asked the Secretary of of State for Defence what is the current strength of the British contingent in the United Nations peacekeeping force in Cyprus.

About 800.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is one of the most valuable jobs that our defence forces are doing? Does he also agree that it might be useful to hold exercises with other friendly countries, such as Sweden, Canada and Finland, which have shown special interest in international peace keeping operations?

I agree with my hon. Friend's remarks about the importance of the United Nations force in Cyprus. I am not sure whether it would be practicable to have exercises in this particular kind of activity, but certainly I would consider that. I certainly endorse what my hon. Friend says about the importance of the rôle that our forces and the other national forces are playing in Cyprus.

Will the right hon. Gentleman please confirm that the two sovereign base areas are crucial to the successful administration of the United Nations peacekeeping force in Cyprus? Will he, therefore, resist the attempts of some of his hon. Friends to obtain the withdrawal of Britain from the two sovereign base areas, which are bases in a most important area of NATO?

I have told the hon. Member on previous occasions, and I repeat, that we have no intention in pre sent circumstances of changing the level of forces in Cyprus. I agree that the logistic support that we offer to the United Nations force in Cyprus is very important indeed for the operations of that force.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a further statement about the implementation of defence cuts.

I have nothing to add to what was said in the 1977 Statement on the Defence Estimates—Cmnd. 6735—and what I subsequently told the House in the defence debate on 22nd March.

That was not very much However, as it is plain that following the Prime Minister's visit to BAOR the Government have no prospect of pressing offset agreement talks with the Germans with any degree of success, will the right hon. Gentleman now give an absolute assurance that the strength of BAOR will not be cut any further?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's view that there is no prospect of a successful offset negotiation. There are Questions about that later on the Order Paper. However, I repeat the assurance that has been given many times: we have no intention of reducing the size of BAOR pending what one would hope would be a successful out come of the mutual and balanced force reduction negotiations in Vienna.

Will the Secretary of State rebut and resist Lord Chalfont's propaganda in his long and biased BBC programme and in his article in The Times asking for still more arms spending? Instead, will my right hon. Friend tell NATO chiefs that he sticks by the Labour Party commitment at the General Election to cut our defence spending to the same proportion of gross national product as that of the other European NATO allies?

I think that it would be asking too much if I had to rebut statements of all kinds by commentators in the Press, many of which are contradictory. I am afraid that my attendance at the House deprives me of the opportunity of seeing a number of television programmes. I have seen the article in question. However, I think that our position in NATO is well known, and I do not need to elaborate on it now.

No one requires the Secretary of State to rebut the comments of Lord Chalfont. What people require the Secretary of State to do is to rebut his own Left wing a bit. However, in view of the very damaging effect that next year's proposed cuts will have on our contribution to NATO, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House a little more about what consultations he intends to have with NATO before those cuts are decided upon?

I have already informed the House that it is our intention, after the conclusion of the full review that is now taking place as to the best way of making the cuts—not in our actual expenditure but in our planned higher expenditure for 1978–79—to have full consultations. There will be nearly a year in which to consult, and, of course, both NATO and the House will be informed when we reach conclusions on the reduction of £230 million in the planned expenditure for 1978–79. We have already committed ourselves to NATO to have the fullest consultations.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he has made in fulfilling his commitment, jointly made with allied Ministers at their meeting in Brussels on 7th-8th December 1976, to secure real annual increases in defence expenditure by allied Governments, as outlined in the communiqué concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to discuss with NATO Defence Ministers the implementation of his commitment to secure real annual increases in defence expenditure.

As the communiqué made clear, all members of the Alliance have undertaken to review their contributions in the context of the 1977 force planning exercise, which covers the period up to five years ahead. Any proposals for changes in our expenditure plans would have to be considered during this year's public expenditure survey.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in paragraph 9 he undertook to do much more than merely review levels of expenditure? Ministers recognise that the achievement of the objective—namely, the countering of the Warsaw Pact build-up—calls for real annual increases in defence expenditure by allied Governments and that that applies to this country. The right hon. Gentleman signed the document on behalf of the British Government and our NATO allies. Does he stand by that statement or does he repudiate it?

