asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the operational readiness of United Kingdom forces stationed on the German Rhine.

I am confident that British Forces in Germany are fully capable of making their major contribution to the implementation of NATO strategy.

Although I do not wish to anticipate the statement to be made later this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, whom we congratulate on taking an important position in the Government, may I point out to my hon. Friend that many Conservative Members believe that the readiness of our troops in BAOR is totally inadequate, both in respect of personnel and equipment? Is he aware that some of us have received complaints that our troops in BAOR are inadequately provided with ammunition and spares for the equipment there?

I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that during the past year the strength of BAOR has increased markedly and that, due to improved manning levels in the Royal Armoured Corps, 560 tanks are manned at present in BAOR, compared with 475 in January 1980.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on his appointment. We hope that he will have a happy tenure of office. In spite of what my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said, is he aware that many of us were reassured by the visit we paid recently during the BAOR exercise? Does he agree that that exercise indicated that a high degree of preparedness and morale exists there, as well as a high degree of efficiency in the back-up from the Territorial Army in the United Kingdom?

I thank my hon. and learned Friend. He will remember that it takes a long time fully to evaluate the result of any exercise. Certainly, the initial reaction of foreign observers and of the Ministry of Defence to "Operation Crusader" showed that it was an outstanding success.

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that there are limits to the amount of money which, in our present economic circumstances, we can afford to devote to British forces on the Continent? Is it not high time that we made clear to our allies that they must make a much larger contribution if those forces are to stay there?

I realise that it is important for all the allies in NATO to make an adequate contribution to the central front. There is no doubt that Britain's commitment to the central front is essential to our strategy.

Does my hon. Friend consider that Germany is making a sufficient financial contribution to the maintenance of BAOR, bearing in mind that Germany benefits directly? If that is his view what new initiative will the Government take?

That is a matter of continuing discussion with our allies in NATO.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current position on the future of the European combat aircraft; and if he will make a statement.

Our studies are continuing. A further report on the possibility of collaboration with France and Germany is due in the spring of this year.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the successful production of the European combat aircraft, or something similar, is vital to maintaining the world-beating industrial base that we have in the United Kingdom, let alone the strategic need for a replacement for the Jaguar in due course?

The important word is "similar". As I said in my original answer, the discussions on the project are continuing. It is extremely important that the British aerospace industry has an advance programme on which to work in due course, as I am sure that it will.

Will the hon. Gentleman be honest and say that this is one of a number of potential casualties arising out of the decision to acquire Trident? Does he accept that hon. Members who, for constituency reasons, laud the efforts of the British aerospace industry, cannot complain, because they have publicly defended the decision to acquire Trident?

The future of the ECA project has nothing to do with the Trident decision. Any difficulties that the project might have are due to different operational perceptions and different industrial capability.

Does my hon. Friend agree, in view of the continuing improvement in the capabilitites of the Warsaw Pact air forces, that it is essential for the Royal Air Force to acquire a new tactical combat aircraft at the earliest possible date? If it is impossible to procure such an aeroplane collaboratively, will my hon. Friend examine projects designed by British Aerospace to meet RAF requirements?

The Royal Air Force's endeavour and interest is always to examine closely anything that British Aerospace is doing. Of course it will do that.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will redistribute defence expenditure with the aim of reducing the proportion spent on nuclear weapons.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether any defence projects are under review as a result of the excalating costs of the Trident programme; and if he will list them.

No, Sir. Our nuclear forces, including Trident, absorb, or will absorb, only a small proportion of our defence budget.

May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon his appointment and express the hope that his movement will lead to better things in defence? Does he agree that, whatever argument there might be for conventional weapons, there can be no case for British nuclear weapons? Does he accept that they make only a minimal contribution to Western defence and that in any case we have no control over the majority of them?

I thank the hon. Gentleman, although his remarks could be interpreted in two ways. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's view. It seems to me that a strategic nuclear deterrent is essential to the defences of the NATO Alliance and our liberty.

As the planned, long-range theatre nuclear forces of cruise missiles and Pershings are not primarily designed to cater for the bolt from the blue nuclear attack, does my right hon. Friend agree that the exceptional readiness of the strategic nuclear forces currently invested in Polaris and later in Trident provide the most effective and least costly form of insurance against massive surprise attack?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Trident is the most cost-effective way of providing the minimum capability for a viable strategic nuclear deterrent. I believe that it should be seen as an integral part of our defence system and not as an addition to it.

Does the Secretary of State accept that his welcome to office will depend on whether he keeps election pledges to safeguard our defences or uses his Treasury experience to whittle them away? Does he realise how many commentators now accept that we cannot afford Trident without impairing the strength of the British Army of the Rhine or our naval commitments to NATO?

