asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will consult with his European colleagues with a view to interesting them further in improving the defence of the sea supply routes on which their countries and the United Kingdom depend, and in a joint programme of building more warships to keep these routes safe.

Regular discussions are already held with our European and NATO allies on these topics. We have constantly emphasised the importance of protecting Europe's sea supply routes and are doing all we can to further collaboration in shipbuilding as in other areas of mutual interest.

I am glad to hear my hon. Friend say that. However, will he remind our Western European colleagues that there are approximately 1,000 Western European ships at sea at any given time East of Suez, and that the great tankers could represent an easy target for international terrorists? Will he remind our colleagues that money spent now might prevent terrorism later?

As my hon. Friend knows, we have constantly emphasised the potential danger to Western trade routes which is posed by a number of threats. That concern lies behind our determination to ensure that we in NATO possess balanced forces capable of worldwide deployment in this connection.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether the facilities at the British Underwater Test and Evaluation Centre will be made available for the testing of civil projects.

No plans exist for this at present.

I welcome my hon. Friend to Question Time in his new capacity. I wish him well in the responsibilities which he is undertaking. No doubt he knows that there is a good deal of local opposition to the scheme. However, is he aware that this is the only part of the United Kingdom continental shelf with water depths of up to 1,000 feet and, therefore, is unique from the point of view of testing underwater equipment.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. Our Navy is not the biggest in the world, but it is the greatest and I am privileged to be the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the research facilities available within his Department on the subject of underwater technology.

Research work on underwater technology is carried out at a number of defence establishments. Those primarily concerned are the Admiralty Underwater Weapons Establishment Portland, the Admiralty Research Laboratory Teddington, the Naval Construction Research Establishment Dunfermline and the Royal Naval Physiological Laboratory Alverstoke, near Portsmouth. I hope to familiarise myself with the work of these establishments as soon as I can.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he tell us whether this research information was made available to the IME Group, which is looking into the capability of British industry to cater for the needs of North Sea oil exploration as, in my opinion, the valuable research material available would be of great use, especially when we have to search for and to produce oil in very deep water?

Whether this precise information was made available, I cannot say. What I have checked on is that it is definitive policy, with which I agree completely, to make widely available information on these technological achievements. I shall do my best to see that it is done.

May I be the second to congratulate my hon. Friend on his new appointment? Does he understand that with our only potential enemy possessing 400 U-boats, which cannot be called a defensive force, there is no more important subject for my hon. Friend to bring himself up to date on than this one?

I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend. That is why I said that I intended to familiarise myself with these establishments as soon as possible. I shall bear in mind the points made by my hon. and gallant Friend.

asked the Minister of State for Defence how many acres of land in the United Kingdom are in the ownership of the Ministry of Defence and how this figure compares with one year and two years ago, respectively.

About 572,000 acres are owned by the Ministry of Defence in the United Kingdom. The corresponding figures for 1970 and 1971 are 558,000 and 539,000 acres respectively. Some 50,000 acres were transferred from the Ministry of Aviation Supply following its amalgamation with the Ministry of Defence in May, and this more than accounts for the apparent increase between 1971 and 1972.

My hon. Friend knows that I will consider those figures with great interest. Does my hon. Friend recognise that 1 per cent. of the total land area of the United Kingdom is in the ownership of his Ministry and that there are desperate and competing demands for land in this country? Will he give an assurance that he will have a personal and continual review of service land which could be released by his Ministry for other needs?

I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said. I recognise his close interest in the matter. However, between the financial years 1961–62 and 1971–72, 191,000 acres were disposed of, and the general trend is now towards further reduction.

The progress made in that direction is recognised. However, does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are urban communities in the vicinity of large defence establishments which are desperately short of land for housing and other social purposes? Will the hon. Gentleman look particularly at their needs and make whatever further progress is possible?

The hon. Gentleman will know that Lord Nugent's committee is now reviewing defence land. We expect that the committee's report will appear either at the end of this year or early next year. It is our firm policy to limit our land holdings to the minimum necessary, bearing in mind, amongst other factors, the one which the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what extra leave entitlement is given to Army personnel serving in Northern Ireland.

I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) on 8th August, 1972.—[Vol. 842, c. 378–9.]

