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

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement about the operations in Northern Ireland.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement about military operations in Northern Ireland.

The Army continues to do all it can to assist the civil authorities in maintaining progress towards the elimination of terrorism.

Is the Minister aware that, while hon. Members appreciate the need for the Army to make house searches, in view of the recent campaign by Protestant extremist organisations it is to be hoped that such searches will be carried out more vigorously among both sides of the community? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that house searches are proving to be only 10 per cent. positive? Does he not think there is a danger that they may become counter productive?

I am grateful to the hon. Member for pointing out the necessity for house searches and the fact that they are carried out among both communities. We have taken into account that they can create resentment against the Armed Forces. Nevertheless I am sure he will agree that such searches are necessary.

While it is a matter of congratulation that Her Majesty's Forces are able to do the job in Northern Ireland with fewer men than heretofore, would it not be wiser not to publicise the withdrawal of troops from Northern Ireland?

As my hon. Friend knows, we keep the force levels continuously under review. It would not be practical to avoid publicity because it is impossible to keep troop movements secret.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable concern, particularly following an article in the Observer a week last Sunday, that policing in certain areas is more strenuous than in others? Will he confirm that over the past year there have been 140 sectarian murders perpetrated by Protestant extremist organisations in addition to the murders committed by the IRA? Will he give an undertaking that an evenhanded policy will be adopted in respect-of both sides?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Army has always been totally even-handed in its policy. Since the beginning of this year 753 Catholics and 505 Protestants have been arrested and charged with security offences. There is no doubt that the Army is being thoroughly even-handed in its policy and will continue to be so.

While it would be wrong to take chances when the possibility of forming an administration in Northern Ireland is hanging in the balance, may I ask my right hon. Friend constantly to bear in mind the importance of reducing our military presence in Northern Ireland so that there can at least be a 12-month gap between emergency tours? Can he say whether there has been any reduction recently in IRA efforts to import arms into Northern Ireland?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we have to keep force levels under review. It is obviously important to give our troops in the Army as much of an interval as possible between Northern Ireland tours. I have no up-to-date and thoroughly reliable information about the import of arms into Ireland by the IRA. I can assure my hon. Friend that the claims made by Mr. Twomey today are thoroughly exaggerated.

The House will be pleased to know that Mr. Twomey's claims are exaggerated. How many people have been arrested for offences connected with the recent campaign of the Unionist extremists? The right hon. Gentleman gave figures for arrests on both sides during the past year. We would like figures for arrests during the past six weeks up to the culmination of the campaign a few nights ago.

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the exact figures for the last six weeks. We do not keep figures week by week and we cannot know exactly the period about which an hon. Member will ask questions. There has, however, been a considerable number of arrests in both communities, certainly in the Protestant community, which the hon. Gentleman is worried about, during the last six weeks. I will write to him giving the exact figures.

Does not the British Army deserve the greatest praise? Very often this has not been a fair battlefield, with individual soldiers and pickets murdered in cold blood, yet the Army has kept both its nerve and its morale.

I am sure the whole House will wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. The skill and courage and, above all, restraint with which the Army has behaved over the last three years are beyond all praise.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what would be the cost of insuring volunteer members of the Armed Forces for sums of £1,000, £5,000 and £10,000 against death, and, separately, the cost of accident insurance against injuries sustained while undergoing training for periods of up to 28 days.

All members of the Armed Forces are volunteers, but I believe my hon. Friend's Question relates to volunteers in the Reserve forces. As my hon. Friend was told on 18th November 1971, it is not the practice for the Crown to insure, and I fear that the figures he asks for are not available.—[Vol. 826, c. 183.]

While I am sorry that my hon. Friend cannot give me the sample quotations required, none the less I ask him to consider extending to the Reserve forces the welcome new contributory insurance scheme that is available to Regular members of the forces.

I think that the scheme my hon. Friend has in mind is a non-public scheme operated on a voluntary contribution basis. However, I will consult the trustees to see whether members of the Reserve forces can participate.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of the military base in Malta after the ending of the present agreement in 1979.