The communiqué was a statement of the consensus of the discussion that took place. There was no question of signing any documents. The sentence that the hon. Gentleman has chosen is in the context of a well-considered NATO view—namely, that we should be concentrating on increased expenditure on new equipment. As I have explained to the House, the percentage that we spend on new equipment compares extremely favourably with that spent by our NATO allies. In that context we are carrying out the intentions of the discussions.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, despite what he says, the fact that the Government continue cutting in the face of such undertakings can result in an undermining of the confidence of other NATO allies, an undermining of the will of the Government and their commitment to NATO, and an under mining of the whole principle of collective defence that is implicit in NATO? Is he aware that that can only encourage other Governments to do precisely the same? Does he not think that it is about time that he faced the situation?

I do not think that that is the case. I know that some Opposition Members are doing their best to undermine our position, but I do not think that they are meeting with very much success. It is well known that our existing forces are making a substantial contribution to NATO. In terms of the percentage of the gross national product that we devote to defence, our spending is in excess of that of our allies, except for two. That is well known and appreciated.

Will my right hon. Friend try to take no notice of the almost permanent panic that seems to sweep the Opposition Benches whenever they think of the Soviet Union and the Red Army? [Interruption.] Will he take note that many of my hon. Friends—[Interruption.] I ask my right hon. Friend, Mr. Speaker, to take note of the wave of feeling that immediately came over the Opposition Benches when I mentioned the Soviet Union and the Red Army. Will my right hon. Friend guard against that and relate our defence expenditure to the realities, about which he knows far more than Opposition Members? Will he refuse to allow himself to be swayed by the Chalfonts and the Opposition Members who remind me of Mr. Forrestal, who dashed out of the Waldorf Astoria screaming that the Red Army was after him?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I try to take account of points of view from all quarters of the House.

As NATO Defence Ministers frequently discuss at their meetings the so-called two-way street, will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the reported cancellation by the United States of the purchase of the British Skyflash missile in a fit of pique after his Government's reasonable decision to buy the Nimrod project for our airborne early warning requirement?

I am not aware that the United States forces had placed a contract for Skyflash. They have had some interest in Skyflash, which is a very good missile which has been developed from the United States Sparrow missile. I still hope that it will be possible for them to make a purchase, but there were no conditions and no contracts under discussion. Throughout the whole of the Nimrod-AWACS argument I refused to be involved in bargaining arrangements of that sort.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals have been made for, or discussions commenced on, a successor, in production terms, to the MRCA, including Air Staff Target 403 for a Harrier/Jaguar replacement in 1990; what approximate estimate he makes of the research and development and production costs; and if he will make a statement.

Full production of the Tornado started only last year, and it is too early to be considering its successor. Neither the Jaguar nor the Harrier will need to be replaced for some years, although feasibility studies of their replacement are being made.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the aircraft manufacturers' private circular is already discussing this project? Secondly, is it not true that the pressure from armament firms for certain weapons helps to determine the shape and size of our colossal arms spending?

I was not aware of the first point that my hon. Friend makes, but I see nothing surprising in it. As for his second point—no, I do not think so. Our spending on armaments is determined by our perception of the nature of the threat and what we need to spend to meet it.

Which fighter aircraft does the Minister think the Royal Air Force will have in its inventory in the early 1980s to ensure air superiority over the battle-front?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, in the early 1980s we shall still have in service a number of existing air craft. In addition, we shall have the ADV version of the Tornado coming along in the 1980s.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that what was said about the new equipment and the statement made by NATO in December last is absolutely untrue and is not within that environment at all? Is it not to be welcomed that we are having this new aero plane? Will it not fulfil over a long time the needs that we have of it?

I accept that by the 1990s we shall need a replacement for the Harrier and Jaguar. That is probably as far as I want to go at this stage.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will pay an official visit to RAF Binbrook.

