asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will have discussions with other Defence Ministers of the EEC on joint exercises designed to train forces in the techniques of United Nations peacekeeping.

Her Majesty's Government attach importance to the training of forces in the techniques of United Nations peacekeeping; but I see no requirement at present to discuss this subject with Defence Ministers of other members of the EEC.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that some of the countries of Western Europe, our own included, are well placed to play an intermediate role—obviously below the level of the super-Powers—in peacekeeping operations in areas such as the Horn of Africa at present? Would it not advance the cause of international peacekeeping if we considered exercises between Western European countries in this context?

I would have thought that any such discussions were better undertaken in NATO than within the EEC, which has no defence obligations. It is difficult to see how such exercises would help in the objectives that my hon. Friend properly wants to pursue—namely, increasing the possible security role of the United Nations in this way. We had asked, in the proposals for the Special Session on Disarmament, that this should be a matter for consideration. However, I do not think that the carrying out of exercises in circumstances quite different from those that would happen on the day would take us any further forward.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he remains satisfied with the contribution of the new Island class of patrol vessel to fishery protection of offshore defence.

Yes, Sir. I am very satisfied with the new Island class vessels. Four are now operational and a fifth will conduct its first patrol in April. Their sea-keeping qualities and endurance make them well suited for their offshore protection role.

In spite of what my hon. Friend has said, is he really quite satisfied that these vessels are playing a useful part in protecting our fishery grounds? Is it not true that they continue at a speed of 16 or 17 knots in a force eight gale when a small fishing vessel's maximum speed is only about six knots? Also, will my hon. Friend say something about the relationship between the Island class vessels and the Nimrod aircraft?

Our experience is that the measures we have taken have proved adequate so far. If they are not adequate, we shall review the position. Equally, our experience confirms that these new ships and the Nimrod are complementary elements in our offshore force. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that the recent decision to order two extra Island class vessels is eloquent testimony to our confidence in them.

Is the Minister satisfied that all the defects in this class of vessel have been eradicated, and is he satisfied that there are a sufficient number of vessels for the task of fishery protection? Would he not prefer to build more Royal Navy ships than to subsidise the building of Polish ships?

I cannot follow the hon. Member on the last point. On his first point, there have been a few operational defects in the Island class vessels resulting in patrol time being lost. These difficulties have since been resolved. On the question of the contribution of the Island class vessels, the fifth, HMS "Lindisfarne", will enter service in April. Hon. Members should remember that the concept, design, construction and putting into service of these vessels has all taken place since 1974. The whole House will agree that this is a remarkable tribute to the Royal Navy, and it shows the way in which we can react quickly to demands of this kind.

Will the Minister state his plans for the introduction of helicopters on ships specially designed for protection and defence work in the North Sea?

Island class vessels are not designed to carry helicopters although they can receive men and stores delivered by helicopter. If there is a need for a patrol vessel to carry helicopters, this will be done. We are constantly examining the adequacy of our measures, and we are looking very closely at the next generation of patrol vessels.

Will my hon. Friend say what is the precise function of the two new extra vessels and what they will do? In this context, since we need more than two, will he turn his mind to the value of airships, never mind helicopters?

The two extra Island class vessels have been ordered to assist the Ton class MCMVs of Coastal Division and also to engage in purely naval tasks.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he remains satisfied with the operational state of Chieftain tanks with BAOR.

Yes, Sir.

Does the Minister deny that these tanks are having to be can-nibalised to keep them going? How does he reconcile that fact with the assurance he has just given? Is he the only person who is not aware how serious the situation is?

Yes, Sir, I do deny it. There is no question of any shortage of spare parts at present. The hon. Gentleman unfortunately appears to be suffering from that dreaded malady from which a good number of British people are suffering—namely, self-denigration.

Is not the Chieftain tank under-powered?

The continuing programme of modification to improve the reliability of the L60 engine is going well. The mileage achieved is of the same order as that of other NATO tanks. I am not aware of any members of the German, French or United States Administrations who have criticised their tanks in the way that our hon. Members seem to do.

Is the Minister aware that the average for most of our Chieftain tanks is well under 1,000 miles per failure of engine? That is substantially lower than the rate of our allies and is about one-quarter of the mileage achieved by the engines that we are supplying to the Shah of Iran. Why must the Rhine Army always take second place?

The hon. Gentleman is again, as is frequently the case, ill-informed, because it is not true that engine failure rates occur at well under 1,000 miles. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the figure?"] They compare favourably with our allies.

Will my hon. Friend say how effective is the operational range of the Chieftain tank compared with the Russian T72?