I intend to keep my party's commitments on defence. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, although I was interested in my time in the Treasury, that was many years ago. Our strategic nuclear force—Trident, the successor to Polaris—will absorb only a relatively small part of our total defence budget, amounting to approximately 3 per cent. on average over the next fifteen years. That is not a large sum for the deterrent importance of a strategic nuclear weapon of that kind.

I welcome and congratulate my right hon. Friend on his new appointment. Does he agree with hon. Members on the Government side of the House and half the Opposition that Mr. Attlee was right when he initiated our nuclear deterrent? Does he accept that the threat has certainly not diminished and that the only thing that has changed since then is that the Soviet Union has built up a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons? Will he confirm that it remains unequivocally the Government's policy to retain an effective nuclear deterrent for Britain?

I agree with my hon. Friend and confirm everything that he says.

Does the Secretary of State agree that in the peak years the Trident project will absorb 15 per cent. of our equipment budget? Does he really assure the House that none of the other equipment projects planned for the Armed Forces will have to give way if we go ahead with the Trident project?

I do not accept the 15 per cent. figure. In the peak years towards the end of the 1980s Trident will absorb more than the average of 3 per cent. but nowhere near 15 per cent. I regard it as absolutely essential to a credible deterrent policy that we have a successor to Polaris. Trident is the most cost-effective way of doing that.

In addition to the £5 billion Government estimate for Trident—and such estimates have almost always proved to be under-estimates—will there not be a bill for several billions of pounds to cover the crews and maintenance of those weapons and their missiles in the first 10 years?

We estimate that the running of the Trident fleet will probably cost about the same percentage of expenditure as the existing Polaris fleet—that is, about 1½ per cent. of our total defence budget.

Has my right hon. Friend studied the development of laser weapon technology in the United States and the Soviet Union? If he has, is he satisfied that these rapid developments will not make intercontinental ballistic missiles obsolete?

I have been four days in office at the Ministry of Defence. I have not yet had the opportunity to study that matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied with the methods of recruitment into the Armed Forces.

I am not dissatisfied by any means with our current recruitment methods. However, there can be no room for complacency if our recent excellent recruiting performance is to continue in coming years, and it may be that more refined approaches have to be adopted to obtain those very able people, from a contracting manpower pool, whom the Armed Forces require.

Is the Minister aware that one of the unfortunate results of the high unemployment created by this Government is that in some areas the only potential employers going into the schools are the Armed Forces, which are trying to recruit young people, many of whom are left with the choice of joining the Army or the dole queue? In view of the unfair pressure that is being put on many young people, would it not be fairer for the Government to give a statutory right of free discharge to all young Service people under the age of 18 if, after a while, they find that life in the Forces is not all that the glossy advertisements make it out to be?

There is no question of undue pressure. As the hon. Gentleman should be aware, it is the right of new entrants to the Armed Forces to obtain a discharge during recruit training.

Is my hon. Friend aware that sometimes in advertising for officers too much emphasis is placed on applicants having somewhat odd and trendy backgrounds, instead of those qualities of loyalty, patriotism and leadership which are really required?

I assure my hon. Friend that the qualities he describes are still very much needed.

Would it not be much better at this time, and certainly in the interests of the United Kingdom, if these young people could be recruited into industry rather than into the Armed Forces? Is not a change in the Government's economic strategy now called for, bearing in mind that situation?

I think that that question should more properly be directed to another Department. The hon. Gentleman speaks as though we are still operating some kind of press gang. What we are interested in is getting young people with the right degree of motivation and ability in the Armed Forces. All the figures indicate that we are doing just that.

As my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) emphasised, much of the successful recruitment takes place in areas of high unemployment, where there has been a drastic fall-off in the number of apprenticeships. Will the Minister therefore emphasise both to the MOD civilian authorities and to the Armed Forces the importance of there being no fall-off in apprenticeship intake?

I note the hon. Gentleman's point. But I say again that we are interested in the requisite and appropriate degree of motivation. While we obviously get more applications in areas of high unemployment, that does not necessarily mean that we get more recruits from those areas.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many careers information offices exist for each of the three Services at the present time.

There are currently 241 careers information offices in the United Kingdom, of which 10 are tri-Service, 47 bi-Service and 184 single-Service. Of the single-Service offices, 27 are Royal Navy, 136 Army and 21 Royal Air Force.

At the risk of asking the obvious, what studies have been made into making all the outlets tri-Service outlets? Moreover, has my hon. Friend considered discussing with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment the possibility of selling off all the careers service offices in favour of having an appropriate desk in each jobcentre?

