asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will now make a statement on the arrangements which he is making to improve the pay scales of civilian employees in Ministry of Defence establishments including naval dockyards.

Rates of pay for the Industrial Civil Service, which covers civilian industrial employees in the Ministry of Defence, are negotiated on the Joint Co-ordinating Committee for Government Industrial Establishments. An offer, including a £1·50 general pay increase from July, 1972, for adult men together with a further step towards equal pay for women, was made on 1st June and rejected. Negotiations on the committee are continuing.

Does the Minister realise that there is an increasing feeling among civilians employed in those establishments that the Government are trading on their traditional loyalty and using them deliberately as a brake on the economy? Does he realise that the offer to which he has referred is totally inadequate to make good the ground which has been lost in the face of the rising cost of living? Can he assure the House that the Government are determined that these important public servants will be in the forefront of the Government's attention when considering what should be proper remuneration in the face of the Government's failure to control inflation?

Yes, of course it is the Government's purpose to ensure proper remuneration for those who are employed in the Government service. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it would be inappropriate for me to anticipate the outcome of negotiations which are at the moment continuing; and a further meeting has been arranged for 26th June.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether, in accordance with the relevant sections of Queen's Regulations, recent Press statements by senior Army officers at Headquarters, United Kingdom Land Forces, on the rôle of the Army in countering political subversion and internal disorder were made with his authority; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether the statements about political matters by senior Army officers, published in The Times on 23rd May, were made with his authority.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether the statements by senior Army officers published in The Times on 23rd May about Army plans to intervene in industrial disputes were made with his authority; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether the statements about the rôle of the Army by senior Army officers published in The Times on 23rd May, 1972, were made with his authority.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if Brigadier Frank Kitson, Major-General Ronald Buckland, Brigadier Brian Watkins and other officers were speaking with his authority when they made public statements on politically controversial issues, such as criticism of the inadequacy of the police to deal with the miners' strike, of television and of the freedom of school students to hold demonstrations; and if he will make a statement.

I would refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) on 12th June. Brigadier Kitson was not present on the occasion in question.—[Vol. 838, c. 215–6.]

Has the Minister of State reprimanded the officer concerned for describing visits to his Ministry as popping up to throw a few buns at the odd orang-outangs? Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to tolerate such undisciplined language from high-ranking officers who are supposed to take orders from their political superiors?

The officers' recollection of some of their remarks does not in every case coincide with the context in which they are reported. No disciplinary action has been taken. It was thought appropriate to remind all senior officers of their responsibilities under Queen's Regulations but not to take any further action.

Will the Minister of State tell these well-paid generals that, if they are so anxious to get involved in industrial disputes like the miners' dispute as was mentioned in the articles in question, they should get first-hand experience of events that lead up to troubles in the coalfields? Why does not the Minister of State supply these people with pit boots and knee pads and let them crawl along a 2-ft. coal seam for a year, as coalminers have to do, and then perhaps they would know something of what they were talking about?

I am not sure whether the House thinks that that question is worthy of an answer. These so-called well-paid generals are people who have devoted a lifetime in the service of their country and I think they are entitled to slightly more consideration from the hon. Gentleman. The discussion, which ranged over an hour and a half, was concerned with Northern Ireland, conditions of service, pay and recruiting, BAOR and the problems of dependants; and there was a short discussion on more general matters. The officers' recollection of some of their comments does not exactly coincide with what appeared in the Press.

Will my right hon. Friend describe more fully the circumstances in which this interview is alleged to have taken place? Does he agree that it is very easy to make a good story by stringing together out of context a number of remarks which may have been made in the course of a long conversation but that it is not very good journalism?

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is easy to make a mistake. For instance, the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) has himself made a mistake in his Question. The arrangements for this interview were made by the Ministry of Defence for a journalist—Mr. Walker—who visited Headquarters UKLF on 19th May to gather material for an article on the Army in one of a series. The discussion ranged over a whole series of matters concerning the Service but they did not feature in the article which appeared.

Will the Minister come off it and stop defending the indefensible? The article in The Times is a responsible one, as articles in The Times usually are. Would he agree that these Army officers are either dangerous politicos and Right-wing members of the Monday Club or simply fools, and in either case should they not be dismissed from the Army? If the Minister will not dismiss them from the Army perhaps he will invite a deputation of Members of Parliament to go along and watch him being fed buns by these comic opera soldiers.