That question is under consideration at present. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Gentlemen may laugh, but until now we have always been well ahead of anything in the Warsaw Pact countries in terms of fire power.

Is the Minister aware that, if the Chieftain tank is to be effective on the battlefield, it has got to get there? Many of the tank conveyors are older than their drivers, and some conveyors have travelled more than 250,000 miles. When will these tank conveyors be replaced?

It is true that the tank transporters are now getting towards the end of their normal life, but they are being reworked all the time. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have no doubt at all that, should the need arise, our tanks will be in the right place at the right time.

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

The Armed Forces continue to operate with success in support of the police in Northern Ireland. With them they have responded promptly and firmly to the recent upturn in violence, adapting their tactics as necessary to meet the threat posed by the terrorists. We are keeping a close watch on the situation, and the level of operations will be stepped up further in any area where this may become necessary.

Hear, hear.

I appreciate that at Question Time yesterday the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland acknowledged the value of the security measures suggested by the Opposition and accepted by the Government, but did not the right hon. Gentleman mislead the House by asserting that my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) shared his previous complacency about the tide having turned against the terrorist? Will the Minister go further than the remarks he has just made and say that he will increase Army, and particularly SAS, activity in the Province? [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] I welcome what the Minister said about the grievous loss suffered by the nation in the helicopter crash. May I ask whether any conclusions have now been formed about the reasons for that crash?

A board of inquiry has been set up to investigate last Friday's helicopter crash. The cause has not yet been determined. Nevertheless, I repeat what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said yesterday—namely, that none of the casualties had gunshot wounds and that there is no evidence of damage to the helicopter by gunfire.

To be fair to the House, we must have shorter supplementary questions and answers.

Does the Minister agree that the recent atrocity would have been neither more nor less likely to occur if there had been 500 more or 500 fewer troops in Northern Ireland? Will the Administration continue with their policy and increasingly apply short-term troops in Northern Ireland to undertake those tasks for which they are indispensable, so that the main functions may increasingly be performed by the RUC, the UDR and the reserves?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It underlines the point I recently made to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) that if we had had a thousand more troops in the Province last Friday it would have made no difference to the situation.

I did not say that.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the way to deal with these murderers is to get them into a court on criminal charges, and we can achieve that objective by obtaining the supremacy of the RUC.

In view of the Minister's reply to the supplementary question by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), should it not be made clear that my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) spoke of greater activity rather than more units?

The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gil- mour) has occupied my position on the Front Bench, and he knows full well that the activity of the Army is decided by the General Officer Commanding.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many persons were recruited to serve in the Armed Forces from Wales during 1977.

A total of 1,840 Service men and Service women were recruited from careers information offices in Wales during 1977. This does not include officers and all entrants to the Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service since they are recruited on a central basis and regional figures are not readily available.

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that there is dismay in many parts of Wales at the fact that, as quickly as the unemployment figures rise, so do the number of hoardings urging people to join the Armed Forces as a career? Does he accept that the best kind of people to get into the Armed Forces are not those who are forced in by economic circumstances but those who wish to go in to make it their career? Putting up hoardings in proportion to the number of unemployed is not the right way to do it.

The best people to join the Armed Forces are those with a dedication to the protection of freedom in this country, including the Principality of Wales, and the motivation and desire to be of service to this country.

I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but is he not disturbed and rather ashamed that so many people want to leave the Armed Forces as a direct consequence of the Government's wretched attitude to the Armed Forces' pay? That is what he should be worried about.

There have been irresponsible actions and statements by some Opposition Members who seek to gain the maximum political advantage from every difficulty that this country has faced and is emerging from. There are 80,000 people serving in the RAF, and the numbers applying for early retirement are few in comparison with the overwhelming number who are still determined, despite their anxieties, to continue to do a first-class job.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the number of empty defence houses.

About 18,800 Service married quarters were vacant in the United Kingdom on 15th January 1978. While there has not been time to make a final analysis of the figures, a preliminary assessment indicates that some 6,800 are empty for normal management reasons, an estimated further 4,000 are held for known and possible future deployments within the next four years and some 3,000 will be offered for disposal during the next 12 months. During the last two years, 1,870 have been offered to local authorities on a short lease. A total of 490 have been accepted, 1,030 have been rejected and 350 are still under negotiation.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are still talking about 15 per cent. of his Department's housing stock being empty? Does he agree that this is an unacceptable figure, and will he instruct his local housing officials to liaise with the housing departments of local councils in order that these houses can be used to help with housing waiting lists, even if on some occasions this can be done only on a temporary basis?

