asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on his official visit this month to the Armed Forces in Northern Ireland.

I visited the troops in Northern Ireland on 15th and 16th May. They continue to perform their difficult task with exemplary patience, determination and restraint and their morale remains remarkably high.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that statement. Did he visit the Palace Barracks, Holywood, or the Girdwood Barracks in the centre of Belfast? They have acquired a notorious reputation in legal circles. Did he read the contention of the Sunday Times on 7th May that there is a wealth of evidence that there is still something wrong with Army methods of interrogation? Can he assure us that the Army is not lending itself to practices which may be counter-productive of the policies being pursued by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland?

Yes, I visited one of those barracks, and I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance he requests.

Since my right hon. Friend is a regular visitor to the Army in Northern Ireland, may I ask him how his mood and assessment of the visit he made a few days ago compared with a visit he made on a previous occasion?

The Army's task is to further the Government's aim of reducing tension and violence. At the same time it remains the responsibility of the Army to assist the civil power in eliminating terrorism and violence and restoring law and order. Whenever military measures are deemed to be necessary, military measures which are effective and totally impartial will be taken.

If the right hon. Gentleman's discussion covered matter: leading to the reduction of tension and violence, will he comment on the actior of the Parachute Regiment yesterday in driving vehicles at high speed, as the Press reports, through a funeral procession? I recognise that funeral processions are provocative to the majority community in Northern Ireland, but is it not a fact that this sort of action must increase tension and violence'?

I cannot comment on the allegation the hon. Gentleman has made; I have not heard about it. What I do know is that the Parachute battalion, after two years' experience in Northern Ireland, is widely regarded as being one of the most experienced and efficient battalions in carrying out the law and order duties which have to be fulfilled. I also know that that battalion. over the last weekend, restored law and order in Ballymurphy with quite remarkable efficiency.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House why the military were not present yesterday al Machie's foundry when the workers were leaving? The foundry has always been a flashpoint and workers have been attacked continually when coming from their place of work. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 10 shots were fired at the workers and that four workers were injured? The workers at the foundry are greatly perturbed about the terrible situation which is arising.

The situation facing the security forces is very grave, but it is quite impossible for them to be at every street in Northern Ireland. But whenever violence explodes or there is loss of life the security forces will take what steps they can to secure the restoration of law and order.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what steps the British Army is currently taking to prevent the flow of terrorists, explosives and arms into Northern Ireland from the Irish Republic.

The security forces continue to take all practicable measures to control the Border.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that helpful answer. I recently paid a two-day visit to County Fermanagh, which is very exposed to the activities of the IRA. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are only about 70 soldiers in the whole of the county, of which only 35 are fighting soldiers? Does he not think it would be more sensible to control and patrol the Border to prevent large amounts of ammunition and explosives and large numbers of terrorists infiltrating into the North rather than to carry out difficult searches in the main centres of population?

While not completely accepting without checking the figures which my hon. Friend has given, I accept that the general principle on which the Army is controlling the Border is based upon patrols and the closing of a certain number of roads to canalise traffic where that is more easily checked. I am sure the House appreciates that the task of closing the Border would absorb immense numbers of troops. The inconvenience which would be caused can be gauged from the fact that 50,000 vehicles cross the Border every day. That is the scale of the problem which faces the security forces.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether, since the initiative, there has been any change in the level of activity from the Southern Ireland forces of Mr. Lynch?

The Government welcome the measures that were taken recently by the Government of the Republic, but we should welcome even greater co-operation from them in the future.

Does the right hon. Gentle. man agree that a much more obvious step to take in respect of arms, and one which falls more readily within their competence and would be interpreted as an earnest of the Government's good intentions, would be to call in arms registered as being in private possession?

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that many of the arms registered as being in private possession are used for the protection of individual people, too many of whom, alas. have been attacked in their own houses.

When my right hon. Friend says that all practicable measures are being taken, does he mean that no further measures of control are practicable?

if one is prepared to devote immense resources of manpower, it is always possible to take further measures. That is not regarded by Ministers responsible for defence policy as being the highest priority in which to deploy the troops who are in Northern Ireland for the preservation of law and order.

Is the Army more effective now than it was three or six months ago in controlling terrorists, explosives and arms coming over the Border?

