asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to attend a NATO meeting.

I expect to attend the meeting of NATO's Nuclear Planning Group to be held in Hamburg on 21st and 22nd January.

On the assumption that Iceland's threat about NATO will be discussed at that meeting, will the Minister explain what would be the effect if Iceland withdrew from NATO? May we assume that our policy in the cod war has the full support of our partners in the Common Market, particularly as Mr. Tindemans is advocating that we should have a common foreign policy and all speak with one voice?

On Mr. Tindemans report, and especially his idea of a European defence community, my advice to the House would be to counsel caution, especially as some of our NATO allies are not members of the Community. That sort of idea may be very difficult to get off the ground. I am sorry that the hon. Member raised the question of Iceland as part of his supplementary question, because there is a specific Question on this matter later on the Order Paper.

In view of the fact that the Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, Admiral Sir Peter Hill-Norton, has criticised the fact that NATO's line of responsibility ends at the Tropic of Cancer, will the Secretary of State, when he next meets his NATO colleagues, propose that a study should be commissioned into NATO's response south of that line and in the Indian Ocean, bearing in mind the increased Soviet naval activity in those areas?

I shall not propose that. If the hon. Member had examined these matters more closely he would know from past replies to that sort of question that the NATO military authorities, as distinct from individual nations, have commissioned a study of naval operations south of South Africa.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the level of expenditure by the Ministry of Defence in the last financial year on NATO defence obligations; and what proportion of this was spent on naval commitments to NATO.

Defence estimates for 1975–76 amounted to £4,548 million, of which about 5 per cent, is devoted to Service pensions and less than 5 per cent, to residual non-NATO tasks. The Royal Navy accounts for some 25 per cent, of the defence budget.

Is the Secretary of State able to confirm that in recent years there has been a considerable build-up of Soviet naval power in the Arctic Ocean, based on Murmansk and the Baltic Sea? Will he give an assurance that we shall continue to make an adequate contribution to the NATO defence on the Northern flank?

As to the naval contribution to the NATO Alliance, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that 75 per cent, of the naval activity in the Eastern Atlantic is provided by the Royal Navy. He will have noticed in recent times the maintenance of the through-deck cruiser programme. We have been able to get the Maritime Harrier programme. We have, therefore, maintained the quality of the Royal Navy. That should give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about his latest meeting with the other Defence Ministers of NATO.

I refer the hon. Member to the communiques issued after the Eurogroup meeting on 8th December and the Defence Planning Committee meeting on 9th and 10th December, which were both held in Brussels. Copies have been placed in the Library.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in the second of those communiques the Ministers reaffirmed the importance that they attached to the principle that NATO forces should not be reduced except in the context of a mutual and balanced force reduction agreement with the East? Will he confirm that nothing was said in that communique about a distinction between teeth and tail, and that those words commit not only himself but the whole Government?

Yes, that I accept, but it is possible to pare defence expenditure still more without affecting our NATO commitment and without cutting back on the combat capability of any of our three Services.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree—this is a major point that has arisen in two or three Questions this afternoon—that just as the reductions the Government have proposed will take effect over a certain number of years, so any proposals they make for rearmament and the strengthening of our defences will involve no immediate increase in public expenditure but will take effect and bring in a bill only in two or three years' time? Does not the situation that confronts us in the North, in the Mediterranean—in the Lebanon—in Angola and on the central front suggest that we should be increasing our expenditure rather than reducing it?

I hope the right hon. Gentleman recognises that we are now a middle-ranking Western European Power and not the imperialist nation that he dreams of. We cannot fight the wars of the world, nor can we go into major conflict on our own. What he has in mind is a dream world.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration has been given to reducing defence expenditure; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the defence cuts he proposes to introduce in the interests of economy in public expenditure.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a further statement about the implementation of defence cuts.

Defence expenditure, together with other public expenditure programmes, is presently under review as part of the normal annual public expenditure exercise. When the exercise has been completed, decisions will be announced in the usual way.

There has been considerable speculation in the media about cuts in public expenditure. Does my right hon. Friend realise that many of us will insist that if there are cuts in other fields of public expenditure there ought also to be cuts in defence spending? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the feeling that one of the problems facing this country is that there has been too great an investment in defence and that if some of that investment had gone into manufacturing industry and other sectors of industry, we would not have had the problems that we are now facing? Will my right hon. Friend bear this in mind in his consideration of these matters?