The Army in Ulster is doing a fantastic job of buying time for us politicians. Will my hon. Friend assure us that leave entitlements are really generous, and, in particular, that men whose families are left behind in BAOR have time while they are on tour in Ulster to get home and spend a reasonable period with their families before going back on duty?

I agree that the Army is doing a fantastic job in Ulster. The priority which the Ministry is attaching to this question is shown by its efforts to improve leave arrangements by providing leave travel concessions—for example, air travel at reduced fares to Great Britain or BAOR for short leave during an emergency tour which soldiers enjoy if the operational situation allows.

In Northern Ireland the troops can come under attack in all areas. This was not so heretofore, and therefore they are under greater strain than ever before. Will the hon. Gentleman keep this in mind when considering this very important subject?

I will certainly bear that point in mind.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the operations of the British Army in Northern Ireland.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the recent operations of the British Army in Northern Ireland.

The Army continues to assist the civil authorities in keeping the peace by combating terrorism, from whatever quarter, and protecting the lives and property of the community.

The hon. Gentleman will recall the major gun battle in the Ardoyne last Sunday, coming as it did—as The Times pointed out on Monday—just two weeks after the Army had claimed that it had picked up every wanted man in the Ardoyne. This is not the first claim of this kind in the last few years which has subsequently been belied by events. Is this due to over-optimism on the part of the Army, which makes for seemingly extravagant claims? If it is, is it in the best interests of the ordinary foot soldier and his morale? Or is it due to unquenchable resources of the IRA?

I wish that the hon. Gentleman did not always spend Question time criticising the Army. I do not believe that the Army said what the hon. Gentleman claims. But even if it had said it, it could still have been true because other wanted men could have got into the Ardoyne later.

As the IRA is now as much an anathema to the Government in Dublin as it is to the British Government and the people of Northern Ireland, is it not clear that co-operation between the security forces on both sides of the border is in the interests of the law-abiding majority of both communities?

We want as much cooperation as possible on the border. There has been a certain amount over the last month.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is every likelihood that the IRA will shortly commence a campaign of terror in the Irish Republic, just as it did years ago in Northern Ireland? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that there are enough troops in Northern Ireland to deal with it, in view of the fact that there is some evidence that the Eire Government cannot rely completely on the loyalty of some of their troops along the border?

I do not think that it is for me to comment either on the intentions of the IRA in the Republic or on doubts about the loyalty of Irish troops on that side of the border. It is a matter of speculation. I do not endorse what my hon. Friend has said.

Can the Minister give some assurance to the people in County Fermanagh and County Tyrone who are perturbed about the present situation along the border? Can he assure the House that there will be more helicopter patrols along the border, so that the Army can have intelligence about what is happening on the other side of the border, in order to prevent the setting up of rocket launchers directed from the south to the north?

I well understand the concern of those living in the border areas. As I have assured the hon. Gentleman before, the Army is doing whatever is practicable to patrol these areas and to gain what intelligence it can about forthcoming operations of the IRA.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what steps are being taken to improve security on the border between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

The security forces continue to control the border as effectively as is practicable. The requirement for further measures is kept constantly under review and, as my hon. Friend told the House on 16th November, a number of proposals are being studied.—[Vol. 846, c. 591.]

Is my hon. Friend aware that despite the considerable successes of the Army in urban areas the situation on the border is far from satisfactory. Missile attacks in the last two days have shown how vulnerable the border is. Will my hon. Friend take steps to make use of local knowledge by forming some kind of Home Guard or Civil Defence from those who, because of physical fitness or age, are unable to join the Ulster Defence Regiment or the reserve police?

I agree that the situation on the border is not satisfactory. As my hon. Friend implies, most people who want to join a Home Guard organisation can join the UDR. There is difficulty about people who are not physically fit, but I will look into the possibility that he mentioned.

Would not the security forces be greatly assisted in their work in these areas if extradition arrangements with the Republic of Ireland were working properly? Is my hon. Friend aware that of 16 applications that have been made to the Republic of Ireland for extradition, not one has been successful? I welcome Mr. Lynch's new determination, but should not this matter be vigorously pursued?

I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that extradition matters are for my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he is satisfied that the present number of troops in Northern Ireland is sufficient; and if he will make a statement.

The force level in Northern Ireland is kept under review in the light of the situation. I am satisfied that the present deployment meets the present needs.

