asked the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the design brief can be performed by Tornados (MRCA) which have so far flown; when he expects the Tornados to reach 50 per cent. of their design brief; and what proportion of their original design brief will not be achieved by the production models of the plane.

Performance data of combat aircraft is classified information. The evidence available from flight tests was a major factor contributing to the decision in July to authorise full production of the MRCA, and I am satisfied that the aircraft will meet the RAF's performance requirements.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether the Government will be able to cancel their orders for the Tornado if it does not achieve the speeds set out in the design brief?

If it were to come to a question of considering cancellation my hon. Friend would wish to know that our provisional estimate of the expenditure already incurred and the further rundown and redundancy compensation payments arising from any unilateral withdrawal from the MRCA would be about £1,500 million.

Will the hon. Gentleman do his best to "kill" these people who knock this magnificent aircraft? Will he do his best to get into full production, so that when the RAF is equipped with this plane we shall be in a position to offer it to our NATO Allies, who may wish to buy it after seeing its first-rate performance?

I do not have quite such a bloodthirsty attitude as the hon. Gentleman. I certainly echo his views about the excellence of this aircraft.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how much per plane must be added for research and development to the estimated cost of £6·3 million for each common version MRCA and £7·7 million for each ADV version.

For reasons of security and commercial confidentiality it has never been the practice to give information of the sort requested by my hon. Friend at this stage in the development of any project.

Has the Minister seen the estimate by Mark Hewish, of Flight, writing in the New Scientist, to the effect that £1·5 million per plane must be added for research and development? Since this would bring the total bill for the British taxpayer to £3·2 billion for the 385 planes, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he can justify expenditure on such a fantastic scale at this time?

My hon. Friend is seeking to tempt me, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), into giving costs which, as he knows, are classified information. The £1,500 million that would be involved in sunk expenditure and cancellation charges does not even take account of the cost in terms of lost jobs and work opportunities, let alone the nugatory expenditure in respect of support and running costs.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that there can be no question of cancelling this aircraft because of any suggestion that it does not do what it was supposed to do? Does he agree that it does all that it is supposed to do? Will he further confirm that the price of this aircraft has not increased by as much proportionately as the price of a loaf of bread or a pint of beer?

Those are rather exotic statistics. It depends what period of time the hon. Gentleman is taking. As I have said, this aircraft meets the operational requirements of the RAF and the air forces of Italy and the Federal Republic of Germany—our partners in this project.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the point could be reached at which further expenditure on this aircraft could not possibly be justified? Does he agree that, especially when we are suggesting that cuts should be made in education, and health and welfare services, we must see whether it is possible to reduce this outrageously lavish expenditure?

As a general proposition, what my hon. Friend says is right—that if the costs of any project rise out of proportion to the benefits expected from it, it should be looked at again. However, I think that the cost control of this project is now well in hand.

Will the Minister confirm that the MRCA is the linchpin of the RAF's defensive capability for the 1980s?

It is not intended just for a defensive rôle, as the hon. Gentleman will know. But if a decision were taken not to proceed with the MRCA—[Interruption.] I said "if" a decision were taken—careful thought would have to be given to some other form to replace the ageing Phantoms, Buccaneers and Canberras.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the forces available for surveillance and deterrence following the extension of the fisheries limits on 1st January 1977.

I have no reason to doubt the effectiveness of the arrangements being made for fishery protection within extended limits, but naturally such matters have to be kept under constant review.

I accept that helpful answer 100 per cent. Does my hon. Friend accept that in the light of the EEC talks at which the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs laid down the law on behalf of the 50-mile exclusive limit for our fishermen, he should consider the use of redundant trawlers on Humberside for the purpose of enforcement? Could not a contribution be made by ships of the Bird class, which I believe are vital to our efficiency in terms of looking after our people in this area?

