regard it as one of the major weapons developments of the future. The results of the naval trials must be fully evaluated and a full study must be carried out to see whether V.S.T.O.L. operation from naval ships is cost-effective.

The operation of this aircraft from ships of the Royal Navy is of vital importance to the future defence of the Navy. Is my hon. Friend aware that many people think that this is taken far more seriously in the United States than here? Will he put more effort into these trials?

I assure my hon. Friend that the trials are being proceeded with as rapidly as possible. The evaluation is a considerable undertaking. I am going, shortly, to see the next stage of the evaluation trials.

The hon. Gentleman must be aware that the United States Marines have already ordered Harriers. The order involved very considerable Congressional criticism at the time. We should not wish to do anything to damage sales prospects, but will the hon. Gentleman ensure that the Government's attitude to the Rolls-Royce problem and the RB211 engine will take into account future Harrier orders, since the handling of the RB211 order will be very important in shaping Congressional attitudes to future Harrier orders? Will he ensure that the standing of the British aircraft industry and the honouring of commitments are put before his Ministerial colleagues in relation to defence orders for the Harrier?

I suggest that, as the Rolls-Royce situation is being debated later today, that would be the appropriate time to raise this matter.

Is my hon. Friend aware that what the anxiety is about is lest the hangover of the Harrier controversy in the Royal Navy should in some way prejudice the evaluation of the Harrier for ship-borne operations and result in a dragging of feet? As this may be an important technique to keep alive in the Royal Navy, will he assure us that he will not allow such dragging of feet to happen?

I can give my right hon. Friend an absolute assurance. The hangover of the dispute, as far as I sense it, no longer exists. I sense an absolute determination in the Service to make as great a success of this endeavour as it can.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what future rôle he envisages for the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve and Royal Auxiliary Air Force.

I cannot add anything to the answers I gave my hon. Friend on 19th January, 29th January, and 4th February. Nor shall I be able to do so until the study on this subject is completed, which as I have told the hon. Gentleman, will take some months. I will inform him when the study is completed.—[Vol. 809, c. 264; Vol. 810, c.208;0 Vol. 810,c.430.]

Is my hon. Friend aware that I welcome this statement, as I do all the others, because it gives me an opportunity to remind him that flexible response as a strategy demands augmentation of the front line for the air no less than the other arms, and that light attack and close support aircraft will be a valuable reinforcement of the strength of N.A.T.O. in Europe?

I do not need reminding, since my hon. Friend leaves no occasion on which he does not do so.

Would the Minister not agree that it would be extremely foolish to spend money in this way for historic reasons when all the firm advice from the Air Staff for fifteen years has been that there is no need for this sort of extra commitment of the R.A.F.?

We can only wait until we see to what conclusions the study comes.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will take steps to increase the Royal Navy's light coastal forces.

Three fast training boats are being introduced into service now. Future requirements of the Royal Navy for light coastal vessels will be kept under review.

Would my hon. Friend agree that from 1930 until about five years ago this country was a world leader in this type of vessel but that now we have only three target vessels? Would he look at some more up-to-date private enterprise designs to see whether they might be made available to the Royal Navy?

As my hon. Friend knows, we have hired "Tenacity" from Vosper Thorneycroft and we intend to evaluate the effect of it.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will review the need for the continued use by his Department of Northolt Airfield.

No, Sir.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that as a result of the close proximity of this airfield to Heathrow there have in the recent past been near-miss air incidents which could prove very dangerous to my constituency and to neighbouring constituencies? Would he not further agree that as this airfield has no significant defence purpose, the land space could be much better used for other, community, purposes?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to a near-accident last year. That was the result of a failure to follow the proper air traffic control procedures. If they are followed correctly there is no danger. As to the use of the airfield, it is a long-term defence requirement for communication flying by the R.A.F. and our allies.

As long as Northolt is used by the R.A.F. could the Minister arrange to have it made more readily available to light aircraft, particularly business aircraft, as are many other Royal Air Force places all over the country?

The point that must be considered is that the Service aircraft must have priority.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what is the result of his examination of proposals for additional increases in the number of married quarters for Her Majesty's Forces in Germany.

Since my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Army informed the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop), on 4th December last, of the married accommodation situation in Germany, approval has been given for the acquisition of a further 3,100 long-term hirings. — [Vol. 807, c. 473.]

Can the hon. Gentleman say how soon the demand will be completely satisfied? Is he aware that there is considerable disquiet over the rising expense of private hiring and that the sooner this problem is resolved the better it will be for recruiting?

