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

There was considerable progress during 1974 permitting the withdrawal without relief of three major units to match the gradual reduction in violence achieved by the operations of the security forces.

Will the right hon. Gentleman convey to our troops our admiration of their courage and devotion which has brought about the present cessation of firing? At the same time, does he agree that any kind of relaxation of vigilance at this time, while human, would be dangerous and might frustrate the outcome we all desire?

I am obliged to the hon. Member and I am sure that Her Majesty's Forces in Northern Ireland will appreciate what he has said. They have been very skilful and at the same time very diplomatic and they have done a remarkable job. In the past 12 months they have arrested 1,367 terrorists and recovered 1,260 weapons, 150,000 rounds of ammunition and 24 tons of explosives. During the course of the ceasefire they have maintained patrols, but not as many, they have managed to carry on with the security on the border and they have managed to keep up a regular search of vehicles and, if necessary, houses and persons.

On behalf of my colleagues, I should like to identify myself with the remarks by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) concerning the courage and determination of Her Majesty's Forces in Northern Ireland. Is the Secretary of State in a position to tell the House what general orders are now prevailing among troops during the cease-fire in Northern Ireland? Will he say what troops, if any, have left Northern Ireland since the cease-fire?

I am obliged to the hon. Member for what he said. No troops have been withdrawn during the ceasefire. They have adopted a rôle of vigilance but on a low profile. The hon. Member and the House will have to await what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has to say at the conclusion of Question Time concerning the next steps in the cease-fire.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make quite clear that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland understands what must be passing through the minds of our troops over there when they see walking about the streets and released from detention men who in their opinion might have been responsible for killing some of their colleagues? Admittedly the Secretary of State has difficult decisions, but he should understand that.

I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman and every other hon. Member that I am perfectly well aware of that, as is my right hon. Friend. We are always aware that when there is a release of detainees, even though they may have been scrupulously screened, there is the possibility that they might go back to carrying out some of the activities for which they were arrested. We are aware of that and we have to watch it carefully.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his best estimate of the number of British soldiers killed by terrorists and the number of terrorists killed by British soldiers in action in Northern Ireland during 1974.

Thirty-five Service personnel were killed by terrorist activity and 10 persons were killed by the security forces in circumstances which suggest that they were engaged in terrorist activities.

May I ask the Minister to answer the Question, which was about the number not only of terrorists killed by British forces over the last year but of British Service men killed by terrorists? Will he confirm that the number of British Service personnel killed by terrorists is considerably in excess of the number of terrorists killed by British forces? Does not this suggest that possibly the rules restricting the behaviour of our forces in Northern Ireland are unduly restrictive at the present time?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should ask me for that answer. If he had been listening to my reply, he would have heard me say that 35 members of the armed forces were killed by terrorists last year.

On the second point raised by the hon. Gentleman, it is extremely difficult to judge what is at the back of his mind. Is he trying to make a valid comparison? If he is, I point out to him that he cannot do so, because the terrorists aim to kill or at any rate to maim, whereas the security forces use force only in response to attack. They do so with the greatest restraint and in keeping with the law of the land.

Last year 1,367 persons were arrested and charged. As at 31st December, more than 1,500 persons were serving prison sentences as a result of apprehension by the armed forces. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should relax respect for the law by the British forces in Northern Ireland so that the 1,500 people at present in prison should be dead instead, he will not get much support either in this House or in the country.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that the kind of comment just made by the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) is unfortunate at this time when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is trying to extend the truce?

I thought I had made that abundantly clear.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Army is at present unable to reply to attacks by mortars and so on if the enemy is operating from concealed or hidden positions? Is there any possibility of relaxation of this practice so that the Army can reply in kind to terrorists?

I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman has said is strictly true. If mortars are being used and the position from which they are being fired can be located, return fire is made. If the hon. Gentleman is thinking of incidents across the border, that is another issue.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman's Department for having arranged a visit to Northern Ireland, from which I have just returned. Is he aware that a broadsheet called "Visor" is being produced in Northern Ireland which sets out succinctly the way in which our Services have been magnificently successful in cutting down the rate of killings, and so forth, of the troops? Will he arrange for this admirable publication to be placed in the Library for the benefit of Members?

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his comments. I am glad that he had a good trip to Northern Ireland and I am particularly pleased that he has mentioned "Visor", which is much appreciated by the troops. I shall see that copies are placed in the Library of the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of tactical nuclear weapons in service with British forces, in the light of the defence review.

