asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will ensure that adequate work is given to ROF Blackburn to compensate for any possible loss of employment due to Government policy with regard to procurement of fusing systems.

asked the Minister of State for Defence, in view of the Government's decision to divert electronic fuse production, from ROF Blackburn to private industry, if he will now publish the Leitch Committee's report and the estimates he has made of cost savings, with a view to ensuring public knowledge of the evidence on which this change of policy is based.

As I indicated in the Defence debate on 10th May, we have been giving close thought to the position of ROF Blackburn in respect of future orders for fuses.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are delighted that he has reconsidered the conclusions he outlined in his letter to me of 10th April? Can we now have a categoric assurance from him that, since he has admitted the capability of ROF Blackburn to operate in the electronic fuse market, it will now have complete equality and freedom with private industry in tendering for electronic fuse production?

I believe that that assurance is envisaged in my answer.

May I thank the Minister for his helpful and quick reply, which will bring great pleasure to the workers at this Royal Ordnance factory? Will he agree to take whatever steps are necessary—if they should be found necessary—to strengthen the design team at ROF Blackburn? Is he aware that my right hon. Friend and I consider that the team is adequate?

The hon. Member and his right hon. Friend have assured me that the design capability is already adequate. Any increase in staff is a matter for the ROF board.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the necessity to be fair to firms that will be tendering for this sort of work in future? Will he consider modifying his preferred source policy so that redundancies which might occur in my constituency will be avoided?

The answer to both questions is "Yes".

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he is aware of the accidental death of James Flynn on 14th March while working on a building site at the new Army married quarters in Aisne Road, Deepcut and what steps are being taken to prevent a recurrence, and also to help and to compensate the bereaved family.

I am, of course, aware of the accidental death of Mr. Flynn and I would like to take this opportunity of extending my sympathy to his family.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this is the third incident in the past five years? Is he further aware that, although the previous incidents have not involved loss of life, they have involved repairs to Army property? If there have been three incidents in five years in which property has been hit and damaged, would not my hon. Friend agree that there must be many more stray bullets which have gone into the undergrowth in the vicinity? Does not this reveal an alarming degree of negligence on the part of the Army authorities? I hope that my hon. Friend will accept liability in this instance and see that the widow and her young son are properly looked after.

I do not know what authority my hon. Friend has for the wide accusations he has made. It was stated at the coroner's court that there had been two previous incidents, the first five years ago and the second in May 1972. All these matters will be carefully looked into by the board of inquiry, as will the claim on behalf of the widow of the deceased.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether, in view of the current dispute with the Spanish authorities, he proposes to increase provision for the defence of Gibraltar.

No, Sir.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the deep sense of isolation felt by the people of Gibraltar as a result of the Spanish activities, including the blockade? Is there not some way in which the defence budget could be used to help reduce that isolation, possibly by the provision of flights, or a subsidy on flights, to and from Gibraltar?

I was in Gibraltar recently and I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman about the sense of isolation. We will certainly look into his suggestion. He knows, however, that the defence budget is under considerable pressure.

Can my hon. Friend say to what extent, if any, our defence arrangements in Gibraltar are dependent upon arrangements with NATO?

Some of our defence arrangements are closely involved with NATO since we are a member of that organisation. I do not think I can say any more than that.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his discussions with the United States Defence Ministry on its proposal to introduce the new miniature nuclear weapons for deployment in Europe.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will urge in NATO rejection of the use of miniature nuclear weapons in Europe.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he has come to any conclusions about the implications for British defence policy of the development in the United States of America of the miniature nuclear weapons.

I have nothing to add to my remarks on the subject of miniature nuclear weapons during the defence debate on 10th May.—[Vol. 856, c. 761–2.]

The Times certainly reported this proposal. Will the Minister give an assurance that, if this matter is pressed, Her Majesty's Government will oppose such a dangerous plan? Does he agree that if this kind of nuclear weapon were used the Russians would not set up the Soviet equivalent of a Royal Commission to examine the size and type of bomb but would probably react with their heaviest nuclear weapon, which would wipe out life on our island?

