asked the Secretary of State for Defence what economies he hopes to make as a result of the reorganisation of defence commitments; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what economies he hopes to make as a result of the reoiganisai ion of defence commitments; and if he will make a statement.

At this stage I have nothing to add to my statement of 5th August. It remains our intention that defence expenditure in 1969–70 shall not exceed £2,000 million at 1964 prices. This would represent a cut of 16 per cent. or one-sixth on the plans of the previous Administration.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether this means that many garrisons overseas can be reduced to token strengths and whether that is the Government's intention in view of the saving to the nation, not only in manpower but in taxation?

I must point out to my hon. Friend that there is no saving by reducing garrisons overseas, except in foreign exchange, unless the men who are released by the reduction of the garrisons are then demobilised. The question is not a reduction of garrisons or the closing of bases but the military tasks which the nation is called on to perform.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has announced many economies before he has announced the policy? Is not that putting the cart before the horse?

I am glad to find that one hon. Gentleman opposite supports his Front Bench spokesman on this issue. It is possible to make up one's mind on some issues before making up one's mind on all issues and, in particular, it is possible to say now that the R.A.F. must have the aircraft it needs in time, which is why we took and announced the decisions about changes in the aircraft programme earlier this year.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that in his Defence White Paper he said that the danger of a Russian invasion was now remote? As that danger was presumably the cause of B.A.O.R. in the first place, will his current review seriously consider slashing the tremendous burden which we are now bearing?

I can answer my hon. Friend in his own terms. One of the reasons why the danger is reduced is the existence of B.A.O.R. and of N.A.T.O., and we do not want to restore the threat by removing what has caused it to disappear.

Does the right hon. Gentleman still stand by his statement of last summer, that by 1969–70 there would be an economy of £220 million in defence costs? How on earth did he arrive at that figure without knowing, for instance, whether the Phantom was to have a Rolls-Royce engine, or whether the Government were to order the Fl11A and, if so, in what quantities?

All the savings which I announced in August were on the assumption that the Spey would continue in the Phantom.