As I said, we are keeping the entire situation under constant review, but at the moment we do not consider that the adaptation and use of laid-up trawlers would be as cost-effective as new ships, in terms of remaining hull life and continuing support. On the second point, two Bird class patrol ships—"Kingfisher" and "Cygnet"—are currently in service with the Fishery Protection Squadron. They are designed for work in coastal waters only and are weather-limited. A contract for four was placed on 10th November 1972 with Richard Dunstan's (Hessle) Ltd., of North Humberside, but delays in delivery dates have been experienced due to labour and technical difficulties. No new orders have been placed. The two remaining vessels under construction will be allocated to the RNR.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the serious situation which has developed between Scottish boats and a fleet of large French trawlers outside the 12-mile limit but within 50 miles south-east of Shetland? Is he aware that the fishermen appreciate the prompt action of the Secretary of State for Scotland in ordering the protection cruiser "Westra" to the scene in response to my appeal to him yesterday? Has he been informed of two further instances this morning, when a Scottish boat's nets were cut by a French trawler and, I understand, "Westra" had to board the vessel in question? Will he keep in close touch with the Scottish Office on these incidents, and can he reinforce the Scottish fishery protection fleet if necessary? Can he assure the House that the strongest representations will be made to the French Government?

On the penultimate point, there is close co-operation and co-ordination between the Ministry of Defence and the fisheries Departments, including the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Scotland, on all aspects of fishery protection. The fisheries Departments are now closely engaged in exploring the implications of the new regime. What the hon. Gentleman said on his first point reminds us how closely we need to keep that emerging situation under review and how important it is that we know as soon as possible exactly what it will entail.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that our Fishery Protection Squadron is already hard-pressed, and that in view of proposed alterations in fishery limits it will need to be strengthened? Does he not further agree that it would be disastrous if, tomorrow, there were any suggestion of a cut-back in what is already proposed for the building of further fishery protection vessels?

Far from considering any cut-back, we have undertaken an expansion of the fishery protection task. We have new orders for a purpose-built patrol boat of the Island class, which I have mentioned before. There will be five accepted this time next year and there will be four Nimrod aircraft in service from 1st January. Whatever need may arise will be met, within the total resources of the Fleet.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he intends to take to co-ordinate the work of fishery protection.

Adequate arrangements have existed for many years for the co-ordination of fishery protection among the Departments concerned. These arrangements have been extended to provide for the effective integration of the additional ships and aircraft which are being provided.

Is the Minister really satisfied that if the Minister of Agriculture manages to negotiate a 50-mile exclusive limit there will be enough vessels to enforce it? Does he not agree that, from a Scottish point of view, the best solution would be for air and sea surveillance, along with fishery protection, to become a civilian responsibility of the Scottish Assembly?

I hope that the hon. Member will not think that I am evading her two questions, but I think that on reflection she will see that neither really relates to the Ministry of Defence. The first clearly relates to the Ministry of Agriculture, if not the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Scotland. I am not clear yet in what direction the second question should go, except that it is not in our direction.

Is the Minister aware that several Ministries are involved in maritime affairs? Will he consider setting up a maritime Ministry or expanding the Coastguard so that they can take over not only fishery protection but other functions, such as oil spillage and air-sea rescue?

As I said earlier, there is close co-ordination on all these matters among Government Departments—not merely on fishery protection but on inshore matters, especially the ones to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I have already paid a visit to the Forties field to look at security. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is the closest co-ordination on these matters. We are not yet satisfied that we have the right answer, but we are in no doubt about the urgency of the matter.

My hon. Friend has anticipated my inevitable question. Will my hon. Friend write to me about the extra costs of separate Scottish naval ships and a separate Scottish Nimrod required for this task?

Yes, I shall certainly write to my hon. Friend.

Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that four Nimrods will be able to do this job adequately? When it comes to cost-effectiveness, should he not consider the cost and availability of smaller light aircraft manufactured in Britain?

Those hon. Members who have flown in Nimrod—I know that there is a number—will know of its potential, its manoeuvrability, and its ability to survey both the North Sea and the Western approaches within half a day and to undertake reconnaissance on the most comprehensive basis. I am in no doubt that I can answer the hon. Gentleman in the affirmative.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what new measures he has in mind to police Great Britain's new 200-mile zone.