That is very difficult to quantify. One can measure to some extent the degree of improvement in control of explosives crossing the border by the fact that so many of the recent bombs which have been defused or which have exploded in the cities of Northern Ireland have been made out of components which are available within Northern Ireland and not out of gelignite. For that reason my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has introduced an order to control the products which can be used to make bombs.

asked the Minister of State for Defeence on how many occasions since 12th August, 1969, soldiers stationed in Northern Ireland have claimed they have hit terrorists when returning gunfire on themselves; how many terrorists they claim to have killed or injured on these occasions; and how many of these casualties have been arrested subsequently and how many bodies have been recovered.

I regret it is not possible to provide this information in the form requested, nor to provide it from 12th August, 1969.

Reports available to me indicate that since 19th January, 1971, a total of 142 people suspected of being terrorists are known to have been killed or injured and a further 329 are believed to have been killed or injured. Such casualties arose from a number of causes, including military gunfire, police gunfire and also various terrorist activities.

I understand that it is not possible to establish positively how many of the civilian casualties notified to the civil authorities were terrorists who had been shot by troops.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is grave disquiet in Northern Ireland over the fact that almost daily the Army claims to have shot and injured or killed terrorists but is unable to recover their bodies? Does my right hon. Friend think it satisfactory that the degree of control over no-go or Republican-dominated areas of Northern Ireland is so weak that it is possible for terrorists who have been shot or injured to be spirited away under the noses of the troops? Will he take effective steps to establish a much better degree of control over the Republican areas of Northern Ireland?

I appreciate that it is difficult for laymen to understand why the claims of casualties are not substantiated by the bodies of the terrorists being found. The reason, as I am sure the House will appreciate, is that it would be wrong to expect the troops to expose themselves to additional danger simply to recover an assailant's body. I do not believe that anyone in the House would regard that as necessary.

On the wide issues raised by my hon. Friend, on 4th May my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made it clear that he would not be prepared to see any extension of no-go areas. It is correct that in some areas the enforcement of law and order is a grave problem indeed, but when military action is deemed to be necessary it will be taken promptly, effectively and completely impartially.

The Minister said that 142 persons suspected of terrorist activities had been shot by the Army. May we have an indication of the source of that information? Do the figures come from military sources, from the RUC or from the Government of Northern Ireland? Is the Minister aware that by making this serious allegation—that 142 people suspected of terrorist activities have been shot—he may be jeopardising the claims of the dependants of those persons who are still living?

I do not follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument. The information is collated from a variety of sources. It includes military, police and general information available in Northern Ireland.

Does my noble Friend have statistics covering the number of terrorists who have been injured or killed when firing from across the Border at troops in Northern Ireland? Is he aware of the concern that is felt in Northern Ireland about the spread of no-go areas and the fact that one Ulster newspaper has claimed that a no-go area has been established in the Clonard?

I do not have immediately available the figures which my hon. Friend seeks, but if he will table a Question I will endeavour to get them. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be making a statement later this afternoon on the subject of security in Northern Ireland and will no doubt cover the other point raised by my hon. Friend.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what is the total cost of the Linesman system of air defence radar to date.

The cost to 31st March, 1972, including payments due but not yet made, was£94 million.

I am grateful for that information, but is it not time that we looked round to see what a few other countries are doing in this regard, particularly the United States, and examined whether the cost of fitting some of their software to the Plessey radar might be cheaper? Does the hon. Gentleman think that the job which Linesman is trying to do can be done at all?

Obviously we look everywhere possible to see whether we can bring down costs. It is not possible for me to give a full answer to the second part of the supplementary question.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what reductions in the number of bacteriologists employed by his Department he expects, following the Government's signing of the international Biological Weapons Convention.

None, Sir. The staff in question are not engaged in activities banned by the convention.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what these bacteriologists are employed in doing if their work is in no way connected with activities which under the convention are banned?

The hon. Gentleman knows from a previous answer which I gave him that the Ministry of Defence establishment consists of 44 scientific grade staff. The majority are employed at the Microbiological Research Establishment, Porton. The balance are employed at the Institute of Naval Medicine and the Royal Army Medical College, mainly in training and lecturing duties, and at the Admiralty Materials Laboratory.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that those of us who have visited the establishment at Porton cannot but have been impressed by the dedication of these people to the defence of this nation?

My hon. Friend is entirely correct. The scientific staff are performing a task of very considerable importance for the defence of this country.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will introduce a White Paper publishing the reasons for the transfer of control of the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment at Aldermaston from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Ministry of Defence and the implications for the Ministry of Defence.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will publish in a White Paper the reasons for the transfer of the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment at Aldermaston from the Department of Trade and Industry to the control of the Ministry of Defence, and also the effects of this transfer.