As I said in the defence debate, no such proposals have yet been made, and if they are made they will be considered very carefully in the Nuclear Planning Group, by ourselves and by our NATO allies. There would be no question of any rushed or merely technical decision. I cannot speculate on how the Russians might or might not react to something so hypothetical.

Will my hon. Friend urge the necessity of keeping an open mind on this matter, because, unless we have the capacity to repel with relatively small weapons an armed incursion into Europe, inevitably we shall be faced with either surrender or the use of large nuclear weapons?

As I have said, if these proposals are put forward we shall consider them but it is too early yet to say what our conclusions will be.

Is the Minister aware that the sort of thing which is evidently in the mind of his hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) would be suicidal? Is he further aware that his answer was not satisfactory because he said that he will consider the matter? He is being asked in many quarters not to consider the matter but to reject it in principle. Many people believe that the use of small nuclear weapons would inevitably escalate into the use of large nuclear weapons, and they also believe that NATO's strategy should be founded on conventional weapons. Will the Minister give an answer in that sense and not relate it to his previous answer?

The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view but, as I said in the defence debate, it is much more sensible to wait for the proposal to be put forward and then to consider it rather than to reject it without consideration before it has been made.

Is it not true that the Soviet Union in its exercises and defence planning makes provision for the use of nuclear weapons right across the spectrum from the outset of hostilities? While this is a possibility, should not the United Kingdom and members of the NATO alliance at least prepare for it?

The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), when Secretary of State for Defence, put forward something on the lines of what my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) said at the beginning of his supplementary question.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what is the current strength of the new units in the TAVR.

At 31st March the strength of the new TAVR units which were formed on 1st April 1971 was 8,145, comprising 7,617 in the infantry units and 528 in the armoured car regiment.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the continuing success in recruiting into UKLF units. Is he aware that the substantial shortage of vehicles and radio equipment is having an effect on morale in those units and that it will not be possible to maintain their efficiency unless he is able to bring these deficiencies up to strength?

I note what my hon. Friend has said about the continuing move forward in recruiting. With regard to equipment, my information is that units are fully equipped to scale, including radios, except for a shortage of Land Rovers. As to the shortage of Land Rovers, pressure on vehicles because of activities in Northern Ireland is being felt throughout the Army and regrettably this being reflected in TAVR.

asked the Minister of State for Defence, in the light of recent decisions of the House of Commons, if he will now seek to amend the Armed Forces Act 1971 in relation to those parts that carry the death penalty and substitute life imprisonment.

No, Sir. The decisions to which I assume the hon. Gentleman is referring have no bearing on the Armed Forces Act 1971.

In view of the anomalous situation in which our troops, especially our troops in Northern Ireland, find themselves in relation to the rest of the population, would it not be as well for the hon. Gentleman to ask the Leader of the House to see that this matter is put fairly and squarely before the House, so that the arguments for and against may be canvassed on a free vote and so that we may come to a decision on this issue? I am sure everybody would agree that such a sentence would never be allowed to be carried out again.

As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House told the hon. Gentleman a few days ago, this matter could have been discussed during the last defence debate. I cannot accept that there is an anomaly or that the situation has to be changed. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, no member of the Armed Forces if convicted of a civil offence can be treated any more harshly than the civil penalty allows. Therefore, no soldier convicted of murder could be sentenced to death. The only offences for which the death penalty still exists do not have any parallel in civilian life.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on that answer.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement concerning the increase in employment at the Royal Radar Establishment at Malvern, consequent upon the closure of the RRE at Pershore; how many Pershore employees are being transferred to Malvern; how many are being transferred to Farnborough and elsewhere; and what are the net redundancies anticipated at Pershore after all re-employment arrangements.