To prepare for the extension of fishing limits and for the possible introduction of a 200-mile exclusive economic zone, we are providing five new Royal Navy offshore patrol ships of the Island class and allocating four Royal Air Force Nimrod surveillance aircraft. The first of the Island class ships is now in service and the remainder are expected to be accepted into the Royal Navy during 1977; the aircraft will be allocated on 1st January 1977. Other resources of the Armed Forces will be made available as required.

The new ships will be in addition to those in service with the Fishery Protection Squadron and to the fishery protection vessels operated by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland.

Does the Minister appreciate that a lrge number of independent defence experts regard the Government's plans as wholly inadequate? Does he further appreciate that if he had spent longer at the Greenwich Forum meeting a fortnight ago he would have heard high-powered criticism of the plans? Will the Government undertake a major review of the proposals, so that Britain's contribution in this area can meet the needs of the time?

I know of no informed defence correspondent who takes the view put forward by the hon. Gentleman. I attended the Greenwich Forum long enough to put forward an explanation and defence of our arrangements that was not answered As I reminded the House, we are putting in hand arrangements that we think will be effective. If they are not, the will be backed up by the total resources of the Fleet.

I am sure that all hon. Members who represent fishing ports accept the Minister's answer that we shall efficiently police our future exclusive 50-mile zone. What help do we expect to get from our EEC partners in policing the 200-mile zone?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that the important matter he raises is still under discussion. We are awaiting the outcome of those discussions with as much interest and anxiety as he is. I cannot add anything to what I said. We have arrangements in hand of the kind I have described and also, as the House would expect, with the Royal Navy on a contingency basis.

What is the maximum speed of existing and proposed fishery protection vessels, and how does it compare with the likely maximum speed of the trawlers that they might be called upon to pursue?

The speeds of fishery protection vessels range from 40 knots for "Tenacity" —a fast patrol boat—down to 16 knots for the new Island class, which is coming into operation next year. The point to bear in mind is that the rôle of the new Island class, as of the older fishery protection boats, is a policing one. The boats will be rather like bobbies on the beat. The Navy is confident that it can fulfil that function; that is to say, as with the police, we can deploy our resources efficiently and adequately, and when the need arises we shall be capable of the same effective and confident response.

What consideration has has been given to the longer-term question of an international agreement on oceans and parts of oceans that are not fished? Does my hon. Friend accept that an international agreement on this matter would be a far better way of approaching the problem of fishing areas than the posture being adopted at the moment?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that these matters may well turn on further deliberations of the kind that we may expect from the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference III.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied with co-ordination between BAOR and the Royal Air Force.

There is close collaboration at all levels between BAOR and RAF Germany.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be utterly disastrous if there were to be any further cut-backs in our contribution to the central front of NATO? Nevertheless, does he also agree that, as the RAF has a mainly tactical rôle, there might be an opportunity to find economies if he considered the formation of an Army Air Force?

I am always most ready to consider any proposals from my hon. Friend, who brings a dedicated and knowledgable view to defence matters. However, BAOR is under the command of Northern Army Group, whereas RAF Germany is part of the Second Allied Tactical Air Force. What my hon. Friend suggests would involve a complete restructuring of the NATO organisation. However, I shall certainly consider any proposals that he likes to put to me.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that however good the co-ordination between the BAOR and the Royal Air Force, it cannot be effective unless they are up to strength? What is he doing to ensure that there are no further cuts in these areas, in view of the anxious representations made to the Prime Minister only recently by the Chiefs of Staff?

We did not have the benefit of the hon. Gentleman's presence when the Chiefs of Staff met the Prime Minister. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter was not raised in those discussions. I must make it clear that I cannot anticipate today what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say tomorrow, but both the BAOR and the Tactical Allied Air Force are up to strength, in accordance with our treaty commitments.