No change is planned in the rôle of tactical nuclear weapons in service with British forces. The defence review proposals do not affect this question.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the very large numbers of such weapons in the European theatre increases the danger that any conflict in Europe might quickly accelerate into a nuclear war? Since the preponderance of these weapons lies with the NATO countries, is not this a direction in which the West could usefully take an initiative towards mutual disarmament? Why are the British Government resisting the Dutch proposals that such weapons be included in the MBFR talks in Vienna?

First, no, I do not agree with my hon. Friend's initial comment about increasing the possibility of conflict. The tactical nuclear weapons in the hands of the West and the NATO nations are part of the triad for flexible response. We mainly depend upon conventional arms in Western Europe and hope that they will be sufficient to withstand a conventional assault, but the tactical nuclear weapons part of the flexible response will be there as a second stage before we would go to the nuclear holocaust. In that sense they are part of our deterrent. I hope that my hon. Friend will not believe that these weapons are only in the hands of the West. They are certainly in the hands of the East as well.

When, in December, the right hon. Gentleman resisted the Dutch proposal to reduce the rôle of tactical nuclear weapons in Western Europe, he gave as his reason the fact that such a move might bring forward the time when the strategic nuclear deterrent might have to be used and that we should not make any such move in advance of the agreement in Vienna at the MBFR talks. Do not exactly these two arguments apply to his own proposal to reduce our reinforcement capability to NATO?

No, I do not think they do. We are well within our national rôle of activity in reappraising our forces provided we are still carrying out our task within the collective security of NATO, even though we may be lessening our effort on the flanks and hoping that those countries in NATO will be strengthening their effort as we withdraw from the flanks. Therefore, the hon. Member's initial comment does not square up with that point.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of the advanced Harrier aircraft.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Edelman) on 4th November. The advanced Harrier aircraft is one of a number of alternatives which are being considered to meet a possible RAF requirement for a replacement aircraft for the Jaguar and Harrier. This possible requirement is still a long way off and our studies are still in progress. No firm decision on the type of aircraft we require is therefore yet possible.

Does my hon. Friend accept that with the cancellation of the HS146 an advanced Harrier, for which a large market is virtually assured in America at least, is one of the few remaining viable projects left open for the British aircraft industry? Therefore, will he have discussions with colleagues in the Department of Industry to make sure that we do not end up in the 1980s with no aircraft industry of our own and having to buy aircraft from the Americans?

The existence of a British aircraft industry is important to my right hon. Friends and to me. It is important to note, however, that the Americans, although they are undertaking studies about the advanced Harrier, have reached no firm decision yet, and this will be borne in mind. The primary requirement is for a Jaguar/Harrier replacement, which will be needed towards the end of the next decade, and therefore at this stage it is prudent that the RAF should study its exact requirements in as much detail as possible, so that we do not undertake any needless expenditure.

Is not the Minister aware that the V/STOL capability of the Harrier, and therefore of an advanced Harrier, is already accepted as being of great value not only to the RAF but to other NATO air forces? Would it not be sensible for the Government to pursue this matter further and not wait until time has passed and the Americans have stepped into the market?

The Government are not allowing time to pass. Studies are being undertaken to bring about the most exact definition of the RAF's requirement for a replacement for the Harrier and Jaguar. When they have been completed a firm conclusion can be reached, and then we shall be in a position to proceed, but it is certainly not yet time.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the purpose of the units of the armed forces stationed in Hong Kong.

To help preserve its territorial integrity.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is absurd to abandon all the link bases from South Africa across the Indian Ocean—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and to leave this garrison out on a limb when the limb does not exist? Is it not a waste of professional manpower and in military terms stupid when there is no air cover and no adequate naval support is possible?

No, Sir. That is not the view I take.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he last attended a meeting of Eurogroup in Brussels; and if he will make a statement on equipment standardisation in NATO.

As I told the House in the recent defence debate, the question of standardisation and increased collaboration on equipment was one of the main topics of discussion at the Eurogroup and NATO Defence Planning Committee ministerial meetings which I attended in Brussels last month. There was general agreement that work in this important field should be pressed forward with vigour. I personally hope to be able to play a useful part as Chairman of the Eurogroup during the coming year.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend upon becoming Chairman of the Eurogroup. Is he aware that my interest has to do with aviation? Is it correct that the F104 is due for replacement? In the light of that, will he comment about standardisation?