Until the individuals affected by the rationalisation decisions, including the closure of Pershore to flying, have indicated their intentions by completing a questionnaire, I am unable to improve on the estimates which my hon. Friend has been given. These estimates showed that the total number of new jobs created in the Malvern area will be greater than the number of men likely to be declared redundant.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reassuring reply. Will he convey these details to the disquieted persons of Pershore who have been under the impression through the joint consultation machinery that they are about to lose their jobs? Will he emphasise to them that the maximum redundancy which can occur at Pershore and elsewhere in the RREs is of the order of 200 and no more, and that probably Malvern will take up that number and provide a greater number of opportunities in future?

I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. I am sorry that there has been a misunderstanding. As he knows, there was full consideration with the staff side, but there should not be many redundancies. It will be possible to go into greater detail when the questionnaires have been filled in. which should be in a month or so.

What are the effects on employment at the Royal Radar Establishment of laser weapon development? Are today's Press reports substantially correct?

I do not think today's Press reports will have any effect on employment at the Royal Radar Establishment.

Will my hon. Friend consider the situation at Farnborough before transferring any flying from Pershore to Farnborough, particularly in view of its situation which is within three miles of the Heathrow control zone and in view of the fact that large numbers of light aircraft are routed between the London zone and Farnborough? This is an area of intense activity in terms of civil, military and general aviation. Surely it is not a satisfactory solution to bring more military aircraft under radar control into this area.

As my hon. Friend knows, we considered this matter carefully before we went into consultation and then announced our decision. Even after the transfer of any flying from Pershore to Farnborough, the level of flying will still be less than it was five years ago.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if it is his intention to authorise the further testing of British nuclear weapons in the foreseeable future; and if he will make a statement.

I have nothing to add to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in answer to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) on 17th May.—[Vol. 856, c. 1700.]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that what he has said further confirms the idea that the British Government intend to produce a new range of nuclear tactical weapons and that it also gives further credence to the whole concept of an EEC defence force to supersede NATO, which no doubt in the Government's eyes would be equipped with miniature nuclear weapons?

Virtually nothing of what the hon. Gentleman has said can be read into my answer.

If my hon. Friend finds it necessary in the future for the defence of the West to test nuclear weapons, will he undertake that he will be under no compunction whatever to do so?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that we are under an obligation to keep our nuclear weapons up to date. If that means testing, tests will be carried out. But it also follows that they will be carried out underground in conformity with the partial test ban treaty.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what was the number of Service men in Her Majesty's Forces killed and injured in Ireland for each year from 1900 to the latest available date.

It has not been possible to produce precise figures of deaths and injuries from all causes since 1900 but we believe that no Service man was killed or injured by terrorist activity in Northern Ireland between 1922 and 1969. With permission, I will place in the OFFICIAL REPORT figures relating to the period since August 1969.

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that many people will construe that answer as being deliberately misleading? If the figures had been obtained from the records, would they not have shown clearly that successive generations of young British soldiers have died inglorious deaths in Northern Ireland trying to impose the mistaken policies of successive British Governments? Why do not the Government accept the reality of the situation that Britain has no place in Northern Ireland against the wishes of the people of both Britain and Ireland?

I cannot accept that my answer was deliberately misleading. I gave the hon. Gentleman the facts as far as I was able to discover them. As for the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I have the impression that he was making the speech that he hopes to make later this week should he catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.

Will my hon. Friend say clearly that the Northern Ireland border is the border of the United Kingdom and that a mischievous and vicious attack is being launched both from outside and from a militant minority in Northern Ireland designed to overthrow the Government of a part of the United Kingdom?

The position of Her Majesty's Government on that matter has been made entirely clear.

I was a member of the administration which put troops into Northern Ireland, and I believe that we made the right decision. It is my belief that all hon. Members on both sides of the House will best represent the will of the British people by supporting our troops in Northern Ireland.

I very much welcome what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that all right-thinking people in Northern Ireland utterly deplore and condemn the killing of British troops in Northern Ireland? Has the Minister seen the article which appeared in the Sunday Times in which revelations were made about the British security intelligence service and that this has alarmed people in Northern Ireland as it puts at risk members of the British Army?

