asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether, in view of the fact that the defence cuts undertaken in 1975 reduce the strength of the Royal Navy to the lowest level since 1895, he will give an assurance that no further cuts are intended to the service.

As the hon. Member will know, the most significant European Navy within the NATO Alliance, the Royal Navy, possesses more sophisticated technology and packs more punch than it has done throughout its history. We are determined to maintain our force levels and operational effectiveness as declared to NATO last year; any forthcoming economies will therefore certainly not be in the sharp end.

Can the Minister deny that the cuts being made in the Navy will reduce manpower to its lowest level for 80 years at a time when the potential threat from the ever-growing Soviet Navy is far worse than that which faced us before the Kaiser's War or Hitler's War?

In view of the hon. Gentleman's continuing interest in naval affairs, I am sure he will agree that capability is more important than comparison of numbers of personnel. He will also know that in the past year or 18 months there has been a significant story of new equipment for the Navy, including confirmation of the cruiser, Sea Harrier, Sub-Warpoon, Sea Skua and the new special defence force for the North Sea.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is somewhat misleading to refer to defence cuts, because during the next two years expenditure in real terms will increase? Is it not a fact that our contribution to the NATO Alliance is now the highest of any member?

As my hon. Friend knows, we plan real cuts in defence expenditure in the future. In our manifesto we said that those cuts must be looked at over a number of years and that we shall achieve a significant reduction in expenditure over a number of years.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the United Kingdom's expenditure on defence in the light of information on the extent and purpose of current USSR expenditure on defence procurement.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his assessment of the aims of the Soviet Union's current expenditure on defence procurement.

The improvements being made in the Warsaw Pact's military capability are a continuing concern to the United Kingdom and NATO Governments. I am satisfied, however, that we are making an effective contribution to NATO's collective defences, which are designed to deter outside aggression.

If the Secretary of State is satisfied, he must be unique among those who take an interest in these matters. Is it not the case that today the Soviet Union spends just about double what the United States spends on defence research and more than the whole of the Western world put together? Is that any cause for satisfaction? Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree—though he may not care to say so—that his task today should be not simply to resist cuts but to rebuild our reserves, defence forces and equipment to a level at which they are—

Order. Supplementary questions are a privilege that has been established by custom, but one supplementary question at a time is normally enough. The hon. Gentleman is taking rather a long time.

Finally, does the Secretary of State not think that our defence forces should again be raised to a level at which they are credible to our allies and enemies alike?

I do not agree with the figures to which the hon. Gentleman referred. However, he must be aware that NATO's job is to provide sufficient forces, in quantity and quality, to deter. The United Kingdom makes a greater contribution to the Central Front and the Eastern Atlantic than does any other of our Western European allies. As a percentage of GNP our defence expenditure is higher than that of any of our major Western European allies.

Do not Western sources show that NATO is stronger in financial, military, naval and nuclear power than are the Warsaw Pact Powers? In any case, do not both sides have the power to blot out everyone else in existence?

The answer to the first part of the question that my hon. Friend posed is "No". It so happens that on the central front the ground forces of the Warsaw Pact powers number at least 150,000 more than those of the NATO Alliance.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the recent official Russian complaint to Her Majesty's Government about the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was the first such official complaint since Ribbentrop complained about a speech by Sir Winston Churchill before the war? Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that the word "détente" is in danger of becoming a 1970s version of the word "appeasement"? Is it not his duty to awake the nation to the political international realities?

It is good to have a public discussion on defence, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman, unlike some of his Suez dreamers, does not believe that there is not, this year, a possibility for genuine détente. We have to watch the extent to which we might harm the possible chances of, first, concluding a satisfactory Salt II agreement and, secondly, concluding a mutual and balanced force reduction, within Europe between the United States of America, the USSR, the Warsaw Pact Powers and the NATO Alliance. We must recognise that the Soviet Union is on test in terms of the Final Act of the Helsinki Agreement.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that no nation that is economically weak can be militarily strong, and that Her Majesty's Government's first priority must therefore be to put the economy right?

Of course, and it is always very difficult, when in government, to try to satisfy the economic needs of the nation and to obtain satisfaction on security. As Secretary of State for Defence, I am satisfied that as far as our country and its contribution to NATO is concerned, we have not prejudiced that effort.

As the right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged today the immense power of the Warsaw Pact countries, and as he did so in the Defence Review and in articles that he has written for the North Atlantic Review, and so on, why does he support the Soviet Union against my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition?

The hon. Gentleman obviously did not read the statement. There was no defence of the Soviet Union. I stated that NATO was armed and alert and was ready to deter—but we do not have to provoke.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will place in the Library a copy of the statement he issued on 25th January on East-West relations.

I have already done so.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. Does he not agree that the sabre rattling, the Leader of the Opposition's call for a return to the cold war, and the call for increased defence spending, come rather strangely from a party that is constantly calling for more reductions in Government spending?