This matter will no doubt be discussed with the Malta Government and our NATO allies in due course; but I cannot pre-empt these discussions.

Would it not be prudent to be considering these arrangements in view of the relationship between ourselves and the Maltese Government?

Her Majesty's Government are extremely far-sighted, as everyone knows, but it is difficult to say exactly what will happen six years from now.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the proposed maritime version of the HS Harrier.

asked the Minister of State for Defence when he proposes to make a decision in connection with ordering the Royal Navy version of the Harrier aircraft.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the proposed Royal Navy version of the Harrier aircraft.

As my right hon. and noble Friend said in another place on 14th November, the priority to be given to this project has yet to be determined in relation to the future defence programme as a whole. A statement will be made as soon as a decision has been taken. Meanwhile design work is continuing.—[House of Lords, Vol. 346, c. 638–9.]

Will my right hon. Friend say whether it is true that a sum of about £10 million in total is involved in bringing the airframe, radar and engine up to the required standard? Will he take note of the fact that there are difficulties with export sales of military systems if part of a system is supplied by a foreign country? Could we have everything on this one British if at all possible?

We do not normally give exact figures of costs of particular weapons. Of course we encourage any foreign buyers to buy all British, and this is probably more efficient. But if purchasers are particularly anxious to have part of the equipment taken from someone else we are not able to refuse them.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the relatively low productivity of the British aircraft industry is in great measure due to the delays of the Government in placing orders? In the circumstances, in the interests both of national defence and of the industry, can the right hon. Gentleman now give a firm decision so that men will not be standing about idle waiting for work which is yet to come?

I cannot accept the general premise upon which the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is based, nor the particular premise. I do not believe that men are standing idly by awaiting our decision on this aircraft.

I remind my right hon. Friend that on 23rd July he told me that a decision on this project would be announced in about two months' time but that four months has now elapsed and no decision has been made. Does he not agree that it is very important to order the naval variant of the Harrier if the Royal Navy is to have its own integral air defence and long-range strike/reconnaissance aircraft after the "Ark Royal" goes out of service?

I agree that I have not kept the two months' deadline but I hope that an announcement will not be long delayed. Of course this is an important and useful aircraft for the Royal Navy, but as I have said on a number of occasions, we have to weigh this requirement against competing requirements.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government have postponed over and over again a final decision on this matter and that this is having very worrying effects on the morale of the Fleet Air Arm about its future rôle? When can we hope to have a definitive statement in the interests of the effectiveness of the Service?

I agree that a decision has been postponed but I cannot agree that morale has been affected. The hon. Gentleman will be the first to agree that he himself is in a slightly difficult position on this equipment, because under the Labour Party's policy there could be no question of its being ordered.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is grotesque of the Government to continue to pay lip service to any policy to protect our trade routes overseas unless they are decisive and make this aircraft available for use at sea?

I do not accept that. It would be a very useful aircraft, but there are many other competing demands on the defence budget.

To what extent are bird strikes a particular hazard to low flying in coastal waters? Is this a reason for the appalling delay?

No, Sir.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make it known to potential customers for British arms supplies that, in the event of these arms being used in hostilities, neither ammunition nor spares may be made available for them.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will draw to the attention of potential overseas customers for British arms any right of the Government to withhold ammunition or spare parts for such arms in the event of their use in hostilities.

No, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman admitting that this is not a general policy but simply a policy aimed at one country? While this may satisfy his own personal prejudices, does he not regard it as a grave slur on Britain's reputation as a trading nation, let alone her honour and integrity?

No, Sir. As the hon. Gentleman knows, this embargo was not directed against one country. It is perfectly even-handed and has been as strictly applied to the Arabs, for whom the larger part of the arms in the pipeline was destined, as to the Israelis. The hon. Gentleman's strictures are very wide of the mark.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the only possible purport of the Questions, other than the immediate one, could be the implication that in future a Labour Government, if there should ever be one again, would honour all previous arms agreements made by their Conservative predecessors?

