asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will take steps to ensure that the Changing of the Guard ceremony at Buckingham Palace can be fully maintained on a daily basis during 1976.

Regrettably, the level of operational and other unavoidable commitments falling on the Guards Division and other troops will not permit the Changing of the Guard ceremony at Buckingham Palace to take place daily throughout the year. However, every effort will be made to ensure that the ceremony takes place daily from April to September, which is of course the main tourist season.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise the intense disappointment that is caused to tourists and many other visitors to London who go to the Palace only to find that there is no ceremony on that day? Surely our defences must be in an even more parlous state than we had imagined if we cannot muster a handful of men just once a day to perform this ceremony, which is such a major tourist attraction for our country.

I think that the hon. Gentleman underestimates the effort that goes into the Changing of the Guard ceremony. While the primary role of the Household Troops in London is the performance of public duties, it is necessary to train for operational duty and to allow for periodic leave. Additionally, there is a commitment in respect of security duties, particularly in Northern Ireland, and for duty with the United Nations force.

How much does it cost to put on this ceremony, which is one of the main tourist attractions in London? My hon. Friend's rather indecisive reply, that we shall have the ceremony for one month, or on alternate days, or at odd times, when the public are not informed beforehand, will cause a lot of disappointment to children and adults.

Offhand, I could not give an answer on how much the ceremony costs. I should need notice of that question. However, I believe that whatever the cost, it is well worth it. I believe that the majority of the people of this country would agree with me. I think that my hon. Friend is being less than fair in suggesting that we shall simply have the Changing of the Guard ceremony at odd intervals. I have already indicated that it will be carried on throughout the summer tourist season.

I recognise the importance of this ceremony at Buckingham Palace, but may I try to persuade the Minister to review the whole situation? Is he aware that no fewer than 100 Regular soldiers are employed on guard duty at London and Windsor on an average day? Is it not time that some of these duties, particularly at Windsor, were taken over by such personnel as Beefeaters? Does the Minister not agree that it is high time that such fit, experienced and well-trained soldiers were employed on operational duties and not simply on static ceremonial sentry duty?

It seems that confusion reigns on the Opposition Benches. The hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) talked of a handful of men, and now the hon. Gentleman is talking about 100 men at a time. Bearing in mind the need for reliefs, that figure becomes about 300 men. I think that we have got it just about right.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the causes of delay in setting up civilian defence jobs in Scotland.

If my hon. Friend is referring to dispersal, there is no delay.

Is not the reality of this situation that the Civil Service unions have seen the example of the Forestry Commission, which uprooted itself from Basingstoke to go to headquarters in Edinburgh and now, faced with a demand that the Scottish forests be the responsibility of a Scottish Assembly, has to find other headquarters for those responsible for the English forests? If they pick up The Scotsman newspaper these days, is it any small wonder that the unions are extremely reluctant to move to a part of Britain which they may think may be separate in a few years' time?

As my hon. Friend will guess, I do not think that I can involve myself in the question of Scottish forests, which is the issue he raises. However, in so far as he makes a very serious reference to the experience of Civil Service staffs, I can only repeat that consideration of devolution will not affect the Government's plans for dispersal.

Does the Minister accept that many of us on the SNP Bench often believe that Cabinet Ministers cannot see the wood for the trees? Beyond that, however, will he accept that many people in my constituency are gravely concerned about the dispersal of defence jobs in view of the fact that the nature and the types of jobs being brought to the area have not been disclosed and discussed with the local community?

I am not sure whether the hon. Lady wants or does not want defence jobs. I can only repeat that a decision has been made by the Government and we propose to honour it.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is very serious concern in my constituency about the possibility of transferring thousands of Quality Assurance jobs from Woolwich to Glasgow? As this would involve the expenditure of millions of pounds and add seriously to the many employment problems in South-East London, and as many of the key professional and technical staff involved have already indicated their unwillingness to move to Glasgow would not this impair the whole operation?