Yes, and it will be incumbent upon the Opposition, in due course, to let us know in respect of which items they would like expenditure to fall or rise. No doubt there will be ample opportunity for that in the future. However in my statement I wanted clearly to convey the message to those in our country who take matters of defence seriously that Britain cannot go it alone again. The days of Suez have gone. The Suez dreamers below the Gangway on the Opposition side of the House, with their reactionary dogma, who are constantly trying to make their party move further to the Right, are not doing defence a service they are doing it a disservice. [Interruption.]

Order. I made an appeal to the House yesterday that the Front Benches as well as the Back Benches should realise that Question Time is for questions and answers to the point.

Does the Secretary of State appreciate that his silly little statement attacking my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition demeaned both his office and himself? Will he assure the House that in future he will be less worried whether or not the Russians are annoyed and more concerned about the state of British defences?

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman back to his defence post. Long may he remain there. No doubt he will have studied my statement with a great deal of care. There was no defence of the Soviet Union—and never has there been in any of my public utterances. The right hon. Gentleman will have seen that I said that the order of the day should be patience, diligence and negotiation, armed with security, to talk from strength.£

Will my right hon. Friend remind the House of the cuts in defence expenditure that were effected by the previous Conservative Government? Does he recall whether any of the hon. Members who are now making a fuss said anything at that time?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for reminding me that the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) was in post at that time. In one calendar year—1973—the Tories cut back defence expenditure by £250 million, long before oil prices had quadrupled, with adverse effects upon the balance of payments and the economy.

Will the Secretary of State now inform the House of the development of his views on the effects on East-West relations of the incursion into Angola of 12,000 lackeys of the Soviet Union?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will await the statement on Angola which will be forthcoming at the end of Question Time.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for reductions in the numbers of civilians employed in his Department.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what efforts he has made to reduce administrative staff at Ministry and defence establishments and other unnecessary staff in the interests of economy in public expenditure.

As indicated in the 1975 Statement on Defence Estimates, the number of civilian staff employed in support of the Services will be reduced by 30,000 by 1st April 1979 compared with the strengths on 1st April 1974.

Bearing in mind that nearly 40 per cent. of all civil servants are employed by the Ministry of Defence, will the Minister assure the House that that is where any necessary cuts will be concentrated in the future, and not on our fighting capabilities? Why was this not done at the time of the last Defence Review?

I agree that when necessary savings have to be made in defence expenditure we should look very carefully at the support and administrative side of the budget. That is what we have done. There are to be substantial reductions on top of other reductions that were made in the preceding period, between 1971 and 1974. However, we must recognise that even savings of this size involve considerable personal hardship and dislocation, and we should be sympathetic towards those upon whom these reductions may fall.

Is it not the case that over the last 10 years the number of desk-bound administrative staff has increased in relation to our fighting and flying forces, and that it is now about to exceed them? Will the Minister pay special attention to reducing Ministry of Defence headquarters staffs and making his economies in that direction?

I am not sure that my right hon. Friend's historical review is correct, but it is certainly the case that at present we are significantly reducing the ratio between administrators and those involved in support, and the teeth arms. This will involve some reduction in the headquarters staff.

As there is to be a reduction in staff of 30,000 civilians, will the Minister tell us whether there are to be any dockyard employees in this reduction and, if so, whether any will be Chatham Dockyard workers?

No, not arising from the Defence Review. The figures that I have given were those which appeared in the Defence White Paper last year. The hon. Gentleman will remember that there was no suggestion in the White Paper that the dockyards would be affected.

Has the Minister of State seen the strong statement—understandable, in the view of many of us—from the trade unions to the effect that if these reductions are to take place it really does alter the position about moving defence employees to Glasgow? Has he any comment on that?

My only comment on what my hon. Friend says is that, while endorsing the Government's decision to review administrative and support costs, we ought not to minimise the real hardship that this may cause for those who have given a lifetime's work for the Ministry of Defence in one way or another. Equally, it should be recognised that the necessary decisions made by the Government in July 1974, about dispersal, involve a further disruption in the lives and work of many civil servants.

Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify this matter? He speaks of 30,000 staff to be axed under the Defence Review of last year. There have been widespread rumours—if not leaks—that there are to be many further cuts as a result of the latest exercise that has been going on. Will he take this opportunity to tell the House at least what he has told the unions, to clarify the point about dockyards, and promise that we shall have the full facts in the forthcoming Defence White Paper, covering all the cuts in prospect?

I certainly promise that full facts will be forthcoming in the Defence White Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he hopes to bring the United Kingdom Gross National Produce contribution for defence into line with the Gross National Product contributions of other member countries of the NATO Alliance.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) on 13th January.—[Vol. 903, c. 187.]

Is my right hon. Friend aware, however, that the latest figures, published in 1974, show that except for the United States and Portugal, all member countries of NATO are paying very much less of their gross national product than is the United Kingdom? Is he aware that even West Germany, with its strong economy, contributes only 3·6 per cent. of its GNP, in striking contrast to our 5·2 per cent.? Has he no proposals for bringing our contribution into line with those of the other member States?