I cannot comment on newspaper articles, but I welcome what the hon. Gentleman said in the early part of his question.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will now introduce a phased withdrawal of British troops from Northern Ireland.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what plans he has to reduce the number of troops stationed in Northern Ireland.

The level of our forces in Northern Ireland depends on the needs of the situation there.

When will the Government wake up from their dream world and face reality? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the British people support our troops in Northern Ireland but that they are also fed up with our soldiers being shot at from both sides? How much longer must they remain there?

I agree that everyone is fed up with our troops being shot at and in some cases killed. But they are undertaking a vital task in support of the civil authorities and must remain there until the situation is restored to normality.

Does my hon. Friend accept, in more responsible and gradual terms than those raised by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell), that over the years this demand is certain to grow? Therefore, will my hon. Friend make every possible use of Ulstermen in the provision of their own security rôle? The opinion of many people is that this is being insufficiently done and that an unfair burden is being placed upon British troops.

I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question, that people are bound to become increasingly fed up with the terrible casualties that the security forces have suffered. But I cannot agree with the second part, and I do not believe that our dispositions can be criticised in the way that my hon. Friend implies.

Irrespective of what might be said by certain of my hon. Friends, Northern Ireland is irreparably a part of Great Britain. The people are one. The Irish are spread so widely through England, Scotland and Wales that we cannot separate ourselves. We must find an answer which will bring the peoples of Ireland and Britain together. This is the only possible solution. It is no good turning our backs on the problem and hoping that it will away. We have to find a solution which will bring the peoples together.

I am glad to hear that, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the rôle of the Military Reaction Force, Northern Ireland.

I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the Army's plain clothes patrols in Northern Ireland. Their function, as my right hon. Friend said in answer to the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mrs. McAliskey) on 20th October 1972, is to undertake essential surveillance tasks in circumstances in which soldiers in uniform and with Army vehicles would be too easily recognised. —[Vol. 843, c. 145–61.]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I am referring to Press reports in both The Times and the Sunday Times about the activities of this unit? I appreciate the need for counterintelligence and counter-espionage activities by the Army in seeking to defeat the Provisional IRA, but some of the methods used are open to considerable criticism on moral as well as on practical grounds. In particular, according to the case reported in the papers, it appears that one deserter was given the option of facing a court martial or spying on the IRA. Is this the best method of trying to defeat these people when the Government's whole policy is aimed towards reconciliation? In particular, has the Department thought about the long-term effects that this kind of thing might have on the families of those informants?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, intelligence is absolutely vital in dealing with terrorism. The whole House will be grateful for and surprised by the extraordinary restraint and care with which the Army has chosen the method that it uses to deal with terrorists.

asked the Minister of State for Defence how many soldiers and members of the Ulster Defence Regiment serving in Northern Ireland have been killed since 12th August 1969; and in how many instances the Official or Provisional IRA has publicly claimed responsibility for these deaths.

Since August 1969, 184 Regulars and 36 members of the Ulster Defence Regiment have been killed by terrorist or other hostile action in Northern Ireland. Records are not kept of the number of IRA claims of responsibility.

Is my hon. Friend aware that about 260 members of the Army, the police and the reserves have been killed in Northern Ireland and that in almost every case the IRA has issued a statement claiming responsibility for those murders? Is not the failure of Her Majesty's Government to deal effectively with the security situation and to bring these terrible murders and deaths to an end the result of the fact that the Army will not direct its entire efforts towards restoring security in Northern Ireland and defeating the IRA?

It is reasonable to assume in the context of my hon. Friend's Question that the IRA was responsible for nearly all the brutal killings to which I have referred. As for concentrating our efforts, I remind my hon. Friend that it is the task of the security forces to deal with terrorism from whatever direction it comes and that every time there is any resort to violence from other quarters this distacts the Army from the task of dealing with the IRA.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will now make a further statement regarding compensation for the death of Signalman J. T. Johnson, a constituent of the hon. Member for Nuneaton.