I am aware that there are some issues upon which the Government cannot win. My hon. Friend has been very forthcoming in rightly drawing my attention to the problems which would arise for his constituents were a decision made which would affect them. But the Government's intentions on dispersal, very carefully considered and announced last year, cannot be carried out unless some of those who have previously found jobs in the south of the United Kingdom find jobs in future in development areas and areas of high unemployment.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to complete his inquiries into the circumstances in which Private Davidson, a soldier from Fife, met his death several months ago.

I have now completed my inquiries and I shall be writing to my hon. Friend.

That answer is acceptable so far as it goes, but is my hon. Friend aware that it is highly unsatisfactory that the parents of this dead boy should have had to suffer such anxiety for several months, despite my repeated representations to him, personally, in this House and in correspondence? Can my hon. Friend assure me that his reply will contain adequate reasons for this inordinate delay?

I give my hon. Friend that assurance. I am sorry that it has taken so long to give him a full report on the situation, but he must understand that following the manslaughter trial there was an appeal, and we could not do anything until that had been concluded. It was also necessary to examine fully the evidence, given at the trial, concerning Private Davidson's unfortunate death.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his visit to Iran.

I visited Iran two weeks ago at the invitation of the Iranian Minister of War. During the visit I had discussions with the Shah, the Iranian Prime Minister and other Ministers and Service chiefs, on a wide range of subjects of mutual interest. I also met British Service personnel who help train the Iranian armed forces.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that he was able to give the Iranian Government a promise of the British Government's full co-operation with Iran in its desire to equip itself against possible aggression? Specifically, will he confirm that he gave positive backing to the Vosper Thorneycroft Harrier-carrier project, in which the Iranian Government is interested? Will he also confirm that there is no understanding with the American Government which might inhibit Vickers from competing for the Iranian submarine order, with the result that the business might land in the lap of the French, instead? The importance of this, politically and industrially, in terms of defence sales in Iran and elsewhere, is such that many people believe that the confidentiality which has applied hitherto is no longer applicable.

I am not prepared to break the confidentiality that exists between the Government, our defence sales organisation, and the overseas customers with whom we make defence contracts. It is at their request that confidentiality remains. I discussed equipment matters with the Shah of Iran and his Chiefs of Defence Staffs. They are expressing an interest—I put it no higher than that—in the Harrier-carrier.

Did my right hon. Friend discuss the deplorable use of Iranian troops, together with British troops, to suppress a genuine national liberation movement in Oman? Did he make any representations or have discussions about the necessity to withdraw these troops and allow the people of Oman to decide their affairs for themselves?

We are members of CENTO, and so is Iran. We have a responsibility to maintain stability in the Gulf. Iran, Jordan and ourselves are playing a part in the Dhofar, with a view to stemming the rebels crossing the South Yemen frontier to cause disruptions in the Gulf.

Did the right hon. Gentleman give the Iranian Government any indication whether there would be further cuts in British defence expenditure? If not, will he give us such an indication?

I did not give such an indication there; neither can I give it here. That exercise is not far enough down the road for me to give the House any information.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied with the progress being made towards greater standardisation of weapons systems within NATO.

I think everyone appreciates that progress will be gradual but alliance members fully understand the need to advance through stronger cooperation within Europe and via the "two-way street" with North America. At a very successful Eurogroup meeting in The Hague on 5th November it was decided to explore further the potential for extending European co-operation between all European members of the alliance. I have arranged for a copy of The Hague communiqué to be placed in the Library.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that while it is highly desirable that the new secretariat should be set up and be seen to be working efficiently, that of itself will not provide reciprocal benefits to our defence industries unless they can be sustained by a high level of research and development? Has the time not come for the Government to reverse their policy of seeking to cut such expenditure?

