asked the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he is taking to secure value for money in defence spending.

I am determined that the Ministry of Defence shall play its full part in increasing efficiency and seeking value for money. A number of measures to achieve this aim have been taken and they were described in the recent defence debate. Others are under consideration.

How efficient and ruthless is the right hon. Gentleman about controlling his officials, whose schemes have led to a gargantuan £11 billion defence budget? Does he frequently tell his Department that every mistake and example of wastefulness takes millions of pounds away from schoolchildren and pensioners?

The Department and I are well aware of the size of the budget and of our responsibility for it. From the moment that I arrived in office, I have waged a war for greater efficiency, and I have undertaken several studies dealing with certain aspects of the Department. Other studies are in hand, which will cover more than one-third of the Department. It is a constant responsibility. Senior officials, civil servants and I vigorously tackle inefficiency. We do the best that we can.

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that we shall continue our endeavours to gain a 3 per cent. increase in real terms, as agreed with our NATO allies?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. It is important that that increase is achieved throughout the Alliance. It is our clear intention and aim to fulfil our part of that responsibility.

Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the £920 million that is being spent on the development of the Stingray torpedo is not being wasted ? Is it not possible that we shall ultimately have a weapon that is far in excess of our needs?

When the weapon is put into service it will not be in excess of our needs. It is fair to say that it took nearly the whole of the 1970s to develop this highly sophisticated weapon. During that time there was a series of underestimates as regards the cost. The programme was not particularly smooth. However, that is in the past. The Government and I had to make an assessment about its future, and we concluded that it was right to go ahead. It has proved quite expensive, but there is no doubt about its need.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future warship building programme.

I have nothing at the moment to add to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry on 2 June 1980, in answer to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark).

While recognising the quality and sophistication of type 42 and type 22 frigates and their importance to the Fleet, does the Minister agree that their cost is now so great that we should look for alternatives that are cheaper?

Yes, I accept that the best can be the enemy of the good, and even the Royal Navy is not immune from that criticism. I assure my hon. Friend that we are looking at possible cheap alternatives in the future, particularly in the anti-submarine area.

Have the Government considered the suggestion made in the defence debate that we should preserve shipbuilding capacity in this country by building more small naval antisubmarine and fisheries protection vessels?

That is the very point that I was making in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). At the moment we have under construction at Hall Russell's in Aberdeen two new 75-metre offshore patrol vessels for which, I believe, there will be a considerable export demand as well.

When my hon. Friend looks at this programme, will he consider the potential of building new warships and undertaking maintenance contracts at Harland and Wolff in Belfast?

Yes, Harland and Wolff is invited to tender for particular refitting, not least on Royal Fleet Auxilliary ships. My officials bear the firm very much in mind when contracts for refits are submitted.

If the Government proceed with the Polaris replacement, will the Minister say where the specialist warship-building capacity will come from that will provide for that replacement and also for the Trafalgar class attack submarine and the new type 2,400 diesel-electric submarine?

No decision has yet been taken on the system. When that decision is taken, we must ensure that we have the capability and the capacity to meet those problems.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received concerning the siting of 160 cruise missiles in the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received concerning the manufacture and deployment of cruise missiles.

I have received some 860 letters and a small number of petitions about cruise missiles.

Do those representations include expressions of concern about the massive amount of money being spent—about £10 million—while the Government are starving the education services? Is the Secretary of State aware that the school meals service is disintegrating and the textbooks position gets worse week by week? Is the cruise missile not a disgraceful waste of expenditure, particularly bearing in mind that £10 million is only the direct cost, and that there is an additional cost of a very large road works programme associated with this mad programme?

Very few of the representations that I have received related to cost. In any case, it is rather a bad point because the great majority of the cost is being provided by the United States.

