asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he remains satisfied that the strength of the Royal Navy will be adequate for the discharge of Great Britain's defence responsibilities during the next few years.

Yes Sir.

On the morrow of the closure of HMS "Ganges", in which a number of us did our initial training, is not the Minister worried that the total manpower and womanpower of the Royal Navy—about 68,000—is now at it lowest level since the latter part of the nineteenth century? Is the Minister satisfied that that is adequate for Britain to fulfil her responsibility in the face of the growing Soviet naval threat, particularly in submarines?

It is 100 years since we had a comparable figure but no meaningful comparisons can be made between the capabilities of the Navy 100 years ago and today. We do not settle for that. Measures are in hand to improve the Navy's capabilities with the introduction of new ships and equipment to keep pace with improvements in the Warsaw Pact's wartime capabilities.

Will my hon. Friend resist pressures, from whatever source, and ensure that there is no further reduction in the naval shipbuilding programme?

So far as it rests with me. I shall certainly do that.

Will the Minister assure the House that he is fully aware of the implications of the new exclusive economic zone and the patrolling problems that will result for the Royal Navy? Will they not require additional vessels?

Yes. That has been put in hand. The House debated the issue only a few hours ago, and I can tell hon. Members that a new Island class of 12 ships is in hand. The first was laid down earlier this year and it is intended that all will be completed within two years and be in operation very soon afterwards.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the outcome of the inquiry into recent crashes of low flying training aircraft near Caernarvon and elsewhere on the West Wales coastline; and if he will take steps to reduce the frequency of low-flying training over Gwynedd and Dyfed.

The boards of inquiry have not yet completed their work, but there is no basis, as revealed by their interim findings, on which to justify any reduction in low-flying training.

While expressing sympathy for the families of those who were involved in these accidents, may I ask the Minister to accept that for every flight that ends in disaster there are thousands that cause distress and fear to the inhabitants in the area over which the flights take place? Is he aware that the week before last there was nearly a serious accident in Gwynedd, when a low-flying aircraft came face to face with a car on the brow of a hill? Will he examine the possibility of changing the routes of such flights so that the same communities do not always bear the brunt of them?

I join with the hon. Gentleman in sympathising with the families of those gallant young men. No one enjoys low flying. The RAF tries to avoid the more densely populated areas and distributes low flying activities throughout the United Kingdom. On the question of the rate of accidents. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not like to cause undue worry in that respect. The Gnat trainers have suffered only two accidents from low flying in the last 10 years and the Hunter has experienced only 10 accidents in 22 years.

Does the Minister agree that it is a good thing for the Welsh Nationalists that it is the RAF which has been flying low over their area and not the Soviet air force?

It is a good thing for the United Kingdom that it is the RAF that flies over our territory. I emphasise that low-flying must remain an essential part of the training requirement if the RAF is to retain its operational capacity.

Does my hon. Friend not agree that although the RAF may make attempts to distribute low-flying operations, the proportion of low flying over populated areas is still too great? Does he agree that more use could be made of virtually unpopulated areas for that type of training? Will he seriously investigate that, and do something about it?

Since taking office I have given particular attention to low flying, because I am aware of the great distress that it can cause to local communities. So far as it is operationally possible, I am satisfied that the RAF takes great care to avoid densely populated areas. The difficulty is that there are insufficient areas of low population density to meet our requirements.

Will the Minister inform the local people precisely when the flights will take place, so that they can brace themselves to put up with them?

Whenever possible the RAF attempts to maintain prior communication with local communities and to keep hon. Members and the public fully informed. I am holding a public relations conference in and around Wales fairly shortly, which I hope will result in my being able to give further reassurance on this matter to the people of Wales.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will conduct a survey to estimate the under-use of training facilities in his Department.

In so far as we have spare capacity for training, we are already aware of vacancies where they exist and keep the industrial boards informed.