My hon. Friend is correct. He also knows that because of the manifesto commitments in the two General Elections of 1974, we are obliged, progressively, over a period, to bring into line our defence expenditure—expressed as a percentage of GNP—with that of our major European allies. That is what we are doing.

How reliable are these international comparisons of GNP?

It is difficult to be able to say that they are absolute equations. The right hon. Gentleman knows how difficult it is. However, instead of dealing with defence expenditure comparisons on a per capita basis or on the basis of real levels of defence spending, within NATO we always use the statistic of defence expenditure as a percentage of GNP. That is the best comparison we can make.

My right hon. Friend stated that we are seeking to bring our percentage of GNP into line with that of our allies. Is this not arranged over the course of the next 10 years, and does it not mean that in terms of military expenditure, for 10 years we shall be forced to spend a larger percentage of our GNP than our allies? Is this not unacceptable?

It is exactly in line with the manifesto commitment. We said that we would save several hundred million pounds progressively over a period, and that is precisely what we are doing. We have to recognise that the GNPs of Britain and some of our Western European allies can change within the time-scale that I am talking about, and therefore it may be achieved more quickly or more slowly.

I should like to follow the the question put by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). Does the Minister realise that his answer was not very satisfactory? Should it not be perfectly possible, within NATO, to agree a standard form of calculation for defence? After all harmonisation is the fashion, so for goodness sake let us use it.

As I have said on many occasions, within the NATO Council the recognised yardstick for defence expenditure is its percentage of GNP. It is on those figures that we base our calculation.

Is it not a fact that we would save our country £1·2 billion a year for other and better things if we carried out our election manifesto commitment to reduce our level of GNP to the levels of the other Western European NATO countries?

There would be considerable savings if we managed to bring it down fairly quickly. However, my hon. Friend will understand that the problem is that, first, such action would cause great damage to the effectiveness of the Armed Forces and, secondly, it would quickly endanger the jobs of 100,000 people employed in the defence industries who could not be quickly transferred.

Is it true that the Secretary of State has given instructions that the Defence White Paper now in draft should be completely revised so that it does not confirm every point made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in her recent speech on defence?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his current assessment of the military balance between NATO and the Warsaw Pact.

I refer my hon. Friend to the assessment of the military balance given in the statement on the Defence Estimates 1975 (Cmnd. 5976). The growing strength and capabilities of Warsaw Pact forces continue to be matters of concern to NATO.

Has my right hon. Friend received a copy of the annual defence statement by the American Secretary of State for Defence, published a fortnight ago? In that statement Donald Rumsfeld stated that in strategic nuclear forces there is a rough equivalent and that in conventional, military and naval force terms the NATO forces are at least equal to those of the Warsaw Pact? Does not this authoritative analysis place in perspective the quite irresponsible alarmism we have heard from the Opposition benches over the past month?

What my hon. Friend has said has a ring of truth. We must not create anxiety within the minds of the members of the alliance by repeating consistently how frightening and awesome is the growth of Soviet power. The American Secretary of State spelled out the sort of scenario to which my hon. Friend has referred. However, I must point out that although, quantitatively and qualitatively, the NATO allies are alert and can safely deter, the qualitative difference is beginning to change.

The Secretary of State has repeated that the strength of the Warsaw Pact gives cause for concern. Is it his claim that the cuts he has made over the past year and is about to make in the next few weeks have not damaged our contribution to NATO?

Some concern has been expressed by NATO about our contribution on the flanks, but there has been no impingement of that concern about our contribution to the central front, to the Eastern Atlantic, and to the preservation of the home base.

Would it not be more relevant and more ominous if we related these comparisons to previous years? Does the Secretary of State agree that the increase in the numbers of Soviet tanks, for example, from 13,000 to 19,000 since 1970, is exactly equal to the total strength of the NATO forces deployed in the West? This figure, which is already at the three-to-one norm that the Russians regard as necessary for taking the offensive, if projected over the next five years will give them a superiority of about seven to one.

That is all the more reason why the mutual and balanced force reduction talks should succeed. The hon. Gentleman must know that during the latest round the Americans have placed on the negotiating table the tactical nuclear weapons of Western Europe as a bargaining card, in the hope that we can also get a response from the Soviet Union to reduce the tank armies, of which the Soviet Union has a great predominance, in the Warsaw Pact countries.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied with the current British contribution to NATO.

Yes, Sir. We shall continue to maintain modern and effective forces to meet our essential commitments to the alliance.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, despite his protestations, all the evidence suggests that our NATO partners are not satisfied with the level of the current British contribution? If the right hon. Gentleman seeks to claim that our consultations with our NATO partners are genuine, will he tell the House what defence cuts last year were not made as a result of NATO representations?