The Belgians, Danes, Dutch and Norwegians are looking for an F104 replacement. If it can be agreed, and if the choice is one aircraft, it will be a valuable step towards standardisation. But I have already informed them that if they fail to find one aircraft that will satisfy them in the dual rôle that they want it to perform, the Anglo-French Jaguar could satisfy one rôle. I have let them know that in Eurogroup. If they fail to find one aircraft for the dual rôle, I hope that the Anglo-French Jaguar will be considered.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a recent major exercise more than half the aircraft theoretically destroyed were shot down by their own side because of the incompatibility of aircraft recognition systems within the NATO Alliance? What is being done to end that deplorable state of affairs?

What the hon. Gentleman has said was correct. It is one of the values of the NATO Defence Planning Committee that it can release such information, in spite of the fact that its members may have felt at the time that it might do them harm. What happened shows the need, and makes the case, for pressing forward for standardisation. Studies are taking place to see whether we can have better aircraft recognition systems and communication systems to obviate that danger.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the quantity of fuel consumed and the cost of keeping one MRCA in the air for one hour on typical training flying.

It is too soon to say.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is unfortunate to be committing ourselves to an order for such an aircraft if we have little idea what the running costs will be? Is he satisfied that we can afford the plane, particularly as the programme will probably cost more than the Channel Tunnel? Even if we can afford to buy it, is my hon. Friend satisfied—as he does not know the cost—that we can keep it in the air to train crews to use it?

I know the concern which has been expressed by hon. Members about the possible cost of the aircraft, but the best evidence we have is that it will be less expensive from a flying point of view than other aircraft which it will replace. Those who believe that there is an alternative should spell out clearly what it is.

Will the hon. Gentleman also be able in his calculations to formulate the cost of not having an effective aircraft in the next generation?

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will take regional factors fully into account in determining the details of the defence review and, in particular, ensure that jobs are not affected in areas of high and persistent unemployment.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will take regional factors into account in determining the outcome of the defence review and, in particular, ensure that jobs are not affected in areas of high and persistent unemployment.

Yes, of course, but if we are to implement fully the savings in defence spending we have in mind it will not be easy to give regional factors overriding consideration.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he have regard, however, to the present high rate of unemployment in the Yorkshire and Humberside Region compared with the rest of the United Kingdom if it comes to the possibility of cancelling defence contracts?

We shall certainly bear in mind and try as far as possible to ensure that areas of high and persistent unemployment are least affected by the necessary loss of job opportunities which will follow the defence review.

As at the time of the defence review the Secretary of State could not name which airfields he would close, but could say only that there would be 12, will the Minister now name them? Are Yorkshire airfields involved? Will the Minister also make good the other deplorable lack in the defence review—a statement on North Sea defence?

That goes rather wider than the Question. We are anxious to give the House the maximum information as soon as possible. The undertaking given by my right hon. Friend in the defence debate stands, of course.

Can the Minister give us any time scale for the announcement of details of the cut-back in manpower on stations? In Moray and Nairn, where there are two stations, there is considerable uncertainty in the whole community, and uncertainty is good for nobody—neither for the members of the RAF nor for the civilians involved in the work. Will the time scale be one month, two months or three months?

I entirely agree with the hon. Lady about uncertainty. We are as anxious as she is to end it. We have it in mind to publish a Defence White Paper giving the conclusions of the review when we have completed our consultations The hon. Lady may therefore be sure that the information will be available then, if not sooner.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if there are to be substantial cuts in defence expenditure there must inevitably be cuts in the number of jobs available? Will he make it clear to Members who are the most vocal advocates of the highest cuts and who have defence projects in their areas that that is the certain consequence of what they are advocating?

It is Polaris we are against.

It is painful but inescapable that major savings in defence expenditure have consequences for employment. We shall try as far as possible to ensure that such savings do not fall mainly on areas of high and persistent unemployment. We shall do our best to find alternative work for those in areas where job opportunities are lost.

Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson), may I ask the Minister to include in the Government's White Paper a passage about North Sea defences? It is a matter about which there is a great lack of information. The public are very interested.

I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows about the study at present in progress. We hope to have something in the White Paper even if we cannot make a statement sooner.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the number of through-deck cruisers to be made available to the Royal Navy; what is the delivery schedule; and what is the cost per vessel.