The Eurogroup meeting which discussed how best to traverse the path of sharing research and development within European countries agreed in principle to the establishment of a European defence procurement secretariat. At our next meeting, on 8th December, we hope to be able to flesh out that proposal.

In view of widespread Press reports, will my right hon. Friend tell us whether he has been considering the British commitment to the development and purchase of MRCA, with a view to reducing either?

I cannot oblige my hon. Friend at this stage. As far as I am concerned, the MRCA is firmly in our programme. We have indicated how many we want, but have not yet decided on the production figures That decision will not be necessary until early next year, when we come to an agreement with our co-operative partners.

As Labour Governments cancelled the TSR2, the F111A and the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft, and as the MRCA is a prime example of co-operation between NATO allies, is the right hon. Gentleman saying that it is not yet firm in the minds of the Government? If so, the sooner he is an ex-Defence Minister, the better.

The hon. Member could not have listened to my supplementary answer. As far as the Government are concerned, the MRCA is going ahead, but we cannot yet agree on production figures. It is not yet time to do so. That will be decided in the early part of next year, with our co-operative partners.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the operation of this secretariat there is a danger that if there is standardisation in the production of certain weapons they will be manufactured principally in German plants? Will my right hon. Friend take account of the need to protect this country against any substantial loss of employment in this matter?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I keep this problem in mind when discussing these matters with my Eurogroup colleagues.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will appoint a committee to review the working of the Crown Proceedings Act as it affects Service men injured on duty.

Not unless there is a case for doing so, of which I am at present unaware.

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that there is a case for ascertaining whether his Department is properly using an Act which was designed to uphold Service discipline, by preventing Service men making claims in respect of negligence by the Department?

I am aware of my hon. Friend's deep concern with the problems involving one of his constituents, and of the manner in which he has pursued this case with great tenacity. Though, at his request, I am prepared to consider the matter, the question has been examined many times and no satisfactory solution has been found to the problem as my hon. Friend sees it.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make a decision about the future of the naval stores depot at Bandeath.

A decision will follow a detailed assessment of all the implications, taking account of the views of the staff and trade union sides. This is likely to take several months.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a week ago today I attended a meeting of trade union representatives at Bandeath, at which a resolution was unanimously passed rejecting the ill-thought-out closure proposals presented by the so-called specialists? In view of the fact that about 170 jobs are at stake in an area where male unemployment is at least 7 per cent., will my hon. Friend give an assurance that careful consideration will be given to every alternative proposal for the continued use of Ban-death, especially as it has the advantage of being centrally situated and is easily accessible by road, rail and sea.

The closure of Bandeath is one of a series of proposals by management consultants which the Ministry of Defence has yet to assess. In assessing them the views of trade unionists will be taken fully into account. The consultants consider that the depot is unsuited to its task, in terms of buildings, acreage and distance from Rosyth. My hon. Friend will appreciate that it is impossible to implement the defence review and its consequences without adjustments to support services which involve manpower.

Does the Minister agree that it is a healthy sign that the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) is now, at last, taking an interest in defence matters, that he is pressing for defence establishments to be kept open, and that he is concerned, on behalf of his constituents, about the effects, on unemployment, of the defence cuts already announced? Will the Minister tell him that he had better await those cuts still to come?

I assure the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) that I always take most seriously my hon. Friend's views—both past and present—on defence.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the suitability of current exercises in the BAOR.

Yes, Sir.

Did these exercises include a test of the capability of reinforcement, from the United Kingdom, of the British Army of the Rhine? Did they also take into account the possibility of reinforcing troops in Northern Ireland from BAOR?

We have just completed a very successful exercise of calling up 10,000 TAVR personnel in a joint exercise with the Regular Army. It has been extremely successful. Although the position of Northern Ireland does not arise out of this Question, I can say that we have reduced the troops there to 13 units, rotation is satisfactory, and we can deploy more if necessary.

Have any exercises been conducted to test the removal of the brigade level of command both in respect of the efficiency of our own forces and the effect on co-operation with our allies?