I shall be glad to let the hon. Gentleman and the House know, in the Defence White Paper, the supplementary measures I have been considering arising out of the genuine consultations we had with our NATO allies.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that what probably causes our allies most consternation is the Conservative Party's obsession with imbecile confrontation, whether it be confrontation with British industry, such as the miners, or the seeking of confrontation by making silly noises against the USSR? That sort of policy helps no one.

It causes public discussion, which is a contributory factor, but much depends on how these things are said. I am satisfied that the NATO alliance recognises the major contribution that the United Kingdom makes, especially when we, as distinct from any other member of the military structure, make a contribution to the strategic nuclear force and the tactical nuclear theatre force within Western Europe as well as contributing a professional conventional force.

Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that following full mobilisation of reserve manpower the Armed Forces of the Crown would be fewer than those of Switzerland and Sweden, or even Finland, with a population one-twelfth that of Great Britain? On that basis, how can he be so complacent about Britain's contribution to the defence of NATO?

I question the figures that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. What cannot be disputed is that Her Majesty's Forces are all professionals. We do not have conscripts. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we start conscription?

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

The dates of the spring NATO ministerial meetings have not yet been fixed.

I draw the attention of the Secretary of State to the important issue of co-operation in the procurement of arms and equipment. Was it not as a result of recent initiative by some of the NATO Ministers that the Independent Programme Group was set up? Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether the Group made any progress at its recent meeting in Rome?

I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a keen interest in this matter. I am pleased to say that we are making some progress. The French attended the IPG meeting in Rome. There is the distinct possibility of a further meeting next month. We are hoping that there is a possibility, flowing from the Independent Programme Group meetings, of developing NATO weaponry based on Western European defence industries.

Will my right hon. Friend tell Ministers at the next meeting of NATO that in comparison with our contribution we are not satisfied with their contributions? Will he make it clear that Britain is finding it particularly difficult to meet the exchange costs involved in maintaining the British Army of the Rhine—costs that must be met in foreign currency, with great disadvantage to our balance of payments?

I am sure that our NATO allies appreciate that difficulty. First, they recognise that we are making a major contribution in spite of our economic difficulties. Secondly, Britain's psychological presence as a member of NATO is far greater than our mere military contribution.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has taken any actions as a result of the signing by the Government of the Helsinki Final Act.

In accordance with the military confidence building measures contained in the Helsinki Final Act, we and our NATO allies have given prior notification of eight military manoeuvres, three of which were above the level of 25,000 troops. United Kingdom forces have taken part in four of these manoeuvres.

I welcome the Minister's answer, but rather than building up greater supplies of arms in this country would it not be better to build confidence and friendship between the European nations? Will my right hon. Friend, in furtherance of that end, use his Department to assist by inviting to our manoeuvres observers from various European nations, as is suggested in the Helsinki Final Act—

Order. This is not a time for advancing arguments.

I tried to indicate in my initial reply that we are carrying out the voluntary aspect of the Final Act of the Helsinki Agreement. We are notifying Russia and Warsaw Pact Powers of major military manoeuvres involving more than 25,000 troops. On the 4th January the Russians indicated, for the first time, that there was to be a major military manoeuvre off the Turkish coastline. They notified the Turks and the Greeks, and invited observers. They realise that they are on test. We hone that they will be forthcoming on the voluntary aspects of the Final Act.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the activities of the Soviets in Angola show that the Helsinki Final Act was an absolutely meaningless charade and that détente is spurious and dangerous nonsense?

The Brezhnev doctrine is operating in Angola as it tried to operate in Portugal. In Portugal it failed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take some comfort from the fact that the Brezhnev doctrine, with its ideological conflicts in the various parts of the world, especially in the underdeveloped regions, will not always succeed.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the United Kingdom's NATO partners regarding any further cuts in defence expenditure.

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

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

I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) on 13th January on the question of defence cuts.

Now that the South Atlantic is threatened by the collapse of Angola into the arms of Communism, would it not be the height of folly to reduce the strength of the North Atlantic alliance? Will the Minister assure us that he will not cut expenditure except after the fullest consultation and in concert with our NATO partners?

That is typical of the stupid exaggeration that takes place during discussion of defence matters. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to talk about the collapse in the South Atlantic, especially since the French, American and British Navies still deploy worldwide, go into these regions, and operate with CENTO, and bearing in mind that our task forces went as far as Australia and deployed all the way back to South America. Hon. Gentleman should not make such exaggerated comments.

Will my right hon. Friend resist demands from the Opposition that he should massively increase defence expenditure while the Government cut back on other forms of expenditure? Is he aware that in the battle against inflation a cut in defence expenditure would make an immediate contribution and that if men are employed in peaceful production for exports that would be a far better defence of our country than employing them making arms?

What my hon. Friend has in mind would take a long time if we are to do it rationally and sensibly. That cannot be achieved within the time scale that some of my hon. Friends would like. The employment implications are quite considerable, but that apart, as Secretary of State for Defence I am not prepared to jeopardise the security of the Western alliance by quick, short-term defence cuts.