Is it not extraordinary that the Government should have announced the intended withdrawal of 1,000 troops at a time when they were saying that they were determined to destroy the IRA terrorists in Northern Ireland, bearing in mind especially the frequent attacks on police stations and the need for troops to defend them?

It is true that total troop levels have recently fallen. As the House will be aware, considerable reinforcements were deployed in Northern Ireland for Operation Motorman at the end of July. Since that task was accomplished there has been a planned reduction, of which recent moves are a part, but force levels are still significantly higher than they were in June.

Will the hon. Gentleman concede that no level of British troops in Northern Ireland will be sufficient unless the people there come to their senses and agree to live peaceably together?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman in the emphasis that he places on the importance of a political solution. That is what the Government are devoted to.

Can my hon. Friend say something about the level of troops in County Fermanagh, on that difficult border, about which there has been a great deal of anxiety? Is it true that the number of troops has been reduced in the last week or 10 days?

I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will understand if I tell him that it is not the practice, for reasons which I think he will appreciate, to give details of the deployment of troops in particular areas.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will explore the possibility of setting up a scheme to assist the close relatives of Service personnel buried in war graves overseas to visit the graves at least once in their lifetime.

Our present scheme results from a comprehensive review made about five years ago. It provides for bringing home the body of a dead Serviceman, or for helping two of his family to attend the funeral overseas at public expense. If neither of these is practicable for Service reasons, two relatives may visit the grave at public expense provided they go within two years of death. The possibility of extending the scheme further back in time was carefully considered, but had to be ruled out because of the practical difficulties and the cost.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his reply, but he will realise that it is not really satisfactory. The Government have resources to do this not only through the Armed Forces but through BOAC. Surely it is a small thing for the country to do for the relatives of those who have made the supreme sacrifice for their country.

I am not clear what point the hon. Gentleman has in mind. Perhaps he will discuss it with me privately or in correspondence, and I will consider it.

As a member of the Commission, I find that there is a tremendous public interest in this matter. Are any voluntary organisations assisting in this work—perhaps the Royal British Legion, for example?

The Royal British Legion gives assistance.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what representation he has received from holders of the Meritorious Service Medal calling for a reduction in the waiting time before payment of the annuity is made.

Since June 1970 we have had 13 inquiries on this subject, by or on behalf of holders of the Meritorious Service Medal, some of which have implied that the waiting time should be reduced.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply, but I am sure that these letters will have indicated to him the considerable time that many holders of the medal have to wait before the award is made to them. I know of cases where men have waited over 40 years and are still not in receipt of the annuity. Will the hon. Gentleman find out exactly how many holders of the award are not in receipt of the annuity and then fix a date when all holders of the medal will start to be paid the annuity? This is the only way to treat men who have loyally served the country for many years.

I fully appreciate the loyal service which holders of the medal have given but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a review is under way and I must await its results.

I, too, have written to the hon. Gentleman about this problem. Will he take it from me that the system is quite unsatisfactory? A person has to take part in a ballot, or join a queue of some kind and wait until someone else dies, before he gets to the head of the queue for the annuity. If we cannot do something better than this, would it not be better to stop issuing the medal altogether?

It is not a question of a ballot but of a "queue", as the hon. Gentleman called it. No doubt all these matters will be taken into consideration by the review.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future employment of the vertical short take-off and landing aircraft in the Fleet and, in particular, in the new command through-deck cruisers.

I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend on 19th October.—[Vol. 843, c. 436–437.]

Is my hon. Friend aware that this question has been asked for five years and has received the same reply? These aircraft—the Harrier and the prototype Kestrel—have been available for eight years. The United States has completed trials in the last two years. Why cannot the Ministry make up its mind?

I am certainly aware that my hon. Friend has asked me this question every month for the last 18 months. The United States Marines wanted the aircraft for a purpose different from that for which the Navy would require it. A project definition study has been started, and will take some months to complete. I cannot be more precise than that now.

The Question refers not to "a through-deck cruiser" but to "through-deck cruisers". Does this mean that we are to have more than one, at over £60 million apiece?

Our plan is that the first announcement of the ordering of a cruiser will come at the beginning of next year.

Answer the question.

Will my hon. Friend explain to his new colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, and ask him to bring a sense of history to his appointment, which we welcome, and recall that the first duty of the Royal Navy throughout the centuries has been to protect our trade, and that it cannot be done other than by endemic ship-borne aircraft?