I would not like to speculate on the motives of the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), but he will realise that arms sales play an important part both in our balance of payments and in preserving employment, so I am sure he would not wish to knock such sales.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the depths of disgust in which the Government's policy in this respect is regarded, not only in Israel but by vast numbers of people of all faiths in this country who value her good name?

I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong. I agree that it has caused dismay or distress in Israel, but I cannot agree that it was in any way unfair or that it has caused similar reactions in this country.

Will my right hon. Friend at least convey to potential customers the view that ammunition and spares will be denied them, as proposed in the Questions, if they transfer British weapons to other countries engaged in aggressive war, as Saudi Arabia did last month?

I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said about the implications of the embargo, and I cannot accept the implications of what my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) has said.

As the sale of arms is merely a traffic in death, would not it be better, irrespective of the political complexion of the Government of this country, if as a general principle we as a nation refused to sell arms, spares or any other equipment that is used to kill people?

The hon. Gentleman should know that there are a great many jobs involved in this trade and, as I said just now, the country gains a great deal of foreign exchange from such a trade. One of the few constructive actions committed by the last administration was to appoint an arms salesman.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary put forward the thesis that, although it was not proper to break a contract, it was perfectly proper to postpone one. Is that a proposition which my right hon. Friend's Department now accepts?

I have nothing to add about when the embargo will be lifted, but of course it will not be permanent.

Until they are not needed.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will offer commissions to all male State registered nurses who are serving or will be recruited in all three Services, in order to end the present discrimination against male nurses.

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend, my hon. Friends and I are, however, looking into ways in which the career structure for male nurses in the three Services can best be improved.

One hopes that the hon. Gentleman will not try to defend the indefensible. Does he not agree that it is time that there was progress in this matter, since its consideration has been very protracted? If the Government say that they are opposed to sex discrimination in employment, would it not be appropriate first to put their own house in order in this respect?

What the hon. Gentleman has in mind is the recommendations in the Jarret Committee's report. With respect, that was published only on 23rd October. We are giving close and detailed scrutiny to this complex report.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will give details of the method by which orders are placed by his Department for supplies of arms and equipment and other Service equipments.

Except for certain supplies from Royal ordnance factories, defence equipment is ordered under contract from suppliers on the defence contractors' list. Competitive tenders are invited whenever practicable and the most advantageous offer is accepted, taking all factors, including price, into account. When competition is impracticable, the Ministry of Defence satisfies itself that fair and reasonable prices are paid.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the method of placing orders adopted by his Ministry is very often detrimental to firms in the development districts and that the Department should be looking for possibilities of creating jobs as well as at the placing of orders? Is it not time that the old-boy network operating in this connection was broken? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, further, that when he talks about competitive tenders he is dealing with only a very limited sector of the orders placed by his Department? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the possibility of widening the range?

I agree that competitive tenders are not the majority of contracts, but I do not accept the rest of the hon. Gentleman's comments. As he knows, under the special preference scheme, if a bid by a development area firm is not low enough to win the contract, up to 25 per cent. of the requirement may be offered to firms in the development areas at a price which does not involve us in any additional expenditure. If the hon. Gentleman has a specific grievance in mind and cares to write to me about it, I will look into it.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is continuity and quality of supplies which is vitally important rather than the geographical positions of firms?

That is so, but at the same time we try to play our part in helping the regions.

In view of our present very grave balance of payments situation, is there not a good case for giving preference to firms with good export records?

In the nature of things, this very often happens. Firms with good export records normally are highly competitive.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what are the criteria by which parents serving in the Armed Forces are enabled to send their children to independent schools; what financial or other assistance is available; and how many children of officers and of other ranks have been so assisted in the last 10 years, distinguishing, if known, between boys and girls and types of schools.