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

If the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary goes to RAF Binbrook, or to any other Air Force station, will thought be given to the problem of payment of rent for married quarters, especially for the more junior ranks at RAF Binbrook and many other Air Force stations throughout the country? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of the junior airmen are having to claim rent rebates and cannot afford to switch on such things as night storage central heating? Does he not consider such a situation to be a disgrace?

Quartering charges are a matter that is under review. It has been under review by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, and I have no doubt that an announcement will be made shortly. The criteria used by the Review Body have been used under successive Administrations and we have not changed anything. The RAF and the Ministry of Defence are carrying out considerable improvements in respect of thermal insulation of buildings, and we hope that that will go a long way towards solving some of the heating problems to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that last year his Department behaved in a way that even the worst Rachmanite landlords would have been shy of—namely, giving a retrospective rent increase more than one month back dated? Will he give the House and the Armed Forces an assurance that that will not be repeated this year?

The Armed Forces Pay Review Body, which covers these matters, issues its report some time after 1st April. Any pay increases or quartering charges will be laid down by the report. I repudiate entirely that the Ministry of Defence, either in the Air Force Department or any other Department, acts in a scandalous way. If the hon. Gentleman really wants to do a service to the Armed Forces, perhaps he will try to act more responsibly in the way in which he conducts himself in Parliament.

While I accept that Conservative Members are not the friends of the other ranks in the forces or anywhere else, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he agrees that it might be possible to reduce the rents of houses for other ranks by trying to get rid of some of the excess housing stock which the Department holds in various parts of the country, some of which has been empty for a long time?

I do not accept that either side of the House has a monopoly of compassion and care for our Armed Forces. The Ministry is taking big steps to try to dispose of property which is surplus to our requirements.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied with the air defence provision for forward troops in BAOR; and if he will make a statement.

At present, yes, but we are devoting considerable resources to enhancing our air defence capability in the face of an increasing threat.

Can the Minister assure the House that the optimum number of Rapier fire units have been provided to give the maximum defensive capability to our BAOR troops in the defined area which has been allocated to Rapier for air defence? Will all the Army's visual fire units be converted to the Blindfire system?

I think that the answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is "Yes". I have no reason to believe that it is anything other. I think that "Yes" is also the answer to the question about conversion—I think so.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the number of hours to be flown by maritime reconnaissance aircraft on fishery protection duties.

As agreed with the Fisheries Departments, we are currently flying about 180 hours a month. I expect this level of activity to continue.

Are any limits imposed on the number of hours which may be flown on fishery protection duties by the need to conserve the airframe life of Nimrod for its main purpose into the end of the century? Does the Minister feel that there is a need for a less expensive aircraft for fishery protection duties?

The number of hours flown by the RAF with its Nimrod air craft is entirely determined by the requests we receive from the consumer Departments, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Scottish Department of Agriculture. They asked for 180 hours, and we supply them. If they asked for an increase, we could supply it from the Nimrod force. The limitation on surveillance of the North Sea is not determined by the number of aircraft or the length of life of the aircraft. We are considering a number of possible means of carrying out surveillance of fishing fleets in the North Sea, but until the surveys are complete I cannot add anything more useful to the discussion than I have said to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) in answer to previous Questions.

The Minister seems to have missed the whole point of the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), which is that aircraft in use have a limited life. Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that if the Nimrod aircraft are vital for surveillance in anti-submarine work—and from his answer he seemed not to be aware—the more he uses them for fishery protection the less he will have them for their proper use? Is he considering the use of other aircraft?

If the hon. Gentle man studies the situation with a little more care, he will observe that one of the reasons why the Nimrod aircraft was chosen for the role was that it can fulfil the fishery protection role and its long-range maritime reconnaissance role without any detriment to either task. That is one of the prime reasons why we are using Nimrod in preference to any other aircraft.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to have a meeting with NATO Defence Ministers.

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

I plan to attend the spring ministerial meetings in Brussels next month. The Euro group will meet on 16th May and the Defence Planning Commit tee on 17th and 18th May.