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy does not need urgings from me in that respect.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that questions have been asked from time to time on this issue? When will he be in a position to make an announcement in order to reassure his hon. Friends? Will he be able to do so in the next Defence White Paper? Will he at the same time give a clear indication of the number of cruisers he has in mind to build, and also the rate of ordering? Will he make the position abundantly clear?

We certainly wish to make matters clear as soon as possible. My noble Friend the Secretary of State hopes to be able to make an announce- ment in the Defence Estimates, but I cannot give any guarantee.

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

asked the Minister of State for Defence what plans he now has for a European nuclear force: and if he will make a statement.

None, Sir.

That makes me wonder why the Secretary of State for Defence raised the matter at the Conservative Party Conference, which he presumably did with the agreement of the Prime Minister.

Order. Question, please.

Does the Minister of State fully realise that any such plan would kill stone dead the growing détente between East and West in Europe?

My answer to the hon. Gentleman's non-question is that my noble Friend made that speech because he was looking forward well into the future. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is that I do not think that it is true. As I said earlier, any such plans are well in the future.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how far the Secretary of State was looking into the future?

My noble Friend made it clear last week that the only discussions there have been with the French have been to agree that any such development is a very long-term matter indeed.

Could the hon. Gentleman re-interpret the Secretary of State's speech in the House of Lords a little further and more clearly? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is the Secretary of State's view that there should be a European nuclear force but that he does not believe that our NATO partners agree with it? Is that the position advocated by the Secretary of State.

No, it is not.

What is it then?

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make an official visit to the men and ships of the Beira patrol.

I have no plans to do so.

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that many right hon. and hon. Members would wish to express their gratitude to the men of the Beira patrol for the way in which they are carrying out their difficult assignment? Can the hon. Gentleman say what approaches have been made to the new Government of Malagasy with a view to securing bases for air support in order to make the patrol more effective, and what approaches have been made to other Commonwealth Governments and allies for possible assistance in the patrol, again to make it more effective?

I am always grateful when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite express their gratitude to the Royal Navy, though I am always surprised that they confine their remarks to the Beira patrol—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] It is a fair point. A party point was made and it is fair to make a party answer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] There have been many occasions on which the predecessor of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy has had to answer questions on this point. The same point was always made.

As it is well known that petrol is freely available in Rhodesia at a price lower than that in Great Britain, is it not a fact that the Beira patrol is no more than a floating advertisement of British impotence? Would not it be much better to bring the patrol back to Portsmouth, where the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) could inspect it and thereby get to know something about it?

Whether or not the patrol should continue is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition benches are already dissatisfied by the fact that we can never ask questions of the Secretary of State for Defence and that, if objective questions are to be answered in a party political way, the dissatisfaction will grow?

The hon. Gentleman's dissatisfaction is a matter for him. It was a slightly flippant answer to a flippant question. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is a question which comes up frequently and that it is asked for a specific reason. I answered in a similar vein.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will now review the procedure for informing relatives about, and making funeral arrangements for, soldiers killed either in action or on manoeuvres abroad.

I see no need at present to review these procedures. On the whole, I believe that they are made with a care and consideration which is much appreciated by relatives.

Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the procedure followed in the case of my late constituent, Signalman Johnson, of Keresley, near Coventry, whose parents were told in a perfunctory telegram that he had been killed in Germany? They were told to ring an Army telephone number. When they did, they were told that that office knew nothing about it. Their son's body was dumped in Coventry with about as much ceremony as one would expect to be given to a sack of potatoes. Two months later, his parents still know nothing about the exact circumstances in which he was killed. Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with this sort of procedure?

The hon. Gentleman has rather overstated his case, I think. The solicitor acting for the father of Private Johnson has reported that the family appreciated the sympathy and personal kindness of those who had to deal with them on behalf of the Army.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the next-of-kin of those killed in civil accidents arising out of manoeuvres are denied rights that they would have had if the persons killed had been in the Civil Service? Will my hon. Friend seek with his colleagues, therefore, to amend Section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947?

If my hon. Friend will give me details, I shall look into the matter.

Will the hon. Gentleman now look into the possibility of adopting the policy of bringing back to this country all those Service men and members of their families who are killed or who die while on overseas service? I cannot see why we should not do this, especially when one considers the expense that the American authorities go to in Vietnam to ensure that this is done.