Regarding the most impressive display of co-ordination recently between the Army, the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy—in other words, the visit of the Chiefs of Staff to the Prime Minister last Friday—will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is the view of his chief professional advisers that tomorrow's defence cuts will bring our defences below the critical level? Will he further confirm that it is his own view that in that case he has no possible alternative but to resign his office?

I read last weekend the right hon. Gentleman's comments, which were a shade ahead of other comments on this theme. I can understand the impatience of Conservative Members to assume the responsibility of government, but I am bound to tell the House that in my considered judgment nothing that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor might say tomorrow would be as disastrous for the nation as the Conservative Party's forming a Government.

The right hon. Gentleman must understand that I cannot disclose today the consequences of the review of public expenditure that has been undertaken. Naturally, the Chiefs of Staff are anxious to increase rather than reduce defence expenditure. They went to see the Prime Minister, as is their constitutional right. There is nothing extremely unusual about that. If the normal procedure of Defence Estimates had been proceeded with—we have not had that timetable, in order to meet the IMF commitments—the Chiefs of Staff would in the usual way have participated fully in the discussions leading to the Defence White Paper. As they did not have that opportunity, it was only right that they should discuss the matter with the Prime Minister on this occasion.

My right hon. and hon. Friends appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman cannot reveal the cuts that we imagine or fear will be announced tomorrow, but does he agree that the action of the Chiefs of Staff on Friday was far from being not unusual, as he said, and was virtually unprecedented? Secondly, will he answer my question and confirm that it is now the view of the Chiefs of Staff that, because of the cuts tomorrow, our defence will be below the critical level?

The Chiefs of Staff must speak for themselves, but they do not feel that our defence is below the critical level. There are a number of precedents for visits by the Chiefs of Staff, but for reasons that I do not altogether understand, more publicity was given to the visit of the Chiefs on this particular matter. I can personally recall three previous occasions within the past decade when the Chiefs of Staff have made such visits. It is not unprecedented.

Does my right hon. Friend agree, following the precedent that has occurred several times this century, that if the Chiefs of Staff found the proposed cuts in defences to be of the catastrophic nature suggested by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) it would be incumbent upon them to resign?

That would be a matter for the Chiefs of Staff themselves. I should not wish to involve myself in that decision.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any intention of visiting the southern flank of NATO.

I have no immediate plans to do so.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he were to visit the southern flank of NATO he would find a patchwork of defence forces that lacks cohesion and credibility? It is only just a credible deterrent. Is he aware that the one thing that would most strengthen the southern flank would be increased British involvement, which would be greatly welcomed and would have the effect of strengthening our defence forces, an effect completely disproportionate to the minor cost that would be incurred?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that the past few months have not been the easiest time in which to make arrangements to be away from the House, and a number of visits that I wished to make have naturally had to be deferred. I accept that if we could make additional forces available to the southern flank, or, for that matter, to any part of NATO, that decision would be welcomed by all our Allies. We have contingency arrangements both for land and air support. The Royal Navy frequently takes part in exercises with the Allies' navies in the Mediterranean region. We are still making a significant contribution, but if economic circumstances permitted, I, like the hon. Gentleman, would wish to do more. At present, the main NATO responsibility is, on the one hand, the central front, and, on the other, the eastern Atlantic and the United Kingdom air defence region.

Will my right hon. Friend reject the attempts by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) and other hon. Members to scare us into still further increases in expenditure on arms? Will he accept the statement from the Pentagon that NATO exceeds the Warsaw Pact Powers in total arms spending, in the size of its naval forces and in the number of Service men employed?

My acquaintanceship with my hon. Friend over many years has led me to believe that he is not easily scared. His resilience on these matters is well known. I cannot accept that the Pentagon takes a complacent attitude towards the present situation, or that the increasing technology available to Warsaw Pact forces is not a matter of concern.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the withdrawal of British forces from Cyprus has increased the risk of conflict on that island and that any further withdrawal would sharply increase the risk of war in the eastern Mediterranean?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, as a result of the defence review there was a reduction in the garrison, but I have no current plans to reduce it further. As he rightly says, our presence is connected with the current political situation.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether at the recent NATO meeting, he was honest enough to tell our Allies about tomorrow's cuts, or concealed them from them?