Is the Minister aware of the official policy of the Labour Party in this matter, as decided through proper constitutional channels? Is it not sheer hypocrisy for the right hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers) to continue to serve as the Labour Party's official spokesman? Would it not be more honourable for him to retire to the Back Benches and put his point of view from There? Or should he join Mr. Roy Jen kins——

Order. The Minister is not responsible for Opposition appointments.

Will my right hon. Friend explain to the patriots below the Gangway opposite the fallacy of the unilateral disarmament theory? Will he point out to them that Hiroshima and Nagasaki would never have been bombed had the Japanese had nuclear weapons, and that Afghanistan would almost certainly not have been subjected to Soviet invasion today had it possessed effective modern weapons?

I take the opportunity of pointing that out from time to time. At least we share an objective on both sides of the House that if it were possible to persuade the other side to reduce its arms and thus achieve multilateral arms reductions, that would be a great advantage. However, it is very dangerous to do that in a one-sided manner. We are working for mutual, balanced, verifiable arms reductions.

Does my right hon. Friend accept, as these weapons are possibly coming to my constituency, rather than to Keighley, that the people of East Anglia would put freedom before anything else? Does he further accept that there is no kind of education or school meals which matter if we are living in chains?

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We all admire the calm good sense with which the people of East Anglia have accepted nuclear weapons in their vicinity for the past 20 years or more. There is no doubt that unless we provide adequate defence forces, with our Allies, our way of life and our freedom are at risk. This Government, like all their predecessors, are dedicated to preserving our freedom.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the latest figures available of the total annual cost and balance of payments cost of maintaining British forces stationed in Germany, the total number of service personnel involved, the number of German civilians employed in conjunction with these forces; if he will reopen negotiations with the West German Government aimed at reducing these costs ; and if he will make a statement.

The budgetary cost of British Forces Germany in 1980–81, excluding equipment, is estimated to be £1,146 million; the initial incidence of cost on the balance of payments, ignoring various offsetting factors, is estimated at £762 million. The total number of Service personnel stationed in Germany on 1 April 1980 was 64,288 and the total number of locally engaged civilians, including those employed by the Property Services Agency was 28,300. Not all of these civilians are of German nationality. The Anglo-German offset arrangement ended on 31 March 1980 as a result of the agreement made by the previous Administration and there are no plans to reopen negotiations on this matter.

Does not the Minister accept that it is quite intolerable for Britain to subsidise in this way the richest country in Western Europe? In spite of the failures of the Labour Government in this respect, will he ask the Prime Minister to insist on further talks with the German Government on the basis that if they want British troops they will have to pay for them?

I recognise the hon. Member's consistency in that when he asked a similar question on 8 November 1977 he was very critical of the then Labour Minister on the Front Bench. I must tell him that the terms of the agreement entered into by the previous Administration excluded reopening negotiations on this matter.

What is the incremental, as opposed to the total cost, and is it not very much lower than the total figures that the hon. Member has just given to the House?

Yes, I have given the total cost, and of course a great deal of the cost would be incurred if the forces were stationed within the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he has had with British Aerospace or any other United Kingdom manufacturer concerning the provision of the next generation of strategic nuclear deterrent.

My Department has had a number of discussions with British Aerospace and other United Kingdom manufacturers on several aspects of this question.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, which was, perhaps, not quite as comprehensive as one might have liked. Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the integration of our defence and industrial policies is absolutely essential, not only if export and development opportunities are to be exploited, but also if public acceptance of our increased level of defence spending is to be readily forthcoming? Will he accept that, in view of the tremendously important issues that are at stake, and some of the disappointments that have occurred in the last 12 months, there is some anxiety in this place that these responsibilities are entrusted to two of his noble Friends who sit in another place?

I agree wholeheartedly about the importance of integrating Britain's defence and industrial interests. I also agree with my hon. Friend about the degree of acceptance and support that we have in the country for our defence policies. My noble Friend, other Ministers and I do everything we can to foster integration, and it is part of our policy that, wherever we can, we should place orders with British industry rather than with anyone else. The overwhelming majority of our equipment programme is provided by British industry. I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry would agree that we are very positive in this matter and that we are doing everything we can to help. This is a very important point and I certainly intend to continue that policy.