I take my hon. Friend's point about working as closely as possible with local authorities, but, as I have pointed out to him, we have offered 2,000 houses to local authorities on short leases and only one-quarter of them have been taken up. Among the problems are the facts that the houses tend to be in small packages, local authorities do not have the funds, and the houses are in inconvenient areas.

How many of these houses are empty because members of the Armed Forces simply cannot afford to pay the rents because of their abysmally low pay?

A complex of factors determines whether quarters are empty at any one time, and it is impossible for me to give the hon. Gentleman a precise answer. I accept that accommodation charges would be one factor, but there are many others, including the fact that the trend towards home ownership in the community at large is increasing—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that as much as we do—and mortgage rates are lower than at any time in the past four years and lower than when we came to office.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that 100 of these empty houses are in Wiltshire and that 42 in the area of the Thamesdown Borough Council, adjacent to my constituency, have been empty for more than two years? Will he give us an assurance that he will redouble his efforts with local authorities, because the fact that these houses are standing empty causes a great deal of offence to homeless families who desperately need housing?

I take my hon. Friend's point. It is difficult for people who are desperate for accommodation to realise why some houses have to be kept open for the Services' needs. My hon. Friend has the advantage of knowing far more than I about the affairs of Thamesdown Council. I shall look into what he has said and write to him.

Has the right hon. Gentleman made any effort to find out how many of these houses are empty because Service men cannot afford the rents? Does he not think that he should have that information?

We started studies several months ago into trends in home ownership in the Forces, and we are trying to make forecasts for several years ahead of the availability of surplus accommodation so that we can dispose of it as early as possible. Decisions by individuals to vacate married quarters are determined by a complex of decisions by individual families. It is not possible to simplify these matters.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the Armed Services' Pay Review body are serving members of the Armed Services; and what are their military ranks.

None, Sir.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it would be at least a minimum recognition of the intelligence, sense of responsibility and dignity of members of the Armed Forces if the body which determined their rates of pay and conditions of service were at least as representative as in the case of an agricultural wages board or a wages council?

Members of the Review Body report to and are appointed by the Prime Minister. It has been the view of successive Governments that appointing to an independent Review Body a person who would benefit as a result of its deliberations would reduce its independent status. For that reason, while there are people with wide experience of all manner of wages negotiations on the body, there are no representatives of persons whose pay and conditions are under consideration.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Review Body to make inquiries to discover how many Service men are financially worse off in the Forces than they would be if they were unemployed?

With respect, that is not a helpful question. It is within the remit of the Review Body, under the practice of successive Governments, to publish what it considers to be comparable rates of pay. Anyone can then take those figures and see whether unemployment pay is better. Of course, unemployment pay and supplementary benefits depend on family circumstances, while military salaries, like all others, including the salaries of hon. Members, are unrelated to the marital status of employees.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever the composition of the Review Body, it is about time that we did something to raise the wages of people serving in the Armed Forces to something commensurate with what other people in the country are getting? Is it right that we should constantly call upon people to serve the country and to do jobs in times of emergency that no one else wishes to do and treat them in the way that we are treating them?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I am sure he knows that it is the Government's desire and intention to restore comparability at the earliest possible time, but it is impossible to speculate on what the recommendations of the Review Body will be or to form a view on them before they are made.

Since both the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister of State have admitted that the Review Body has to abide by Government policy, will the Secretary of State explain why the White Paper virtually ignores the pay of the Armed Forces and why he has not set out the Government's policy to restore comparability of the Armed Forces' pay?

Quite obviously, any White Paper that is published, as the normal procedures of the House require, in February before the end of the financial year cannot take into account the report of a body that is not due to report until March and whose decisions will not be effective until the next financial year. Quite obviously, I could not in the current defence White Paper include anything about the forthcoming pay review.

Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously saying that the White Paper is concerned only with what happens up to March? Of course it relates to the coming year, and he knows that perfectly well.

I know that perfectly well, but I do not think that it would be of any help to anyone if I tried to anticipate what the Pay Review Body would produce in its report next month.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to ensure implementation of the recommendation from the North Atlantic Assembly that the Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic, be given reinforced authority to plan for protection of vital shipping lanes, in particular in the Southern Atlantic and Indian Oceans.

The NATO Defence Planning Committee authorised SACLANT in 1972 to undertake contingency planning for the protection of allied merchant shipping outside the NATO area in time of tension or war. A plan has been prepared, but it has yet to be approved by NATO.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the plan is likely to be approved, bearing in mind that it was five years ago that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation made its recommendation to the Council?