Would it be possible to divert some defence resources towards the creation of jobs in manufacturing and other industries by handing over to the Training Services Agency any under-used facilities for training civilian apprentices, for example, so that young school leavers may have enhanced employment opportunities of getting jobs in industry? Would not that help the country's unemployment and industrial problems and prevent a massive waste of public money and resources?

I entirely share my hon. Friend's concern. We have offered over 200 training places for apprenticeships, and I hope that they will be taken up.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement about the operations and rôle of the Armed Forces of the Crown in Northern Ireland.

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

The Army continues to assist the Royal Ulster Constabulary throughout Northern Ireland at levels appropriate to the operational needs in each area. In response to recent upsurges of sectarian violence, particularly in certain areas of Belfast, extra troops were moved in from reserves in the Province. The security forces were therefore able to step up the level of patrolling and checking, and prevent a worsening of the situation. We intend to maintain the ability to respond flexibly in this way to meet the changing demands of the situation.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we appreciated his presence during yesterday's debate on Northern Ireland security? Having heard it, does he not think that when the Opposition make constructive suggestions for closer co-ordination between the Army and other security forces and for closer border co-operation those suggestions should be carefully considered, instead of being turned down out of hand? Will he do just that, in the interests of the Armed Forces and bringing to an end the troubles in Northern Ireland?

The hon. Gentleman does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland less than credit in saying that he brusquely rejected the Opposition's suggestions. He gave careful consideration to all that the Opposition said. I reiterate that we now have on the border a high level of co-operation with the Irish authorities.

Is my hon. Friend aware that during a recent visit to study the work of the security forces in Northern Ireland my colleagues and I were impressed by the work done by the security forces in such difficult conditions, and by the degree of support that we found for the policy of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, following the abandonment of detention and the restoration of the courts and the normal rule of law and order? We found support both for the Army and for the present degree of co-operation with the authorities across the border.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The forces in Northern Ireland are always pleased to welcome hon. Members, and were delighted by the visit of the Parliamentary Labour Party Defence Group.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there have been almost exactly 5,000 bomb explosions in Northern Ireland since the emergency began? Will the Minister give special recognition to the members of the Bomb Squad—who have borne the brunt of this campaign—for their skill and courage? If a special allowance is not thought appropriate, will the Minister consider the award of a special clasp to the Northern Ireland Medal?

The hon. Gentleman will not expect an answer directly to that supplementary question, but I shall certainly consider what he said.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there have been reports that the power and range of weaponry available to our troops in Northern Ireland have not been comparable with the power and range of weaponry available to the IRA? Will he take steps to ensure that there is comparability of weapons?

I reiterate what I said in the Army debate on 6th May. The General Officer Commanding, Northern Ireland, is satisfied with the weapons he has. The Army in Northern Ireland has a wide range of weapons, which can easily match the range of any weapon that a terrorist possesses. Every effort will be made to continue to improve the weapons available.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he plans to have an early meeting with his counterpart, the French Minister of Defence.

My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to do so.

When the Minister's right hon. Friend has a chance to meet M. Bourges, will he bear in mind that the French Government recently put forward a plan to double their defence expenditure over the next six years, raising it from 17 per cent. to 20 per cent. of the total national budget? Will the Secretary of State contrast that with the irresponsible proposals made by his hon. Friends below the Gangway to make further cuts in defence expenditure of up to £1,000 million?

Most comparisons are invidious. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make that comparison, I remind him that France spends less of her GNP on defence than does Britain. It is, therefore, arguable that there is more room for the French to increase their defence expenditure than there can be in this country. What we have to decide is how much we have to spend to provide adequate defence—no more and no less than that.

Has it not always been Labour policy that there should be no joint Anglo-French nuclear force while France remained outside NATO, as this would inevitably lead to a German finger on the nuclear button? Will the Minister give an undertaking that even if France rejoins NATO there will be no reversal of that policy?