The matter did not arise in the normal proceedings of the meeting, but we shall go through the precedents of this Government and preceding Governments in terms of consultation with NATO about our defence expenditure and defence commitment.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the number of trained Army reservists available for reinforcing BAOR.

Yes, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that fully trained reservists are an important and cost-effective reinforcement for our troops in Europe? Is he further aware that the Government have shown a marked lack of determination to increase the establishment of our reservists and provide them with transport to get them quickly into Europe so that they may be effectively used?

I am well aware of the importance and cost-effectiveness of the TAVR and its ability to reinforce BAOR. The hon. Gentleman should have read a little more before asking this sort of supplementary question. If he had done so, he would have realised that we have had tremendous success in increasing recruitment to the TAVR in the past year. Although it is not normal to divulge figures, I can tell him that the British Army of the Rhine would be doubled on mobilisation.

Will the Under-Secretary of State draw to the attention of his right hon. Friend the fact that in June this year NATO Defence Ministers in the Defence Planning Committee unanimously agreed to the principle that NATO forces should be maintained, and not reduced, except in the context of mutual and balanced force reductions in Europe, and that that principle presumably still binds Her Majesty's Government?

I confirm that the BAOR commitment of 55,000 troops, in accordance with the Brussels Treaty, is being maintained.

Will the Minister reconsider his grossly complacent reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks)? Is he not aware that on full mobilisation of all reserve manpower the British Armed Forces total no more than 580,000 men, and that that is less than the strength of Switzerland, Sweden and even tiny Finland, with one-twelfth our population?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his first appearance in his new rôle at the Dispatch Box. We are confident that on mobilisation we would have the reservees to increase the effective strength of BAOR. Comparisons with our European allies are not valid, bearing in mind that we have a full-time professional Army which is second to none in the world. We cannot compare a full-time professional army with a conscript army.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the manufacture of tritium at the British Nuclear Fuels plant at Chapelcross, Dumfries.

As my predecessor said when replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley) on 29th April, the decision to manufacture tritium in the United Kingdom will ensure continuation of supplies on a long-term basis, will cost less and will provide additional employment in the Chapelcross area. It does not signify any change in our nuclear weapons programme, either in the numbers or types of nuclear weapons with which our forces are equipped or in the Anglo-American nuclear relationship.

I am grateful for that reply and for the Minister's confirmation. Is he aware of the real concern felt by the people of Chapelcross at the threat to them from this plant? Does he agree that as tritium is used in the manufacture of nuclear weapons, the plant strikes at the clear undertaking which both he and his predecessor have given?

I agree with my hon. Friend that tritium plays an essential part in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. It has to be renewed from time to time to maintain the existing stockpile. I can, however, assure my hon. Friend that all the environmental and safety aspects of the new plant will be assessed and authorised by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and the Health and Safety Executive of the Scottish Development Department, and that we have completely followed the normal statutory requirements with regard to any planning permissions required.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that British Nuclear Fuels, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and the Safety Inspectorate answered questions at a public meeting on the safety of this plant? Is he further aware that the majority of my constituents are in favour of the continuation of the Magnox plant and tritium development as being in the best interests of all concerned, particularly Britain?

I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman, who represents the constituency concerned. The plant will provide a small number of jobs in the area. It is not a new thing for tritium to be manufactured in this country; it was manufactured here in the 1950s. The plant will lead to a saving in costs and will ensure that we have available our own sources.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions have been issued in his Department regarding the buying of British textiles.

An instruction has been issued to the Department on the application of the terms of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry in this House on 23rd July 1975. Over the last 12 months we have been able to purchase British textiles in all cases where they have been offered.