I shall consider my hon. Friend's point, but I must say that one of the reasons why we have had 30 years of peace in Western Europe is that Britain has been prepared to play an honourable part in the collective security of the western alliance. I recognise that because economic circumstances require cuts in public expenditure we may be called upon to curtail spending programmes in social services, housing, education and schools. It is right that defence should also come under the microscope, and so it has.

Is the Secretary of State seriously arguing that the external threat to this country has diminished since the defence review was carried out last year? How can he contemplate any further cuts in the defence budget when even neutral Sweden is spending £50 per head more than us on defence this year?

I do not say that the external threat has diminished, but we are members of an alliance and we are not facing that external threat alone. We are still playing an honourable part in that alliance, and if defence expenditure is to be affected in the public expenditure exercise it will be my duty to ensure that it does not impinge on our NATO commitment and the part that we play in the alliance.

In considering the defence potential of much of the equipment produced here, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it would be cutting off our nose to spite our face to have too big a cut-back in some of our aircraft developments? Will he also give an undertaking about the continuation of the MRCA programme?

I cannot give an absolute undertaking about any programme, but there are two Questions on the Order Paper about the MRCA and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will be answering them in due course. The right hon. Gentleman is right. If we cut back defence expenditure, especially in research and development, in due course civil industry will be affected because of the spin off, and this particularly applies to jobs. In many instances it might be the seed corn of future developments for both military and civilian purposes.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that any further cuts in British defence expenditure would serve only to undermine the credibility of the deterrent that he says has worked so well in recent years? How on earth, therefore, can he contemplate any further cuts?

I suppose that most hon. Members would hate to go through a defence expenditure exercise as I have done on one or two occasions in the last two years. However, when social service programmes are coming under keen scrutiny it is only right that defence ex- penditure should, as well. I think that with this exercise it may be possible to cut back on the tail end of our combat capability without affecting the teeth.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that although there may be an economic case for limited defence cuts, the Government have a paramount duty to maintain the credibility of NATO as a deterrent? Will he bear in mind that the Soviet Union has in the recent past indicated beyond doubt its capacity for acting as an aggressor and that by its constant increase in the personnel and equipment of its armed forces and by its foreign policy it is increasing to an enormous extent its capability of being an aggressor?

There is a great deal of truth in that. There is no doubt that the Soviet Union has increased its capability not only within Western Europe against NATO but world-wide. I also agree that NATO would be concerned if we cut back our defence expenditure to an extent that would impinge upon the commitments we have made to it in the Defence Review. I hope that I can avoid that.

Is the Secretary of State aware that if there were any further cuts in defence his own position would become impossible? Last year he repeatedly said that the Defence White Paper was a fundamental review of all our defence requirements, and he and the Chief of the Defence Staff said they could not be cut any further with safety. Will he make it clear that he will not accept further cuts that reduce our commitment to the NATO alliance, and will he give that undertaking now?

Until the expenditure exercise is complete it will be difficult to say how far the cuts will go either on social services or on defence, and therefore I cannot give a categoric assurance at the moment. However, the House may rest assured that it is my intention to try to maintain to the full our commitment to our NATO allies, and that is the exercise upon which we are embarked.

Does my right hon. Friend remember that the 1951 Labour Government embarked upon a great rearmament programme? Does he recall that when the late Sir Winston Churchill took over he said he had found that the country had an arms burden that was beyond its economic capacity to bear, and that he had decided to reduce it? Will my right hon. Friend follow that noble example?

If my right hon. Friend considers the party commitment on NATO and the manifesto pledge that we made with the defence cuts we carried out, I think that he will see that this was precisely what we were doing. Apart from the £110 million cut at 1974 prices in 1976–77, we have already embarked upon cutting back £4,700 million from programmed defence expenditure over the next nine years.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from NATO over the proposals for further cuts in defence expenditure.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from other NATO countries on the level of United Kingdom defence expenditure.

As the annual review of public expenditure has not been completed, there have been no proposals for further cuts in defence expenditure for NATO to react to.

Will the Secretary of State admit that there is growing consternation amongst our NATO Allies that further cuts in defence expenditure may be made? In the light of that, does he or does he not agree with the vast majority of people in this country that it is the prime responsibility of any Government to ensure the defence of the realm?

Yes, and that I hope to maintain. Certainly there is consternation, but I hope that I can dispel that in due course.

Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the statement made yesterday by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) that troops should he transferred from NATO to Northern Ireland? Will my right hon. Friend comment on the effect on our NATO commitments if that were done?