I can certainly tell my hon. Friend that no consideration has been given to the idea of an Anglo-French nuclear force.

How does the Minister of State characterise the recent pronouncement by the French President on France's attitude towards NATO?

As typically French.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the recent contract with British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. to supply tritium.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the recent contract with BNFL to supply tritium.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the contract with British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. to supply tritium.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the recent contract with British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. to supply tritium.

I have nothing to add to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave on 29th April to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley).

Since it would take something like 50 years to be able to use tritium for peaceful energy purposes, does the Minister agree that the Government's intentions in this respect only raises the doubt whether they are now pursuing a policy of an independent nuclear force for Britain?

Whether it raises that doubt is a question for my hon. Friend and not for me. I can only say that that is not the case at all. It is entirely a matter of cost and convenience that we have decided to produce tritium for ourselves

A number of hon. Members will find it mystifying that the Government should have taken this decision on tritium when we have been getting it from the United States for 18 years. Since this will provide only about 50 jobs, does the Minister not consider that the money could be better spent in finding and providing jobs in manufacturing industry, instead of using it in this way?

I am sorry that my hon. Friend and others are mystified. I confess that I am particularly mystified by her approach, considering that there has been no change of policy on nuclear weapons, which has been made clear on many occasions. On the question of cost, and in respect of the 50 jobs, I support the decision, particularly when the jobs will come in a development area.

Is the Minister aware that these jobs are placed in development areas, so that they will be welcomed, although in fact, they ought to be looked at much more critically from the point of view of health and environment?

The hon. Gentleman, who has a special interest in this matter, ought to be satisfied on health and environment grounds. I do not think that there is anything to fear in this respect and I think that 50 jobs, even though the number is small, is better than no jobs at all.

Does the Minister recall the manifesto commitment, that Labour believes that government should be more open to the public? In view of this, will he provide more details about the contract with British Nuclear Fuels in regard to cost? Is it because the cost is so enormous that, with the potential of several thousand teachers unemployed because we refuse to reduce classes to 30, it will be looked upon as a mistaken decision? How does my right hon. Friend answer the growing concern among the trade union and Labour movements that Ministers seem, by evasion, to be acting as public relations officers to the brasshats in the Department?

I wish that my hon. Friend would show more generosity. The matter is entirely straightforward. The facts have been given to the House by my right hon. Friend, and I have tried to confirm them today. I do not believe that there is any mystery or doubt. It is a simple decision and is entirely justified.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what information has been given to NATO military authorities by the Warsaw Pact Powers and vice versa over the past year in connection with the notification of military manoeuvres in terms of the Helsinki Agreement.

Since the signing of the Helsinki Final Act on 1st August 1975, the NATO countries have notified eight manoeuvres and the Warsaw Pact countries have notified three manoeuvres, including two by the Soviet Union.

Does the Minister of State agree that while there has been some progress in this important but difficult area, there must nevertheless be continuing concern at the rapid expansion of the Soviet armed forces? What can be done to close the rapidly expanding gap between what is available to the Warsaw Pact Powers, in the way of men and material, and what is available to us?

I agree absolutely with what the hon. Gentleman said about progress. We should be satisfied that, whatever shortcomings there may have been in the Helsinki Agreement, this part of it seems to be working reasonably well. As to the second part of the question, the answer lies in the continuing preparedness of NATO and in the progress of the MBFR talks in Vienna.

I welcome the exchanges that have taken place in this regard, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that they did not involve the exchange of any real secrets, or information that could not have been obtained by any other means? His Department may be far more concerned about the possible one-way leakage of genuine secrets from NATO if Italian Communists get into the Italian Government. Will he confirm that his Department is engaged in consultations with other NATO partners on this matter?

My hon. Friend has asked a lot of perhaps loosely related questions. I agree that the Helsinki Agreement does not involve an exchange of what might be termed secrets, and we would not expect that to be the case. Nevertheless, it is a useful way of monitoring the activities of the Warsaw Pact and, in return, of NATO.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to visit the sovereign base areas of Cyprus.