I wrote to the hon. Member on 17th May about this tragic case.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for writing to me and for the information he has given me. Will he bear in mind, however, that it was on 24th September of last year that Signalman Johnson died in a very unfortunate acicdent? Will he undertake to look at these procedures again in view of the very long time it has taken to discover the facts of the situation, bearing in mind that the Johnson family still do not know whether they can get compensation?

We went into the reasons for the delay in the course of a recent Adjournment debate. As I explained to the hon. Gentleman, it was due almost entirely to the fact that a court martial had to be held. As for the hon. Gentleman's point about compensation, my recent letter to him covered that and I take it that he will pass it on to Signalman Johnson's parents.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the order for a through-deck cruiser.

As my hon. Friend announced on 17th April, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), we have now placed the order for HMS "Invincible" with Messrs. Vickers of Barrow. We expect the ship to enter service towards the end of the decade.—[Vol. 855, c. 240–42.]

Does it make operational sense to order one through-deck cruiser without ordering three?

We have announced that this will be the first of a class. We have to make the first order, and it makes sense to place the order in the way that we have done.

When will a decision be announced whether these ships will operate vertical take-off and landing aircraft?

We hope that this announcement will be made before the House rises for the Summer Recess.

Is there any impact on this in terms of the recent announcement of cuts in defence expenditure? Are there break clauses in the contract, or shall we go ahead come what may? Will the hon. Gentleman look again at the question and realise that the morale of naval aviators demands that we have a convincing and comprehensive policy statement as early as possible?

The matters announced yesterday do not affect this project. The whole of our NATO commitments and so forth are unaffected by what was announced yesterday. As to VSTOL, we are conscious of the need to make an early decision about this and we are pressing on with our studies of that which has been delivered to us by industry.

Are there break clauses in the contract?

Perhaps I might have notice of the details of the question. This is a contract which has been made for this craft, and it is a firm contract.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what plans he has for a new air superiority fighter for the Royal Air Force within the next five years.

The Phantom FGR2 will start transferring to the air defence rôle next year. An air defence version of the MRCA is planned for the longer term.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware of the concern which is being expressed about the ability, both in types of aircraft and in numbers, of the NATO air forces to maintain air superiority over potential battle zones?

I am well aware of my hon. Friend's point. We would all like more aeroplanes, of course, but we are confident that those we have will give a very good account of themselves.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the disquiet that exists in Germany about the lack of full financial provision in the German defence budget for the MRCA'? Will he confirm that there is a strong possibility that the German order will be no more than 200? In view of the fact that the original work-sharing and general allocation of contracts was based upon the shares likely to be taken up by Germany, Italy and ourselves, may I ask whether there has been any alteration since we entered into the original arrangement?

I cannot confirm what the right hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his question. I have no knowledge of that matter. As he knows, the work-sharing arrangements are related to the number of aeroplanes ordered. If there were a decline in the German order, the work-sharing arrangements would have to be adjusted.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, in view of the shortage of aircraft, no Lightning interceptors will be withdrawn from squadron service as the Phantoms are phased into the air defence rôle?

No decision has been made to phase out the Lightnings.

asked the Minister of State for Defence how many commission courses for members of the TAVR it is proposed to hold at Sandhurst in the second half of 1973.

None, Sir—but five courses will have been held in the first half of the year.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not a satisfactory situation? Does he further agree that this provision is inadequate for the number of officer cadets that we have, still less for the number we ought to be anticipating? Will he look again into means of reducing the delays between the passing of the selection board and the actual courses?

I hope I can reassure my hon. Friend. We are taking steps to increase the number of vacancies from 160 to 200 for the courses to be held in the first half of next year. We are also examining means of fitting in at least one TAVR commission course during the autumn each year from 1975 onwards.

How many probationary officers are waiting for places on these courses? Are they having to delay getting their full commissions because of this lack of space on the courses?