I shall look closely into this matter. My information is that a body can be sent to wherever the next of kin wishes. If I am wrong about that, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what proposals he has to purchase further Nimrod aircraft to fill the early warning rôle against low-flying bombers as part of defence strategy.

We have no proposals for the purchase of additional Nimrods at the present time. Shackleton aircraft specially converted for airborne early warning tasks over the sea entered service only this year. Their eventual replacement requires extensive study.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a dangerous gap in the defence system of this country, namely, our vulnerability to low flying aircraft, and that Nimrod can fulfil this rôle extremely well? The Royal Air Force has been pressing for some time for this gap to be filled. What action will be taken to fill this very serious defence gap?

I do not quite know to which gap my hon. Friend is referring.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if, in view of the recent decisions of the Australian Government, he will seek to re-negotiate the Five-Power Defence Agreement in South-East Asia.

No, Sir.

As the incoming New Zealand Government, the Government of Malaysia and possibly a new Government in Australia want renegotiation, is it not time that we realised we should not commit ourselves, without considerable thought, to Lee Kuan Yew and the Government of Singapore?

I do not accept the premise on which the hon. Gentleman's question is based. In fact, the arrangements are voluntary. If there is a new Government in Australia—we do not know whether there will be—this will be one of the many subjects that we shall discuss with them.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever the result of the Australian general election in two days, we may expect a wise and far-sighted policy on South-East Asia from the Australian Government in the future, as in the past?

Yes, I accept that.

What consideration has been given, from the defence point of view, to the change of Government in New Zealand, in that they have but one battalion in Singapore, and what contingency plans are there for a change of Government in Australia on Saturday, after 23 years? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Australian Labour Party is pledged to end conscription and to withdraw permanent ground forces from South-East Asia? Does not this call for an early renegotiation of the Five-Power Defence Agreement? Does he not find it odd that there are three outside Powers in South-East Asia—Australia, New Zealand and ourselves—while Singapore and Malaysia will have little to do with one another in the defence sphere?

As I said before, I do not accept the premise on which the question is based. The New Zealand Government came into power only a few days ago. The right hon. Gentleman will not, therefore, expect me to reveal our contingency plans. However, we obviously shall discuss these and other matters with the new Government in New Zealand and the new Government in Australia, if there is one.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what steps he is taking to improve the standard of flying safety in the Royal Air Force.

The standard of flight safety in the Royal Air Force is high and compares favourably with that of other air forces. It is the responsibility of the Service at all levels to maintain and improve this standard, making full use of the continuous research and analysis which is conducted in this field.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the increase in the number of accidents in the RAF has now reached an unsupportable degree? Apart from the risk to life and limb of the gallant young men who fly these planes, is it not the case that accidents involving RAF aircraft now total about £1 million a week?

No Minister will ever be satisfied as long as there are accidents. However, considering the number of new planes which have come into service. I do not think that the number of accidents is surprisingingly high. They are regrettable, but we must remember that in the last few years we have had new types of planes coming into service.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there could be more openness about the causes of RAF accidents? Are flight recorders carried in any combat aircraft?

That is another question.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will seek to arrange for discussions on the need to co-ordinate the combat aircraft procurement policies of the German, Italian and British air forces.

There are already extensive arrangements both within NATO and with individual countries, including the Federal Republic of Germany and Italy, for discussions on co-ordination of combat aircraft requirements and procurement policies.

Were any consultations offered to my right hon. Friend recently when the West German Government decided to order a further substantial number of American Phantom aircraft with the consequential decision, well known to my hon. Friend's Department, of that Government's intention to reduce their order for the multi-rôle combat aircraft in which we have a substantial interest?

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Federal German Republic is at liberty to buy aircraft from America or anywhere else. Any reduction in the number of orders for the MRCA will be a matter for discussion during the current review on the aircraft. If there is any reduction or increase in orders there will be corresponding adjustments in the costs and work sharing.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what steps he has taken to re-locate headquarters work of his Department in the development areas.

Since December, 1970 about 150 posts, which at the time were classified as headquarters work, have been re-located in Carlisle and Liverpool.

I suggest that 150 out of more than 20,000 headquarters staff is not a very good record. In that context may I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that Scotland is interested not only in having facilities like firing ranges, which no other part of the country wants but, arising from the Hardman Report, in seeing a considerable relocation of headquarters staff in Scotland?