My right hon. Friend has no plans to visit Cyprus.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in the sovereign base areas the Ministry of Defence is in the position of being in charge of both civil and military affairs? Will he confirm that it is no part of British policy to try to expel, in advance of a settlement, the refugees who are at present in the sovereign base areas?

I recognise my hon. Friend's keen interest in the subject, but the questions that he has posed would be more appropriately addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs than to me.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if his permission was obtained for the recent public speeches by Air Chief Marshal Sir Andrew Humphrey, at Eastbourne, and by Air Chief Marshal Sir Dennis Smallwood in a BBC interview; and if it remains the policy of his Department that serving officers and senior civil servants should not make public statements on politically sensitive issues.

The rules for obtaining clearance for public statements, and the policy on discussion of politically controversial issues, remain unchanged; and both were observed on both occasions.

But is not the size of our arms bill not only a military but a hot economic and political issue, and is not this the breach of a valuable safeguard against military interference with our democracy? Will the Minister ask his brasshats to keep their mouths shut in public, whatever they may say privately to him?

I assure my hon. Friend that the speech by the Chief of the Air Staff was seen by me and approved by me before it was delivered. The briefing prepared for Sir Dennis Smallwood was also seen by me and approved by me before he gave that broadcast. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that if we are to have an informed debate on defence the more information that is available the better it is, provided that that information is made available by people in the Ministry of Defence or the Armed Forces who act in accordance with the rules. I am satisfied that on both occasions they did so.

I thoroughly agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said, but will he try to straighten out the disagreement among the members of the Tribune Group about open government, which we heard this afternoon?

I think that my hon. Friends in the Tribune Group, like all my hon. Friends in the Labour Party, are deeply concerned about the full process of democracy in this country. I believe that any genuine, unbiased reading of the statement that has been made by the national executive committee in respect of Labour's programme for 1976 would lead the reader to the conclusion that it is a genuine and proper discussion document for future policies, which may or may not be implemented by a future Labour Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet the NATO Defence Ministers.

My right hon. Friend attended the Eurogroup and Defence Planning Committee ministerial meetings last week, and is in Brussels today for the Nuclear Planning Group. Inevitably he regrets his absence from the House at question time.

Will the Minister of State confirm that the NATO military programme—which I understand was agreed by the meeting of Ministers last week, to which he has just referred—foresees that up to 1982 the member countries will continue to spend about the same percentage of their gross national product on defence as now? Will he confirm that the Government accept that policy?

I remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that we ought to await the communiqué, which, following the usual convention, will be published at the end of this round of NATO meetings; but I have no immediate reason to dissent from the views that the hon. Member expresses.

Have the Opposition agreed to pair the Secretary of State to enable him to go to this very important meeting?

The circumstances were such that the importance of the meeting necessitated my right hon. Friend's attendance, whatever the cost might have been.

We understand the reason for the Secretary of State's absence—of which he gave me notice—but in view of the obvious need to strengthen the southern flank of NATO, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that as Spain moves away from the Franco régime the British Government will not oppose Spain's joining NATO?

I cannot give that undertaking at the present time, although I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take the opportunity to report to the House on his return.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied adequate forces are available for the protection of North Sea oil rigs.

Yes, Sir.

Will the Minister confirm that the Royal Navy has at present overall responsibility for protecting the North Sea oil rigs against sabotage and attack?

Yes, Sir.

Is the Minister in a position to answer a question I asked him at about 4.15 this morning, when I suggested that there should be smaller but cheaper fast frigates available, which can be purchased at a cost less than the £40 million currently spent on frigates and would enable us to have the proper answer to anything that may be thrown against us in the North Sea?