The children of members of the Armed Forces are liable to suffer from interruptions in their education because their parents are subject to frequent postings at home and overseas. Boarding school allowance may therefore be paid to Service parents to assist them to send their children to boarding schools, but only if they remain for a complete stage of education, so as to ensure continuity of education.

The current annual rates of boarding school allowances are: up to £399 for the first child, up to £477 for the second and up to £573 for the third and subsequent children in each family. For the summer term 1973, boarding school allowance was paid in respect of about 16,500 children of officers and 5,000 children of Service men. I regret that the other information sought by my hon. Friend is not available.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for putting the facts on record. Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to a statement by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Spark-brook (Mr. Hattersley) in the television programme broadcast in September that these allowances were not available to other ranks under the last administration? If that is untrue, will my right hon. Friend do his best to correct it?

Yes. I can tell my hon. Friend that my attention has been drawn to it. I ventured to draw the attention of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) to his misstatement in a letter which I wrote him on 2nd October. What the hon. Gentleman said was flatly wrong and I very much regret that he has not availed himself of my invitation before now to set the record straight.

Of course I know, without qualification, that grants for boarding education are available to all ranks in the Services at the same level and that all ranks take them up. But in the light of the figures which the right hon. Gentleman gave today and those which he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) on 14th November, does the right hon. Gentleman still suggest that equal opportunity for boarding education exists in Her Majesty's Forces?

I very much regret that the hon. Gentleman has continued his evasive tactics. He made a flat statement in saying:

"When I was a Minister in the Ministry of Defence we enabled officers in Her Majesty's Forces to send their children to independent schools. But, alas, we did not make that possible for other ranks"

That was flatly wrong, and it is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman has not seen fit to correct his mistake. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] The House will regret that the hon. Gentleman is so careless of his own reputation.

The right hon. Gentleman speaks of evasiveness. Why does he not give a direct answer? Are the same opportunities open to children of other ranks as those which are open to the children of officers?

The answer is clear from what I said originally. Exactly the same allowance is paid to officers as to other Service men.

Is not the truth of the matter that the opportunities are there but that they are not taken up by other ranks?

That is partly true. But many Service men are not so anxious for their children to have boarding-school education as many officers are. But we must not evade the main point, which is that before a large television audience the hon. Member for Sparkbrook made a flatly untrue statement and he still refuses to withdraw it.

As the Government and their supporters for so long have been in favour of means-tested benefits, may I ask whether both officers and other ranks are means-tested before getting these grants?

No. These benefits are not means-tested. I am interested to hear from Opposition Members that, contrary to what the hon. Member for Sparkbrook seems to be suggesting, they are in favour of more children being sent to independent schools.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what is the present rent of the unfurnished tenancy of Oak Grove House, Royal Military College, Sandhurst.

The house is at present unoccupied but its rent when occupied by a serving officer would be £423 a year if unfurnished.

At a time when millions of tenants throughout the country are subjected to the so-called fair rents procedure of the Housing Finance Act and when some rents for other ranks' married quarters in the Army are 28p per annum per sq. ft., whereas the figure given by the hon. Gentleman represents 13p per annum per sq. ft., will the hon. Gentleman ask the appropriate rent scrutiny board to determine a fair rent for this property?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, rents for Army quarters are assessed by the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body, which applies a formula devised by the National Board for Prices and Incomes in the early part of 1970. As for the floor area, the hon. Gentleman will know that Army quarters are divided into different rent brackets and that within each bracket there is a great variety in size, location and age of house. As in civilian life, one does not necessarily pay proportionately more rent for a large old house than for a smaller modern one.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he is satisfied that Her Majesty's Forces are equipped with the latest radar computer-controlled ground-to-ground and ground-to-air missiles, comparable with those used in the recent Middle East war; and whether he will make a statement.

Our forces have a range of modern missiles well suited to their needs and there are further missiles in prospect. We are studying the lessons that are to be learned from the Middle East war, which will, of course, be a complex exercise.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the lessons which have been learned by our forces from the Middle East war is that the Russian-manufactured missile guidance systems are infinitely more sophisticated than those of our forces? What study of those missile guidance systems is being carried out by our forces? Has my right hon. Friend sufficient funds to be able to develop whatever comes out of those studies?