No, Sir. The introduction of legislation for the transfer of the establishment will provide a full opportunity for further discussion of the reasons for the transfer.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the concern felt by many Members about the difficulty of obtaining information from his Ministry? What assurance can he give that security will not be used as an excuse to reduce the Minister to silence on questions about Aldermaston?

I do not think the hon. Gentleman's opening remark was fair. I do not think there has been the difficulty he alleges. I am sure that any information which should be given will continue to be given under the new arrangement.

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that some years ago the House was promised that the proportion of civil work at Aldermaston—I think about 20 per cent.—would be increased? Can he give an assurance that this increase will take place, despite the transfer to his Ministry, when industry engaged in peaceful uses is so greatly in need of increased research and development?

No, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. But civil use of atomic energy will in no way be prejudiced by this transfer.

Can the hon. Gentleman assist us about the civil use of the resources? If this establishment comes under the Ministry of Defence, how can the Government ensure that the civil use rôle is not diminished and that the Ministry of Defence will not take a much larger share of valuable scientific research resources? Why must we wait for legislation, whenever that may be introduced, before we can have the reasons for the transfer?

The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is the same as the reason why the military use of atomic energy has not been prejudiced under the present arrangement. There is continual consultation between the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Trade and Industry. The basic reasons for the transfer were given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 5th August last year. In brief, 80 per cent. of the work is for the Ministry of Defence, and the bringing of the AWRE into the Ministry of Defence will facilitate the rationalisation of research and defence establishments.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he has completed the preparation of legislation for the purpose of transferring the control of the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment at Aldermaston from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Ministry of Defence.

It will not now be possible to carry through legislation during the present Session. The Government intend to introduce a Bill early in the forthcoming Session with a view to making the transfer in the spring of 1973.

Does not the Minister agree that it is regrettable that the position of staff engaged in research and development at the AWRE should remain under a shadow until next Session because of the mess in which the Government find themselves with their legislation and the way they have arranged the legislative programme? Will the Minister give an assurance that nothing will be done by his Department in anticipation of the Bill and that, until the House has considered it, there will remain to the House full accountability for the use of scientific staff at Aldermaston as is the case while the AWRE is under the Department of Trade and Industry?

Any delay in the Government's legislative programme is a matter of great regret for the whole House. There are some disadvantages in this case, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that negotiations are in progress with the staff and trade union sides and I am hopeful that a satisfactory conclusion will be reached. Meanwhile the ordinary processes of parliamentary accountability are not affected.

asked the Minister of State for Defence in view of the recent relaxation of rules allowing junior naval ratings and Royal Marine other ranks to opt out of the Service, if he will now consider altering the 12-week option during recruit training.

In introducing the notice engagement we took into account such factors as the recruit discharge option. We concluded, however, that the reasons for the current three months' period for adults and six months' period for juniors remain valid.

Are not a great number of potential recruits lost at this option time? Would not it be better to have the option at the end of recruit training instead of in the middle, as it is now?

No, I think it is better to have it where it is. We are anxious not to lose more than we have to, and for that reason we are bringing forward the award of the green beret to just before the three-month option period.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if, following the resolution recently carried by the Labour Party women's annual conference, and also by the Glasgow City Council, copies of which are in his possession, he will consider ending the British and United States Polaris bases in Scotland.

No, Sir.

Do not these bases make the British people a sitting duck for a nuclear bomb, and is this so impossible in the light of President Nixon's brinkmanship in Haiphong harbour? Would not removal of the bases enable Britain to give a lead towards détente and nuclear disarmament?

It has been the policy of successive Governments, including the Government which the hon. Gentleman supported, to maintain a nuclear deterrent. The whole purpose of a deterrent, of which these submarines form a part, is precisely to prevent the dangers of nuclear war, or any war. In that sense the submarines play an invaluable part in the defence of the Western world.

While the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) must be taken seriously, does not the Minister agree that longer-term issues are at stake? Will he assure the House that nothing he has said this afternoon implies an irrevocable commitment to second-generation Polaris?

I cannot see how anything I have said this afternoon can conceivably imply that.

Is the Minister aware that notwithstanding what he has said about the last Labour Government, or any other Government, the people of Scotland are greatly concerned about the dangers to them and even to future generations? The Government of the day should take this very seriously because an upheaval could occur, as my hon. Friend has suggested, and the nation that would be the loser would be Scotland. Will the Minister take this into consideration?