One has to recognise that the more troops we commit to Northern Ireland the more will our rôle within NATO and on the central front be adversely affected. When we deploy units in Northern Ireland-especially the Spearhead from the British Army of the Rhine—it is necessary first to train the troops before they go to Northern Ireland to be deployed on a four-month tour, and then to retrain them back into their previous rôle. That rota has an adverse effect, which we have to face. It so happens that Northern Ireland is one of our commitments. It is essential that it should be tackled, and our NATO allies recognise that.

Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the maintenance of the current level of our commitments to NATO is a pre-condition of his remaining in office?

I would not say that it would be a condition. I should be seriously concerned personally, as I am sure would most of my ministerial colleagues, if we had to impinge upon our NATO commitment. What I am trying to point out to the hon. Gentleman and to those who are impatient on the Opposition Front Bench is that if I have to cut back on defence expenditure in this public expenditure exercise my job is to make sure that I do so without impinging on our NATO commitment.

Will the Secretary of State admit that it is his absolute duty to ensure that this country is properly defended? In view of what happened last year, and the damaging and devastating cuts then made, which have consider ably reduced our credibility, will the right hon. Gentleman now stand up for Britain and against the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

The defence review did not impair the security of this country and I am very hopeful that the exercise on which we have embarked will not impair that security.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the voices that are demanding not just a standstill but an increase in expenditure on weapons of war are the same as those that, on every other subject that comes before the House, demand cuts in public expenditure? Will he—as he has steadfastly done today—maintain the position that whilst looking after the country's defence he will not commit the nation to an unreasonable burden?

Yes. I am obliged to my hon. Friend. Although the Opposition keep demanding large cuts in public expenditure, they have never spelt out exactly where their priorities would lie. It is up to them, and not me, to explain that.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House not a hope but a straight answer? Will he tell us that his backbone is at least as stiff as that of his right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who told us that he would not be prepared to remain a member of a Government who jeopardised the security of the western alliance? Will the Secretary of State tell us that he shares that view, and will he accept that the most dishonourable lot that could fall to him would be to have to report to NATO that this country had ratted on its obligations?

I do not remember the form of words used by my right hon. Friend, but, to use the hon. Gentleman's words, if an action would jeopardise the security of the western alliance I would not accept it.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish a table showing current British defence expenditure as a percentage of GNP and that of our NATO allies as a percentage of their GNP.

I shall be publishing this information in the next Defence White Paper.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that we need to reduce the burden of our defence expenditure to that of our allies, as promised in the Labour Party manifesto? Does he further accept that a Labour Government must give higher priority to expenditure on education and the social services? Does he see his primary rôle as implementing Labour policy in the interests of the nation or defending his Department against the Chiefs of Staff? Will my right hon. Friend comment on the Opposition's policy, which seems to be to cut education and social services expenditure but to increase spending on defence?

I have seen my rôle during the past two years as being to carry out the party pledge on which we were elected in two elections in 1974—to reduce defence expenditure as a percentage of the gross national product and to bring it into line with our major Western European allies, thereby saving several hundred million pounds a year. The defence review is doing that, and over the next nine years, on the fulfilment of that pledge alone, we shall have £4,700 million.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, during his recent discussions with his ministerial colleagues in NATO, any reference was made to the proposed new Russian naval base on the west coast of Africa, and whether steps were taken to verify reports that this base is being constructed? If so, did he raise with his colleagues the possibility of extending the coverage of NATO into the South Atlantic?

I think I gave an indication that the military staff side of NATO had embarked upon a study of the last point raised by the hon. Gentleman. As for the missile base in Berbera, Somalia. this matter has been raised within NATO councils. To help the House, I have placed a set of photographs in the Library for everyone to see how that base is developing.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in total sums and per capita our principal western allies are spending more on defence that we are?

On defence expenditure per capita the United Kingdom is below America, Germany, France. Norway and the Netherlands. Therefore, my hon. Friend is quite right.

Will the Secretary of State publish a table of comparison with the Soviet Union, on the ground that it is more instructive to compare our expenditure with that of our potential enemies than with that of our friends?

The hon. Lady will see that there is a later Question on the Order Paper on that point.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the effect on Great Britain's NATO capability of the Government's latest projections of public expenditure up to 1980.

The annual review of public expenditure is not yet complete. have, therefore, nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 16th December.—[Vol. 902, c. 1158–60.]

But does the right hon. Gentleman accept that Britain's naval resources were already strained almost to breaking point before the present cod war, and do his answers earlier this afternoon mean that there will be no further cut-backs that may weaken our important naval contribution to NATO?