HMS "Invincible", the first of the new class of anti-submarine cruisers, will enter service towards the end of the decade. I am afraid that it would be premature to give information on the future programme or costs.

Will my hon. Friend say when he will be able to give such a time scale? Does he agree in anticipation that this is an expensive programme? Does he agree that the money might be better spent on building more homes or in allowing local authorities more subsidies so that they do not have to increase rents—a matter that we may be discussing later today?

I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that it is not our practice to reveal numbers in our future shipbuilding plans. All I can say is that we are planning a class of these ships. I am sure my hon. Friend will realise that on the ground of economy there is a strong case for such ships. The anti-submarine capability of the cruiser will be much greater than that of all the frigates we could purchase with the same money.

Is the Minister aware that my right hon. and hon. Friends will be glad that he is now confirming that there will not be only one ship of this type but that there will be others? It will, therefore, be the first of a class of ship. Is the hon. Gentleman able to tell us anything about whether it will be equipped with the maritime Harrier?

Like a number of other projects, the maritime Harrier is under consideration. A decision will be announced as soon as possible. As the hon. and learned Gentleman is aware, the case for the cruiser does not depend upon the maritime Harrier. Obviously the development of such aircraft would enhance the capabilities of the ship.

Is it a wise decision, even from the point of view of those who believe in increased defence expenditure, to go ahead with the ship when no decision has been made on the maritime Harrier? If the decision is made not to go ahead with the maritime Harrier we may well be wasting our money, even in the eyes of those who believe in this unnecessary ship.

With great respect, I believe that my hon. Friend misunderstands the situation. The primary capability of this ship will be the deployment of many Sea King anti-submarine helicopters, each with about the same capability as a frigate. It will significantly enhance the Royal Navy's anti-submarine capability.

Is the Minister aware that discussion on the maritime Harrier continues month after month and year after year with no decision being made? Surely he accepts the necessity of these aircraft for the Royal Navy, and surely a decision should be forthcoming more or less immediately.

The matter is actively under consideration. I can assure the hon. Member, whose interest I have appreciated and noted for a long time, that we shall delay no longer than necessary in coming to our conclusions.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how he intends to help those members of Her Majesty's Forces whom he will make redundant to find another job.

There already exists an extensive and well proven resettlement service to assist all personnel leaving the forces to find new employment, and those made redundant as a result of the defence review would naturally be able to make use of it. We are considering whether its resources need to be supplemented in any way.

Is the Minister aware that at a time of growing unemployment the cuts announced in the defence review can have only an adverse effect? Does he agree that, whatever might be the ideological reasons for cutting down on the Services, throwing men out of work is not compatible with the present employment situation?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has introduced the false note of ideology into a discussion of a genuine human problem. It is true that there will be situations which may be difficult. We shall do our best. I should say that the numbers becoming redundant are a relatively modest proportion of the total number of personnel who leave the Armed Services every year for whom resettlement services exist.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the view of economists and economic historians that since 1945 the chief reason for recurring economic recession has been a deficit in our balance of payments due to the money expended on military forces abroad? Would it not be sensible to cure economic recession by withdrawing such troops or reducing their numbers?

I should like to hear chapter and verse from my hon. Friend before being persuaded that in the opinion of economists and economic historians our balance of payments deficit since 1945 has been due mainly to the presence of British forces abroad. We believe that the savings we are making in defence expenditure are justified, and we intend to proceed with them. I hope very much that they will win the support of my hon. Friend.

Will the Minister send his hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) details of the defence expenditure of the Warsaw Pact countries? Will he take this opportunity of reiterating that the prime duty of every Government is to defend the homes of this land and not to waste money on extravagant and unnecessary domestic expenditure? The position of defence expenditure must always be first and foremost.

This is a matter of balance and common sense. We have to maintain an adequate defence programme for our national interest, but unless we spend sufficiently on all the important social programmes at home we shall not be fulfilling our obligations.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his progress with regard to the ending of the Simonstown Agreement.

The conduct of the negotiations is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, but, as he reaffirmed when he saw the South African Prime Minister on 4th January, Her Majesty's Government's aim is to terminate the agreement as soon as possible.

Will the Minister bear in mind Soviet naval activity in the Indian Ocean and the possible danger to oil supplies to the whole of Western Europe which that activity could bring about? Will he consult our NATO allies with a view to seeing whether there is any possibility of a NATO solution to defence in the area of the Indian Ocean which would help this country and which would help to solve the problem?