As a Scotsman I profoundly disagree with the hon. Gentleman's reflection of Scottish opinion. He will be glad to know that I am taking the opportunity before too long of discussing the matter with a deputation from Glasgow Corporation.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what plans he has to replace HMS "Reclaim".

HMS "Reclaim" still has a number of years of service ahead of her. The question of a replacement is under study.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Sea-bed Arms Control Treaty comes into operation this very day? is he also aware that the need to verify the teams of this treaty might arise more rapidly than is expected, as American action in mining the ports of North Vietnam amply demonstrate and does he not consider it appropriate for the Navy to expand its under-water engineering capability?

We are at present developing a new technique of deep diving and investigating the equipment needed for it. It would be better to await a replacement for HMS "Reclaim" until we have finished that investigation.

Has HMS "Reclaim" got more than five years to go?

She can go on well into the 1970s, yes.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a progress report on the consideration which he is giving to an increase in pensions for the widows of Servicemen who retired from the Services before 1st September, 1950.

As I promised in the Navy debate on 10th April, I am giving full consideration to the representations made on behalf of widows of Servicemen who retired before 1st September, 1950. I will write to the hon. Member and to other hon. Members who have recently raised this with me when a conclusion has been reached.

I thank the Minister for that reply, but does he realise that his more optimistic remarks in the context of the Defence Estimates debate have raised many people's hopes? This section of the community is suffering rather badly. Can we expect an early outcome to his consideration?

Yes, I do not think it will take very much longer.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if the Government will approve an increase in the amount to be spent on defence of a further£ per cent. of the gross national product in the next financial year, so that British Servicemen may have the best possible equipment.

No, Sir. The standard of equipment now coming into service with the British Forces is already very high and we shall continue to seek to obtain the best possible value for money from the resources available for the procurement of defence equipment.

I appreciate my right hon. Friend's answer, but is not manpower taking an ever-increasing proportion of the total amount spent on defence, thus leaving less and less for equipment? My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said in 1966 that a nation that could not devote 6½ per cent. of its gross national product to defence was not fit to take its part in the defence of the free world. Has the Government's view changed?

The proportion of our defence budget which is spent on equipment compares very favourably with that of our European allies, but my hon. Friend is quite correct. The question of the proportion which should be spent on equipment and the proportion which should be spent on manpower is a constant and recurring problem. My hon. Friend will appreciate that were his Question to be answered in the affirmative it would mean an increase of£250 million in the defence budget.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a situation where the Government are charging admission to museums and galleries at a cost of£1 million, doing away with free school milk at a cost of£9 million and imposing VAT on childrens' shoes at a cost of£12 million, the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Loveridge) is intolerable and that the Government would be far better advised to harmonise our defence costs down to those of the other Common Market countries when we enter?

The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that this country spends on defence 5½ per cent. of our gross national product. The proportion of the Soviet GNP which is spent on defence is about 8 per cent. The hon. Gentleman should sometimes bear in mind that defence is one of the highest priorities of a democratic community.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he is satisfied with the logistic supply capability of Royal Air Force Support Command; and whether he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. Air Support Command already has a substantial capability and this will increase when the Puma force builds up to full strength later this year. The question of further increasing this capability is kept under review.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the load-carrying capacity of the Andover for short-range logistic support? Is there not a good case to be made out for a medium-lift helicopter to support our forward Harrier squadrons?

There is a very good case to be made out for a medium-lift helicopter: the trouble is the money to pay for it.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what measures he proposes to take to improve the effectiveness of Great Britain's air defences.

The improving of our effectiveness is a continuing process and I have nothing to add at present to what I told the House in the Air Estimates debate on 2nd March.—[Vol. 832, c. 774–5.]

While thanking my noble Friend for that reply, may I remind him that the number of live intercepts carried out by No. 11 Fighter Group of Strike Command last year was the highest in recent years and that Strike Command also has responsibility for defending the Fleet at sea? Will he do his best to augment the number of fighter aircraft available to the Royal Air Force?

Again, one would be anxious to do this, but one must take into consideration the ceiling of the budget to which one is working.

asked the Minister of State for Defence w what extent foreign guns are being fitted to British planes; and if he will make a statement.

The Phantom Mark 2 is the only military aircraft at present in service which is fitted with a foreign gun. This gun has no British equivalent and had already been developed for the American Phantoms. The MRCA will be fitted with a German gun which is under development by Mauser.