A study is currently in hand the central proposal of which is that the present network of 241 offices to which I referred should be cut down to 190, of which about 80 will be shared. On the question of jobcentres, the CIOs, as we call them, are used for assessment and testing. We feel that when we get a potential recruit to that stage of an interview, it is better for this to be dealt with by someone with direct experience of the Armed Forces than by someone working in a jobcentre.

Is the Minister aware that at times there is considerable criticism when the public see three separate careers offices, one for each of the three Services, occupying prime sites in the centre of a town? Will he do everything possible to extend the number of tri-Service recruiting offices?

As I indicated in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), we are doing just that, although the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that very often it is not possible to relinquish leased premises without incurring a substantial penalty.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that the career officers should go into the schools more often to explain the opportunities for joining the Navy, the Army or the Air Force, since the youngster of today, who is particularly oriented to high technology, would welcome that information?

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that that is precisely the change of emphasis that we hope to see.

When does the Minister expect there to be the 80 tri-Service offices to which he referred? What time scale has he in mind?

Mainly because of the leasing considerations to which I referred in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test-(Mr. Hill), the operation is likely to take most of this decade.

asked the Steretary of State for Defence what has been the increase in uniformed manpower in the three Services since May 1979.

There were 18,630 more men and women in the Armed Forces at 31 October 1980 than at 30 April 1979. Of this increase, 1,009 were attributable to the Royal Navy, 11,944 to the Army, and 5,677 to the Royal Air Force. This represents a 6 per cent. increase over the period.

I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Do those figures indicate that many of the vacancies in technical and specialist skills that we inherited from the previous Administration have now been filled?

While recruiting last year was, with only one exception, the highest for the past 17 years, there is still a considerable way to go to make good the rather severe drain highly skilled personnel that we have had in recent years—in particular, engineers in the Royal Navy, fighter controllers in the Royal Air Force and certain other specialist skills among other ranks.

Has recruitment to the Army been suspended?

It is not true that recruitment has been suspended. Certain changes are made in the advertising campaign from time to time to take account of particular developments and considerations.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is still satisfied that the offshore protection vessels already in service and under construction provide the best value for money for the task.

Yes, Sir.

If the Minister is looking for savings in his Department, which one assumes are to be made, is not this one area in which, as informed circles believe, savings can be made by using aircraft and ships which are already under construction or in use in other parts of the country, which could do the job more quickly? Can he tell us what sales have yet been achieved for any of the OPVs now under construction in British yards?

The two that are under construction at the moment are not yet in commission with the Royal Navy. I have seen them both. They represent a significant increase in capability over the Island class, which itself has done very well. I have no doubt at all that if we would stop knocking this design, which is a very good design, and back up Hall Russell which is building them, there is a very good export potential indeed, because these vessels can operate helicopters, have a very good endurance and a very good speed.

Does the Minister agree that the greatest need at the moment in the fleet is for a smaller, robust and cheaper ship of about 2,000 tons which would have a helicopter-carrying capacity without a hangar capacity and that we could perhaps seek export orders in this regard as well?

My hon. Friend refers to the type 23 frigate. I am pursuing that with energy.

Will the Minister concede that among the most important features of these vessels are increased speed and better sea-keeping capability?

Yes, Sir. That is the new Castle class OPV which is stabilised, twin screw and will have a 10,000-mile range.

Although most of Britain's defence needs are by their very nature hypothetical, the need to protect our fisheries and offshore installations is obvious, real and immediate. Will the Minister say whether the Ministry of Defence intends to cancel any future orders for small ships in the coming year?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what contingency plans he makes to use a merchant navy under the British flag as part of United Kingdom defence capability.

There are plans to take up a number of British merchant ships from trade to support a variety of defence operations including minelaying, minesweeping and reinforcement.

Is the Minister aware that in the last war thousands of British seamen lost their lives transporting food and troops all over the world? Does not the reduction of British ships sailing under the British flag—93 in last year alone—seriously weaken our defence capability? Will he consider spending just a small proportion of the defence budget on ensuring that a British Merchant Navy remains in existence?

That is not a matter for the defence budget. Notwithstanding the decline in the British merchant fleet, we are confident at the moment that all our requirements can be met. I hope that some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents will have heard some of his remarks.

Can the Minister confirm that there are very close relationships between his Department and the General Council of British Shipping as to the war use of the Merchant Navy? Can he also tell us what progress has been made in respect of the intriguing idea of using helicopters from container ships, carrying the control and maintenance equipment in containers which could be put aboard very readily in case of war?