On restructuring trials, not yet, but some are planned.

Following the Helsinki accord there was an agreement that each side would notify the other of major manœuvres. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that this part of the accord was honoured, and will he say whether the Russians have notified him of any manœuvres that they intend to take in the next few months?

There is a later Question on this specific matter. I hope to deal with it more fully then.

Why was no use made of the opportunity of this autumn's exercises to test the command structure that will be applied when the brigade group is abolished? Is it not a matter of grave importance that this should be fully evaluated in time for the Defence White Paper and that the suitability of current wireless equipment to the new structure should be looked at now, and not in a year or two?

The opportunity was not taken, because it has been necessary to overcome some of the problems which are worrying BAOR commanders on some of the major trials and exercises that we should be having. Those are now being overcome, and restructuring trials will take place in due course.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what part the Army is playing in the "Save It" campaign.

During 1974–75 the Army more than achieved its objective in the United Kingdom of reducing 1972–73 levels of consumption by 10 per cent. in the case of liquid fuels and by 6 per cent. in the case of other forms of energy. The Army also expects to achieve these objectives during the current year. Substantial savings are also being achieved overseas.

I welcomed that statement about the Army. What is the position with regard to the other branches of the Armed Services?

The other two Armed Services have also met their targets, so that the total overall saving is considerable.

Is the Minister sure that in making these savings he is not impairing the efficiency of the Armed Forces?

We are satisfied that the present level of savings can be achieved without unacceptable operational detriment.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what provision is made for housing members of Her Majesty's Forces on leaving the Services; and whether he considers the provision to be satisfactory.

In addition to providing advice on housing matters, the Services operate schemes which are designed to help men and women nearing the end of their service to purchase a house for their retirement. As for renting, we have recently once again drawn the attention of local authorities to the special difficulties of ex-Service men. These arrangements are not ideal, but I think are the best attainable in present circumstances.

Far from not being ideal, the arrangements are quite inadequate. Does the Minister accept that there is considerable hardship among a large number of Service men leaving the forces, particularly those with short service? Will he initiate discussions with the local authority associations and his right hon. Friends at the Department of the Environment, with a view to creating a special list system or some other proposals along the lines indicated in the Shelter publication on tied housing?

I agree that there is hardship, and I very much regret it. It was for that precise reason that a circular was sent to local authorities earlier this year. I am certainly willing to discuss the matter further with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, but I must make it clear that under the present statutes there are limits to what the Government can tell local authorities to do, in terms of the disposal of local authority housing assets.

The Minister has not given a satisfactory reply. Is he aware that one of the things troubling Service men is the protection given to tenants of furnished lettings, which means that Service men coming out of the forces cannot get back their own homes when they need them most?

I think that the hon. Member is misinformed about the provisions of the Act. I have investigated this question when cases have been drawn to my attention. If the hon. Member has a particular case in mind I shall be happy to look into it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have had the utmost cooperation from the Labour-controlled councils in Yorkshire over the rehousing of ex-Service men?

I am grateful for what my hon. Friend the Member for Hems-worth (Mr. Woodall) said. Many local authorities are co-operative, but a minority are not. I hope that every hon. Member who has influence locally will take note of what has been said today and try to make local authorities more flexible in dealing with a real social issue.

The arrangements are inadequate in circumstances in which, as occasionally happens, a marriage breaks up when a family is serving overseas and is living in married quarters. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in those circumstances it is often very difficult for the wife and children to be found accommodation anywhere, and the military authorities seem most unwilling to help in any way? Will the right hon. Gentleman please look into that point?

I shall be happy to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilian apprentices are currently serving in RN dockyards.

3,096, Sir.

I appreciate the quality of training which is afforded to civilian apprentices, but can my hon. Friend say whether the formula recently adopted for giving financial aid to encourage training in the private sector is adopted in respect of civilian apprentices in Royal Navy dockyards? Will my hon. Friend pay particular attention to this point, since it would help to improve recruitment in the dockyards?