If the hon. Member knew the officers concerned he would not describe them as comic opera individuals. All officers down to the rank of lieutenant-colonel have been reminded that it is not for members of the Army to give in public their own views of the rôle of the Army in aid of the civil power. This is an important matter and it was thought right to remind officers of it.

In view of the Army's front-line experience in Ulster, are not the views of the Army worth listening to as much as, if not more than, those of hon. Members who sit in the comparative safety of the Labour benches and cheer on industrial anarchy and industrial unrest?

Since these top officers knew that they were breaking the regulations in giving such an interview, is a reprimand sufficient? If they had been top civil servants who had made public statements on highly controversial political issues like this, would they not have been demoted or dismissed? Does not the Minister think that that should be done in this case to discourage further similar incidents by the top brass?

The hon. Member has made a second mistake. The officers were not breaking the regulations by giving an interview. The interview was authorised by the Ministry of Defence. I have had a report from Headquarters UKLF and it would seem that in a number of respects the officers were surprised by the way in which their conversations with the journalist were reported. For example, some of the remarks made in the mess at lunchtime have almost certainly been reported out of context.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that the Army should study the nature of the threat to society even if there is some indication that part of the threat comes through acquaintances of certain hon. Members on the Labour benches? [Interruption.]

The Army certainly has a responsibility to study tactics for counter-insurgency operations in which it has been engaged under the previous and all other Governments on many occasions since the war. The wider responsibility concerning subversion within the country is not a matter which falls within my responsibility.

I neither ask for disciplinary action against the officers nor do I ask the Minister of State to treat the article of 23rd May with more seriousness than it deserves, since I know that in part it is as embarrassing to the Army as it is offensive to my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself. Our enthusiasm is not that there should be pursuit of persons involved in that operation but that the Minister should make it very clear that the opinions expressed do not represent the opinion of Her Majesty's Government. If the right hon. Gentleman were to make that clear, I am sure we could all let the matter rest.

I can certainly make that absolutely clear.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will institute extra measures to prevent the making of public statements of a political nature by serving officers.

The necessary guidance is given in Queen's Regulations, to which the attention of the Services is drawn from time to time. I do not think any further measures are necessary.

In view of the anxieties recently expressed and the undoubted political views given to The Times, is it not clear that further guidance is necessary? Is it not also clear that when a book like "Low Intensity Operations", which spills over from tactics into matters of political judgment, talks about the Army being prepared to foment subversion in certain cases, it is in urgent need of re-examination? Should not further guidance be given to officers to remind them that part of their terms of contract is that they keep quiet in public on political subjects?

I have already informed the House, I think twice, that the Services have been reminded of the Queen's Regulations.

May I remind my right hon. Friend that the very same journalist subsequently produced an article on race relations in the City of Bradford which was totally inflammatory and very wide of the truth? It was repudiated by myself and by the leader of the community relations council in Bradford. If that journalist misjudged the mood of the Army as badly as he misjudged the mood of Bradford, do not all these articles need to be treated with extreme caution?

I note what my hon. Friend said, but I am sure he realises that this falls outside my departmental responsibility.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will place in the Library a copy of the letter which he received from the National Society of Operative Printers regarding statements made to the Press by Army generals at Wilton in relation to political matters, including strikes, counter-subversion, trade unions and the use of television, and his reply to that letter.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what was his reply to representations by the National Society of Operative Printers regarding statements made to the Press by Army generals at Wilton regarding political matters, including strikes, counter-subversion, trade unions and the use of television.

My right hon. and noble Friend has replied to the letter sent to him by the National Society of Operative Printers and I have placed copies of the correspondence in the Library today.

As publicity was given through the newspapers to highly controversial political views of Army officers, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is entirely appropriate that hon. Members should have access to the views of the trade unionists employed in printing those papers?

Yes, Sir. We are most appreciative of the letter which was sent to us, and I am sure that the organisation concerned was equally appreciative of the answer we sent to it.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the alarm among trade unionists, who know that it is from precisely this caste of top military officers that the threat to democracy has so often arisen, from General Franco to General Goering?

I do not think that in referring to alarm in this country the hon. Gentleman is reflecting the views of the vast majority of the population. He is entitled to his view, but I do not think this is a worry which is widely felt in society.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of people in this country, unlike Labour hon. Members, are delighted that the Army is studying every possible way to combat the enemy within as well as the enemy outside?