The recommendation, which I think was sponsored by the hon. Gentleman, was made by the Assembly. However, it is much easier to pass resolutions than to give effect to them. A number of member countries of the Alliance have asked for more time to consider these plans. In any event, they could not be published because the whole purpose is to provide contingency plans in time of tension.

What is Her Majesty's Government's policy?

I can say that it is not because of any reservations on the part of Her Majesty's Government that the delay has occurred.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next proposes to have consultations with his fellow North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Defence Ministers about the neutron bomb.

I shall next be meeting my colleagues at the NATO meetings in April and May, although not for the specific purpose of discussion the enhanced radiation—reduced blast warhead.

When the Secretary of State next meets his NATO colleagues for a discussion on that subject, will he make the point that the argument that the neutron bomb is especially reprehensible because it kills humans but does not destroy property is untenable in the sense that it would have applied also to the arrow and it could be applied to chemical weapons, which are deployed in large quantities by the Russians? Will the right hon. Gentleman urge the Prime Minister to give a robust reply to Mr. Brezhnev's letter?

It is well known that the original and quite unbelievable publicity with which the so-called neutron bomb was launched was quite indefensible. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is impossible to have a weapon that will kill people and not destroy property. That, I think, is well understood. However, there are problems about its impact on arms control negotiations, and Her Majesty's Government, like nearly every other NATO country, have not formed a final view. I cannot predict when that final view will be taken within the Alliance.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that to deploy the neutron bomb in Western Europe must lower the threshold of nuclear war? Does he accept that President Brezhnev was in earnest when he said in the Kremlin on 2nd November—[HON. MEMBERS: "Were you there?"]—that the Soviet Union would develop similar weapons, at enormous cost, if the neutron bomb were placed in Western Europe? That would be a cost that neither the Warsaw Pact nor NATO could afford and would serve only unnecessarily to increase the enormous arms expenditure of the world.

I take my hon. Friend's point that there has been argument about whether the increased military capability of the bomb for the purpose, for example, of attacking tank formations would lead to its being used more readily and, therefore, lower the threshold. That is a serious point and is one of the matters that we are taking into consideration. If it should happen—I cannot predict what the final NATO decision will be—that the neutron bomb is brought in, it would be important not in any way to relax political control over the use of nuclear weapons.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost to the Defence Vote of the Queen's Flight.

The current estimated cost to the Defence Vote of the Queen's Flight is £1,800,000 a year.

Does the Queen's Flight add anything to our defence capability? If it does not, would it not be fairer if the expense of this service were added to another Department's Vote or added to the Civil List?

The composition of the Civil List is not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. As for the war-time role of the Queen's Flight, it is scheduled to provide communications flying within the United Kingdom for emergency tasks. I am satisfied that it would have a meaningful wartime role.

What is the proportion of the use of the Queen's Flight by the Royal Family and the use by Her Majesty's Ministers and other subordinates of the Crown?

As the hon. Gentleman no doubt knows, under a longstanding agreement which has been operated by successive Governments certain named Ministers have the right to use the Queen's Flight.

Name them.

They include the Prime Minister and a great many others, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the various allowances available to personnel serving in the Royal Air Force.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence on 25th January 1978. I will also write to my hon. Friend giving details of the rates of allowances currently payable to members of the Royal Air Force.

I thank my hon. Friend for that forthright reply. Will he assure me that the allowances that are made available to the Royal Air Force are commensurate with those made available to the other two Services? Are they reviewed periodically to combat inflation?

By and large, the allowances are similar between the three Armed Forces. I am quite sure that the Armed Forces would bring to Ministers' attention any request for consideration of a review of the allowances. If it is helpful to my hon. Friend, I am prepared to place in the Library the full details of all the allowances that are made.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, while rates of allowances are important for members of the Armed Services, rates of pay are even more important? Does he accept that the first priority of any Government must be to defend the country from external aggression and that, therefore, our Armed Services should be treated as the No. 1 priority? Will he give an assurance to the House that the recommendations of the Pay Review Body, when published, will be implemented in full by the Government?

The first priority of any Government is to ensure that the nation has the economic base upon which it can sustain the life of the people. I would welcome the support of the hon. Gentleman and many of his hon. Friends for the sensible and successful policies of the Government in restoring economic wealth and stability to the country.

Will my hon. Friend note that Labour Members who opposed yesterday's arms expenditure increase bill nevertheless believe that Service men should not be denied decent pay and conditions? Instead, the cuts should take place in research and development, for example, which is costing £900 million a year.