Will the Secretary of State now admit that in recent months there has been a stream of protest from our allies about the Governments' past, present and future defence cuts?

If there had been they would not have been warranted. The hon. Gentleman knows that. He should ask our major European allies to what extent they are matching our professional contribution of 55,000 troops, through the British Army of the Rhine, a tactical air force, and a modern navy in the Eastern Atlantic, which is playing a bigger rôle than any one of their navies.

Which of our NATO allies is increasing its expenditure on defence, in terms of GNP.

I think that Greece, Turkey and Portugal will be taking an interest in that question and will no doubt be raising theirs.

In the course of cutting defence expenditure will the right hon. Gentleman examine very carefully the situation that has arisen in Europe, where we are getting railroaded into the purchase of an American aircraft for the airborne warning system when there is a suitable British aircraft which could be deployed in Europe.

I do not mind the hon. Gentleman using his little constituency lobby in defence affairs, but I hope that he will put the facts on record and recognise that although we are prepared to pay a contribution to the development of AWACS, we still have a good fall-back position, which we have not neglected and which is still being funded, based on Nimrod.

Can I persuade the Secretary of State to stop being arrogant and to start being rational? How does he continue to claim to be a better judge of the effectiveness of this country's contribution to NATO than all our allies? Will he not show a greater belief in the alliance by, instead of advising our allies, genuinely consulting them before making the cuts?

The hon. Gentleman should get his facts right before he comes so aggressively to the Dispatch Box. We have never let our allies down on the consultative procedures. On the Defence Review we gave them eight weeks' notice and we went through all the consultative procedures with them. They were content with that. The United Kingdom's defence expenditure, as a percentage of GNP, is 5·8 per cent.; for NATO as a whole it is 5·3 per cent.; and for NATO Europe it is 4·3 per cent. We are therefore playing our part.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In reply to my supplementary question I understood the Secretary of State for Defence to refer to my "little constituency lobby. This is a rather unacceptable parliamentary phrase and was a slur, I hope unintended, on the way we try to prosecute our business in this House, to look after all workers, whatever constituency interests we may be trying to represent.

I saw the Secretary of State giving sympathetic nods, which I interpret as meaning that he was in entire agreement with the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the workload in the naval dockyards.

The dockyards have a heavy programme of refits of Royal Navy Ships and other vessels and craft for as far ahead as can be foreseen. They are also undertaking, where suitable capacity is available, work for United Kingdom warship builders, foreign Governments and civil customers.

In view of my hon. Friend's welcome statement and the Government's commitment to industrial democracy, will he consider reopening discussions on the subject within the Royal dockyards?

I can assure my hon. Friend that full worker involvement is regarded by us all as an important feature of the effectiveness of the yards. We are keeping this constantly under review and are always looking for ways in which it can be improved.

When jobs are lost in the dockyards or elsewhere as a result of Defence Reviews, what multiplier effect do the Government apply to those jobs? Is it as great a multiplier effect as is applied in the motor industry?

The hon. Member should know, from an earlier reply by my right hon. Friend this afternoon, that in the dockyards there has been no loss of jobs in the way that he suggests.

Would my hon. Friend care to speculate on the effect on the Rosyth Dockyard of having a separate Scottish navy, as demanded by the SNP?

I imagine that all the workers there would wear kilts.

Will the Minister confirm that the position he has outlined applies to Portsmouth and that the prospects for employment there in the foreseeable future are encouraging?

All the home dockyards have proved indispensable in maintaining the operating effectiveness of the fleet at the level declared to NATO.

Will the Minister give the same categorical assurance in respect of other dockyards as he gave in the case of Portsmouth, namely, that with the present level of Government expenditure on defence none will be closed?

I shall give the same undertaking that I give on every occasion. The dockyards have proved themselves indispensable in maintaining the present operational effectiveness of the fleet at the level declared to NATO.

If, as the Minister says, there is a sufficiency of naval work in the dockyards for the foreseeable future, why does he say that plans are being made for civilian work to be imported?

Because, as I would have thought the hon. Gentleman, with his long-standing interest in dockyards would know, there is always the problem of the balance of trade. Work does not come in a steady flow, as with production work, and rather than let men stand idle for temporary periods we are finding suitable work to fill those gaps.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will cancel the contract for the purchase of Lance tactical nuclear weapons; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir. Tactical nuclear weapons constitute an important element in NATO's defensive strategy, and we intend to maintain our contribution in this field.

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that these nuclear weapons increase the potential danger of nuclear warfare? Does he not also agree that the £55 million payment will make our balance of payments that much worse, because the money is going to the Radio Corporation of America? Does he not think that the Corporation should be encouraged to invest in this country in plants like the Skelmersdale television tube factory. Would that not be preferable to this country's providing the Corporation with £55 million, with no benefit to our unemployment problem?

My hon. Friend asked three questions. The third is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. The answer to the first is "No". Beyond that, we take the view that these weapons form a very important part of our defensive strategy and that without them there would be a greater danger of war in Europe through the upsetting of the existing deterrent capacity of NATO.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the eventual replacement of the Polaris submarines and their present missiles.