I tried to indicate in my earlier replies the emphasis that I am placing, and that my Minister of Defence for the Navy is placing, on the future of the Royal Navy. We have maintained the building programme and so far we have not had any qualitative changes. I hope that we can keep it that way, because NATO depends upon us in the eastern Atlantic.

Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that when his Minister of State wound up the defence debate 13 months ago, on 16th December, he said that the Government's then conclusions represented a judgment, "cool and sustained", of what we needed to spend to secure our safety? Since then, we have had £110 million knocked off again. Can that judgment have been so wrong that further defence cuts could possibly be right?

I think that the nation and any fair-minded person will recognise that if we embark upon major public expenditure cuts that will affect the daily lives of most of our people—cuts in programmed expenditure on education, the environment and the social services—defence expenditure, too, has to play a part. I hope that I can keep the cuts to a minimum. They will not impinge upon our NATO commitments.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ensure that further cuts in defence will not reduce Great Britain's capacity to support peacekeeping operations in Northern Ireland or the British contribution to commitments in Western Europe.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 16th December, there is no question of reducing the effectiveness of our contribution to NATO. As regards Northern Ireland, We shall maintain forces there for as long, and in such strength, as is necessary.

I am grateful for that reply. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the scaremongering attitude of the Opposition during earlier exchanges today is mild compared with the even more irresponsible and alarming talk from them outside this House, since they are aware that, although defence cannot be insulated from the present grave economic pressures, the Government are maintaining Britain's capacity fully to fulfil her existing defence commitments?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his question. In view of his defence interest and his visits to the British Army of the Rhine, he will also recognise that our NATO allies do not mind our deploying troops in Northern Ireland even though, periodically, it may have an adverse training effect on troops in the Rhine Army.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the operations of the Army in Northern Ireland are operations in aid of the civil power?

Of course I confirm that the operations of the Army in Northern Ireland are in aid of the civil power.

Is it the right hon. Gentleman's judgment that over the past three years the balance of power has shifted to the disadvantage of the free nations of Western Europe? If so, what does he propose to do about it?

I shall do my utmost to maintain Britain's contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many Army personnel are currently serving in Northern Ireland.

Nearly 15,500.

Will the Government help our forces to deal with the terrorists by asking the Irish Government to start talks to try to bring about the same co-operation between the British Army and the Irish Army as already exists between the police forces north and south of the border?

I think that the hon. Member appreciates the problem here. We have made good progress, and the ministerial meetings that took place last week have established a much more co-operative attitude. There will be greater co-operation now between the RUC and the Garda in the South. The hon. Member appreciates the differences in the military tasks of the security forces of the North and the Irish Army, and the legal constraints which may be placed upon it in the South. It is difficult to deal with this on the Army plane.

rose—

Order. We debated this subject yesterday. Mr. Allaun—Question No. 4.

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

As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made an important statement on Northern Ireland, with particular reference to County Armagh, in the House yesterday. The measures that he outlined then will, I am sure, significantly help the Army in its task, in support of the police, of combating violence and terrorism, from whatever source.

Before making the decision that the Prime Minister announced in his statement yesterday, did he check with the right hon. Gentleman the dispositions of the SAS? Has the Defence Secretary read Mr. Chapman Pincher's report in today's Daily Express? If it is true—Mr. Pincher has usually been shown to be a reliable journalist—does the report not show that the Prime Minister has deceived the hard-pressed people of Ulster and the whole nation—

Order. I do not like words such as "deceived" to be used in the House.

If the report be true—and there are reasons to believe that it is true—does it not show that the Prime Minister has irresponsibly misled the people of Ulster and the whole nation with his sabre rattling?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has stooped to such depths to try to make a point, especially following a highly speculative and misleading article in the Daily Express. If the hon. Gentleman wants to be better informed, it is far better to ask Questions than to rely on Press reports.

Secondly, the Prime Minister and I, together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, all agreed with the deployment of the SAS, that it should be announced publicly, and that there should be no covert operations by the SAS.

Will the Secretary of State please tell us how many members of the SAS are at present on the ground in South Armagh and serving as advertised by the Prime Minister? Will the Secretary of State tell us what is his target for the total forces that he intends to send there? Does he realise that unless he can give us some reassurance, and give some reassurance to the people of South Armagh, we shall begin to wonder what the Prime Minister meant when he made that important statement last Wednesday?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, as an Opposition defence spokesman, should seriously ask me to reveal the figures and deployment of security forces in Northern Ireland, and particularly in South Armagh—but, first, the SAS is deployed, and, secondly, it will increase in numbers. Contrary to what that Daily Express article says, the SAS will stay there as long as the GOC Northern Ireland requires it.