I am aware of the first point raised by the hon. Gentleman. On his second point, I believe that the NATO Defence Planning Council is worried about the growth of Soviet naval activity around the Cape and the Indian Ocean and that it will probably be embarking upon the study that he suggests.

Will my right hon. Friend deny that NATO has its eyes on Simonstown and that the study to which he refers has already started contrary to NATO's charter, which precludes it from going further south than a specified limit?

I am not aware of the detail to which my hon. Friend refers regarding the study. He suggested that NATO has its eyes on Simonstown. That means nothing. Any fleet of any nation can now use Simonstown, and fleets use it. The French and the Iranians as well as the British call in when they are moving round the Cape. Rest and recreational facilities are good, and it is too good a port visit for many of the fleets to miss. Even if we renegotiate the Simonstown Agreement it is still our intention to use it as other fleets of the world use it—namely, on a customer basis.

Leaving aside ideological considerations, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Simonstown Agreement is of immense importance to Britain's defence?

The hon. Gentleman has not been taking notice of developments in recent times. Simonstown is of lessening importance to the defence of this country. The use of Simonstown can help fleets of the world in replenishment and in training exercises when going round the Cape and, as far as we are concerned, in going on exercises with CENTO and SEATO. It also serves a useful purpose for protecting the trade routes around the Cape. Because of our gradual withdrawal from the East, however, it is of lessening importance to us.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is yet able to announce whether the nuclear test programme of 1974 was successful.

The single United Kingdom nuclear device test which was carried out in 1974 successfully met its prime objectives.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this was not a "planted" Question? Will he also confirm to the House that there is no 1975 programme?

"Planted" Questions are alien to my view of parliamentary democracy. I cannot confirm the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. I must await the full analysis of the test to see whether it may be necessary to have another test in future. It would be foolish of me to say that there will never be another test underground in Nevada of the effectiveness of our nuclear deterrent.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will issue a tabular statement comparing military spending—under the principal heads in the Defence White Paper—in 1974–75 with that now estimated for each of the next four years.

As the answer is in the form of a chart, I will, with permission, publish it in the Official Report. I shall be considering what further detailed information on the defence review can helpfully be published after the consultation process.

Do not my right hon. Friend's own figures show that, compared with this year, there has to be not a cutback but an increase in our spending? Secondly, will he recognise that harsh economic realities will force him to cut back, just as they did in 1968, and that it would be far better to do it now, before economic bankruptcy hits the country and the Labour Government suffer in consequence the fate which the Labour Government suffered at the 1970 General Election?

I am sorry to hear my hon. Friend's gloomy prognostications. Apparently he wants to talk the nation into economic bankruptcy. To the 35,000 people affected in the Services, the 10,000 in the defence industries and the 15,000 employed at Ministry of Defence establishments, these cuts are very real. I emphasise once more to my hon. Friend and to the House that when one embarks on cuts in defence expenditure one embarks upon cuts on what was planned and proposed in the long-term costings. In 1975–76 the planned expenditure on defence was to be £4,000 million. It will now be £3,700, a real cut of £300 million.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his assessment of the effect on recruitment of his proposed reduction in defence expenditure.

It is difficult to to say at this stage, but we shall be making it clear that the Services will continue to offer a wide range of career opportunities and require large numbers of recruits.

In relation to career prospects, does the hon. Gentleman accept that among middle-ranking members of the Royal Air Force, some of whom I met during the recess, there is considerable uneasiness? Does he agree that the human factor may prove even more important than the economic and material factors, particularly if the emphasis in future is to be on quality rather than quantity?

I would not dissent from that view, but it is worth noting that recruiting so far in the current financial year—a year which has been dominated by the defence review—has been markedly better than during the corresponding period last year. We believe that the position is being held.

In view of the proposed defence rundown, will my hon. Friend agree to review the applications made by members of the Services to buy themselves out which have been refused because of their length of service?

My hon. Friend has raised a new point and I shall look into it.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the attractions of recruitment at the moment is the way ex-Service men are treated by some local authorities as regards housing at the time of demobilisation? What progress has he made in his talks with the Department of the Environment on this matter?