I have nothing to add to the various statements that I have made on this subject in the past.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that next year is really a crisis year, as it is then that the last United States Polaris submarines go out of service? Will he be content with the situation thereafter, in which the only credible modern deterrent in the Western Alliance will be in the possession of France or the United States?

I would not be perturbed about that, even if the Americans phase out their Polaris submarines. The 1958 Defence Agreement with the United States will continue in force, especially the exchange of information.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree that although the Americans will be phasing out they will still have a penetration of nuclear strategic weapons, whereas we have none. Does he agree that it is an extremely grave situation?

No, I do not think it is grave. The hon. Gentleman is not reading the situation aright. The Polaris fleet has many years of life left in it. We are maintaining the effectiveness of the Polaris system. We still have the means to inflict an unacceptable amount of damage upon the Soviet Union, even in a second strike, if we wish to do so.

I ask my right hon. Friend to clarify his last remark. Is he saying that the present Polaris fleet will be able to inflict unacceptable damage upon Soviet Union right into the 1980s? Is that a realistic assessment of the present Polaris fleet? If it is not, is it worth while basing our future strategy upon it?

Maintaining the effectiveness of our strategic nuclear deterrent is designed to do exactly what I suggested in my reply.

asked the Prime Minister, who is responsible for communication between the Prime Minister's Office and the Press.

The Press Office at 10 Downing Street, Sir.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House by what criteria it is decided with which national newspaper his Press Office will communicate? Does he agree that for his Press Office to fail to communicate with any national newspaper makes a mockery of his claim to be in favour of more open government? Regardless of any consideration, will the Prime Minister instruct his Press Office to communicate again with The Times forthwith?

The hon. Gentleman is very wide of the mark. Press notices, on-the-record statements and speeches are officially issued from the No. 10 Downing Street Press Office, and they are available to all newspapers, including The Times. I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make. I support my staff on this matter. I cannot go into it any further, as judicial proceedings are involved.

Would whoever is responsible for communication with the Press in my right hon. Friend's office communicate to the Press on behalf of many hon. Members on both sides of the House the widespread distaste that is felt for the sustained campaign of innuendo in the national Press for the past fortnight arising from accusations made in court under qualified privilege? Will my right hon. Friend say that he agrees with those hon. Members who believe that the campaign is dangerously close to a total misuse of the so-called public right to know?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. What is particularly nauseating is the sanctimonious spirit in which this has been done. We have the spectacle of supposedly bankrupt newspapers holding up their hands for public money when they are prepared to waste money in what is classical innuendo against a Member of Parliament and, in my view, against democracy as a whole.

asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Dundee.

I have at present no plans to do so, Sir, although, as the House knows, a series of meetings on industrial problems in Scotland has been arranged in the spring.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is high time he visited Dundee, a city which is suffering from an inordinate amount of unemployment? When he visits the city will he note that there will be tremendous anger about rumours of the Government's intention to cut off the Scottish railway system at Edinburgh and Glasgow? Is he aware that if that happens it will be a matter of great concern for the city, bearing in mind its inadequate road transport network and air communications?

There is no ministerial responsibility for rumours of that or any other kind. I shall not go to Dundee purely in pursuit of such a rumour. The hon. Gentleman will have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment express himself in fairly strong language about a similar rumour that we were to cut off our railway system at Grimsby.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the mounting concern throughout the east coast of Scotland about the tragic deaths of North Sea divers? Is there scope for an inquiry into such matters as the authority of the inspectors who visit the rigs?

Before the Prime Minister answers, I really think that supplementary questions should have some distant relationship with the Question on the Order Paper. A question of the sort raised by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) could properly be placed on the Order Paper.

Since the supplementary question was asked, I refer my hon. Friend to the whole series of answers that I have given on the question of the safety of persons, the regulations governing mineral workings and the safety of structures. My hon. Friend will also be aware that plans to deal with offshore emergencies are being dealt with, as are questions of training of staff to work in hyperbaric conditions.

If the Prime Minister will not go as far north as Dundee, perhaps he will come to St. Albans. When he comes to St. Albans—

Order.

What is wrong with it?

The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) should not address me in that manner. I must ask hon. Members to relate supplementary questions to Questions on the Order Paper.

If the Prime Minister goes to Dundee, will he stop off at St. Albans? Will he make certain that he brings with him his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, shows him the ruins of the ancient Roman city of Verulamium—sacked by Queen Boadicea—and points out what the British people will do under a woman leader if they are overtaxed?

The question was about Dundee, not about St. Albans. The questions are wide enough already, without that matter being brought it. Should I go to St. Albans—and I have had a recent invitation to have a cup of tea with my PPS, who is an unhappy constituent of the hon. Gentleman—I shall recall what happened eventually to Boadicea. The hon. Member should advise his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that it is always best to try to solve the problems of this country by constitutional methods.

asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint an industrial relations expert to the Central Policy Review staff.