Whether or not the report in the Daily Express is true—I speak as an old SAS officer—may I ask the Secretary of State whether he is really satisfied, in view of the particular capability and training of these troops, that their numbers are in any way adequate in present circumstances?

I give the House an assurance that we shall be increasing the numbers of the SAS as their reconnoitering is complete and as their training is complete, so that they can fully perform the job for which their skills will be of special service in South Armagh. Most of the time they will be operating in uniform but occasionally they will not be operating in uniform. This is not unusual. The security forces in Northern Ireland are allowed to do that for surveillance purposes as well. I am hopeful that the SAS, with its special skills, will, when fully deployed, make its impact, but it will not be sudden. It will take time.

Will my right hon. Friend accept from me that I was never an SAS officer? Will he further accept from me that, no matter with what good intentions and no matter how many troops we deploy in Northern Ireland, the answer is basically a political answer and that it must be sought in the interests of peace and to avoid any more killings?

I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for that remark. I think it is absolutely wrong that, when we have squadrons of the Special Air Service who are specially trained in surveillance, and who, with their special skills, can operate in small squads without logistic support, they should be denied this opportunity of helping to solve the problem in South Armagh.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his approximate estimate of the cost of the 185 RAF planes proposed as a variant to the multi-role combat aircraft; what is the present stage of their design; and if, for financial and technical reasons, he will cancel the project.

Project definition studies of the air defence variant of the MRCA have just been completed and the results, which include estimated costs, are currently being assessed. A decision to proceed to full development has yet to be taken.

If proceeded with, would not this project inevitably add to the estimated £2 billion cost of the MRCA? Would not the abandonment of the MRCA project produce most of the defence cuts required, and are not manned aircraft vulnerable to ground-to-air missiles?

My hon. Friend has asked three questions and the answer to all of them is "No". If he believes in the air defence of Britain he must indicate what his alternative would be were we to abandon the air defence variant. He is right in saying that missiles are important, but they are also very expensive. He must face the fact that there is no easy way of ensuring the defence of this country on the cheap.

If the air defence variant of the MRCA, which the RAF wants very much, is cancelled, will it not have the effect of increasing the cost of the basic MRCA, and will that not eventually lead to pressure for it to be replaced by an American aeroplane?

There is a fair possibility that if the air defence variant were cancelled the whole programme would fall to the ground. Far from that being a matter for us to rejoice over, it would create very severe problems. All the evidence at our disposal suggests that there is no way of ensuring the air defence of Britain more cheaply than by the present proposals.

I do not go along with the idea that the MRCA should be cancelled, but is my right hon. Friend convinced that the air defence variant is necessary for our forces when our collaborative partners have decided against it?

That is a very fair question, but my hon. Friend must accept that our needs in defending these islands are somewhat different from the needs of our allies in NATO on the Continent of Europe. In addition, the air defence variant is meant to succeed the Phantoms, which have been in service with the RAF for a number of years. The Phantoms in service with the German Air Force, for example, have only lately been delivered and are likely to last another 10 years.

Does the right hon. Gentleman know why the jobs of men who make aeroplanes are of less importance to Left-wingers like the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) than the jobs of men who make motor cars?

I do not believe that the jobs of men, whatever they make, are unimportant to my hon. Friends. It is fair, however, to bear in mind that any substantial cuts in the equipment programme of Her Majesty's Forces will have grave consequences for employment. I am not suggesting that this problem should not be faced, but it is hypocrisy to suggest that it will not exist.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the MRCA promises to be one of the best bargains the Royal Air Force has ever bought? Will he say a little more about the consequences not just to the capability of the Royal Air Force but to potential foreign exchange earnings from sales of this aircraft if it were cancelled? Will he also look at the other side of the question—at the cost across the exchanges of our purchasing foreign aircraft, which would presumably be required at some stage?

I agree that the MRCA has been a remarkable success story in terms of collaboration so far. The cost estimates that were initially made in 1969 have been kept to remarkably well, allowing for inflation and changes in exchange rates. It is certainly the case that to cancel the MRCA and buy a foreign aircraft the total cost would be greater, and the cost across the exchanges would be very great indeed. That would be so irrespective of any possible export earnings from the MRCA.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the progress of the MRCA programme.