There is currently a delay of between six and nine months, but we expect that the changes I have just described will meet the demand.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on his plans to increase the size of the Royal Navy fishery protection fleet.

The increase of 50 per cent. in the effort deployed by the Services on coastal fishery protection announced by my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy on 20th January 1972 has now been put into effect.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply concerning the protection of fishery activities around Britain's immediate coastline, but may I ask him to turn his attention to a specific point? In the wider area, if the Icelandic dispute is seen as symptomatic of the kind of problem which may increasingly arise in future, with acute world pressure on resources in the sea, may I ask whether he is convinced that the Navy has at its disposal sufficient ships of the right type for handling this kind of situation?

Heaven forbid that there should be another Icelandic situation of this kind. I am convinced that the Royal Navy has a wide range of capabilities which will enable it to deal with any situation which may reasonably be foreseen.

Moving from Iceland to Sussex, may I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that twice in the last fortnight reports have been made of Belgian beam trawlers fishing within the six-mile limit off the Sussex coast and that up to £400-worth of damage to the equipment of inshore fishermen in Arundel and Shoreham and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) has been caused allegedly by these beam trawlers? Does he therefore accept that the best form of prevention is some means of regular naval fishery protection patrolling in these waters? Will he undertake to provide this kind of patrol off the Sussex coast in the height of the season?

I have looked into the problem mentioned by my hon. Friend. It is possible that there is some confusion here as certain craft have been bought from the Continent and are now being operated under the British flag. There could be an element of confusion whether the situation is quite as bad as is suggested. However, I will look into the matter further and do everything I can to help my hon. Friend's constituents.

I believe that the deep-sea fleet is satisfied with the measures so far taken in this extraordinary event off the Icelandic banks. However, as regards East Yorkshire, I do not think the inshore fleet is so happy about the number of vessels that we possess for guarding against the poaching of herring and other fish off the Yorkshire and East Anglican coast by Belgian, Dutch or other nations' ships.

The "ton" class vessels which operate in these coastal waters—I have spent some time on them, as I suspect the hon. Gentleman has, too—are very effective. We would obviously like more, but I am convinced that the degree of protection afforded around our coasts is very good. I think that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd), who has paid a recent visit to one of these craft. will probably agree about that.

While congratulating my hon. Friend on the degree of naval protection afforded off Iceland, may I ask him to bear in mind a report that a British frigate protected a West German trawler? Will he seek the co-operation of the German Navy in the protection of our vessels on the high seas?

Matters of further co-operation with continental countries is a matter for my right hon. Friend, but seafaring people should co-operate all the way through in these waters. That should be the spirit that prevails rather than a spirit of belligerency.

asked the Minister of State for Defence when the review of the Armed Forces pension scheme with regard to the transfer of pension rights is expected to be completed.

Preservation and transferability of pension rights are very complex subjects and I cannot say when our studies will be completed.

When the study is eventually completed and if, as I hope, it recommends a freer transfer of pension rights, will my hon. Friend consider making such recommendations retrospective, particularly to help former Service men now in the police force who are suffering grave injustice under the present arrangements?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's point and I sympathise with the people whom he has in mind. However. I must tell him that when we alter the arrangements it will not be possible to make them retrospective.

asked the Minister of State for Defence how many good will visits the Royal Navy has made during the last two years to the ports of Berbera and Mogadishu in Somalia and to other ports in Eastern Africa; and if he will make a statement.

No visits have been made to Berbera or Mogadishu in the last two years. During that period, however, Royal Navy ships have visited ports in Kenya, Ethiopia, Sudan, the Malagasy Republic and the French Territory of the Afars and Issas. We are not neglecting the area.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there is considerable good will towards the United Kingdom in the Republic of Somalia? Will he investigate the possibility of the Royal Navy sending a detachment on an official visit, particularly in view of the fact that when several right hon. and hon. Members of this House visited that country some two years ago we were assured that the facilities at Berbera and Mogadishu were available for use at commercial rates by ships of any navy that cared to make use of them?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that supplementary question. I will gladly investigate the possibilities of a visit of the kind he has in mind. We might even draw on his contacts in that area to see whether anything useful can be arranged.