What does the Secretary of State propose to do at those meetings to remove the feeling of total uncertainty in the minds of our partners, when one year's White Paper talks about irreducible minima for defence commitment's and we have changes every year? What will he do to reassure our NATO partners?

The exaggerated feeling of uncertainty and lack of confidence is confined almost exclusively to the Opposition Benches. I do not find it in talks with my ministerial colleagues. We are one of the very few nations that publish a five-year forward inflation-proof de fence expenditure statement. The cuts we have announced have been on planned in creased expenditure, whereas most of the other NATO countries go on a year-to-year basis, and in many cases we do not even know—because we are not sure what is their inflation allowance—what their annual budgets amount to in real terms. Therefore, I tell Conservative Members that the widespread dismay we hear about at Question Time is largely confined to their own circles.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that NATO forces are more than sufficient at present to deter aggression from the Warsaw Pact forces, and that in terms of proportion of gross domestic product our contribution to NATO is much higher than that of most of our allies?

I think that on any of the normal standards of judgment that is right. It is also widely recognised in terms of the effective contribution of all-professional forces. It is not the case that we are thought by our allies not to be discharging the obligations we have undertaken.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the recent statement by the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic that the defence plans of Britain and our NATO allies depend on having two and a half months' warning of attack? If that figure is anywhere near accurate, are not any defence cuts totally irresponsible?

I do not think that that is a fair summary of what the Deputy SACLANT said. It was said in the con text of planning exercises for possible NATO operations outside the normal NATO area concerned with shipping routes. I have it from the highest military sources in NATO that the Alliance is now in better shape than it was three years ago.

When we keep talking about superiority over our so-called opponents, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it encourages them further to develop their fire power? Does he not agree that, in so far as we must maintain strength to make sure that a war does not break out, NATO, including the United States, with the Cruise missile, is at least five years in advance of Russian technology? Therefore, is it not time that we started talking more about a reduction of arms than about increasing them?

Reductions in arms depend on the successful outcome of multi lateral international negotiations, such as the force reduction talks in Vienna, or bilateral talks between the United States and the Soviet Union in SALT rather than any unilateral decision. But I agree with my hon. Friend that NATO's posture is wholly that of deterrence and that the deterrent depends on all three elements—conventional, theatre-nuclear and strategic-nuclear weapons.

Does the right hon. Gentleman disagree with the recently-published report of the United States Senate committee of inquiry that, first, NATO's southern wing is a shambles, secondly that the Warsaw Pact Powers can mobilise for an attack within a few days and that the NATO forces are in no position to resist them, and thirdly that stocks of essential war materials, including armoured vehicles and ammunition, are deplorably low?

I have great respect for the two Senators who produced the report. Perhaps their language was a little dramatic. I am satisfied that NATO's basic posture—namely, to make any aggression a reckless gamble on the part of potential enemies—still exists and that the priority must be to strengthen the Alliance's conventional capability, which is what we are aiming to do with our defence expenditure.

Has the Secretary of State proposed to other NATO Ministers that they should follow the example of France and America, which have an arrangement with the Kremlin for immediate communication should a nuclear weapon be despatched by accident?

It is important to consider these possibilities, but whether my hon. Friend would go so far as to suggest that we should follow the French example and increase defence expenditure, particularly in the nuclear category, I am not at all sure.

Will the Secretary of State clarify his view of the communiqués issued after NATO meetings? Does he agree that by his behaviour today and since the last NATO meeting he appears to think that the communiqués are a lot of waffle to which he need pay no attention? Does he believe that neither he nor the Government are bound by NATO communiqués?

Neither I nor the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) would regard a communiqué as the equivalent of a binding document, but naturally one wishes to carry out the consensus of NATO meetings. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question? We are talking about communiqués, and I draw his attention to the fact that the Defence Planning Committee—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is Question Time an occasion when hon. Members ask questions of Ministers, or is it a time for Ministers to ask other people questions?