Assuming that the Minister has heard of the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield, and remembering that in spite of today's good figures concerning unemployment we still have the highest unemployment that we have ever had in Enfield, would it not have been better to have had this gun produced in a British factory?

There was no suitable British gun available or under development. This decision was made in November or December, 1970, and the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the present Government could hardly have got a gun going in that time. There have not been any recent heavy redundancies at Enfield, there are none in contemplation and the future workload is very healthy. The hon. Gentleman probably knows that Enfield is doing some work-sharing with Mauser on the gun which is under development.

Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he will endeavour to persuade the appropriate powers and authorities-that-be that to buy a higher percentage of British defence equipment and needs from British suppliers would further help the dramatic drop in unemployment in this country?

I think that the implication of my hon. Friend's question is mistaken. We already buy a high proportion of our equipment needs from Britain, and British industry has had a fair share of the equipment chosen for the MRCA.

In view of the number of decisions of the previous Government which the present Government have undone, alteration of this decision would not be objected to at all.

Unfortunately, owing to the decisions or non-decision taken by the Government which the hon. Gentleman was proud to serve, we had no option in this matter.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to equipping Her Majesty's forces with CS and other gases and defoliants for use in warfare.

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 27th March by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.—[Vol. 834, c. 11–12.]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those answers are entirely unsatisfactory because they fail to give any information? As the object of Question Time is to get information, why conceal it? Will the right hon. Gentleman think again about this and take the view that we should be given a little more information with regard to what is happening about the equipment of British forces in this respect?

I think that the hon. Gentleman should study the answers, which are remarkably informative considering the nature of the Questions.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what changes need to be made to the Harrier aircraft to make it suitable for service with the Royal Navy.

Although trials have shown that the Harrier can readily be operated from ships at sea, the present version of the Harrier was designed for close support of ground operations. Changes in its weapons, avionics and other systems would be needed to adapt it for maritime warfare.

With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, may I suggest that after 10 years of sea trials it ought to have been possible to draw up a specification for an aircraft which the Royal Navy desperately needs and which is being denied to it by inter-Service rivalry?

That is quite wrong, with all due respect to my hon. Friend. Inter-Service rivalry is not the cause. This is a complex matter, as my hon. Friend knows, and we have to take a lot of matters into account before we reach a final decision.

What is the proposed change of cost per unit?

As we have not decided what to do I cannot answer that question.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what measures he is taking to promote the sale of Harrier aircraft to the United States armed forces.

Firm orders have been placed for 60 aircraft and for long-dated items for a further 30. The purchase of additional Harriers as recommended by the United States Administration in their defence budget for 1973 has not yet been authorised by Congress.

Detailed information on the Harrier has been given to the United States armed services as well as opportunities for flight evaluation. An American company has been licensed to manufacture the aircraft.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the best possible fillip for export sales of Harriers to the United States Navy and Marine Corps, as well as to other navies and air forces, would be for Her Majesty's Government to place a further RAF order and also to make a decision in principle about a Royal Navy order for this aeroplane?

I do not think the United States Government would be greatly impressed by a decision which was implicitly designed to influence their procurement policies. It is better that we should take our own decisions on the particular merits involved.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will look at the records of the British soldiers shot for desertion or cowardice in the First World War and have these records destroyed so as not to allow the names of these soldiers ever to be released.

I have examined a sample of these records which are lodged in the Public Record Office. They are closed to the public and will remain so for so long as is necessary to spare the feelings of close relatives. In view of the historical value of the records I am not prepared to recommend their destruction.

I am rather disappointed at that reply. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that according to information one can gather a large percentage of those who were executed should have been in hospital receiving treatment rather than be executed? Would it not be better to destroy the records of those who fit so much into that category?

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but perhaps I may ask him to bear in mind that the present policy for handling records of this kind attempts to strike a balance between the protection of innocent individuals from unnecessary pain and the preservation of material which, after all, is part of our history and should not be suppressed for ever. I am satisfied that that approach is the right one and I think that most people would agree.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the adequacy of the information conveyed to the House in the White Paper on Defence; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir; I regard the Statement on the Defence Estimates as a most informative document.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that when we raise various matters in defence and other debates we are always told that we shall not fight a war alone and that our allies will assist us. I am particularly worried about the state of our maritime defences. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would consider attaching to the next Defence White Paper an assessment of the forces that would be available from other countries to help this country in the event of another war.