Six prototype aircraft are now flying. The development programme is going well and we expect to be ready in the first half of this year to take a decision, with our partners, on the launching of full production.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are greatly encouraged by the progress being made on this project? Does he recall that earlier today he told the House that cancellation of the air defence variant version of the MRCA would bring down the whole project? Does he agree, there- fore, that if he gives the go-ahead to the basic MRCA version he will at that same moment be giving an irrevocable go-ahead to the ADV version as well, otherwise his earlier words are nonsense?

That was a somewhat perverse question, and I confess that I did not altogether follow it. But I make it clear again that any substantial erosion of the kind of programme that we have had in mind could endanger the programme as a whole and considerably alter our plans, which we could then meet only at greater cost.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many trained pilots now serve in the Royal Air Force and what was the figure in 1972.

4,603 on 1st October 1975. On the corresponding date in 1972, the number was 5,243.

Is the Minister aware that some of these RAF pilots leaving the Service and wanting to become civil pilots find a great number of obstacles in their way, and that it can cost an experienced RAF VCIO pilot more than £1,500 to get his air transport pilot's licence? Cannot the RAF and the Civil Aviation Authority get together to reduce these stacles by making compatible their instrument rating schemes?

I have much sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. This is a human problem, which involves considerable personal expense. In as much as what he proposes has not yet been done, I give him an undertaking that it will be looked into.

Is it not a great waste of public money that the State should be giving basic training and ongoing training to RAF pilots while at the same time giving similar training to civil pilots for the State airline? Will the Minister bring pressure to bear on the Chairman of British Airways to take a higher proportion of their pilot intake from the Services?

Having once had responsibility at the other end of the line, so to speak, I know that this is a much more complicated matter than the hon. Gentleman suggests. I am sympathetic towards the problem, in that it is a human one, but questions of training, age and experience all come into it. As the hon. Gentleman knows, at the present time there are very severe pressures, due to the falling off in the growth of demand for civil aviation.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when the Hong Kong garrison will be phased out.

We have no plans to phase out the Hong Kong garrison.

Since there is no air cover, no air defence and no naval support for the garrison, what is the point of maintaining it, since its only option if hostilities should break out will be either to commit suicide or to surrender?

My hon. Friend underestimates the subtleties of international relations. The fact is that no one except, perhaps, my hon. Friend is anxious to upset the present status quo in Hong Kong—certainly not the main partners in it. Were we to act in accordance with my hon. Friend's proposal, we would do just that.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have the greatest possible obligation to ensure that the 4½ million people living in Hong Kong do so in peace and freedom, and that only this country can do it? Does he agree that we get the greatest possible value for money in deploying in full, in Hong Kong, the Gurkha Brigade, which is at present performing this rôle?

Without endorsing every dot and comma, I broadly agree with what the hon. Gentleman said. He will notice that although we intend to maintain the garrison we shall do so at substantially less cost to this country under the new agreement negotiated and signed in December.

asked the Prime Minister when he next intends to meet the TUC.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on 25th November, Sir—[Vol. 901, c. 660].

Has the TUC or the Labour Party ever agreed to the drastic cuts in public expenditure now being demanded, which are bound to cause unemployment? If the Government are prepared to safeguard the jobs of car workers, will they save the jobs of building workers, home helps, teachers and nurses, who perform equally important and valuable services?

As my hon. Friend is aware, the public expenditure figures for the coming year—the period of anxiety that he mentioned—have already been announced and have not been varied. The normal discussions have been going on and will be announced at the proper time for expenditure in 1977–78, which is a different period and a different situation.

As for construction workers, my hon. Friend will have rejoiced—though I am not sure whether it was in public—that whereas in 1974 there were 30 per cent. more starts in public sector house building and 20 per cent. more completions, for the first 11 months of 1975 starts are up further by 16 per cent. on 1974, with completions 27 per cent. up, in addition to an increase in the private sector. A good job has been done in lifting the house building programme from the low level that we inherited.

When the Prime Minister next meets the TUC, will he discuss with its representatives what has happened to his new industrial strategy, and will he tell us what has happened to it?

Tomorrow, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be chairing the meeting of the NEDC dealing with these matters, which were laid down at the earlier meeting at Chequers and will be taken a great deal further at the meeting of NEDC. The industrial strategy announced at that time remains the policy of the Government, the TUC and the CBI.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has now completed his evidence for the Royal Commission on the Press; and when he proposes to submit it.

I shall be ready to submit and to publish my evidence as soon as the civil legal proceedings, referred to in my answers of 14th and 20th October to the hon. Member, have been completed.—[Vol. 897, c. 1127; Vol. 898, c. 14.]