I do not accept that the Russian missiles are necessarily better than ours. Some of them may be more modern, but others are not. It is a very complex question. We must study the differences of terrain, manpower and battle philosophies, and, therefore, it is impossible to reach a definite conclusion very quickly.

Will the Minister express some gratitude to Israel for the fact that we now have an opportunity to examine the weapons in detail, although we did little to earn it?

We always welcome an opportunity to examine as many weapons as we can.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he gave a very complacent reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins)? What steps are being taken to provide every platoon in the British Army with missiles which would enable it to destroy tanks and aircraft effectively?

As my hon. Friend probably knows, there are a number of weapons which we have not only in research and development but in production and under issue. If he can draw very quick and certain conclusions already from the Middle East war, I envy him his certainty, but I do not share it.

Has the Minister studied the spectacular success of the Gabriel missile in naval warfare? Will he try to arrange to import missiles of that type, but will he ask the Israeli Government not to include a provision that if we should need them they will no longer continue supplying them?

I dealt with the hon. Gentleman's question a little earlier. The efficacy of the Gabriel missile is one of many things we shall be studying.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress made by his Department following the publication of the Nugent Report recommending 31,000 acres of Ministry of Defence land for release.

As announced in the explanatory memorandum published with the committee's report, we have allowed a period for public comment and discussion on its recommendations. We have already received a substantial number of representations, which will be taken carefully into account before final decisions are made. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 16th October, we hope to make an announcement early in the New Year.—[Vol. 861, c. 27–28.]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. But does he not think that the Government could make a statement very shortly saying that they will restore public access to those parts of the 31,000 acres where the public enjoyed a right of access before the lands were acquired by the Ministry of Defence, particularly the 16 miles of coastline included in the 31,000 acres?

I do not think that it would be right to deal with the committee's recommendations piecemeal, especially when we have set aside time for views from the public to be submitted. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 16th October that action on the coastline is already in hand.

Is the Minister aware that local opinion has trumpeted its opposition to the proposed transfer of a gunnery range from Shoeburyness to the Dornoch Firth? Will he bear in mind that since the Nugent Committee reported there have been considerable industrial developments in that area, which make the proposal completely out of date and one to be rejected?

Representations have been received from groups in that area, and they will be borne in mind, along with other views.

What guarantee can my hon. Friend give that when former gunnery ranges are released disinfestation of all explosive objects has been carried out?

The removal of dangerous objects will undoubtedly be a long and difficult process.

Does the Minister accept that the Nugent Committee proposed to transfer the gunnery range to Castle-martin without the public of that place having had an opportunity to give evidence to the committee of their opposition to the proposal? Will he now secure that the public has a right at a public inquiry to give evidence before a final decision is taken?

With regard to a public inquiry, I have nothing to add to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales said in answer to Questions recently. It is evident from the committee's report that it listened to many views from people in the area concerned, and a deputation from Castlemartin was received recently in my Department.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will give an estimate of the number of houses used in the past by military personnel but at present empty.

Between 2,500 and 3,000 in the United Kingdom, excluding those under repair and in the process of disposal.

Does the Minister agree that that is a fairly high figure, and that empty houses are a luxury we cannot afford? I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the decision to enter into negotiations with my local authority to dispose of 66 of those houses in Rugby, but may the remainder be considered as a matter of urgency?

I agree that it is a high figure, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there are reasons. We are considering whether we can let the empty houses temporarily to local authorities, but this has always been found impossible. I am examining the other estates in the hon. Gentleman's constituency again, and I shall write to him about them.

The figure is strikingly high. When the Services are increasing the number of people they evict from their quarters, is it justifiable in cities such as Plymouth—where there is an acute housing shortage—to continue to evict Service families, some of whom have been retired early from the Services and therefore cannot qualify to go on the council house list, while there are still empty houses left?