I shall consider the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend, because the purpose of the Defence White Paper is to provide as full information for the House as is possible. Clearly one does not want to have a document which is vast and unreadable, and so we have tried to compress it into a crisp and easily readable style. But I shall consider suggestions from my hon. and gallant Friend and, indeed, from any other hon. Member.

In the light of the White Paper, and in the light of the huge number of troops in Northern Ireland, would not my right hon. Friend agree that either we have over-recruited in the past or that other commitments are hideously under-manned? Which statement is true, and what remedial measures has my right hon. Friend in mind?

I should have thought that neither statement was true. We have not over-recruited in the past. Indeed, on coming into office one of the major problems which we had to face was that of serious under-recruitment by the previous Administration. The position is that recruiting is reasonably satisfactory and improving, but undoubtedly the strain on the Army as a result of the problems in Northern Ireland is very real.

Will the right hon. Gentleman face the fact that the continued deployment of troops in Northern Ireland for such a long time undoubtedly must have its effect on our defences in Germany? Will he face that problem when the next Defence White Paper is set out so that we can understand the implications of this long-drawn-out involvement which perhaps had not been anticipated some months ago?

I shall bear in mind the powerful argument which the right hon. Gentleman is developing for increasing our defence forces.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the use of hovercraft as patrol vessels in the Royal Navy.

Hovercraft are being evaluated in various naval roles, including their use as patrol vessels. But no plans have been made to introduce a class of hovercraft into service in this rôle.

Are investigations being conducted into the use of hovercraft for fishery protection and anti-submarine work?

Yes, Sir. We are evaluating hovercraft generally, including their use for mine counter-measures.

Does the Minister agree that the regulations recently issued covering the civil use of hovercraft inevitably raise doubts about the versatility of these craft? Will he take an early opportunity to clear up any such doubts so far as the Service is concerned?

As far as I know, the regulations do not affect the 11 hovercraft which are in service, but if my hon. Friend cares to put down a Question I will look into the matter.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what delay he anticipates in the completion of current defence contracts placed with Vickers Limited, as a result of the lock-out of members of the Amalgamated Society of Boilermakers, Shipwrights, Blacksmiths and Structural Workers at Vickers Limited Shipbuilding and Engineering Groups, Barrow-in-Furness.

No lock-out has yet taken place at the Vickers Limited Shipbuilding and Engineering Groups, Barrow-in-Furness. The question of anticipated delays as a result of one is, therefore, hypothetical, and I do not believe that it would be helpful at this stage to speculate about the possible consequences. But plainly we view with concern any resultant delays in the completion of current naval contracts which include valuable export orders as well as important work for the Royal Navy.

Why has not the Minister taken the trouble to establish why no boilermaker has worked in Vickers at Barrow for the last five weeks? Is he aware that the boilermakers are out as a result of a lock-out? Is he further aware that the firm has announced its intention to close production facilities at Barrow on 5th June? Will he urge Vickers to enter into negotiations, since it has consistently refused to do so since the turn of the year, on the issue of this claim? Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that if this firm closes there will be disastrous consequences, both economic and social, for my constituents and that such a step would have a most serious and adverse affect on the defence programme?

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. There has not yet been a lock-out. The boilermakers have been on strike since 11th April. The management has said that if the strike continues it will have to lock out the rest of the employees, who represent 90 per cent. of the work force, from 5th June. We are obviously very concerned over this matter and hope that the boilermakers will join the rest of the unions, who, as I say, comprise 90 per cent. of the rest of the staff, in accepting the terms that have been offered.

asked the Prime Minister if he will give the figures of graduate engineers taken on by business firms in 1970, 1971 and 1972; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for the changes in the figures.

I will, with permission, circulate the detailed information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The best figures available are those collected by the University Grants Committee on the basis of inquiries sent to new graduates. They show that the proportion of graduates in engineering and technology entering industry and commerce has been declining since 1968, the earliest year for which figures are available. The main cause is the relatively low level of investment and demand in recent years, which our economic measures have been designed to correct. I believe that the fall in unemployment announced at midday today shows that these measures are beginning to prove effective.

Do not these same UGC figures show that between 1970 and 1971 there was an increase in unemployment in graduates in the applied sciences from 2·9 per cent. to 6·7 per cent.? In these circumstances how is the Budget designed to help the science-based industries?

As far as the figures are concerned, at the end of 1971 according to the UGC 3·9 per cent. of that year's graduates were still seeking jobs. That figure does not correspond with those given by the hon. Gentleman.