When will the Secretary of State realise that we cannot go on in this way, finding money to provide weapons to destroy life? Has he not seriously considered the necessity of finding the finance for machinery to preserve life?

In answer to an earlier question I pointed out that, unless we protect our freedom and way of life adequately with our Allies, it will not be possible to fulfil the desirable social aims that we share.

What consultations has my right hon. Friend had with British Aerospace about the provision of the next generation of fighter aircraft? When does he expect to make a decision favourable to British Aerospace in relation to AST 403 and 409?

There is close co-operation on the matter with British Aerospace. Many discussions have taken place, and I have participated in some of them. I do not expect to be ready to announce a decision in the near future, but when we are ready we shall do so.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the complexity of the supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) and the strong view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) about the whole philosophy of the next generation of strategic nuclear weapons highlight the need to consider a Green Paper? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there were strong views on both sides of the House in favour of the Green Paper? Why can we not have one before a decision is made?

The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do the practice of Parliament. The Government take decisions, which stand before Parliament to be challenged if necessary. That practice is especially relevant to a highly sen- sitive and crucial matter of national importance. As I made clear in the debate on the White Paper, when a decision is taken I shall give my justifications and publish a document explaining the background. As I also explained in the debate, I do not believe that it is appropriate in such a case to publish a Green Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the support given by Her Majesty's Armed Forces to the civil power in Northern Ireland.

Her Majesty's Armed Forces continue to support the civil power in the fight against terrorism in Northern Ireland. Members of all three Regular Services and of the Ulster Defence Regiment assist the Royal Ulster Constabulary throughout the Province in a wide range of tasks.

Has not the reduction of Regulars further added to the importance of the Ulster Defence Regiment? Has my hon. Friend considered the representations made against the closure of certain UDR bases as detracting from the essential local character of the regiment?

The increased contribution made by the Ulster Defence Regiment was taken into account in making the reduction. A further 350 men from the Ulster Defence Regiment are available to be deployed on operational duties, partly as a result of the closure of those five bases.

Will the Minister accept that I wholly support the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison)? However, can the Minister assure the House that every encouragement will be given to the Army to fake all necessary steps to defend the frontier region of the United Kingdom?

Yes, indeed. I am absolutely satisfied that those force changes will not in any way reduce the fight against terrorism, which will continue unabated.

Despite what the Minister says, is it not scandalous further to reduce the strength of the Regular Army in Northern Ireland, when the Provisional IRA continues to pursue its bloody cam- paign of terror and murder? Is it not time to increase the strength of the Army in Northern Ireland so that the movement of Provisional IRA terrorists across the border can be stopped and lives saved?

I do not believe that it is scandalous in any way. It has always been the Government's intention that no more troops should be diverted from their main NATO role than was absolutely necessary, and the changes were foreshadowed in this year's White Paper. Another factor taken into account was the increasing strength and capability of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which will be welcomed in all parts of the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied that the experiments undertaken on live animals for purposes connected with defence at Porton Down are necessary and kept to the minimum ; and if he will make a statement.

Yes. Experiments on live animals are needed for such matters as the development of protective measures against toxic agents, the investigation of the nature and treatment of injuries and for studies in connection with the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. All such work takes full account of the desirability of using alternative means of testing whenever possible.

I thank my hon. Friend for his considered reply. Will he confirm that his Department is under the same legal restraint as any other body concerning experiments on live animals? Because of the understandable public concern, will my hon. Friend assure us that there will be continuing close and personal ministerial surveillance of all experiments in his Department?

Control is very strict. All experiments are conducted strictly in accordance with the requirements of the Cruelty to Animals Act, and are subject to Home Office inspection. Unannounced visits are frequently made by the Home Office inspectorate. I hope to visit Porton Down in the near future.