I welcome the reply given by my hon. Friend, but I would point out to him—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is not able to point out anything. He may ask a question.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in the past there have been instances of the purchase by the Services of foreign textiles that have been dumped in this country? As there is unemployment in the textile industry, will my hon. Friend ask, through his Department, that other than commercial considerations be taken into account in the purchase of textiles for the Armed Forces?

If my hon. Friend has any evidence of dumping, no doubt he will wish to speak to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. If my hon. Friend examines the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry he will see that we have been following these matters closely, and I think that he will be satisfied.

Is the Minister aware that, for once, I agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle)? Is he further aware that no other country allows its armed forces to be clothed with foreign textiles in the way that we do? Will he please state the percentage or the degree to which our Armed Forces are clothed by foreign textiles at the present time?

I have made it clear to the House that we have purchased British textiles in every case where they have been offered. The only circumstances in which we would not buy British textiles would be where there was a considerable price differential and where it would not be in our interest, in terms of an exporting country, to violate the rules against discrimination. The only case of which I am aware where we are not purchasing British textiles relates to special clothing for Arctic use.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied with British participation in equipping new NATO tanks.

The United States and Germany are developing tanks for introduction into service by the early 1980s. We are pressing on them the merits of recent British tank gun and ammunition developments. For the longer term, planning is in hand for a replacement for Chieftain in the late 1980s.

Is the Minister aware of the strong belief in this country that the British Government have been "taken to the cleaners" by the Governments of Germany and the United States, and that there seems little chance of the British 120 mm gun being part of the new NATO tank? Is this not a serious matter for the defence industries of Britain?

The hon. Gentleman is leaping to a conclusion. At the moment an improved British rival 120 mm gun is being developed, and it has been offered for evaluation to the United States.

Is it not the case that the United States Government are prepared to wait for the full development of our new 120 mm gun? Will my hon. Friend undertake to ensure that the German Government are made well aware of the feeling that will be generated in this House if they insist on pressing for a decision on the new gun next month before our gun is available for testing?

I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has made his German and American counterparts fully aware of those considerations.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will take steps to ensure that Service men and their families, living in quarters owned by his Department, are neither threatened with eviction nor actually evicted, following demobilisation, until adequate alternative accommodation can be provided.

Married quarters are provided to enable Service families to stay together when they move from one station to another, and it would plainly be wrong that the families of serving men should be deprived of quarters by others who are no longer entitled to them. However, where a quarter is not required immediately for another occupant, it is normally possible to allow a reasonable period of time in which the existing occupant can find alternative accommodation. In cases where it proves necessary, none the less, for the Department to apply to the courts for possession, we keep in close touch with the local authorities to see what help they can provide.

Is it not a public scandal that men who have satisfactorily completed a term of service, which prevents them from satisfying the residential qualification laid down by various local authorities, should then be subjected to the humiliation of being thrown on the streets and offered bed-and-breakfast or temporary accommodation as a result of having carried out a good job in their years in the Services? Should we not formulate a policy aimed at helping people such as my constituent, Mr. Wood, about whom I have written to the Department, to obtain a better deal?

Part of the problem lies in the fact that not all local authorities have a sufficiently large housing stock at their disposal, and some of their residential requirements are much greater than one would hope. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that it would be unconscionable for serving men and their families to be kept out of married quarters because they are being used by people who are no longer entitled to them.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the whole subject of Service housing is in a thoroughly unsatisfactory state, not only for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens), but because many Service men find it difficult to get houses? Once they have left their quarters many are unable to claim relief on mortgages, because of the new measures announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

I do not accept that proposition. There are difficulties involved, but we are seeking ways of improving them. However, as a general rule the Services are well housed.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will list his official engagements for 14th December.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 14th December.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 14th December.

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. This evening I hope to have an Audience of Her Majesty The Queen.