I always appreciate my hon. Friend's support in any defence matter. I welcome his concern for the pay and conditions of the Armed Forces. In my conversations with serving Service men, it is clear that as well as decent pay and adequate conditions they want modern weapons with which to fulfil their job.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House why officers of the Royal Air Force are being refused permission to apply for premature voluntary retirement for up to eight years? Will he explain why the standards of intake are having to be lowered?

No officer is refused permission to apply for premature voluntary retirement. Some of those who apply—they are considered under the well-established rules for the granting of premature voluntary retirement—find that they have to fulfil the criterion of amortising the cost of their training. Secondly—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like to give responsible support in this respect—the Armed Forces have a requirement to ensure that those who sign on for a specific period do not exercise the concession of premature voluntary retirement if that means a lessening of the operational ability of the Royal Air Force.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what requests he has received from the United States authorities for the bringing into full operational use of Royal Air Force bases currently kept on a standby basis.

As I told the hon. Member in my letter of 3rd February, the United States authorities have requested the agreement of Her Majesty's Government to the use of RAF Greenham Common as a peace-time base for up to 15 KC-135 tanker aircraft. This request is being carefully considered.

Is the Minister aware of the highly populated state of the area around RAF Greenham Common? Does he agree that, were the base to become operational, it would bring intolerable noise to thousands of people and genuine anxiety about an air crash? Will he ask the United States authorities to look for alternative bases in less populous areas?

No decision has been taken about the reactivation of Greenham Common. As I said, we are considering the whole subject. In that consideration we are taking into account the possibility of alternatives to Greenham Common. We are anxious that the United States should, with us, continue to provide sufficient forces forward in the European area to act as a meaningful deterrent against an aggressor. I am sure that that is in the interests of those who live around Greenham Common as much as of those who live anywhere else.

As I contested the Newbury constituency on two occasions—unsuccessfully, I may say—I know that when the base was operational it caused a great deal of trouble and nuisance to residents in the Newbury area. I feel sure that my hon. Friend will want to look very closely at any proposals to reopen the base and that he will take account of the views of people living in Newbury.

I join my hon. Friends in regretting that my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) did not join us on an earlier occasion. We are carefully considering this application because it raises a considerable number of important issues. I am quite certain, however, that, if we have to strike a balance between the noise that will be generated by friendly aircraft and the noise and destruction that would be generated by hostile aircraft, the balance of judgment lies in providing proper facilities for the defence of freedom.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible date.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what access he permits trade union representatives to Service men for the purpose of enlisting them in trade unions.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what access he permits trade union representatives to Service men for the purpose of enlisting them in trade unions.

As an aid to resettlement, we have entered into agreements with a considerable number of trade unions whereby Service personnel are eligible for direct admission to membership of the relevant union. Details of these agreements, together with advice on how to contact the appropriate trade union officials, are given in a number of Service publications.

Does that mean that trade union representatives have access to members of the Armed Forces in terms of recruiting—that is, before they become members of a trade union? Does my right hon. Friend agree that his Department and the Armed Services might benefit from a study of Western European countries in which trade unionism is accepted as a right without any loss of security or discipline?

I am aware of the publication of the Assembly of the Western European Union of 1974, I think it was. The practice in NATO countries is varied. In a very few instances are there any unions in the Armed Forces of a kind that fulfil the functions that my hon. Friend would recognise as the bona fide activities of trade unions.

Will my right hon. Friend enlist the support of ACAS in this matter? Does he agree that trade union involvement throughout industry has meant an improvement in safety techniques and methods employed by management as well as the workers concerned? Should that not apply to the Army? It the Common Market issues a directive on the matter, will he follow it?

I shall await with great interest any such Common Market directive. I wonder whether, if I were to follow such a directive, I should have the support of my hon. Friend, who is notorious for his full support of the Common Market. I recognise the tremendous job that trade unions have done in industry. However, there would be substantial difficulties in having exactly the same pay and disciplinary negotiating rights within the Armed Forces as in civilian employment, for a number of reasons. I will spell them out for my hon. Friend at some other time, if he wishes.

Does the Secretary of State agree that defending British citizens against their enemies is the first duty of any Government and that to take any steps that could lead to politically motivated strikes within the Armed Forces, as, according to the ex-Leader of the Labour Party, happens in industry, would be to renege on this duty to our people?

I assure the hon. Lady that none of Her Majesty's Forces is anxious to go on strike, whether politically motivated or otherwise. I do not think that that is a likely consequences that the hon. Lady should lie awake and worry about.