Will my hon. Friend undertake to ensure that animals used for such purposes are specially bred and not bought from agencies that may have acquired animals that were originally kept as pets?

May I first congratulate my hon. Friend? I shall write to him about his request, but I cannot give him a total assurance. A number of the animals used are specially bred for the purpose.

How many experiments are carried out in the course of a year?

The latest figures show that about 25,000 animals were used in all the experiments at Porton Down in 1979.

Does the Minister accept the implication in the question of the hon. Member for Gillingham (Sir F. Burden) that an animal specially bred for torture will not suffer as much as another animal?

I do not believe that that was my hon. Friend's suggestion. I understood him to be submitting that we should not support those people whose methods of acquiring animals for experiment may be improper, and that every part of the process should be subject to the strictest control.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made with plans to install a new generation of long-range missiles in the United Kingdom ; and if he will make a statement.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I intend to make a statement on this subject at 3.30 pm.

I shall call the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) when the statement is made, if he is lucky—and I believe that he will be.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation colleagues about chemical warfare.

In consultation with our allies we keep under review all aspects of the threat that we face, one of which is the Soviet Union's massive offensive chemical warfare capability. The United Kingdom is committed to seeking a ban on the possession of chemical weapons, but unwillingness on the part of the Soviet Union to countenance the very necessary verification measures means that we cannot hope for early progress.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that detailed reply. When does he expect to make a decision in the interests of our defensive capability, if he feels that we should have one, as I believe that he does?

Neither I nor the Government have plans for an offensive capability in that field. I am conscious of the increasing capability of the Soviet Union and the threat that that represents to us. It is, therefore, right to make inquiries and consider the implications in order to discover whether there are means by which we can deter the use of chemical weapons. It would be wrong for any country in the West to ignore the massive Soviet stocks of chemical weapons and the issues that those raise.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that any move by the Government to follow the path signposted by the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) would be regarded as extremely controversial? In pursuing the ban, will he bear in mind the importance of seeing that it covers possession as well as use?

Yes, but so far there has not been the slightest indication that the Soviet Union will move in that direction. That is the cause of my anxiety. Not only will the Soviet Union not move in that direction, but it is improving and developing its techniques, which represents a risk to us. It would be a controversial decision if any change in our policy were made and I do not anticipate any such change, but the problem does not go away and neither does the risk. It is part of my responsibility to think about that with out allies. If we come to any conclusions that require an announcement, I shall make it, but I have no such intention at present.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed how the television companies seem to be obsessed with making so-called documentaries about our defence effort in this and other areas, and programmes that seem to be aimed at denigrating our friends and allies, yet we never seem to see similar programmes giving the public details of what the Soviet Union is up to in this area? Will my right hon. Friend have a word at some time with the Home Secretary to see whether the balance can be redressed when meetings take place between the Government and the broadcasting authorities?

I am not sure how much notice the producers of the programmes to which my hon. Friend has referred take of such representations. I regret that some of the programmes were not as balanced, informative or dispassionate as they might have been. A greater degree of genuine public information would be advantageous.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce a decision about the future of the United Kingdom's independent nuclear deterrent.

I have made clear to the House that a decision will be announced as soon as it has been taken.

Since the most widely favoured replacement for Polaris—the Trident system—is likely to absorb up to 18 per cent. of the defence procurement budget, which is already fully stretched in trying to meet the conventional needs of our forces, can the right hon. Gentle-man tell us how he can afford a highly expensive status symbol without cutting into our non-nuclear contribution to NATO or increasing defence spending still further?

As the House knows, no decision has yet been taken on the successor system. Whatever is decided upon will, of course, take a proportion of the defence budget as a whole and a higher proportion of the equipment budget. However, it is speculative to put a figure on that until a decision has been announced. On any analysis of any of the options, the 18 per cent. mentioned by the hon. Gentleman would be too high.

Can my right hon. Friend reassure the House that while he is considering the future of the independent nuclear deterrent he is also considering the conventional home defences of this country within the United Kingdom, which are so important to the credibility to the nuclear deterrent?