I can confirm that there is excellent co-operation between the General Council of British Shipping, my Department and other Government Departments. As to using helicopters from merchant ships, as I announced in the Navy debate, we are at present conducting a study into the possibility of using tankers for such a role. Container ships are another possibility. That study is continuing in my own Department.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that it does not help to keep the British merchant fleet at the top of the league, where it should be, if British merchant seamen are on strike?

I would rather not comment on that. However, I certainly want to see a strong and viable British merchant fleet.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is now the total estimated cost of the Tornado programme; and how this compares with the original estimate at constant prices.

The total production cost to the United Kingdom of an order for 220 production GR mark Is and 165 production F2s is now estimated to be £4,870 million at September 1980 price levels. At constant price levels the real increase in the estimated unit production costs of the GR mark I since the start of full development in May 1970 is about 25 per cent. and of the F2, which entered full development in July 1976, about 6 per cent.

Do not reports from Germany seem to indicate that the cost of this machine is getting out of control? Are not the Government aware that it is quite absurd to suppose that the United Kingdom economy can carry the Tornado, the North Atlantic and protection of the Trident, BAOR, and protection of the air in Western Europe?

It is interesting to note that, when a similar question was asked by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), the figures were 22 per cent. and 2 per cent. respectively. I think that that is more than two years ago, which indicates that the programme is by no means out of control. The Germans have had budgetary difficulties of their own.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is no threat whatever to the production of Tornado either from the West German Government, or, indeed, his own Department, and that it will come on stream, as originally planned, in due course?

Yes, I can confirm that.

Are not the Secretary of State and his Ministers ashamed of the answer that we have just received? Bearing in mind that the right hon. Gentleman has recently come from a Department which has had business people knocking on the door for financial help to create jobs and to bring down unemployment—which was the promise which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues made in the pre-election period—what does he intend to do about it?

We shall continue with the programme for this excellent aircraft, which supplies many thousands of jobs in advanced British industries.

Does my hon. Friend agree that never in post-war Royal Air Force history has a single airframe been developed to fulfil such a wide multiplicity of roles? In those circumstances, is not it a great tribute to the design expertise of the industry and the versatility of the aircraft that it is as effective as it has proved to be in its service and testing to date?

I welcome the opportunity to associate the Government with the remarks my hon. Friend has just made.

Are the Secretary of State and his ministerial team interested only in deluding themselves, or do they intend to delude the whole House? Can this country really afford projects such as Trident, the ECA and various expensive navy projects about which we have heard from the Minister, as well as paying for almost 400 of these extremely expensive aircraft? The Minister knows full well that something in that budget must go. Is it not about time that he came clean and told the house exactly where the Government's defence priorities lie?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend intends to make a statement at 3.30 pm if he succeeds in catching the eye of the Chair.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he makes of the likelihood of any conventional war in Europe extending into one in which nuclear weapons are used.

Our policy of deterrence is to prevent a war altogether, but if one were to occur I could not exclude the possibility that it would escalate into an exchange of nuclear weapons.

If that is the case, and the Minister admits that a conventional war in Europe is likely to deteriorate into a nuclear war, why do we need such a build-up of conventional troops in Europe? If his policy—[Interruption.] It is strange that some of the main critics of my visit to Afghanistan went on all-expenses-paid trip to South Africa as guests of the Government, including the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). If the Minister—[Interruption.]—

Order. It is a fundamental rule in this House that everyone has a right to be heard.

If the Minister believes that nuclear weapons will prevent a war, why do we need expenditure on such massive conventional forces?

To use the hon. Gentleman's phrase, the build-up of our conventional forces in Germany is considerably less than the recent build-up of the Russian forces in Afghanistan. As the hon. Gentleman knows very well indeed, our conventional forces are at present heavily outnumbered by those of the Warsaw Pact.

Is not a better answer to the hon. Gentleman's question that if we seek to prevent war from escalating into nuclear conflict, a raising of the nuclear threshold is required, and for that reason it is absolutely essential that we adhere to the re-equipment programme which was set out in last year's White Paper and which should not be substantially affected by any statement today?

I have held my new job for only a week, and my hon. Friend seems to be after it already. I entirely agree with him. What he said about the nuclear threshold is absolutely correct, and I support every word that he said.

Is not the prospect of a war remaining conventional from the beginning to the bitter end the most realistic and dangerous prospect that this country has to face? Does not the new Secretary of State agree that it is upon that hypothesis that the provision and preparation of our forces ought overwhelmingly to be based?