As the right hon. Gentleman suggests, housing has been a problem. I am hoping that a circular will shortly be sent to all local authorities drawing attention to the ways in which they can help in what are genuine human problems.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he has made in providing a welfare television service for British troops in Germany.

We intend to provide a live British television service combining programmes from all three channels for the British forces in West Germany. All the main concentrations of personnel and their families should be served within about three years and in the meantime we have plans to provide a more restricted recorded service, starting in those areas where the need for amenities is greatest.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this is welcome news particularly for the wives and families of Service men, not least the wives and families of Service men enduring tours of duty in Northern Ireland? Is he further aware that I feel sure that most members of the British forces in Germany will be pleased by that answer?

Will the hon. Gentleman nevertheless bear in mind that, welcome though this service will be, as with the Simonstown problem the primary object of British forces is to defend this country and not to indulge in excessive welfare activities?

Those comments are unworthy of the hon. Gentleman. We have all to recognise that as long as British troops have to be stationed overseas they are entitled to the amenities which their civilian counterparts enjoy.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are being taken to maintain the effectiveness of the Polaris force by updating it.

I have nothing further to add to the answers given by my hon. Friend on 11th and 13th December to the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter).

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hope is that the Polaris forces will be phased out and that it will not be very long before this is done?

I have explained to the House many times that this will be subject to multilateral negotiations. We would like to get the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and the MBFR negotiations out of the way first before we start talking about Polaris and its withdrawal.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to complete his consultations with the shipbuilding industries regarding the defence review.

In good time for the publication of the White Paper which my right hon. Friend proposes to issue.

While I thank the Minister for that information, may I ask him to ensure that at the time the review is concluded the closest possible attention will be paid to the change in employment prospects which may result? More particularly, will attention be paid to the change that may take place in the ability of the industry to deliver export orders as a result of a change to Government-controlled dockyards? Is not this a case of cut-price back-door nationalisation in an attempt to change the form of the industry?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all the points he has mentioned are well to the forefront of the Government's considerations.

Can my hon. Friend enlighten the House on an aspect of defence policy which relates to private British industry, including shipbuilding? In so far as the Department is responsible for the defence of the nation, can my hon. Friend say to what extent it is responsible for checking on the activities of allies like the Americans who, it is alleged, have an organisation called the CIA which is conducting espionage activities in British industries for reasons we do not yet know?

As my hon. Friend is aware, that is a question for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to the future of the Beira naval patrol.

As we have repeatedly made clear, we shall continue to fulfil our obligations under Security Council Resolution No. 221 of 1966. The patrol has been completely effective in achieving its aim of preventing oil reaching Rhodesia via Beira. Last year I visited HMS "Leopard" when she was on the Beira patrol. I was greatly impressed by the professional efficiency and loyalty with which an often tedious task was being conducted.

Is the Minister aware that the status of Mozambique has totally changed since the Portuguese gave that area self-government? Can he honestly say that the patrol is now serving a useful purpose? Can he say how often it is on station, and will he tell us how much it is costing the taxpayer annually?

Part of that question is obviously for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. It is not wise to try to separate the cost of an operation of this kind from operations as a whole in that part of the world, because it is essentially linked to all our activities in the Indian Ocean.

Will the Minister confirm that Simonstown was the single most valuable support base in recent years for the Beira patrol?

It is possible to maintain this patrol without the facilities available at Simonstown. My right hon. Friend has already referred to Simonstown in his answers this afternoon.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on 7th December to a meeting of London Labour mayors about British policy towards the EEC.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech in London on 7th December about Great Britain and the EEC.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech to the Labour mayors in London on Saturday 7th December on the renegotiations with the EEC.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on EEC matters to London Labour mayors on 7th December.

I did so on 9th December, Sir.

Does the Prime Minister recall that in that speech he said that if the terms were right he personally would recommend them to the British public? If we are still a parliamentary democracy, is there not another necessary step? Will the right hon. Gentleman now give the assurance, which he side-stepped before Christmas, that at the right time and before any referendum the Leader of the House will arrange for a full debate in this House so that we can pass a judgment on the terms after that debate, on a free vote?

This was not side-stepped before Christmas. I dealt with some of the questions put at that time including that one. If there is to be a referendum it will require legislation by the House with all the necessary debate surrounding that matter.