That question is primarily for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The present entry of apprentices to dockyards is fully taken up. There is no capacity either in the apprentice training centres or in the ships and shops where more than half the apprenticeships have to be served. There is little scope at present for training additional young people, but we shall always act sympathetically in terms of our responsibilities in this area.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the future of the Nimrod aircraft.

The Nimrod is an excellent long-range maritime patrol aircraft, which we plan to improve still further to maintain its effectiveness into the 1990s.

Is the Nimrod's existence in any way jeopardised by the fact that it has a Boeing rival?

:I think that my hon. Friend was referring to a decision which the Government may in due course have to take between what is known as the Boeing AWACS system and the Nimrod alternative. I cannot anticipate the decision, and I cannot say when we might have to take it, but with current pressures on the defence budget the cost of the alternatives will have to be taken fully into account.

Bearing in mind that there are at least six Nimrod aircraft surplus to the requirements of the Royal Air Force, will the Minister recall Air Commodore Scrimgeour from NATO, where he is chairman of the committee examining the future NATO airborne early warning requirement, and tell him that it is about time his committee looked at the British Nimrod as well as its American rival?

:I think that there is no doubt in the minds of those principally involved in NATO that there is a Nimrod alternative, and we are very anxious that it should be fully considered.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are anxiously looking for concrete evidence that there will be a two-way street in defence procurement? Will he bring home to our friends in other countries that when we have bought expensive equipment from them we expect them to give a fair chance to British equipment, which in many respects is better?

On this matter there is nothing between the hon. Gentleman and the Government. The hon. Gentleman's point of view has been forcefully expressed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on a number of important occasions.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what naval protection is being given to British trawlers fishing in the high seas off Iceland.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the arrangements to defend British fishing vessels off the coast of Iceland.

I understand that these Questions are to be answered at the end of Question Time.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the complaints sent to him by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles of low-flying aircraft over Peel Hospital.

The hon. Member will be aware from previous correspondence that Peel Hospital lies within an extensive area that is regularly used by military aircraft for low-level training, but that it is clearly laid down in the regulations that, in recognition of the special needs of Peel Hospital, no flying below 2,000 feet should take place within one nautical mile of the hospital. I have called for an investigation into the most recent complaints and I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as the results are available.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that what concerns me is that after he extended the protected area in response to complaints back in February there were subsequent complaints in April, when he wrote to me saying that the new instructions had not yet percolated through? We are now in November, and there have been further complaints. Surely the instruction should have percolated through by this time? I shall be grateful if the Minister will look into the matter thoroughly, and I look forward to hearing his explanation why the instructions do not seem to reach the people flying the aeroplanes.

The hon. Gentleman is making an assumption about the results of the investigation which is not justified at this stage. Of the complaints in April, one was about an incident that came about because the instructions had not yet percolated through. The other aircraft were revealed, on investigation, to have been conforming to the regulations, but because of climatic difficulties, or because of the surrounding countryside, the sound was magnified so as to make the aircraft appear to be breaking regulations when they were not.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the correspondence that I have had from him about low-flying aircraft in the south of Scotland. Does he agree that there is still a great deal of unhappiness about the frequency of low flying, which I accept must be undertaken by the Royal Air Force to some extent? Will he reconsider the matter before the spring, when low flying affects farming, and particularly lambing?

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised if I tell him that the matter is under almost constant review because of his own and other hon. Members' representations. As he realises, we have to fly low, and low flying must be done where it will cause minimum disruption to people's lives. That means that it must be done in the more rural areas. Within that restriction, we try to share it out as fairly as possible. There is no evidence that Scotland is having an undue share of low flying.

In view of the distress caused throughout the Carmarthen constituency by low-flying aircraft, will the Minister press for the rerouting of the exercise "Advent Express?" Perhaps the people of Pontypridd would enjoy a visit.