That is a fair point of order. I hope that we shall not continue this, or people will be asking me questions.

I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I shall not ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman but merely inform the House that a Defence Planning Committee communiqué—the same as in December—said that the then Ministers undertook

"to concentrate their current efforts on the improvements recommended, taking account of the need recognised at their December meeting to allocate more resources for modernisation and re-equipment of the NATO forces".

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what payments have been made by the Federal Government in each of the past five years towards the costs of British forces in Germany; and what further progress has been made in obtaining adequate offset arrangements.

Under the terms of the 1971 Anglo-German Offset Agreement which expired on 31st March 1976, Her Majesty's Government received a total of DM550 million in five equal annual instalments. As for the second part of the Question, I must refer my hon. Friend again to the statement made to the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 25th January last.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the position in respect of deutschemarks and the pound—which means an intolerable £500 million drag on the balance of payments and which is effectively a transfer from poor Britain to rich Germany—cannot continue? Can he give the House some hope that, following the Prime Minister's visit to the British Army of the Rhine and his meeting there with the German Chancellor, his right hon. Friend will not come back empty-handed?

I should make it clear that the Prime Minister's visit to BAOR, which I much welcome, is not for the purpose of negotiating the details of an offsetting agreement, which, of course—following the precedents of successive Governments—is a matter for the Foreign Secretary.

When the Secretary of State discusses these financial matters with the Germans, will he make sure that they—and, indeed, our NATO allies—understand what was enunciated a few months ago by the Minister of State when he said that in future our defence spending would be conditioned by our perception of the threat, which is a good deal different from the Government's previous policy regarding economic and financial vicissitudes or comparison with the expenditure of other countries? This is a new deal. Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to our allies?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is now on a rather different point. The question of offset is a matter between allies of trying to ease the foreign exchange burden of fulfilling our NATO commitments, which, as I have already confirmed this afternoon, we have no intention of changing.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that for many years—during which we have been obliged to accept these heavy outgoings—a considerable economic burden has been imposed on the British economy which has helped the Germans to go ahead industrially while we have been held back? Is it not now high time that we made haste in demanding that a change should take place in these arrangements so that we no longer have to accept the heavy burden by which we are, in fact, subsidising the West German economy?

My hon. Friend has put the matter in colourful terms, but it is the case that the foreign exchange benefit to the recipient country of foreign forces is offset by the loss of foreign exchange to us and to those who station forces there, although the stationing of forces in Germany is part of our NATO collective defence arrangements. It is on this basis that we are seeking a continuation of the offset agreement. The detailed negotiations are in the hands of the Foreign Secretary, and I hope that he will succeed shortly.

While one does not expect the Prime Minister and the West German Chancellor to discuss the details of the offset agreement, is it not absurd that they should have spent hours together visiting BAOR without discussing the general principle of the subject at all?

Since I have not had the pleasure of seeing the Prime Minister because he is still in Germany, I do not know what he and the Chancellor may have discussed in the time they spent together, but I hope very much—and this would be the wish of all the forces in Germany—that they spent most of their time discussing the defence matters of the units they were visiting.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many private soldiers and leading aircraftmen are on rent rebate.

Some 4,036 private soldiers and 59 leading aircraftmen.

Does the Minister of State agree that that is an appallingly high figure? Is he aware that 17 per cent. of all other ranks in Berkshire's county regiment are on rent rebate? What is he doing to persuade the Armed Forces Review Body to expedite its survey of the problem?

Is it not for me to intervene in the deliberations of a body which has been appointed by and which reports directly to the Prime Minister. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, the qualification for rebate, at any income level, is dependent on the size of family. A 1975 report said that it would be out of the question to adjust all rates of pay so as to disqualify everyone from the application of the rebate scheme.

Will the Minister make representations to the Review Body so that next time there is a pay rise for the forces we can increase allowances and go back to the old system of increasing allowances rather than pay? Would there not be an advantage in that for the men and for recruitment generally?