The answer is "Yes ". It is necessary to have a fully comprehensive defensive capability with our allies, which includes home defence and a nuclear capability, which has always been provided for within the defence budget, as it would have to be in the future. I assure my hon. Friend that all aspects of defence are in my mind, because unless our capability is all-embracing and comprehensive, when allied to those of our friends and allies in NATO, it will not be adequate. It is our job to ensure that it is comprehensive at all times.

Will the right hon. Gentleman hurry up the decision, because of the difficulties in ascertaining the future role of a dockyard such as that at Rosyth and the future loading capabilities of British Shipbuilders, which will not know its future plans until the decision is made?

That is a fair point, but it is important to take the right decision from the defence, national and Alliance points of view. After that, we must take the consequential decisions affecting whatever aspects of industry may be concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence why his Department's exhibition and sale of arms at Aldershot from 23 June to 27 June excludes the public.

The British Army equipment exhibition is designed to display military equipment manufactured by British companies to a specialist audience of overseas professional and technical experts. However, much of the equipment will be demonstrated, or will be on show, at the Aldershot Army display, which takes place immediately after the exhibition and is open to members of the public.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many suspect that the reason why the Government do not publish the names of the countries that have been invited to the exhibition and the reason why the public are excluded is that some of those who are invited may be from repressive regimes? Is he aware that that is particularly worrying when one bears in mind that some of the companies at the exhibition specialise only in riot control, electronic surveillance and the production of CS gas?

Hon. Members and representatives of the press are invited to attend, but the exhibition is designed primarily for professional and technical experts. As to the countries that are invited to send representatives, it has been the practice of successive Administrations not to list the names of those concerned.

Will my hon. Friend assure the House that no country outside those countries that are deemed to be our enemies will be refused admission to such an exhibition?

I can say, and this follows on an aspect of the previous supplementary question, that human rights considerations must be, and are, taken into account before a decision is made on whether a proposed sale should go ahead. Particular attention is paid to the use to which equipment might be put.

If it is true, as many believe, that countries such as Argentina, Libya and Indonesia, which have used repressive technology against their own citizens, are invited to Aldershot, what criteria do the Government use to ensure that arms sales to such countries are not used for that purpose?

Arms sales have to be licensed by the Government and account is taken of human rights, operational and many other considerations before a decision is made. The position that the Government have adopted is fully justified.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, as my hon. Friends have stressed, the modern police State is much more likely to use modern electronics than guns and batons, as some of his hon. Friends still seem to think? Will the hon. Gentleman pay heed to the warning of my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) and ensure that his Department does not facilitate the export of repressive tech- nology, especially when some of the items may be on the Customs and Excise C list?

I can only repeat that human rights considerations are taken into account. I am sure that it is the view of the vast majority of hon. Members that such questions should be considered before decisions are made about the export of equipment.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about the present arrangements for the provisions of housing by local authorities for those leaving the Armed Forces ; and what replies he has sent.

The majority of letters from hon. Members concern individual constituency cases. Whilst we do all we can to help, I must make it clear that the allocation of council housing is entirely within the discretion of local authorities. They are, however, urged by Department of the Environment circulars to recognise the particular difficulties of those leaving the forces and I am glad that so many authorities do not therefore insist on residential and employment qualifications before acceptance on their housing lists.

I thank my hon. Friend for the way that he is handling this important matter. Does he agree that there is an unsatisfactory situation where a large number of Service men apparently have to go through the process of legal eviction because a number of local authorities insist on there being a court order for possession, even for Service men who have been registered on their housing list? Has my hon. Friend any proposals for overcoming the problem?

It is unfortunate that there are local authorities which insist on court orders for possession before they will act to rehouse. That causes unnecessary distress to all concerned and it is not a practice of which I approve. I am delighted to be able to tell my hon. Friend that we are discussing the problem with the Department of the Environment. Broad agreement has been reached that a certificate of impending homeless-ness will be issued and local authorities will be urged to accept that in lieu of the need to obtain a court order.