Before my right hon. Friend goes off on his other engagements, will he comment on the negative contribution to yesterday's debate by the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition? Is is not becoming increasingly clear that the Opposition are being infiltrated by extremists—on the one hand, by unionist extremists in the Tory Party and, on the other hand, by separatist extremists in the national parties, and that the only realistic alternative, namely, devolution, is supported by the overwhelming majority of people in the Labour Party, including well-known moderates such as the Prime Minister and myself?

I have never found it difficult to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) on a great many problems, although not on absolutely every one.

As for the contribution made yesterday by the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition, I am sure that she was satisfied with it—[Interruption.] There was at least a difference, because I stated where the Government stood, although nobody could deduce from the right hon. Lady's remarks where the Opposition stood.

Following Cabinet discussions, will my right hon. Friend say when we shall see some progress towards the creation of 1 million new jobs in the next three years, which was the target set by this Government? Furthermore, will he say when some encouragement will be given to regenerate industry in South-East London, which has far too many unused industrial sites and empty factories?

Yes, Sir. The basis of the Government's industrial strategy is to ensure that our manufacturing industry concentrates on the exports required, even though there may be spare capacity at the moment in, alas, some industries where capacity exceeds demand. As for South-East London, I agree with my hon. Friend that the nature of unemployment is changing. I drew attention to this topic in a speech last night. Many changes are taking place in the country at present, but the remedies that we applied in the 1940s, 1950s and the 1960s are perhaps not wholly appropriate today.

Will my right hon. Friend, in the small amount of time he has between engagements, turn his immense talents to the disarray and disunity in the Opposition ranks and use his good offices to bring together the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition? It is obvious that the Conservatives have been unsuccessful in their efforts. Perhaps my right hon. Friend could help.

I would have been delighted to act as a marriage broker if the right hon. Lady had not just celebrated the first part of what I hope will be a very much longer marriage. I wish her the very best of good fortune. If she will allow me to say so, I believe that the first 25 years are by no means the best; the next 25 years are far better. As for any slight differences there may be between the Opposition Front Bench and any of its former occupants, I am sure that the right hon. Lady will be able to overcome them. Whether she does so or not will not make much difference, because we shall still be in government and they will still be in opposition.

The first 25 years have been all right, and I hope to be promoted in the second. May I return to some of the previous supplementary questions, and ask the Prime Minister whether he agrees with, or rejects, the views of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, who said in a speech last weekend that the influence of Marxists is welcome in the Government Party?

I welcome the right hon. Lady's interest in the affairs of our National Executive Committee and the document published—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am answering. The right hon. Lady is referring to a document which has been, or is proposed to be, circulated to the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party. I am very glad to see that hon. Gentlemen, as well as the right hon. Lady, are paying such close attention to these matters. If they continue with their studies, they will one day be eligible to join the party, too.

The Prime Minister is trying to dodge the question. I was referring to the speech made by the Secretary of State for Energy, which, I understand, Transport House refused to circulate. Is that correct? The Guardian did us a service by publishing a whole lot of that speech, in which the Secretary of State for Energy indicated, in effect, that the influence of Marxists was welcome in the Labour Party. Does the Prime Minister agree with this?

With the greatest respect to the right hon. Lady, the affairs of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party—[Interruption.] I repeat, the affairs of the NEC have nothing at all to do with her. On a simple matter of fact, I believe that this was not a speech which was refused transmission by Transport House, but that, again, is nothing to do with her or with anybody else on the Conservative Benches. If Opposition Members do not know where I stand on these matters, their eyes need testing, because they could see it very easily. I am sure that this is a very interesting diversion from the affairs of the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). I do not propose, in this House, to answer any questions about the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party. I have said so about 17 times.

I know that the Prime Minister is no good at answering questions—[Interruption.]. I am asking him about the views of a Minister of the Crown. Does he agree with those views or not?

The right hon. Lady may ask as many questions as she likes. I may be no good at answering, therefore I rely on the time-honoured formula that I have no comment to make on these matters.

Will the Prime Minister take time today to re-read the script of the Labour Party political broadcast about Lord Algernon? Will he say that he finds this type of attack totally repugnant, and totally out of touch with the national mood?