I am very interested in the hon. Gentleman's prescription for low flying, which is that it should be directed over urban areas. If that is what his party is saying, I am sure that the people of Pontypridd and industrial South Wales will welcome that news!

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what procedures are followed before permission is given for low flying by RAF aircraft over land areas where the agricultural industry may suffer adverse effects from such activities.

We carry out only the minimum amount of low-level training which is essential for operational reasons. In order to affect the least number of people by such flying, we aim to distribute this training evenly over the most sparsely populated areas. When major low-flying exercises are being planned we inform the National Farmers' Union in advance, so that it has an opportunity to make representations and give advance warning to its members. Claims for compensation from farmers, which tend to be relatively few in number, are dealt with sympathetically.

Is the Minister aware that even in rural areas with relatively sparse populations the damage inflicted may be infinitely greater, in terms of the disruption of agriculture and other activities, than in some urban areas? Will he accept that the people of Caernarvon, Merioneth and Carmarthen will see a remarkable correlation in any development of low-flying aircraft?

This is a matter of such burning importance to the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) that he has waited until today to raise the matter with me either in letter or Question form. The fact is that we accept that low flying cannot take place without some disruption to the local communities. We hope to minimise this activity, and particularly its effects on agriculture. The hon. Gentleman referred to the people of Merioneth. I hope that he will have a word with his hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) and his neighbour in the north about the benefits conferred on local economies by the presence of one or more of the Services.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the extent to which the obligation on all signatories of the documents signed following the CSCE to report all manœuvres involving over 25,000 men within 155 miles of another country has been implemented in the United Kingdom.

The United Kingdom has not carried out a major military manœuvre, involving over 25,000 troops which is notifiable under the terms of the CSCE Final Act. As I made clear to the House on 31st October, the United Kingdom gave prior notification of the participation of 6,000–7,000 British troops in Exercise "Deep Express", in accordance with that part of the CSCE Final Act which allows States discretion to notify military manœuvres involving fewer than 25,000 men.

The House will welcome the fact that the United Kingdom and NATO as a whole are fulfilling their obligations, including their voluntary obligations, under the Helsinki agreements. Has any notification of manœuvres—voluntary or obligatory notification—been received from the Warsaw Pact forces? Does the right hon. Gentleman have any evidence that Warsaw Pact forces have carried out notifiable manœuvres without notifying them? What consideration is NATO giving to what it will do if the Soviet Union continues flagrantly and consistently to breach the obligations about notification of manœuvres?

NATO has given prior notification of seven military manœuvres, three of them involving more than 25,000 men. West Germany also invited observers to one of its exercises. The Warsaw Pact has not notified us of any manœuvres to date, but we are not aware that it has carried out any military manœuvres involving more than 25,000 men.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the obligation concerning manœuvres was one of the most valuable outcomes of Helsinki? Is it not helping to prevent a false and even a fatal conclusion being made by a military commander on either side about the intentions of military manœuvres by the other?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I must inform him that it is all voluntary and not mandatory. He will therefore appreciate, from my first supplementary reply, that we have been affording the Warsaw Pact Powers a great deal of information about our military manœuvres. They have not yet informed us of any of theirs. Certainly it will be to the advantage of NATO and the Warsaw Pact if both sides honour the CSCE agreement. I am hopeful that the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union will do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for using air trooping facilities through Sri Lanka.

The future air trooping routes to Hong Kong are still under consideration. A Ministry of Defence team leaves tomorrow to study possible staging points, and Sri Lanka is one of the countries that it will be visiting. We have already had preliminary discussions with the Sri Lankan authorities.

Are the Government satisfied that if arrangements are made for air trooping facilities through Sri Lanka or other countries in the area we shall still be able to continue to use those facilities in the event of a disagreement on policy between the British Government and the Government concerned—for example, about the demilitarisation of the Indian Ocean?