As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, when sailors are stationed in Plymouth it is not much good putting them in houses in Oxfordshire. We very much regret having to evict people, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows from his experience, we do it as little and as late as possible, but we must naturally give priority to people serving in the area.

How much of the increase in the number of empty houses of late is due to troop movements, to keeping houses available for troops returning from Ulster or other places abroad?

As my hon. Friend rightly surmises, those factors are part of the cause, but we are concerned to try to reduce the number of empty houses.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement regarding the shortfall in recruits to the forces.

Recruitment to the Armed Forces has shown a marked downward trend in 1973, compared with satisfactory achievements in 1971 and the first part of 1972.

Can the Minister give me an assurance that the Government have not discussed the possibility of reintroducing conscription to meet the shortfall? To remove all the uncertainty that prevails over the possibility of the reintroduction of conscription, will he make a definitive statement today that the Conservative Government will not reintroduce it?

I do not agree that there is uncertainty in the country about the matter, but I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that we have no plans whatever to reintroduce conscription.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one effective way to improve recruiting would be to allow boys to leave school at 15, if they wish, and to continue their general education simultaneously with acquiring their military virtues? Will he have another go at my right hon. and fair Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to get her to change her mind about the matter?

It is too early to assess the permanent effect upon recruitment of raising the school leaving age, but I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that we shall review the situation when the normal pattern of school leaving has been re-established.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement indicating the progress of adult recruiting for the Army over the last three years.

After satisfactory achievements in 1971 and early 1972, recruitment to the Army showed a marked downward trend in 1973 and this has continued.

Will this not have a prejudicial effect on the Army's efficiency? May I ask the hon. Gentleman to assure the House that effective measures are being taken to make the Army more attractive as a career for young men?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that present trained strengths are adequate to meet our immediate and long term commitments. As for remedial measures, we shall keep the situation under review. The raising of the school-leaving age, to which my right hon. Friend has referred, is one of the main factors causing the decline, and it is a little early to see what can be done about that.

To what extent is this a general Service problem and to what extent is it a purely Army problem?

The problem is more acute in the Army than in the other Services.

If the recruitment shortfall is not arrested, is the hon. Gentleman confident that the British Army can meet its obligations without conscription?

I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend has just said on that matter.

asked the Minister of State for Defence how many representations he has received protesting against the use of the names of private firms in recruitment advertisements for the Armed Forces.

None, Sir.

That is a strange answer in view of the letter that I have received from the Minister following representations that I made on this subject on behalf of the Irvine Trades Council. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the name "Guinness" has been used in numerous Army advertisements? Is he further aware that the Guinness Company has given £20,000 towards Tory Party funds? Although Guinness might be good for you and me, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Under-Secretary to guarantee that in any future advertising campaign for recruitment for the Army no company names, especially the names of companies which have contributed money towards Tory Party funds, will be used?

I am delighted to hear of the good sense of the Guinness Company, which frankly I did not know about. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it has no connection with recruiting advertising.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his plans for defence spending for the years up to and including 1976.

No, Sir. I must ask the hon. Member to await this year's Public Expenditure White Paper.

Do the Government intend to adhere to the increase of 10 per cent. in real terms in arms spending as set out in their survey for the years to 1976? In view of the economic crisis and the demands made in certain Conservative quarters for cuts in Government spending in the public sector, it would be tragic if such cuts were made at a time when there was an increase in arms spending.

I do not know where the hon. Gentleman got his figure of 10 per cent. in real terms, because I do not accept it. I must ask him to await the Public Expenditure White Paper for the exact figures.

Will my right hon. Friend make clear to the House the implications for this country of a £1,000 million cut in defence expenditure advocated at the Labour Party conference, particularly the consequences in terms of employment in defence industries and the security of the country?

A cut of £1,000 million would mean an end of the dockyards and of BAOR, a great cut in employment, and the virtual crippling of our Armed Forces. It is fair to point out that some hon. Gentleman opposite advocate a cut of only £500 million. I think that is the policy of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). The Leader of the Opposition goes for £1,000 million. We cannot know which is the real policy.