I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we must be prepared for any kind of war which might break out on the European front. The emphasis which he places upon our conventional forces—I well know his views—is one that I strongly support. But we must maintain a range of weapons from conventional through to theatre nuclear and strategic nuclear if we are to match the threat from the Warsaw Pact.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the progress being made in relation to the Trident nuclear weapons system and the updating of contracting arrangements with the United States of America.

It has been agreed with the United States that the purchase of the Trident weapon system will be handled within the framework of the Polaris sales agreement. Under these arrangements the United Kingdom obtains the advantage of common contract prices with the United States Navy.

I thank the Minister for that answer. Has he digested the speech his predecessor made on 16 December to the Royal United Services Institute relating to the nuclear weapons system of this country? Because of the time scale, can he indicate when an order for the first submarine is expected to be placed with British Shipbuilders, because if that planning procedure is not carried out soon, the loading of these important United Kingdom yards will be prejudiced?

I have not yet digested that particular speech of my right hon. Friend, although I have read a great number of his speeches during the last few days. As to the programme for the building of nuclear submarines, I am conscious of the need to ensure a sensible loading in our shipyards. That is a matter which bears very much with me, not just for the Trident programme but for our general programme as a whole.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Rapier sale to the United States Air Force, which has been allowed to count as offset for the Trident purchase, has yet been finalised, or is it still being held up by some dispute over accommodation for the personnel concerned?

I understand from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that the agreement is close to finalisation but has not yet been completed.

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how nuclear weapons defend freedom and liberty when their use will be undertaken by a small elite and will lead to the mass extermination of the people of this nation and elsewhere, whether they like it or not? What about the freedom to survive of those who choose not to support nuclear weapons?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's strong feelings on the subject, but I cannot understand how unilateral nuclear disarmament by us can advance the cause of peace. All the evidence of the past 35 years makes clear that the Soviet Union acknowledges only strength. There is no occasion on which there has been evidence that unilateral weakness on our part would do anything other than encourage the Soviet Union in its aggressive intentions.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the pilots who flew Spitfires and Hurricanes in the Battle of Britain were a small elite and that we should thank goodness for them?

I agree with my hon. Friend.

Is the likely price of £4½ billion to £5 billion the latest good estimate of the cost of the Trident, or has that already escalated? Do not many fear that the effect of acquiring Trident will be to narrow our defence contribution? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is why we oppose the acquisition of Trident? It makes no defence sense, quite apart from the other arguments.

As I said earlier, we must regard the Trident system as an integral part of our defences and not an addition to them. The estimate of the cost is exactly as my right hon. Friend gave it—about £4½ billion to £5 billion for four submarines spread over the period to the mid-1990s.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence approximately how much would be saved in the year 1980–81 if the proportion of the gross national or domestic product devoted to the United Kingdom arms programme were reduced to the average proportion of the other European North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Governments.

Between £3½ billion and £4½ billion.

Is that not an astounding figure? We are spending £3½ billion to £4½ billion a year more than the other Western European countries of NATO. Why should a poorer country spend a larger proportion of its wealth in that way than the richer countries?

The manner of assessing defence expenditure varies. We find ourselves about midway in average expenditure per head. As I shall be explaining in my statement later, our contribution to NATO is extremely good. We should be proud of the fact that we are playing a major deterrent role on behalf of the Alliance.

Will my right hon. Friend explain to the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) that it is irrelevant to compare Britain's defence expenditure with that of our allies, because they are not the threat? Is it not deeply disturbing that for the past 10 years the Soviet Union has been spending three times as large a proportion of its GNP on armaments as have NATO nations?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The need for us is to ensure that our front-line capability is continually strengthened in order to face a massive threat from the Warsaw Pact. That is the reason for our present level of defence expenditure. I shall explain in my statement what we intend to do in 1981–82.

Are not the Prime Minister and every other departmental Minister always talking about spending what we can afford? Will the right hon. Gentleman take a serious look at our defence expenditure? Present contributions to NATO are based on gross national products of the early 1950s. If we are to talk sense about economics, ought we not to examine that fact very seriously?

In the last resort, we are talking about defending our liberties. That is what our defence policy is intended to do.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that Mr. Attlee's Government spent 11 per cent. of GNP on defence and that of Mr. Neville Chamberlain, who was regarded by many as the arch appeaser, spent 6 per cent? We are not doing very well in comparison with either of those gentlemen.

I do not know that I should necessarily wish to compare myself with either of those gentleman, but I certainly take my right hon. Friend's point. Our present expenditure can be compared, as a percentage of GDP, with that of all our allies and can be compared favourably with the expenditure of the United States. The proportion of our GDP devoted to defence is rising, not falling.