I am aware of disquiet and I am anxious to hurry this along as much as possible. These hirings are built by private enterprise and it is bound to take a little time to select developers and to find a suitable site. but I will do what I can to accelerate this.

Has my hon. Friend examined the possibility of buying houses in Germany, which at least would show some capital appreciation, rather than merely hiring them?

We will certainly consider the matter. If my hon. Friend will be so kind as to put down a specific Question, I will look into it.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what requests have been made by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation for increased defence expenditure by Great Britain; and what reply he has given.

None. But I am glad to say that the United Kingdom has played a leading rôle in constructing the European Defence Improvement Programme which is a significant affirmation of European support for N.A.T.O.

Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that at a time when the Government are cutting the social services, the National Health Service, and housing, and when even children are being asked to make a sacrifice, any increase in expenditure on defence would be absolutely unacceptable to this side of the House and to the country as a whole? Will he further bear in mind that under no circumstances are we prepared to accede to requests of this kind if they are made in an attempt to buy our way into the Common Market?

The contribution which this country makes to the defence of Europe and N.A.T.O. as a whole has nothing to do with buying our way into the Common Market. It is just that we think that it is right that we should be prepared to make a sacrifice for the defence of freedom and the Western world.

asked the Minister of State for Defence on what date, in what circumstances and with what notice, seconded British Army and Royal Air Force officers were summarily dismissed from the Zambian Defence Force and required to leave Zambia; and if he will make a statement.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 25th January.—[Vol. 810, c. 17.]

Has any apology been received or any protest made in respect of this discourtesy? While there is a case for economic aid to African countries, would it not be wiser to withdraw military aid, particularly from regimes that are politically unstable, since armed forces are constantly mixed up in this and it is embarrassing to British Government personnel?

In so far as representations to the Government are concerned, this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The personnel concerned are no longer members of Her Majesty's Forces.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he has now considered the brief which has been sent to him relative to the release of defence lands, including Tyneham, in Dorset; what action he will take; and if he will make a statement.

As I announced in the House on 14th January, a Committee has been appointed to review defence land holdings. I am arranging for the brief to be brought to the Committee's attention.—[Vol. 809, c. 244–7.]

While I recognise that the presence of armed forces will make a substantial improvement to economic and social development to the county of Dorset, may I ask my hon. Friend to try to relax matters so that greater access is granted to Dorset people to these defence lands, about which they feel indignant?

We are undertaking a review of the defence lands but it would be wrong for me in advance of the Committee's report to make any undertakings about any specific defence lands.

When will the hon. Gentleman be able to make available to the House the report in respect of the movement from Foulness to Pembroke? Here again we have been reading Press accounts of this but have heard nothing about it in the House? Is it to be published and, if so, when?

The Question related to defence lands in Dorset. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman puts down a Question on the matters to which he has referred.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will consider the construction of an over-bridge for pedestrians and particularly school children crossing the A343 road in the aviation camp in Middle Wallop.

This project is receiving consideration.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply.

asked the Minister of State for Defence how many searches for arms have been carried out by the Army in Northern Ireland in the past 12 months and with what result, in terms of arms and explosives discovered, arrests made and charges brought for unlawful possession.

During the past 12 months there have been 572 searches of occupied houses. Since July, 1970, when records were first maintained, an average of 650 vehicles a day have been searched. Searches of unoccupied buildings and of open areas have also been made. In this period, 743 lbs. of explosive, 8,079 yards of fuse, 2.618 detonators, 282 assorted weapons and approximately 40,000 rounds of ammunition have been found. The number of persons charged with unlawful possession totals 171.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him, in view of the tragic developments of the past seven days and the number of arms which are being used by extremists and republican elements in attacks on the police, the Army and even women and children, and in view of the amount of explosives used and even publicly flaunted in the streets, to intensify the number of searchers, particularly in those parts where firearms are being repeatedly used?

Searches are carried out when the G.O.C. has hard information that arms are to be found. Searches are also carried out during action when the security forces see that firing is coming from those houses. Searches in other circumstances are unlikely to be productive. They cause considerable discomfort and damage and are liable to bring sympathy for extremist forces which they do not deserve.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in a recent report on the B.B.C. it was said that there were 69,000 licensed firearms in the City of Belfast? That is an alarming number. Can the hon. Gentleman say something about that matter?