As I have made clear to the House, it is not the practice to appoint to the Central Policy Review Staff members with designated responsibility for particular subjects.

In the light of that reply, will my right hon. Friend comment on the remarkable drop in the number of days lost in industrial disputes over the last year? Do not those figures prove the wisdom of pursuing policies of co-operation and persuasion rather than policies of confrontation? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that they also prove the wisdom of our commitment, in the 1974 manifesto, to establish the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service.

Some hon. Members appear to believe that if they are called to ask a supplementary question, they have the right to put three such questions. That is not the general rule of the House.

I join with my hon. Friend in the tribute he paid to ACAS, which has handled about 2,250 disputes since it was set up, 294 cases having been referred for settlement by arbitration proceedings in the preceding 12 months. Because I take heed of your comments, Mr. Speaker, I shall not reply in detail to the other two supplementary points made by my hon. Friend. I have told the House that the figure last year represents a total of 75 per cent. compared with the year 1972. It is not for me to express appreciation, but it would be nice to receive one churlish little tribute from the Opposition Front Bench for what has been achieved following the ending of the Tory policy of confrontation.

Would not such an adviser be useful, even if only to sort out the steaming row between Sir Kenneth Keith and Lord Ryder over the latter's arrogant interference in the day-to-day running of Rolls-Royce?

That has nothing to do with the Question on the Order Paper. [Interruption.] It only indicates the hon. Gentleman's ignorance, shared, apparently, by the Opposition Front Bench, about the reasons for setting up the CPRS. It was not involved in the matter mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I totally reject what he said about Lord Ryder in relation to Sir Kenneth Keith.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that many more working days are lost because 1¼ million people are out of work than because of any number of industrial disputes in the last year?

Yes, Sir. This matter was fully dealt with in a recent debate. I do not wish to anticipate the statement that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer hopes to make in the House later this week. It has been my duty to warn some firms, as I did as recently as last Thursday, in my speech in Birmingham, that where the vulnerability of employment is so great it can only make that vulnerability me greater, and possibly lethal, if they persist in having unnecessary disputes, such as the recent dispute at Linwood.

if the right hon. Gentleman will not make this appointment to the Think Tank, will he assure the House that at least in future he will not defy the recommendations of that body as he did in the Chrysler situation?

The House has had a full opportunity to debate Chrysler and to take a decision on it. Indeed, the report of the CPRS was published and was available to hon. Members before that debate. I have nothing to add to what was said by my right hon. Friends in that debate and nothing to add to the emphatic vote carried against the Tory Party on Chrysler. I hope that the Conservatives will be as enthusiastic at the Coventry by-election in defending their vote for unemployment in Chrysler and British Leyland as they have been in this House.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his speech on Government policy at the Savoy Hotel on 22nd January to the French Chamber of Commerce.

I did so on 23rd January, Sir.

In addition to the encouraging signs mentioned in that speech by my right hon. Friend about Britain's recovery, has he since seen the figures showing an increase in British exports of farm machinery, particularly of tractors? Will he agree that this is a further indication of an upturn in our economy?

Yes. This was the view of the industrialists I met in Birmingham last week about the change in the economy, however disappointing it may be to some Opposition Members. I agree with my hon. Friend about the export achievement. I saw some of that agricultural machinery and heard a great deal about those successes when I opened the Royal Show last summer.

Will the Prime Minister explain why he referred in his speech only to the first six months' figures for the nation's share of world trade? If he consults his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade he will see that our share of world trade has been declining in the latest two quarters.

These are the figures that are available. Some of the comparable foreign figures have not yet been published and can only be estimated. Taking Britain as a whole, for the first time since the 1960s we have maintained and increased our share of world trade.

May I, Mr. Speaker, in full accord with your ruling, ask one supplementary question relating to the subject matter of the original Question? The question is as follows: apart from the Prime Minister's speech, was it a good dinner?

There is clearly no ministerial responsibility, but the answer is "Yes, Sir". That also applies to the dinner given by the overseas bankers and also to that given by the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce.

Despite the Prime Minister's complacency about the economic situation, does he agree with the Home Secretary that if public expenditure were to exceed 60 per cent. of gross national product, freedom and democracy would be in danger? What does he intend to do about the situation, considering the fact that we are now in excess of that figure?

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I have already given. As a once-distinguished city editor, he should not build up for himself, or for his party, the reputation of wallowing in the hope of a national failure.

asked the Prime Minister when he last met the TUC.

As my hon. Friend knows, I am in regular touch with the TUC.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the TUC, will he raise the problem of unemployment among young people in London and discuss what the Government intend to do to alleviate the situation?

The question of unemployment among young people, not only in London but elsewhere, has frequently been discussed with the TUC in recent months. My hon. Friend will be aware that, partly because of recent Government measures, the number of unemployed young people in the London area has fallen from a peak of 12,500 to 5,300 last month, although that figure is still much too high. I ask my hon. Friend to await the Chancellor's statement later this week.