I take note of that point, and no doubt the Review Body is fully seized of these matters. It looks carefully into the pay and conditions of the forces.

Will the Minister take steps to give relief to soldiers in Northern Ireland who are paying particularly large charges for their accommodation and who are living under conditions that are hazardous and economically unfavourable compared with those of soldiers in other parts of the world?

There is another Question on the Order Paper on this subject, but the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army indicated during the Army debate a few days ago that he would call for a special report on this matter.

Does the Minister accept that the Ministry of Defence is in a special situation as both the gaffer and the landlord and that it must exercise the latter responsibility with great care? Is it not a scandal that more than 4,000 young soldiers, whom we are asking to risk their lives in the defence of this country and in fighting the war against terrorism in Northern Ireland, should be on the bread line?

I think that the hon. Gentleman should use more temperate language. Those are not the circum stances. I repeat that at any given income level qualification for rent rebate is dependent on the size of the family. There fore, the younger a soldier is, the less likely it is that he will have a rent rebate.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the operations of the Special Air Service in South Armagh.

The Special Air Service continues to operate with success in South Armagh and elsewhere in Northern Ireland.

Bearing in mind the strategic importance of South Armagh, will the Minister resist any attempt to reduce the strength of the SAS in that area? In order that the specialist skills of the regiment may be deployed in other parts of the Province, what plans, if any, has he to increase the strength of the regiment?

Where the SAS operates is a matter for the GOC. I am not pre pared to discuss the details of deployment. Equally, it would not be in the interests of security to discuss the numbers deployed.

Even though some members of the SAS may be taught to speak with an Ulster accent, surely that is no answer to the problem presented by the terrorists in Northern Ireland. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the only way to deal with them is to create an anti-terrorist force which will seek out and destroy the bombers and the gun men?

I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would recognise that all the units of the British Army at present in Northern Ireland represent an anti-terrorist force.

I agree that it is appropriate that the Minister should not comment on actual deployment. In view, however, of the proven success of this unit in South Armagh, will he ensure that the Army command is particularly quick to switch this force to other parts of the Province which are threatened in the same way?

I am sure that the point made by the right hon. Gentleman will not be lost on the GOC. The SAS will operate wherever it is needed in Northern Ireland.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the task of the SAS in Northern Ireland would be rendered much easier if certain politicians ceased making inflammatory speeches in the Province?

If my hon. Friend is suggesting that we must seek long and earnestly for a political solution in Northern Ireland, I agree with him.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence in what circumstances Ronald Biggs, wanted by the police for the Great Train Robbery, was allowed on board HMS "Danae" at Rio de Janeiro.

As I stated in the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hems-worth (Mr. Woodall) on 22nd April, ships' companies are encouraged to meet the local community but are expected to show discretion in offering hospitality. I understand that some junior ratings from HMS "Danae" received an invitation to dinner from Mr. Biggs and responded by inviting him on board while they stowed their shopping. When the officers in charge had identified the ratings' guest as Mr. Biggs, he was asked to leave the ship. Mr. Biggs will not be allowed back on board Her Majesty's ships.

Why did the Ministry resort to the disreputable ruse of trying to forestall an awkward Oral Question by planting a stooge Question and Written Reply last Friday, which did not appear in Hansard until Saturday? That kind of trick does not go down very well with me, anyhow. May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the stooge Question on Friday, in reply to which he said:

"Mr. Biggs will not be allowed back on board any of Her Majesty's ships when some ships of the group return to Rio de Janeiro on 23rd April."—[Official Report, 22nd April 1977; Vol. 930, c. 168.]

On the second point, I said in my formal reply:

"Mr. Biggs will not be allowed back on board Her Majesty's ships."

While it is frequently enjoyable to meet the local inhabitants—sailors from Her Majesty's ships do a great job in that respect—is it not a fact that Her Majesty's ship is British territory, and should not Mr. Biggs have been clapped in irons?

There was no power to arrest Mr. Biggs on board Her Majesty's ship—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—and no such arrest of Mr. Biggs was authorised.