How does the Minister reconcile some extremely expensive projects—for example, the MRCA, the through-deck cruiser and Sea Wolf—maturing in 1976–77 with the undertakings given to us yesterday by the Prime Minister about the rise in public expenditure? The Government cannot have it both ways.

There is no need to have it both ways. Public expenditure in defence and elsewhere is carefully planned over a number of years.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a matter of which I have given notice to the Minister of State for Defence. I raise it now rather than wasting time in Question Time.

A few minutes ago I asked the Minister whether it was the Government's intention to adhere to the 10 per cent. increase in arms spending laid down in the Government survey of expenditure to 1976. The Minister replied that he had no idea where I had obtained that information. Although I know that you are not responsible, Mr. Speaker, for what Ministers say, surely it is not in order for a Minister deliberately to mislead the House. Either the Minister was deliberately misleading the House or else he did not know, in which case he is not entitled to hold the high office that he holds.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having given me notice that he would raise this matter. The figure that I had in my head was the 2·4 per cent. annual increase. I agree that, on the basis of last year's expenditure White Paper, this aggregates out to the figure that the hon. Gentleman gave. He was right and I was wrong, and I therefore apologise to him and to the House.

I am still not sure whether it was a point of order.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will pay an official visit to RAF Upper Heyford.

I have at present no plans to visit Upper Heyford.

If the right hon. Gentleman does make a visit, he will discover that the United States aircraft there are assigned to NATO. Yet these same aircraft were recently placed on alert by direct control from the United States. Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the situation and recognise that political control over the military is of the essence and that any degree of alert of troops stationed in this country, if the Government are not fully informed of it in advance, constitutes a breach of the principle of political control of the military in this country?

The hon. Gentleman has got it quite wrong. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear on 30th October, first, this was a relatively low level alert which did not involve any immediate prospect of action, and, secondly, military facilities in this country granted to the United States are subject to an agreement that any question of their operational use should be a matter of joint consultation with us. That did not arise in that instance.

On a more practical note, if my right hon. Friend visits that aerodrome, which abuts on my constituency, may I ask him to visit the local villages and discuss the soundproofing of houses?

I will certainly do that. I am also considering the other question raised by my hon. Friend of whether the road should be closed.

I beg to move,

That this House censures Her Majesty' Government for allowing the essential public services of the capital city to deteriorate to the point where they are now reaching breakdown and are causing grave hardship to the population of Greater London.

The Government must be aware that in raising this matter we are reflecting the view of every responsible person in London, whether employer or employee, working in public or private enterprise, and of all shades of political opinion. Seldom has there been such agreement on what is wrong in London.

Our charge against the Government is that they have been fully aware of what has been happening over the past three years. They have been continually pressed to assist in taking action to correct the situation but, like Nero, they have fiddled while London was being virtually brought to a standstill. Our problems were manifest long before phase 3. Life was being made utterly impossible before then.

The aspirations of people who live in London are not absurdly high. First, they seek homes of the right size for their families, in a fit state, with modern amenities and at a price they can afford. Second, they want job opportunities which match their skills, thereby allowing for improvement of their wages and living standards. Third, they want good public transport facilities which will enable them to move about freely and at will.

Fourth, they want an education system and service which satisfies the needs of their children and young people. Fifth, they are looking for adequate hospital and social services. Sixth, they want the knowledge that an efficient police force exists to protect them from the wrongdoer and to maintain law and order in London. Last, they want a happy environment established to allow them to enjoy a full life.

These are broadly their needs, and they are not unreasonable. But what is the reality? In housing, the position gets worse daily. Not only are fewer houses being built, in accordance with Government policy, but those which are being built are costing a fortune—a major factor being the price of land, which the Government have done absolutely nothing about; on the contrary, they have encouraged land speculators. It is now impossible to buy a house in London for under £12,000, either new or second hand, which rules out anyone earning less than about £5,000 a year.