If the Prime Minister discusses unemployment with the TUC, will he mention the Chancellor of the Exchequer's remarks on Peter Jay's television programme a few weeks ago, that there was bound to be an upturn in world trade because, after all, there were elections in the United States, Japan and Germany? Why do the Government assume that every economy is managed as cynically as our own? May we thank the Chancellor for making it clear to the unemployed why nothing was done about inflation last year?

I always listen to the hon. Member with great respect, but perhaps he is a little too young to remember the total manipulation of the electoral cycle by the Conservatives between 1951 and 1964, when it just failed to come off. My right hon. Friend is entitled to give any views on his diagnosis of world events relating to the pick-up in world trade. My discussions with the German Chancellor confirmed the general view of a pick-up, and it is important that the pick-up in Britain, which is now slowly beginning, is export-led and based not on an unwise programme of general inflation but on a total rejection of the policies for increased unemployment put forward by the Conservative Party. I hope the Leader of the Opposition will say whether she agrees with the Opposition's financial spokesman that their policy of cutting Govern- ment expenditure this year would increase unemployment this year. Is that the policy of the Opposition?

Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the answer he has just given about the recent dispute at Chrysler? There is a widespread concern among trade unionists about the ease with which Members of this House blame workers for industrial disputes and automatically exonerate management for their appalling record in these matters. Is my right hon. Friend aware that if any women had been among the 57 workers claiming an extra £1 per week they would have automatically received the rise under the Equal Pay Act, but because men were involved in the dispute, the management seems to be exonerated? Is this not a clear case in which the management is to blame for an industrial dispute?

In my original answer I paid tribute to the reduction in the number of days lost through disputes—though they are still more than the country can afford. The total time lost through disputes averages two hours per worker per year. I have made clear on a number of occasions that where there is a highly vulnerable situation and where Government money has been voted by this House—even though it was rejected by the Conservatives—it is a very unwise act, which puts the continued supply of Government money and the permanent continuation of employment there severely at risk. Anyone who goes into a dispute unnecessarily when there is machinery for settling it is taking a very great risk with his job.

Has the TUC yet communicated to the Prime Minister its attitude towards the Labour Party's proposals to nationalise agricultural land? What are the Prime Minister's view on that proposal?

There is no ministerial responsibility for what I have so far only read in the Press. The policy of the Government has been clearly stated in Gracious Speeches since the election and in the manifesto. Such a proposal is not Government policy at all. I do not mind people issuing reports about it, but it has nothing to do with the Government.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House will have noted and approved your determination to ensure that supplementary questions are both brief and relevant to the main Question. Can we from the Back Benches now seek your support to ensure that ministerial answers are also brief and relevant to supplementary questions, so that we have fairness all round?

I can tell the House and hon. Members who have not been present that I have made such an appeal to both Front Benches twice in the past two days.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There are grave difficulties in requiring the Prime Minister to answer Questions. In a system which is very similar in many respects to the presidential system—the Prime Minister wields great power—it is important that Back Benchers should have the right to ask questions. If you require Back Benchers to restrict their supplementary questions and relate them to the original Question, that will cut out a great deal of subject matter. As all Back Benchers know, if a specific point has any shadow of ministerial responsibility in any other Department the Question is transferred. Therefore, the opportunities for questioning the Prime Minister will be severely limited unless the past practice of allowing supplementary questions of a specific nature related to the general Question is followed.

The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) is not correct. I have been a Member of the House for three decades, and it is only in recent years that the custom has grown up for hon. Members to put up any coat hook on which to hang any coat they may happen to possess. The House managed exceedingly well in years past in getting Questions to the Prime Minister on subjects which hon. Members wanted answered. I am not talking about the quality of answers or questions, but if we are to have order in the House we must limit supplementary questions to the Question on the Order Paper.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I entirely accept what you say. In the past—and my memory is very vivid on this subject—Prime Ministers were far more generous in allowing Questions to be put to them. Recent Prime Ministers, particularly the present Prime Minister, have so narrowly restricted Questions that virtually all that hon. Members are allowed to ask is whether, for example, he will visit Dundee.

I have only survived in this place by never passing a comment on Prime Ministers.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My constituency has been referred to on five occasions today, and with one exception every comment was totally inaccurate. On every occasion I endeavoured to intervene, but I was not called. I hope that when criticisms and attacks are made on an hon. Member's constituency—in this case, Chrysler at Linwood—some attempt at balance can be made. The strike was called because of the stupidity of management towards a work force which had been devoid of industrial disputes for three years. If the hon. Member representing the constituency is not called in such instances, the truth may not emerge.

I do my best to be fair to every constituency interest, and I shall be under considerable pressure in the major business of the day, when very many constituency interests will not be dealt with. The time for that debate is being further reduced by the time we are taking now. I saw the hon. Member rise only twice. I am sorry I missed him. I shall try to do better in future.