I believe that I can answer that best by referring to what my noble Friend the Secretary of State said in his reply:

"It is, of course, important that senior officers avoid making remarks which are open to misconstruction, though in this instance my inquiries lead me to believe that less than justice was done by the manner in which the exchanges were reported."

Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that no future Labour Government would ever use troops in the way that the Government in 1947 were able to use them during an industrial dispute? Can he conceive of a situation in which the use of troops in this country would occur in the absence of emergency powers giving the authority for them to be so used during an industrial dispute?

I believe that the hon. Member is right and that emergency powers would be needed for the use of troops. I recollect, though, that the Labour Government used 11,000 troops in one month in the docks in 1949.

Never again.

The most recent comparable figure I can remember is the use of about 70 troops for one day for the clearing of refuse in Tower Hamlets in 1970.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning the rôle of the Army in industrial disputes and the instructions given to high ranking officers regarding the making of political statements.

It is for the Government of the day to decide whether a civil emergency is so serious as to justify using the resources of the Armed Forces to help in maintaining essential supplies or service to the community.

In view of the earlier exchanges, will the Minister explain to the House, whether a distinction is made between oral political statements and political statements contained in books written by high-ranking officers? As the Minister is not equipped to comment upon the overall contents of Brigadier Kitson's publication, will he be good enough to undertake to make a further statement to the House when he has finished reading the book?

As I have explained, the interview referred to was authorised by the Ministry of Defence but the issue of public statements is covered by the relevant paragraphs of Queen's Regulations. One of the principles on which these provisions are based is that public statements or discussions about future defence policy or about controversial issues of current defence policy should be reserved to Ministers. Service personnel are not to express views on such controversial issues to the Press or to other media.

Is HANSARD normally available within Service headquarters so that the views of Shadow Ministers on defence as expressed today may be clearly understood within the Service?

I suspect that there will be widespread interest in the exchanges which have taken place and that there will be many orders for today's HANSARD.

Will the Minister accept that the Opposition are deeply disturbed by the contents of the book and the official recognition of the book, and are a great deal more disturbed by the flippancy and arrogance of the Minister's performance today? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore take it from me that, unless he can find another opportunity to make amends for his performance today, we shall have to return to the subject in the very near future?

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he is satisfied with present arrangements for the political education of the Services; and if he will make a statement.

I am satisfied with the arrangements by which the Services are informed about national and international affairs.

Has the Minister of State read the article which appeared in The Times of 23rd May which quotes Brigadier Watkins as saying:

"The whole period of the miners' strike made us realise that the present size of the police force is too small…things have now got to the stage where there are not enough resources to deal with the increasing numbers who are not prepared to respect the law."

I have read the article. Responsibility for the size of the police force belongs to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I think the whole House would agree that it is important that officers and all ranks in the Services should be encouraged to study current affairs to ensure that the Services as a whole are well informed and properly informed about current trends and events. I should have thought this proposition would command general support throughout the House.

Do not all these questions throw an interesting light on the attiude of hon. Members opposite? What is wrong with the proposition that if the police find themselves unable to maintain law and order the Army should be ready, available and equipped to go to the aid of the civil power? Is not that part of English law, well known to all of us? If hon. Members are being asked to pay attention to an article in The Times of 23rd May, will my right hon. Friend also invite their attention to another article which appeared the next day which referred to the influence of Communism on industrial strife in this country?

I am surprised at the immediacy with which the Opposition have seized upon the opportunity of criticising officers who are reported as having made certain remarks. None the less, my hon. and learned Friend has raised an extremely important issue. The responsibility for deciding when to use troops in aid of the civil power, should the event ever arise, is the responsibility—[Interruption.]—it arose out of the Labour Government—for the Government themselves, and they will take that decision only with the utmost circumspection.

Does the Minister of State recognise that the anxiety felt by my hon. Friends arises because senior military officers have opened their big mouths in this way? Having done so, those officers of necessity run the risk of criticism and my hon. Friends are right to criticise them. Does not the whole House fear the spectre of the political soldier, who has not been seen in this island on many occasions since (the time of Cromwell? Will the right hon. Gentleman remind senior military officers that it is the task of this House and the Government, elected by the people, to ensure that the forces carry out the tasks given to them and it is not for the forces to suggest what those tasks should be?