Does the Prime Minister recall that in September 1974, in the course of the last election campaign, he made the serious allegation that cohorts of distinguished journalists were combing obscure parts of the country in search of anything, true or fabricated, that they could use against the Labour Party? Does he also recall that when he told the House, last October, that there had been eight burglaries affecting premises owned by him and some of his colleagues. a statement was issued from 10 Downing Street saying that this carried no implication that any journalists had been involved? That being so, does he still stand by his serious allegation in 1974—or would not it be better for him to drop it?

I stand by it entirely, and when the evidence can be submitted it will substantiate what I said then. I did not then or at any other time refer to any journalist being involved in burglaries. The hon. Gentleman is already aware that the break-ins and thefts now proved by the police discoveries are not the kind of legal proceedings that are in any sense an impediment to this evidence. The problem about submitting evidence relates to civil matters that are the subject of legal proceedings. When they are complete the evidence will go in straight away.

In any evidence to the Royal Commission on the Press will my right hon. Friend refer to the question of the accuracy of Press reports? Will he note the typically penetrating editorial in yesterday's Sun newspaper, which, amongst other things, called on the Government to withdraw their controversial Land Bill? Will my right hon. Friend agree that any newspaper so woefully inaccurate in its presentation of factual material must be pretty misleading in its political judgment?

I was not proposing to deal with those subjects in my evidence, which relates specifically to the points raised by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker), who tabled the main Question. Certainly the evidence would be much longer if I went into the kind of subjects referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Grocott). My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has shown, for example, that only today, on the most sensitive matter affecting people's lives, there has been the most criminal misrepresentation of facts and, if it is in order to say it—not about hon. Members—lies about what has been done in Northern Ireland.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will list his public engagements during the recess.

It is not in accordance with previous practice to do so, Sir, but if the hon. Gentleman has a specific point on my official engagements during the recess I shall be glad to answer him.

Yes, indeed I have, Sir. Does the Prime Minister recall, among those engagements, the radio broadcast that he made between Christmas and the New Year in which, once again, he threw away the unique opportunity that he has as Prime Minister to tell people the facts as they really are? Should he not have anticipated in that broadcast, for example, the Transport House document that we have just seen, and explained that his party's commitments to spend and to nationalise simply cannot be honoured without further increase in taxation that its own supporters would find intolerable?

The hon. Member may have seen the particular document to which he has referred. However, it did not arise during this broadcast when, as the hon. Gentleman will know, I was dealing with major national issues. On the question of any document emanating from Transport House, I do not know to which one the hon. Gentleman is particularly referring. I have read references to such documents only in the Press. Whether they have been issued I do not know. However, they do not represent Her Majesty's Government's policy. That is the duty of the Government, for which we are responsible to this House.

During the Christmas Recess did my right hon. Friend have occasion to visit his own constituency on Merseyside and discuss with the people there the high level of unemployment, which is 10.6 per cent. for the whole of Merseyside? Did he consider the answers to the problem of unemployment? Will he announce to the House what further measures the Government intend to take to deal with the most important issue before us, namely, the fact that too many thousands of people are unnecessarily out of work?

My hon. Friend will be aware that visits to one's constituency do not technically feature as public engagements. Of course, I have recently been to my constituency, as my hon Friend will know, and, of course, the unemployment question has been constantly discussed by my constituents and myself. We have also discussed certain recent cut-backs, for example, in the Post Office programme, and matters of that kind. The unemployment policy was debated fully in the House immediately before Christmas. I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Employment and the Chancellor said then, or what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said yesterday in the House.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will list his engagements during the recess.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon Mr. Hurd).

Will the Prime Minister confirm from his recent discussion with trade union leaders that the Government have now reversed their policy towards the steel industry and are giving tacit approval to large-scale redundancies in the British Steel Corporation? Will he now be frank with the House and tell us what level of redundancies the Government are willing to see in the British Steel Corporation in 1976?

In fact, I have had no meetings with the trade unions during the recess. However, I did meet leading representatives of the TUC on the question of steel and transport while the House was still sitting in the last week before Christmas. We discussed fully the steel situation. Some of the statements and fears that were expressed were shown not to have been real. However, the Government said that they had made no decision on this matter and that the relevant trade unions in the steel industry should have discussions with the British Steel Corporation. Those discussions are now taking place.