The hon. Gentleman will recall that I promised to let him have an answer, and I will see that he gets one. But I also pointed out to the House that the Island class of patrol vessels, which are already in hand—and of which I spoke earlier this afternoon in reply to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend)—are considered, in regard to their hull shape, endurance and sea-keeping qualities, to be appropriate to the task in hand. If this is discovered not to be the case, the matter that the hon. Member raises will certainly be further explored, and urgently.

Will my hon. Friend tell us whether the Navy is properly trained to distinguish between an oil rig and a ship?

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the effect of a £1,000 million cut in defence expenditure on ship construction and the number of jobs involved.

A cut of such a size would put in jeopardy the jobs of many of the 25,000 men employed in the shipyards on warship construction and of many others employed by sub-contractors. It would be a massive blow to shipbuilding in the United Kingdom, with severe consequences for the development areas.

Will the Minister note that I, too, would like him to spurn any blandishments for cuts in this area of activity, in view of the continuing unemployment in the yards at Humberside and many other estuaries in the North of England?

These are delicate matters, on which views are strongly held. It is plain that it is not possible to make massive cuts in defence without consequences on equipment, and it is not possible to make massive cuts in equipment without the loss of job opportunities.

Will the Minister say whether there has been any discussion between the NATO Allies as to what would occur if this country were to agree to cut defence by a sum of £1,000 million? Will he also say whether, in his opinion and that of his Department, it would create a greater chance of world peace if cuts were to take place?

The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is "No." There has been no such discussion, because our NATO Allies think that such a prospect is preposterous. As for my hon. Friend's second point, it must be recognised that cuts of this size, however well-intended, would so severely undermine the position of NATO that we could see a complete reversal of the situation that has existed since 1945.

Has not Japan been able to sweep the market in shipbuilding because she has devoted her research and development expenditure to civil rather than military effort?

Alas, that is not the case. I remind my hon. Friend that all the research carried out in regard to naval vessels is also available for use in civilian shipbuilding. There is an important amount of spin-off from the present naval shipbuilding programme.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the Nugent Committee's recommendations on defence have so far been carried out in full; and what percentage he intends to carry out.

Approximately 60 per cent. of the Nugent Committee's recommendations on individual sites have been carried out in full. We shall carry out the remaining recommendations, which were accepted in our statement on the Report of the Defence Lands Committee 1971–73, Cmnd. 5714, as far as possible bearing in mind the economic situation and the changing circumstances to which I drew to the attention of the House in the debate on 17th January 1975—[Vol. 884, c. 900].

I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that a figure of 60 per cent. is very disappointing, in view of the fact that the Nugent Committee was generous in its assessment to the Ministry of Defence? Does he also agree that as a result of the recent review of defence procedures, there should be further reductions in the requirements for land?

No, I do not agree that a figure of 60 per cent. in such a short time represents a poor performance. In regard to defence reviews we now propose to release the Nancecuke site, which Nugent recommended we should retain. But the concentration of defence forces in the European threatre and the need to economise in the use of overseas training areas puts even greater pressure on training areas in the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Government's reaction to SACLANT's plan for protecting allied shipping outside the NATO area.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has completed his assessment on NATO's study report concerning the protection of merchant shipping outside NATO's area of military responsibility.

My Department has provided SACLANT with its professional comments on his draft contingency plan for the protection of shipping outside the NATO area in time of war. SACLANT will be forwarding the plan to NATO headquarters for approval in due course.

Will the Minister bear in mind that contingency plans are not much use unless there are adequate communications in the exercise of those plans?

Yes, Sir.

In view of the great pressure on NATO forces in the South Atlantic and Indian Ocean, will the Minister say what measures NATO is prepared to take to protect those routes?

There is no question of extending NATO's southern boundary.

What is the Secretary of State for Defence doing to try to interest other NATO Powers in this part of the world, since the area is so vital to our defence interests?

My right hon. Friend has already taken that precise course. In other words, he has already brought this matter to the attention of our NATO Allies.