Further to that point, can my right hon. Friend tell the House what time-scale he has in mind? Can he give us any indication of when he or the other members of the Community think that negotiations will be concluded? Can he then say when he expects the legislation to be laid before the House? Would he agree that if it is not laid very soon it will be impossible to fulfil the time-scale he had in mind in his original idea of getting the consent of the British people within 12 months of the last election?

The last part is a commitment of the Government. It is not possible for me to give any firm forecasts about the timetable because this is a matter for negotiation between nine nations and not a matter for one. I am sure that it is the desire not only of the Government but of the whole House, as it is of our colleagues involved in the negotiations, that we should proceed with all possible speed to reach a conclusion on this matter. I know that it is the hope and expectation of many that we shall be able to do that before Easter.

The Prime Minister will agree that the tenor of his speech was that everything depends on the result of the negotiations. Is he aware that the tenor of the letter written recently to constituents by the Secretary of State for Industry is entirely different and contradicts his speech? What impression does the right hon. Gentleman think is given to our partners in the Community when the Prime Minister is flatly contradicted by one of his own Ministers?

In his letter to his constituents at the turn of the year my right hon. Friend made it quite clear that he was not anticipating the consequences of the negotiations or the terms that would result. He was expressing his analysis of certain constitutional aspects. The negotiations are being conducted within the EEC by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary who is speaking for the whole Government. Each quarter there are summit meetings of the European Council. On those occasions my right hon. Friend is joined by myself. We are negotiating strictly within the terms of the manifesto we put to the country, which was twice endorsed by the country last year.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether he expects the referendum to be fair when, with perhaps the exception of the Morning Star, the whole of the mass media is attempting to brainwash the public by insidious propaganda in favour of staying in the Common Market?

May I first express my regret that my hon. Friend is shortly to go into hospital? We very much regret the circumstances.

If the Government decide on a referendum and the legislation is put before the House, it will be a matter for the House to decide the circumstances in which any test of public opinion is taken, including questions of expenditure and the question of fair presentation of the case by both sides.

Is it not remarkable that although in his open letter the Secretary of State for Industry dwelt at great length on the constitutional traditions of the country he ignored one important tradition, that of collective responsibility? Is it not the Government's policy that if the terms are right we stay in, and is it not the policy of the Secretary of State for Industry that we do not stay in on any terms?

No, Sir, I do not accept that interpretation. The constitutional matters with which my right hon. Friend was concerned related to the authority of the House. I think it is the common view of all hon. Members that the House should retain the maximum authority in all matters affecting the welfare of our people.

What do the Government propose to do about our trade deficit with the EEC? Is not the Prime Minister aware that the deficit is being, and will be, used by the Secretary of State for Trade, among others, as a rather facile argument for withdrawal?

Figures of this magnitude cannot be regarded as in any sense facile. It was generally recognised by both sides of the House that for a few years there would be an adverse deficit. That was never in question. If Britain was in the EEC on the right terms it was generally recognised that it would take time for our exports to be geared up to the challenge we faced. What has happened so far is extremely disappointing. This is a matter for export policy and the efforts of exporters. So far, some of the more extreme hopes both in relation to exports and in relation to massive investment to make exports possible—for which the Leader of the Opposition called in Guildhall in 1970—have not been realised, but if the terms are right the whole Honse will hope that they are realised.

Does my right hon. Friend accept, however, that a critical factor shaping any of the recommendations which he or the Cabinet might make on the Common Market must be the decisions which are arrived at at the special Labour Party conference called on this matter?

Yes, Sir, of course. I answered a question about that from, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds)—

Yes, Sir.

on 19th December last.

The Prime Minister emphasised that the Foreign Secretary speaks for the whole Government and acknowledged that the Secretary of State for Industry speaks for himself. Will he confirm that the whole Government will be bound by the recommendation which the Government make?

Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that a debate on legislation for the referendum is not a debate on whatever may be the result of the so-called renegotiation, and that the House will insist on having a full debate, on which it takes its own decision, before the referendum is put to the country? In 1972 no one was more enthusiastic for a debate than was the present Prime Minister, and we had a six-day debate. He was also enthusiastic that there should not be a referendum.

Thirdly, on the timing of the referendum, an important part of any legislation must undoubtedly be the form of the question which is put to the electorate. How can that be settled until the Prime Minister has reported to the House the result of the so-called renegotiation?

In reply to his first supplementary question, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to wish him a Happy New Year before I answer his further questions.