I have no responsibility for any of these matters.

asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to pay an official visit to Kingston, Jamaica.

I have at present no plans to do so.

Will the Prime Minister none the less take this opportunity to make it clear that no British agents whatsoever have been involved in covert intelligence operations designed to influence the outcome of the Jamaican general elections? [Interruption.] Does the Prime Minister not agree that covert intervention by the CIA or any other intelligence organisation, as has been rumoured, is something which we would utterly condemn?

I do not know why the Opposition find that so amusing. I do not think they would relish it if they thought that foreign agents were in this country—[Interruption.] As I was saying, I do not think they would like it if foreign agents were in this country trying to influence the results of our elections. Although we do not comment generally on security matters of this sort, I would regard it as very improper if foreign agents were attempting to influence the outcome of the Jamaican elections. Such a practice certainly would not have my approval.

As the Prime Minister is not going to Jamaica, will he consider coming to Orkney and Shetland instead? It may cost just as much, even though it is not so far, but as we are the possessors of the most valuable asset in the hands of Britain, namely, oil, is it not time that the Prime Minister came to see us?

I would welcome a return visit to the Orkneys, where I have not been since I visited the right hon. Member there a few years ago. On that occasion, he sent me home with two live lobsters. I welcome that hospitality, together with the special malt whisky which I believe is brewed there. However, I think we should leave it for a while, and then he and I will establish contact.

Does the Prime Minister agree that reports that there have been attempts to destabilise the political situation in Jamaica, following the techniques that were used in Chile, are disturbing? Does he further agree that this matter might be discussed with other Heads of Commonwealth countries when he next meets them?

If there is any desire on their part to do so, I shall discuss the matter. Other than that, I have nothing to add to what I have already said.

As the Prime Minister is not going to Jamaica, will he use the time to study the opinion poll in the Western Mail last week, which showed that 33 per cent. of people in Wales were satisfied with the proposals for the Welsh Assembly, but 35 per cent. thought that that Assembly should have additional powers? Will the Prime Minister give a commitment that if there is a referendum on devolution there will be a question that will enable people to say whether they want more powers for the Assembly?

The hon. Member is jumping too far ahead. I did study the poll in the Western Mail. We shall be making further statements on referenda. In my constituency, there is a considerable degree of satisfaction that the Government have moved in this direction.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has any current plans to visit Switzerland.

No, Sir.

Is the Prime Minister aware that if he were to visit Switzerland he would find financial prudence and frugality which are much more in key with the majority of British people than the attitude of the present Government? Does he accept that if he followed these virtues it would not be necessary for the Chancellor to make a statement tomorrow rectifying the damage done by the Government over the last two and a half years?

The Government have introduced a great many controls on public expenditure. The programmes that were planned have been reduced for the next three years; cash limits were introduced and are being adhered to rigidly for the first time in the history of post-war days; and the local authority rate support grant has been reduced. As the hon. Member knows, there will be a further statement tomorrow. Against that background, it seems the height of impudence that anyone on the Tory Benches should talk about financial prudence and frugality.

If the Prime Minister cannot manage to go to Switzerland, perhaps he will come to Merseyside instead, and look at unemployment there, particularly among construction workers. Will he indicate whether tomorrow's announcement will mean further unemployment in the construction industry, or will he give a categorical assurance that this will not happen?

I recommend that my hon. Friend wait until tomorrow. I cannot promise that the statement will please him or many other people. It is not a statement which, in present circumstances, can be made to please people. But we must live through this period and see the country to the other side, and this is what we intend to do.

Will the Prime Minister return to a policy of sound money—and in replying will he not refer to the mistakes of the last two years of the last Conservative Government?

I am delighted to hear that confession from a sinner come to repentance. Even that belated admission that mistakes were made by the last Conservative Government is welcome. Let me assure the hon. Member that since his profligate Government left office the increase in money supply has been reduced drastically and has continued in that direction. I hope that, with the support of Opposition Members, we shall continue to do that in future.