At the same time, the number of homeless people is growing daily, resulting in local authorities having to house people in hotels, because the law places an obligation on the authorities to provide accommodation for any homeless people in their area. The result is a staggering rise in costs, which further depletes the financial resources of local authorities. Only this morning I read in the South London Press that the London borough of Southwark, perhaps one of the premier authorities of the country, which is still building 2,000 homes annually, is having to pay £138,000 for accommodating homeless families in hotels. That is a staggering situation.

Furthermore, a large proportion of London' housing stock is old and is deteriorating far more rapidly than part of it is being improved. The Government sit back and do nothing. They do plenty of talking but we get no action. The housing lists get longer. We have the paradoxical situation that the population of London becomes smaller while housing lists become longer.

What of job opportunities in London? We have lost about 500,000 manufacturing jobs. This means that large numbers of people are unable to find any suitable employment at a rate of pay which is commensurate with the high costs in London and at a location which is near to their homes. Not only is the cost of living in terms of food and services much higher in London but over the last two years the Government have deliberately added a further £1·50 the rent bill just to satisfy a doctrinaire party-political whim.

The result is that few people are now available for manning essential services in London because the younger families are being forced out of the centre, thereby leaving an ageing population, which in turn is more demanding of the public services, which are deteriorating.

It is now virtually impossible to recruit and to maintain staff for public services in London. The staff shortage of London Transport is now at a crisis point. The number of vacancies for bus drivers is more than 2,000, or 15 per cent. of the establishment. There is a shortage of more than 1,000 conductors, or 12 per cent. We are short of 290 guards on the Underground, or 10 per cent., and 350 short in station staff generally, or 33 per cent. In addition, there are serious shortages of engineers for the permanent way and signalling departments. British Rail is 644 guards and more than 2,000 station and depôt staff short in London alone.

As a result of these shortages the services are becoming very unsatisfactory, resulting in an increased use of private cars in peak periods. This in turn creates even further difficulties for the bus services in running to schedule. The result of that cycle is the all-too-familiar experience of traffic being brought to a standstill.

The Prime Minister thought he could solve the problem by making a telephone call to Tokyo. He was apparently told, in no uncertain terms, by Sir Desmond Plummer that Government policy was the root cause of the trouble. That was over a year ago. The problem simply became worse. Yet the Prime Minister can only be rude and offensive to Sir Reginald Goodwin, instead of agreeing to meet him to discuss solutions. Unless and until the London Transport Executive is able not only to pay its staff sufficient to compensate for the high cost of living in London but to give additional incentives to attract people who have to suffer the added pressures involved in working for London Transport, transport services must break down.

Although I know that the Chairman of the London Transport Executive does not wish to over-dramatise the situation, there can be little doubt in anyone' mind that the reduced services being provided are causing great hardship to Londoners and call for urgent Government action. It is no good for the Minister to keep repeating "Phase 3" There was a crisis before phase 3.

Would the hon. Gentleman care to tell us for how long the unions were obstructing the recruitment of women as bus drivers? Is it not only in the past few weeks that the unions have given way?

Since 1906.

The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting point, which he and I could discuss elsewhere—

Answer.

—but it does not into the argument I am making. The Minister may have the answer for the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I am pleading for the Minister to answer it in depth.

The education services in London are close to breakdown. In some areas, in mine for example, they have almost broken down. Generally, there is a shortfall of about 250 full-time and 275 part-time teachers in London. Translated into real terms, this means that the educational standards of about 26 London schools have been reduced by more than 20,000 pupil-hours a week.

Disgraceful.

My hon. Friend is right. It is absolutely disgraceful. These study hours can never be recovered, and this will prejudice the chances of students in examinations.

This has been the situation since September. With only normal wastage with which to contend, it is expected that the number of schools going on to part-time education will be increased by a further 10. This will affect more than 28,000 children in London. Yet the Government have done nothing to help them.

rose—