It would be interesting to know how many engagements some of the hon. Members who have asked questions have had during the recess. Be that as it may, will my right hon. Friend take some time, now that we are all back at work, to examine the activities of the Lifeboat Committee? Is he aware, for example, that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is unable to answer questions about how much is being lost, arising out of tax liabilities, by those participating in the Lifeboat Committee in their activities for arranging the rescue of the secondary banking system? Will he look into this matter and tell us how much is being lost to the Chancellor of the Exchequer arising out of these actions?

On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, there is no ministerial responsibility for engagements fulfilled during the recess or at any other time by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. I have enough troubles without having to be responsible for them.

On the second part of the question, the Lifeboat Committee, as my hon. Friend called it—the whole House knew what he had in mind—is doing extremely valuable work where there has been a loss or breakdown of confidence affecting a considerable number of banks in which the public have invested money and are entitled to such protection as can be worked out when there has, in some cases, been improvident investments in property and in other ways. The whole problem goes back to the lavish and extravagant creation of bank money by the Conservative Party when it was in government. They printed money in the most lavish way. They will have seen much tighter control over the money supply under this Government.

When the right hon. Gentleman visits his constituents, how will he explain that under a Conservative Government a figure of 1 million unemployed is unacceptable but under a Labour Government it can go to 1·2 million or even 1·5 million and still be all right?

Peering at the right hon. Gentleman through a rather large wig—I did not know that he had been demoted that much; he really should come up nearer the Dispatch Box—my answer to him is that, as he will know, industrial expansion had stopped before he went out of office. I think that the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for Employment. [Interruption.] Was he not?

indicated dissent.

I am sorry. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) was Secretary of State for Employment. The right hon. Gentleman, unlike some of his colleagues, has accepted collective responsibility for the actions that they took. At that time, as he knows, a world recession was developing. When we came into office, as the right hon. Gentleman also knows, had we listened to the Opposition's proposals for immediate cuts in public expenditure there would have been 2 million unemployed.

rose—

Order. We must get on.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make an official visit to West Stirlingshire.

I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.

Will my right hon. Friend please try to arrange a visit to West Stirlingshire and to include in his programme a visit to Lennox Castle Hospital, where he will see at first hand the excellent work being done by a dedicated staff of doctors and nurses in caring for about 1,500 mentally handicapped patients, including children? Does he realise that there is grave concern amongst the staff trade unions about proposed staffing cuts, which may mean not just a loss of jobs at this and other hospitals but a possible cut in essential services to mentally handicapped patients? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that any cut-backs in public expenditure will not affect essential services to the most under-privileged members of the community, such as the mentally handicapped?

Yes. Without even going to the area, I am aware of this hospital's problems. Although I cannot anticipate the White Paper, I can say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is taking full account of the needs of the mentally handicapped generally in Scotland, and any expenditure programme would, of course, be the subject of consultation between the health board and the regions concerned. I understand that this is a matter for the Glasgow Regional Health Board and that there will be no difference in treatment, so far as the Government are concerned, between the hospital that my hon. Friend has mentioned and any other hospital in Scotland.

If the Prime Minister does manage to visit West Stirlingshire will he bear in mind that the problem raised by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) is not just a local one but is felt throughout Scotland? Will he use this as an opportunity to explain to the Scottish people why the Labour Government have consistently failed to deal with unemployment in Scotland? Is he aware that estimates show that 200,000 people in Scotland could be unemployed by the end of this year—and that is not counting the skilled redundancies? Does he accept that it is unlikely that the Labour Party, whichever wing of it may stand in constituencies in Scotland, can expect to gain any support from the Scottish people?

On the first part of the hon. Lady's question, I thought I made clear that there was no question of discrimination concerning a particular hospital and that it was a general problem, which was the responsibility of the Scottish Health Service Planning Council, the Advisory Council on Social Work, and the regional health board.

On unemployment, as the hon. Lady has fairly said, Scotland has been seriously affected, as has the whole of Britain and the industrial world, by the events of the past two or three years. The hon. Lady will be aware that the ratio of unemployment between Scotland and the rest of Great Britain has fallen considerably, month by month, since this Government took office.

When the Prime Minister considers the problem of unemployment in the west of Scotland will he note that despite the efforts of the Scottish National Party to preserve jobs at Linwood. 500 more Linwood workers have volunteered to be made redundant than the 2,000 proposed?

That sounds very Interesting, but what the relevance of it is to a visit to West Stirlingshire, or what the hon. and learned Member, with his always rather elliptic approach to the serious matters of this House, meant by it, I shall need a little more time to work out.