The measures for reflation are, of course, designed to bring about greater investment; and it is natural that in concerns which are engaged in providing heavy and sophisticated equipment for investment more graduates should be employed. This is the expected impact of the Government's measures.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the United Kingdom is not alone in this problem of graduate unemployment and that it is particularly acute in the United States? Is he further aware that when the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry goes to Japan, which is one of our major industrial competitors, he will find that a considerable number of Japanese companies have cancelled their total graduate recruitment in the past year?

My hon. Friend is right. This problem is not limited to this country. However, as I have told the House before, there are measures which can be taken to improve the situation. One is to persuade firms that they should in any case employ a higher proportion of graduates, a point which I put to the CBI last Tuesday. Another possibility is to persuade firms to do what we in the Government service are doing, which is to give scientists and engineers wider opportunities of employment, particularly on the administrative side.

When circulating the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT, will the Prime Minister make clear what he means by 1969–70 or 1970–71? Does he mean the academic year September to June or the end of the year, so allowing a reasonable period after graduation for placement? Will he make that clear in the statement which he proposes to circulate in HANSARD?

A point arises as a result of previous exchanges in the House. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has yet been able to get any evidence about the difficulties or fears of difficulties by technological universities in regard to being able to find places in industry for their sandwich courses, whether for sponsored students or students they place themselves?

I shall be making that clear in the statement which I propose to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the arrangements for co-ordination between the Scottish Office and the Department of Trade and Industry with regard to consideration of the findings of the feasibility studies being undertaken at Hunterston.

When the feasibility studies being undertaken by the Hunterston Development Company are available they will be considered carefully by both Departments.

Will the Prime Minister accept that we need some haste in getting the results of this study? It is of vital importance to solve the problem of what industry should be sited at Hunterston. In particular, will the right hon. Gentleman apply his mind to the issue of whether the area can still be scheduled for either mini-mills or a new steel complex?

I agree with the need to have a report as speedily as possible. I understand that an interim report is expected in June and a full report by the end of October. Detailed consideration will be given to those re-

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that whatever decision is taken in regard to Hunterston, due regard is had for the amenities of the Clyde and for the views and securities of the local population?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has already demonstrated that very clearly by the inquiry which was held before he gave any planning permission for the Hunterston area, and I am sure he will continue to bear the environmental factors very much in mind.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the findings of this feasibility study will be made public and that we have an opportunity of discussing them in the House before decisions on them are taken?

I shall certainly look into that question. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is a feasibility study which is being carried on by a development company.

With the help of the Scottish Office.

Yes, with the help of the Scottish Office and the Department of Trade and Industry.

asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the coordination between the Department for the Environment and the Ministry of Defence concerning land use; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. There should be even closer co-ordination when the new Property Services Agency, which will incorporate the lands organisation of the Ministry of Defence, is set up in the Department of the Environment on 1st September.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the Ministry of Defence at present occupies about 4,000 acres of land in London which could be used for housing purposes? Is it not paradoxical that, as the leader of the London Boroughs Association, Alderman Sherman, has commented, while the Government found it quite easy to move out of their bases east of Suez, they have found it well nigh impossible to move out of their barracks west of Shoreditch?

As a matter of fact, in the last five years some 1,300 acres of defence lands has been sold to local authorities in the London area alone, and practically the whole of this has been used for housing. As it becomes possible to give up more, my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will do so. When the inquiry under Lord Nugent is completed, we shall see the whole position.

As we are one of the most densely populated countries in the world, would not my right hon. Friend agree that there is need of an acre-by-acre survey of all land in Britain and that there is no better place to start than by examining the 560,000 acres in the ownership of the Ministry of Defence?

We set up the committee of inquiry under Lord Nugent very soon after coming into office to carry out precisely the examination for which my hon. Friend has asked, and I expect that committee to report before the end of this year. In the meantime, if any land becomes immediately available, the Ministry of Defence will take the necessary action to make it available for disposal, especially for housing.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the progress of his discussions with representatives of the Confederation of British Industry concerning the future of the price restraint scheme.

When I met representatives of the CBI on 8th May they indicated a widespread willingness among their members to continue price restraint provided that there was a good prospect of trade union response. I believe that, after carrying through and policing a policy of price restraint for over nine months, the CBI is entitled to expect some response from the unions.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Can he shed any light on the reports this morning suggesting that the establishment of new conciliation machinery is regarded as the quid pro quo for the renewal of this scheme? If this is so, in view of the solid contribution that conciliators and arbitrators, from the industrial disputes tribunal right down to Lord Wilberforce, have made to the progress of inflation, would not this be a high price to pay, particularly for the renewal of a scheme which has created a fair amount of chaos in the finances of nationalised industries?