As only preliminary discussions have so far taken place, and as the defence team is leaving tomorrow, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that, amongst other things, is what we are trying to find out, in order to come to an agreement that is acceptable to both Governments.

Is the Minister aware that, on the information at present available to the House and subject to what the delegation reports, staging troops through Sri Lanka does not seem so very much cheaper than maintaining existing facilities at Gan? There must be a difference between the security of a route firmly under our control and one that is not under our control. What steps has the Minister taken to ensure that, if we should commit what I would regard as the folly of withdrawing from Gan altogether, the staging posts and anchorage facilities will not be taken over by an unfriendly Power?

We believe that the frequency of flights using Sri Lanka would be relatively low. Sri Lanka will be required for the replenishment and rotation of the reduced Hong Kong garrison. On preliminary findings, we are satisfied that the retention of Gan is not justified by the continuation of that task, but we are going into these matters in more detail, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will await the conclusion of the talks.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect of the proposed nationalisation of the aircraft and shipbuilding industries on defence exports.

In contributing towards the long-term viability of the aircraft industry and in helping British shipbuilding to prosper in the competitive markets of the world, nationalisation should be good for exports.

Does the Minister agree that among the list of aircraft and shipbuilding companies to be nationalised are included many defence production specialist companies whose export records are among the best in the entire spectrum of British industry? Can the Minister give a single tangible piece of evidence to suggest that nationalisation will increase the export prospects of those companies when, on all the historical evidence of nationalisation, exports are likely to suffer as a result?

I do not wish to cast doubt on the performance of a number of firms, and, indeed, I should be happy to pay them credit where credit is due. But the hon. Gentleman is not totally in touch with the state and prospects of either the aircraft or shipbuilding industry if he believes that we do not have to think hard again about its organisation. For that reason we shall shortly bring in a Bill providing for the nationalisation of those industries, and it will be given a Second Reading.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in view of the confusion caused by having 125 different shipyards, and the lack of co-ordination between BAC and Hawker Siddeley, nearly all responsible senior officers of the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy look forward to nationalisation with considerable relief?

It would be wrong of me to comment on my hon. Friend's remarks, but if I had been in his position I should have said precisely the same thing.

Why does the Minister talk about the long-term viability of the aircraft industry when the aircraft industry is viable now?

I can only say that that is not the view of management or trade unions, as expressed to my right hon. Friends and me.

Will my hon. Friend give some estimate of the way in which these very profitable concerns in shipbuilding, ship repairing and in the aircraft industry have managed to take so many hundreds of millions of pounds worth of charity from every Government in power since 1945?

I am tempted to respond to my right hon. Friend's helpful remarks, but his question will be better dealt with in the Second Reading debate. No doubt it will be answered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on security operations in Northern Ireland, with particular reference to South Armagh.

As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Northern Ireland told the House yesterday, Army operations continue throughout Northern Ireland, supporting the police in the task of combating violence and terrorism. Extra security measures are in force in South Armagh following recent terrorist incidents and, in particular, the killing of three young soldiers, and the wounding of a fourth, on Saturday. I know that the House will join me in condemning these outrages in the strongest possible terms; in expressing our admiration of the outstanding courage of these soldiers; and in conveying our deepest sympathy to their families and friends. The Security Forces will make every effort possible to bring to justice those responsible for these despicable outrages.

I join the Minister in his expression of sympathy and admiration, but may I ask what progress has been made in gaining from the Eire Army the same good co-operation as exists between the RUC and the Garda? If that co-operation is not given, will our troops be authorised to fire on terrorists and hotly to pursue terrorists across the border, as they are fully entitled to do under international law?

I must emphasise, as did my right hon. Friend the Minister of State yesterday, that we are receiving excellent co-operation from the security forces of the Republic. I do not want to go any further than that, because it would be foolish to imperil the type of cooperation that we are now receiving.