The question of licensed firearms, chiefly shotguns, is for the Stormont Government.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the grave concern felt in Northern Ireland about the statement made by the head of the Special Branch of the police in the Republic of Eire that arms were imported into Eire and that part of them have been sent to Northern Ireland? Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that every step will be taken to ensure that the arms in Eire in the hands of the I.R.A. will not be allowed to enter across the Northern Ireland border?

The existence of illegal arms in Northern Ireland, from wherever they come, is a matter of great concern. But statements by the Chief Constable in Eire are not matters for me.

Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the question of illegal arms and the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) concerning the number of licensed arms in Northern Ireland will be discussed at the forthcoming meeting between the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland?

I have no doubt that that is a very relevant subject which will Come up.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what changes have been made in the rôle of the Army in Northern Ireland as a result of recent discussions with the Prime Minister and other members of the Government of Northern Ireland.

The rôle of the Army in Northern Ireland continues to be to assist the civil power in the maintenance of peace and order, in the firm and impartial enforcement of the law and in the combating of subversion.

In view of the fact that the police have been disarmed and the local militias disbanded as a result of the Hunt Committee's Report, will my hon. Friend make sure that the Army is prepared without hestitation to protect people and property when firearms and explosives are used by seditious elements in their efforts to disrupt the economy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading.]— and to impose their political aims on Northern Ireland by force, and to apprehend those responsible?

The House will be aware that the Army is carrying out the duties of combating subversion and of dealing with trouble-makers who use firearms. There has been no change of policy.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will put in the Library a report of the remarks by Sir Geoffrey Baker, Chief of the General Staff, at Canberra on 28th January regarding the desirability of British troops fighting in Vietnam; whether such a statement was given prior approval; and if it is now the Government's intention to send British troops to Vietnam.

When answering a question at a Press interview, the Chief of the General Staff, speaking from a soldier's point of view, recalled the long tradition of comradeship in arms linking the British Australian and New Zealand Armies. From this point of view, he felt sad that the continuity of the tradition had been broken. He made clear that it would not be appropriate for him to comment on the political aspects of involvement in the Vietnam conflict. As the Prime Minister informed the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) on 16th July, 1970, it has always been the Government's position that British troops should not be sent to Vietnam.— [Vol. 803, c. 1725.]

We on this side of the House are very glad about the last part of the reply, but did not the General say that he would like to see British troops fighting alongside the Australians in Vietnam? Is it constitutionally correct for generals to express opinions on such matters publicly?

The Chief of General Staff was answering questions in an impromptu fashion and there is no verbatim record of what he said. My answer is a correct reflection of what he said. I think that the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) is simply trying to cause mischief. He is well aware that the General was simply expressing an emotional sentiment about troops who on a number of previous occasions had served alongside British troops. Equally, the General went out of his way to emphasise that it would not be appropriate for him to make any political comment.

Will the noble Lord say whether he agrees with what the General said and whether any admonition has been given to him for making such an awful statement?

I agree with the emotional sentiment which he expressed about troops who on a number of occasions in previous years had come to the help of British troops and that it was sad, in that respect alone, that we were not there to help them. But the Chief of the General Staff made it absolutely clear that he was in no position to comment on the political issue of the presence of British troops in Vietnam.

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I have waited until 3.30 p.m. before raising this matter. I wish to draw your attention to the Answer to Question No. 30 given to me by the Minister of State for Defence. You may recall that the Minister of State said that my Question was making mischief. If it is making mischief to oppose the sending of American troops to Vietnam or any suggestion of British troops being sent there, then I and many hon. Members plead guilty.

Order. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to proceed. That is not a point of order. It is an argument. It may or may not be valid, but it is not a point of order.

Further to that point of order. I am asking the Minister of State to withdraw—…

Order. Again that is not a point of order. I have no doubt that the Minister of State heard what the hon. Gentleman said.

Further to the point of order. As one who previously tried to raise this subject under Standing Order No. 9, may I ask whether, to save the time of the House, we could have a clarification from the Minister responsible of exactly what he meant in answer to my hon. Friend?

Not under the guise of a point of order.

Further to that point of order. With respect, I understood —…

Order. I have ruled that it is not a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman may raise a fresh one.

On a fresh point of order. I understood, with respect, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. Friend was coming to the point that, in view of the unsatisfactory answer by the Minister, he wished to raise this matter on the Adjournment. May I further say that I had intended to make these points to the Minister if, Mr. Speaker, you had not at that point called the Prime Minister's Questions.

Order. Again, I do not think that was a point of order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise the matter on the Adjournment, he should have done so at the appropriate time.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.