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, but he will understand that there are great difficulties about dispersing headquarters staff too widely. As I told him a fortnight ago, I cannot anticipate the findings of the Hardman Committee.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that whilst we welcome the relocation of jobs in Scotland we do not welcome places like nuclear submarine bases? Will he do something to get rid of them?

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman does not welcome them but his feeling is not widely shared.

asked the Minister of State for Defence having regard to the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks agreement, if he will undertake not to modernise the British nuclear submarine fleet.

As my right hon. Friend told the hon. Gentleman on 20th November, the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks agreements are solely between the United States and the Soviet Governments, and no question of our giving such an undertaking therefore arises.—[Vol. 846, c. 264.]

Is not the hon. Gentleman mistaken? With the development of Trident, which can operate from American bases, even nuclear fanatics will recognise that both Polaris and its bases will become redundant'? In those circumstances, would it not be a complete waste of public money, apart from anything else, to replace Polaris with Poseidon?

I am not a nuclear fanatic, and I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, the effectiveness of our nuclear deterrent is kept continually under review.

As Trident's range is about 6,000 miles, it does not need a base here. Therefore, why should we make this country—a highly crowded country—a sitting duck for a superseded but still suicidal weapon?

We shall continue to make our bases available to the Americans so long as they want them. As the hon. Gentleman surely knows, the purpose of the nuclear deterrent is to prevent war. It does not, therefore, increase the risk of war.

I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman a question on which I pursued his predecessor but never had a very acceptable answer. Will he give an assurance that before any steps are taken radically to alter the nature or character of the Polaris fleet the House will be informed and allowed to express its views on them, rather than have a fait accompli simply reported to it as a matter of Government intention?

As no such decision has been made I cannot give any undertaking about what information, if any, will be given.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will withdraw the words, "Talk to the crew on your father's yacht", in advertisements on how to beat the Army Officer Selection Board.

No, Sir, but that particular advertisement is due to be replaced by the next in the series.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that yachts have come into disrepute since June, 1970? Can he say what percentage of officer recruits in the last year attended public schools? Can he further say what steps he is taking to create a more open type of recruitment to the officer class?

The object of the current advertising campaign is to attract candidates from the widest possible sections of the community. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about the sources from which candidates come, he will be interested to know that in the last two years the percentage of candidates who have put themselves forward from schools other than Headmasters' Conference schools has been between two-thirds and three-quarters.

Mr. Reed, to ask Question No. 29.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have only one Question to the Minister of State for Defence, and that is No. 40. I wonder why those who have two Questions—

I would rather have a point of order about a Question at the end of Question Time.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what part the Royal Navy is playing in preparation for the International Law of the Sea Conference.

The Ministry of Defence is playing a full part in preparations for the International Law of the Sea Conference to take account of Royal Navy and other defence interests, and to give appropriate technical assistance.

Will my hon. Friend bear especially in mind the strategic implications of any extension of territorial waters or rules relating to the control of narrow straits and inlets, and also the fact that if any conflict arises as a result of failure to reach legal agreement it is the Royal Navy that will have to cope with it?

I shall bear those matters in mind. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the fact that in the background material here there is a most useful memorandum about these matters composed by him. It is a very useful document.

asked the Minister of State for Defence how many Harrier aircraft have now been ordered for the United States Marine Corps and how many for the Royal Navy.

The United States Marine Corps has ordered 90 aircraft. There have been no orders for the Royal Navy.

Is not that a fantastic reply?

I do not think that I have to explain to my hon. and gallant Friend, of all people, the difference between the Royal Navy and the United States Marine Corps. The American Marines are using their Harriers largely in a ground support rôle, which is not a rôle for which the Navy would use its Harriers.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that in the interests of the morale of the Fleet Air Arm it is essential that as soon as possible there should be a clear-cut indication from the Government about their future policy for the Harrier with the Navy?

I appreciate that, but the hon. Gentleman knows the difficulties, and he heard what I said in reply to an earlier Question.

May I link the Question about Harrier Aircraft with Question No. 16, tabled by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) who criticised, or had comments to make, about the safety of Royal Air Force flying? May I make it quite clear that he was referring to operational aircraft, and not to Transport Command, which is based in my constituency and which has an excellent record of safety?

I am sure that that is true.