I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, who formerly had ministerial responsibility in the Ministry of Defence, is not very well aware of the anxiety of the Army itself not to become political soldiers but to fulfil the responsibilities imposed upon it by the Government of the day.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what progress is being made on the planning of the through-deck cruiser; and what year it is intended to commission the first one.

Good progress is being made on the design of the through-deck cruiser under the shipbuilders involvement contract recently placed with Messrs. Vickers. We hope to order the first ship towards the end of this financial year and our plans provide for her acceptance into service in 1978.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree, however, that for the foreseeable future Britain requires effective seaborne air support to fulfil our overseas interests and obligations? Does he accept that with the scrapping of the "Eagle" and the intermittent availability of the aircraft carrier "Ark Royal" until 1978, our ability to fulfil that rôle will be severely limited? Will he therefore urgently consider speeding up the production of the new through-deck cruiser?

Wider questions of naval strategy are rather beyond the subject matter of the Question. I do not think there is any chance of our being able to speed up plans for the through-deck cruiser, which are going very well.

The current estimated cost is £60 million?

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was asking a question. If he was, he must know the answer. We do not make comments on questions of that sort.

Has my hon. Friend yet made up his mind whether the ships will operate vertical take-off aircraft? If not, are they worth the £60 million referred to?

First, I did not refer to the £60 million. Secondly, my hon. Friend has a Question on this subject later.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us the intended rate of ordering and how many through-deck cruisers the Government intend to order? Is it not the case that the peak expenditure on through-deck cruisers may well coincide with a great part of the expenditure on multi-rôle combat aircraft and that there may well be other projects as well? Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House as soon as may be, perhaps today but certainly in the next White Paper, how it is proposed to finance these ventures?

I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman any more about the rate of ordering than he knows. He knows when the expenditure on the MRCA will fall, and he also knows that the financing of these ventures will come out of the defence budget.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what plans he has to improve procedures for the transportation of thionyl chloride, and other toxic materials, by his Department: and if he will make a statement.

Thionyl chloride is a chemical widely used in industry and laboratories. The transport arrangements made by the Ministry of Defence for this and other toxic materials fully comply with the regulations and recommended good practice for the transport of such goods.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that when such noxious substances are transported to or from the Chemical Defence Establishment by rail the wagons are not shunted or left in sidings in close proximity to residential property, in view of the fact that it was due only to the alertness of a railwayman noticing a leak and prompt action by Gloucester's outstanding fire service that a tragedy was averted in Gloucester only last month?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the alertness of the Gloucester fire brigade, but it is possible to exaggerate the danger of the incident, which we are still investigating. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that the rarity of such incidents shows what careful precautions we take.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what new consideration he is giving, in the light of the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, as to the long-term level of military research in Great Britain, appropriate to the size of the nation.

I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on 8th June.—[Vol. 838, c. 135.]

Does that mean that SALT is having no effect on the long-term thinking of the Department in relation to research?

No, Sir. We have been closely consulted in the bilateral talks between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and we have contributed to the SALT discussions, which I think the whole House agrees have been a great step forward.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the present Army civilian arrest procedures in operation in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

The instructions issued to the Army in Northern Ireland on the subject of arrest procedures are kept under constant review and are designed to ensure that arrests are properly carried out.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when I was in Northern Ireland a fortnight ago I was meeting people who were still bitterly resentful and critical of civilian arrest procedures employed by the Army, which they thought unnecessarily tough and discriminatory? Whatever changes may now be impending in the light of the statement to be made later by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, does not the Minister think that his right hon. Friend's hard-won gains will not be preserved unless civilian arrest procedures are kept under the most scrupulous review?

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the civilian arrest procedures must be kept under scrupulous review and control. Troops have been instructed that they should not use more force than is necessary in carrying out arrests. I do not accept the fairly sweeping allegation which I think was made to the hon. Gentleman by some people. Where there appears to be evidence of a criminal offence the case is referred to the civil authority, which is responsible for deciding what action, if any, is called for.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that no instructions are given to the troops which in any way inhibit their ability to pursue terrorists who have been either shooting at them or attacking them in any other way, or who are attacking any member of the public in Northern Ireland, and ensure that terrorists are pursued even into buildings so that an effective arrest can be made, in order to protect both soldiers and citizens for the future?