Will the Minister accept that most local authorities try to assist Service men leaving the Services but that they would be better disposed towards the problem if they were not angered by the fact that Ministry of Defence houses are kept empty unnecessarily and are not declared surplus to requirements when they should be?

I do not believe that any Ministry of Defence houses are being kept empty and surplus to requirements at the moment. If any hon. Member knows of such houses, I hope that they will get in touch with me. If the houses are genuinely surplus to requirements, they will be passed to the Property Services Agency for disposal.

Is the Minister aware that garrison towns can cope with the pressure of demand provided only that the towns or origin of Service men are prepared to accept their responsibilities? Will he ensure that the Department of the Environment keeps up the pressure to make sure that towns of origin accept their responsibilities and continue to do so?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I hope that it will be noted by those responsible in local authorities away from the main concentrations of Service men.

Is the Minister aware that this exchange of questions and answers shows how unsatisfactory is the whole situation? It is becoming increasingly clear that to push this matter on to local authorities is not wholly fair. There must be some means by which the Ministry of Defence and the building societies can get together and devise some scheme so that the problem is not tossed on to individual councils, 90 per cent. of which try to assist. Does the Minister agree that this whole problem should not be placed on local authorities?

As the Government made clear in the debates on the Defence White Paper, consideration is being given to a scheme that would help Service men in house purchase. These matters are under consideration. There are considerable financial constraints at the present time that cannot be ignored.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on future plans for North Atlantic Treaty Organisation facilities at Stornoway airport in the light of refusal of planning permission by the Western Isles islands council.

We are considering the objections by the council to our notice of proposed development at Stornoway airport. A decision on our next step will be taken as soon as possible.

Is the Minister aware that there is almost total opposition in the community to the provision of this base, strengthened by the bad faith of the Ministry of Defence in expanding its plans on at least three occasions? Is he aware that we have a right to protect our way of life and that we do not wish to be the sitting ducks for the first strike in the event of war?

The latter point will necessarily be so. I am, however, aware of the deep objections of the Western Isles islands council and the right hon. Gentleman's constituents. That is why we are giving careful consideration to the problems before deciding what to do next.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when Her Majesty's Government last had discussions with the United States Government over the use of shared military bases.

We regularly discuss such matters.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be more forthcoming about The use of the Diego Garcia base? If the Prime Minister——

Order. The hon. lady, I believe, is aware that the matter to which she refers is covered by the three-months' ruling. Questions cannot be asked about the use of that base because the Prime Minister has indicated that she is not answering questions on the matter. [HON. MEMBERS : "Oh."]. Order. Miss Joan Lestor.

Will the right hon. Gentleman, in view of that situation, comment on the fact that there have been reports that one or two of these bases shared with the Americans are increasing their activity and that there is much speculation that this increased activity is not being carried out in consultation with the British? Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on any particular cases and the general situation?

I can only say, in reply to that question, that there is, indeed, continuous consultation with our allies and with the United States in particular. There is, naturally, increased activity at a number of bases all round the world at the present time, in view of international events and what has occurred. But the arrangements for consultations with our allies are satisfactory to us and, so far as we know, satisfactory to our allies. That is the position.

Did my right hon. Friend see the Labour Party's defence broadcast last week? If so, is he not concerned about those with whom it might wish to share bases?

I do not know whether that broadcast actually represented the view of the Opposition. That is a matter for them.

If questions on Diego Garcia are not allowed, why was question No. 32, in my name, uncharacteristically dodged by the Defence Secretary by transferring it to the Lord Privy Seal? It was a direct question on Diego Garcia that had been allowed by the Table Office. It looks as if the Defence Secretary did not want to answer it.

On the contrary, questions on consultations with our allies are a matter principally for the Lord Privy Seal. I have not sought to dodge any question.