What the right hon. Gentleman said in the main part of his supplementary question is perfectly fair. We shall certainly be prepared to have discussions through the usual channels about the form of the debate on the merits of the case as opposed to legislation. That is absolutely right. As we are committed to seeking, and are now proposing to seek, the full-hearted consent of the British people—on which the right hon. Gentleman once made a pledge—it is important that Parliament's lead in this matter should also be fully debated.

The right hon. Gentleman began by referring to my right hon. Friend's letter and by suggesting that I said he was speaking only for himself. I did not say that. My right hon. Friend, as part of the general debate, was dealing with an important question to which I am sure the whole House attaches importance. He was not dealing with the terms which will result from renegotiation. That is a matter which is set out in our manifesto, and it is on that basis that we are negotiating.

On the right hon. Gentleman's last point, which is again of great importance, I agree that the form of the question must be absolutely clear. That will be within the control of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman sponsored legislation for Northern Ireland in which the House was asked to approve the actual terms of the question which was included in the schedule to the Bill. That must be the situation in any legislation we bring before the House. My own answer to this must be perrfectly clear. [Interruption.] If anyone thinks it is not, let him get up and say so when I sit down. The form of ballot paper which we envisage would be a clear answer to the question "In?" or "Out?" answered by "Yes" or "No".

asked the Prime Minister on how many occasions he has now met the TUC and the CBI.

asked the Prime Minister on how many occasions he has now met the TUC and the CBI.

Since last March I have met representatives of the TUC and CBI either separately or together on 14 occasions, most recently at the meeting of the National Economic Development Council which I chaired last Wednesday and at my meeting with leaders of the CBI on Friday.

Will my right hon. Friend tell us a little more about his meeting with the TUC on the question of the immediate release of the Shrewsbury pickets, the victims of the Tory class war? Will he give a different message today to the thousands of trade unionists who are lobbying the House to secure the release of the two people who are fighting the last vestiges of the Industrial Relations Act? Will he, on behalf of the whole of the Parliamentary Labour Party, declare that we all support political prisoners, wherever they may be, even on own own doorstep?

In my meeting with the representatives of the TUC General Council on the question of the pickets I explained what has already been explained to the House by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The TUC fully understood that recommendations to the Queen within the prerogative of mercy are not a matter of collective Government decision and never have been. There has been no consideration of any such matters by any Government for the past half century. This is not a matter on which either the Cabinet or the Prime Minister can give directions to the Home Secretary. My right hon. Friend, like all his predecessors, has this difficult and invidious duty of making recommendations to Her Majesty on the basis of the special relationship of the Home Secretary to the Crown. That is not a matter on which the Government, the Cabinet or the Prime Minister can give any ruling whatsoever. That has never been contested.

In my meeting with the representatives of the TUC I undertook to pass on to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the arguments they put forward and the facts they adduced on that occasion so that he could consider them, and that is what I did.

Will the Prime Minister make clear that he does not endorse the disgraceful description used by his hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) of these men as political prisoners?

I take the view that these were defendants who were prosecuted in accordance with the law as it stood and sentenced in accordance with the law as it stood. To that extent I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. This is a matter for legislation in which the whole House has authority, and the whole House must consider whether the use of conspiracy charges in such cases is not totally unacceptable and wrong.

On the wider question of the Government's relations with the TUC and the CBI, will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is no question of the Government being dictated to by any section or group, right, left or centre? Will he also confirm that, in view of the serious economic crisis, the time has now come for the Government to demand sacrifices from every section of the community, except the lowest paid—and the bigger the income the bigger the sacrifice?

Yes, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend in his analysis of the position, and it is also the position of Her Majesty's Government. I do not now regard—any more than I did when I had responsibility for these matters on earlier occasions—meetings of NEDC or other meetings involving the TUC or CBI as meetings of right, left or centre.

I was encouraged last week by the NEDC meeting, at which we were directing ourselves to the problems inhibiting the investment programme which the country needs, by the talks which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had on Wednesday with the TUC and by my own meetings with the CBI. What we want to see—and we believe that this will now happen—is a continuing triangular discussion between the Government and the TUC, the Government and the CBI, and the CBI and the TUC, which is being planned so that all three groups in NEDC, both inside and outside it, can make the maximum contribution at the highest possible level of common ground so that we can identify the solution to the nation's economic problems.

rose—

Order. I must remind the House that we have two long statements and then there are three important matters of business. The time for this Question is up.