Yes, Sir. The Services have a responsibility to aid the civil power in the maintenance of law and order and they take whatever action is appropriate to do so.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what consideration he has given to further measures to control illegal traffic across the border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland.

The security forces continue to exercise as tight a control on the border as is practicable. Naturally the requirement for further measures is kept under constant review.

As the situation may be slightly more hopeful now than when I put down the Question, I will not press my right hon. Friend any further by way of supplementary question, because the last thing any of us in the House should do—

Order. The word must match the intention.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a further statement on the provision of compensation for the relatives of the men killed in Londonderry on 30th January last who were found innocent by the Widgery Report.

Negotiations are taking place in respect of the claims which have been received.

Will the Minister try to expedite these negotiations? Surely he realises that evidence of generous and sympathetic consideration would do a great deal to improve relations?

I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that these claims should be settled as speedily as circumstances permit.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what steps he is taking to ensure that an adequate supply of experienced pilots is available when the Jaguar comes into operational service with the Royal Air Force.

The demand for pilots experienced in the ground attack rôle will increase when the Jaguar comes into service. To ensure an adequate supply of pilots and provide realistic training in an operational environment, two squadrons of Hunters are to be formed in the United Kingdom, beginning later this year. Their prime purpose is training to the high standard required for the Jaguar but the squadrons could, if necessary, undertake operational tasks.

Is my noble Friend aware how very much I welcome that statement? Any announcement like this will only bring joy to those in the Royal Air Force, because they will see it as an augmentation of their total spectrum of capability. Where will the squadrons be located and what manpower effects will ensue?

Initially the aircraft will be at West Raynham but after completion of certain runway repairs they will go to Wittering, where they will be at the end of September, 1972. Their deployment will involve an increase of about 180 Service personnel at RAF Wittering, although that does not represent an increase in RAF numbers overall.

asked the Minister of State for Defence how many members of Her Majesty's Forces are engaged in the investigation of reports of unidentified flying objects at the present time; and what is the comparable figure for 10 years ago.

No members of Her Majesty's Forces are engaged full-time on the investigation of unidentified flying objects but reports are examined, as necessary, by appropriate specialist staff at the Ministry of Defence headquarters, Royal Air Force commands and elsewhere as a normal staff function to determine whether there are any possible defence implications. Details of the numbers engaged on such investigations 10 years ago are not, I regret, available; but there has been no significant change over that period.

Does not the Minister think that this would be an excellent job for some of the Army officers we have just been speaking about? Many citizens would like the Government's reassurance that the Government are not to blame for the coldest Midsummer Day we have had this century and confirmation of their belief that it is due to unidentified flying objects.

I do not know what the question is, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to look into this investigation himself.

Will my hon. Friend inform the House what, within the context of his answer, he means by an "unidentified flying object"?

A flying object which is unidentified.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the replacement of Honest John in the British Army of the Rhine.

I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend on 9th March.—[Vol. 832, c. 374.]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the replacement of Honest John is now long overdue? Would it not be possible to have some offset arrangement so that, if we bought Lance, the Americans would buy Harrier or Rapier, which offset would be a great advantage to the alliance?

As my right hon. Friend told my hon. Friend some time ago, this situation is always kept under review, but there are matters of cost, the extent to which our operational requirements are met and other priorities which have to be taken into account. If there were a purchase of Lance, of course offset arrangements would be very important.

Is it not true that the idea of tactical nuclear weapons has long been written off as nonsense? Surely we do not want to spend any more money on that nonsense.

No, it is not true.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what arrangements have been made by the Army to ensure that troops have the necessary training to drive lorries, load containers, drive railway engines, act as signalmen and to operate overhead cranes should Her Majesty's Government decide to use troops for this purpose during an industrial dispute.

The Army does not carry out any training specifically to fit soldiers for use in an industrial dispute. If, however, it should at any time prove necessary to use Servicemen to protect the public interest, certain military skills possessed by soldiers might be suitable.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread disquiet throughout industry and the suspicions that the Army is being specially trained to undertake tasks as strike-breakers, and is being trained specially for the handling of dock equipment, so that more than the numbers of troops previously known to have this sort of experience could be used to break an industrial dispute on the docks and the railways?