May I confirm from personal experience that not only the Somalis in Berbera and Mogadishu but all the English-speaking people from Yemen to Zanzibar have the utmost good will towards us and that nothing but good can come from our vessels showing our flag in those waters?

As I have said, we show the flag in waters near there. But I will gladly go into the matters which my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman have now put before the House.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what new aircraft are on order for the Army Air Corps.

The Gazelle helicopter is now in production, and development of the Lynx helicopter is well advanced.

I am grateful for that reply. Is my hon. Friend aware that the Army Air Corps would very much like to have a medium-lift helicopter or a Short Skyvan? What consideration has been given to ordering either of those aircraft for the corps?

If a medium-lift helicopter were supplied to the British forces, it would be operated by the RAF. We have no immediate plans to buy any of these very expensive aircraft. We have evaluated the Skyvan at the request of Short Brothers, but we have no requirement for it because it is too big for our needs.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement about the rôle of British forces in the Gulf.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement about defence commitments in Southern Arabia and the Gulf.

We no longer have any formal defence commitments in the Gulf. We continue to maintain close and friendly links through treaties of friendship with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Qatar. We also provide assistance by helping to train the forces of a number of countries in the area—for example Kuwait—and by loaning personnel for service with them. In Southern Arabia, British Service men are on loan to the Government of Oman and assist in training the Sultan's forces.

I welcome that reply. Can my hon. Friend assure us that, as defence co-operation is increasing between interested countries in the area such as Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, with which we have friendly relations, he will in no way diminish the British presence? In particular, at a time of economic stringency and when patrols are having to be mounted off Iceland, will he assure us that the British naval presence in those areas will not be diminished?

I can assure my hon. Friend that we certainly have no plans to diminish our presence there.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what is his policy regarding giving financial assistance to Service personnel prior to their retirement from the Service to enable them to buy their own homes.

We operate a scheme for all three Services whereby a proportion of the terminal benefits due to those retiring after long service may be advanced free of interest during the last year of service to help meet the deposit and professional fees associated with the purchase of a house. There is a separate advance-of-pay scheme for senior naval ratings with the same object.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the very last words of that answer—that the scheme is available only to senior naval ratings—sums up the situation? Does he accept that people in the Armed Forces are not among the highest-paid in the country? No one can say that they are overpaid. Is he aware that they have a particular problem in that they have to live in Service-provided accommodation and move into their own accommodation on the date of retirement, and that if they have to provide themselves with accommodation this presents them with a particular problem, which is different from that of ordinary civilians? Knowing that the hon. Gentleman wishes to do what he can to help civilian personel, may I ask whether the Government will consider this again to see whether we cannot get a house-purchase scheme going for Service personnel, subsidised if necessary by the Treasury?

I have great sympathy with what the right hon. Gentleman says. This is a problem which affects all Service men and we should like to extend the present naval scheme and rationalise it among all the Services. But we are short of money. We are considering ways of improving things, but I cannot promise that we will be able to come up with something very drastic in the immediate future.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the greatest concentration of scientific manpower in the Services in Britain is at the Royal Radar Establishment at Malvern, where he and his colleagues have resolutely refused to sell tenanted houses to the occupying Service personnel? Will he follow the idiom of the Government in this matter and sell these houses to the serving personnel on the same principle as he sells council houses to sitting tenants?

We do not sell council houses to sitting tenants in the Services. As I have told my hon. Friend, there are other requirements for houses. If, however, the houses become available and are not wanted by other people, we try to dispose of them as best we can.

At a time when the Government have found it possible to find £15 million for the building societies, are they aware that the Opposition would like to see assistance of this kind given to Service families with their special problems and extended to them irrespective of their service and rank?

Of course, everybody always wants to do a great deal for the Services, but it is worth bearing in mind that the Opposition did not make great progress in this matter when they were in power.