I know of no arrangement such as my hon. Friend suggests. Regarding the price restraint policy of the CBI, as I have told the House we have discussed with the TUC and the CBI the question of the future development of conciliation machinery. In this respect I have made it clear, both publicly and privately, that the basic interests of the consumer must be represented, and both the CBI and the TUC recognise this.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement following his recent meeting with the Prime Minister of Belgium.

asked the Prime Minister what discussions of defence matters he had with the Belgian Prime Minister.

I was very pleased to welcome M. Eyskens to London on 2nd May. We had a full discussion of the future of the enlarged Community, with particular regard to the European summit conference in October. The details of our talks must remain confidential.

I am grateful for that answer. Notwithstanding the most encouraging fall in unemployment figures today, is not the example of Belgium and the Common Market to be most welcomed? I think I am right in saying that in the five years after Belgium joined, there was simultaneously a dramatic increase in the growth of gross national product and a dramatic fall in unemployment. Is not this country's best hope for the future growth of employment to follow the example of Belgium?

I agree with my hon. Friend's general thesis. It is true that the growth of the gross national product in Belgium between 1965 and 1970 was more than twice that of the United Kingdom during that period. But, even so, the growth in France and Italy was greater and the general average of the Community was higher.

When the Prime Minister has discussions on defence matters with EEC leaders, is not it clear that his purpose in seeking the repeal of the McMahon Act and an end to the restrictions on the supply of United Kingdom atomic information is only to share it with France? If that is so, is not that blatantly contrary to the non-proliferation treaties to which Britain was a signatory?

This was not a matter which I discussed with M. Eyskens.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for the Environment on the provision of public funds for drainage of residential areas; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir.

Is it not time that there was in this country a full administrative integration of drainage services in the same way as is now proposed for water services?

The hon. Gentle. man may wish to argue this case. I have not seen convincing arguments that such a measure ought to be introduced. But if it should prove to be so, I am perfectly prepared to consider it. At present I do not see the evidence for it.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his meeting with the Confederation of British Industry on 8th May.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his talks at Downing Street with the Confederation of British Industry on Monday, 8th May.

Together with my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Employment I met representatives of the CBI on 8th May. We carried forward our examination of current economic issues, including industrial relations policy, in the light of my earlier discussions with the CBI and with the TUC. As to CBI views on the future of price restraint, I would refer the hon. Members to the Answer I gave earlier today to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne).

I noted that answer with great interest. But is the Prime Minister aware that conciliation was reported as the dominant topic of those talks? The right hon. Gentleman has pursued this theme vigorously in public statements since then. How does he explain his anxiety, scarcely before the ink of the Industrial Relations Act is dry? Has he already lost confidence in that Act or does he see it as an obstacle to agreement between the CBI and the TUC, without which conciliation is impossible?

In the context of the Industrial Relations Act, conciliation has to be carried on and the Act specifically provides for it. The discussion we have had with the TUC and the CBI has been about what the machinery for that conciliation should be.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, contrary to the report which appears on the front page of The Times today, there is very strong support indeed for the Government's policies to curb both inflation and unemployment?

I am absolutely certain that that is so, and today's figures show that the measures we have taken are now bearing fruit. A reduction of 103,000 in the figure of unemployed in one month is certainly proof of the effectiveness of our policies.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many industrialists have indicated that they would prefer to work with the trade unions outside the Industrial Relations Act? Does not the Prime Minister consider that it ought to be more voluntary than ever now, instead of trying to foist this Act down the throats of industrialists and trade unionists?

I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. The evidence of the desire among not only industrialists but also trade unionists to have order brought into industrial relations has been widespread for a long time, and this is what the Act has done.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the CBI has always respected the rule of law and will always do so? In that respect, would it not be better if the right hon. Gentleman the Deputy Leader of the Opposition were to encourage the trade unions to use the Industrial Relations Act in the interests of their members instead of his coming very close to what appeared to me to be contempt of court in a speech last night?

I think it is true that the CBI has urged its members to observe the Industrial Relations Act. I think that the trade unions themselves are now more and more adhering to the measures in that Act.

Is the Prime Minister claiming that the highest May unemployment figures since 1930 are a direct result of the Government's economic policies?

What I am saying is that I am sorry right hon. and hon. Members opposite so obviously regret a reduction of 103,000.