The allegation made by the hon. Member is completely without foundation. It is true of course that the Army has men skilled in the use of cranes, as in other pursuits with a civilian application, but they are not trained for the purpose of strike-breaking. I never heard a more ridiculous accusation in my life.

Would my hon. Friend accept that the public interest is more important than the views of a militant minority?

Answer.

Since the Minister is not answering his hon. Friend, will he try to overcome such difficulties as might arise as a result of the sort of position that my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) has described by agreeing that the time has come for members of the Armed Forces to be allowed to join a trade union, as is allowed in West Germany, so that that union could then affiliate to the TUC? Would not this be one of the biggest advances in the democratisation of the Armed Forces?

That question is very far reaching. If the hon. Member wants an answer, he had better put down a Question.

May I give my hon. Friend a further opportunity to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg)? It surely cannot be too difficult to say that the public interest outweighs that of any minority, militant or not.

Yes indeed. I intended no discourtesy to my hon. Friend. I think it is self-evident.

asked the Minister of State for Defence to what extent the principles set out in the manual "Low Intensity Operations" by Brigadier Frank Kitson are the basis for part of the syllabus taught at the School of Infantry at Warminster.

The syllabus of the School of Infantry naturally reflects the experience gained by the Army in past operations, of which there have been many in the internal security and counter-insurgency rôle. Brigadier Kitson's book is an expression of his personal views.

Will the Minister of State accept from me that some of us take passages in this book very seriously indeed—certainly more seriously than chance and foolish interviews given to newspapers on one occasion? May I refer him specifically to page 187 of the book which deals in terms with attitudes towards industrial disputes in Great Britain and suggests that the Armed Forces should keep on their strength personnel who could play a part in industrial disputes?

As I have explained, the book is an expression of personal views. It is widely felt, I think, that Brigadier Kitson's book is a valuable contribution to informed discussion on the subject. In view of the wide interest which has been aroused in the House, I began reading the book over the weekend but I have not yet reached the page to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from me that I regard it as a grave discourtesy to the House that a book which was published in November and which has been the subject of Questions on the Order Paper for the last month has not yet been read by the responsible Minister? Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me, since he has not read the book, that on page 187 two propositions occur. The first is that the paragraphs on that page refer specifically to Great Britain. The second is that the paragraphs on that page say that operatives who are capable of working on the docks or the railways or in other industrial disputes should be retained by the Army for purposes tantamount to strike-breaking. Will the right hon. Gentleman specifically disown that point of view?

The hon. Gentleman is very easily insulted. In view of the Questions, I thought it was a courtesy to read the book; I merely expressed the view that I had not completed reading it.

If the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that the Army should be affiliated to the TUC were adopted, would it not be vital that those in the Army should make political speeches and statements?

That is one of the arguments which I am sure the hon. Member for Walton will bear carefully in mind before he pursues that suggestion.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what instructions have been given to the British Army regarding subversion in parts of the United Kingdom other than Northern Ireland.

None, Sir. This is not primarily the Army's responsibility but the Army, of course, is prepared to deal with threats, including subversion, against itself and its establishments, and the necessary instructions exist for this.

In view of certain phrases in the manual to the effect that fighting subversion may therefore be right on some occasions in the same way as fostering it might be right on other occasions, and that the Army should be capable of carrying out either function, will the Minister tell us, in view of his confession that he has not read the book, who gave approval for the book to be published and at what political level in the Department the book was looked at before last weekend?

Are we to understand that both the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend have read the book, or are texts being extracted by Transport House for their assistance? As I have explained, the book was written by an officer who is experienced in counter-insurgency and it is regarded as being of valuable assistance to troops who will have to operate in that field in such an operation.

Since civil and industrial disruption is undoubtedly one of the most effective weapons being used in the modern industrial state, and since courses on this subject are being given—or at least documents are being prepared—in some of our universities, is not the State entitled to protect itself against that disruption?

Yes. My hon. Friend will appreciate that no one departmental Minister is responsible for all the aspects covered in the Question. The Home Secretary has a major interest in his responsibility through the security service and the police.

As the small professional army to which we are aspiring no longer has its former full rôle overseas, is there not a danger that the Army may turn its thinking inwards and is there not some evidence to this effect? It is a serious question. Will not the Minister look again at the position of the small professional Army and consider whether we should not be better served in present circumstances by the establishment of a citizens' army?

I assume that the hon. Gentleman means conscription, in which case the answer is "No".