asked the Minister of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the progress and costs of the multi-rôle combat aircraft programme.

I would refer my hon. Friend to my statement during the defence debate on 15th March.—[Vol. 852, c. 1510–11.]

Will my hon. Friend say a little more about the difference in exchange rates? Will he say what effect these alterations will have on the ultimate cost of the aircraft and, perhaps more important, whether they will have any effect on the balance between the manufacturing capacities of the various countries and the numbers taken up?

I am afraid that I cannot tell my hon. Friend any more than my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force told the House last Thursday. This is an extremely complicated matter which will take a great deal of working out. It will not be clear until the next review point at the end of the year.

Has the aircraft passed the scrutiny of the NATO MRCA Management Committee and, if so, has any decision been taken about production investment?

It has met the requirements of all the Chiefs of Staff of the countries participating, and the decisions on production investment will be taken at the next review stage.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what representations he has received about United States and British Polaris submarine bases in Scotland.

I have received no recent representations on this subject.

Is the Minister aware that at Easter the Scottish TUC, the Labour Party and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament will be publicly seeking the winding-up of these bases? In view of the development of the long-distance Trident, have the American Government been asked whether they still need to retain the bases in Scotland?

I am aware that there will be some contrived agitation this weekend. I am also aware that it will not represent the view of the public either in Scotland or elsewhere. As I have already told the hon. Gentleman, we have made it clear to the Americans that we will make the bases available to them for as long as they require them.

Will my hon. Friend accept that among the vast majority of people in Scotland there is appreciative understanding of the vital rôle of these bases, and that their presence is welcome not only for strategic purposes but also because of the considerable contribution they make to local employment and the local economy?

I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said. He is quite right. There are 3,500 Royal Navy officers and men stationed at Faslane who greatly add to the purchasing power of the district, and there are 2,700 civilians employed at Faslane and Coulport which greatly helps the employment situation.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the operations of the British Army in Northern Ireland.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the operations of the British Army in Northern Ireland.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the operations of the British Army in Northern Ireland.

The Army is continuing to support the civil authorities in Northern Ireland in the maintenance of law and order. By undertaking patrols and conducting selective searches it is continuing to combat violence, from whatever quarter it may arise, and to protect the lives and property of the community.

Does the Minister recall the much more hopeful picture of operations and accommodation in Northern Ireland that I was anxious to project in the recent Army debate? Is he aware of the disturbing Press reports about the current operations of the paratroops and will he ensure that no operations are undertaken which might jeopardise the success of the White Paper? Has any change been made in the instructions governing the use of the yellow card, and were representations made about Colonel Lorimer before his transfer to England?

I always think it right not to be over-optimistic in outlining the current operations of the Army in Northern Ireland. I have no reason to believe that there is anything wrong in what the paratroops have done. The terms of the yellow card are kept under continual review. They have not been changed lately and I see no reason to change them. As far as I know, no representations were made about Colonel Lorimer.

If the Army continues throughout the summer to enjoy its recent success, does my hon. Friend foresee a reduction in the number of units serving in Northern Ireland perhaps by Christmas? Meanwhile, has my hon. Friend noticed an increase in the propaganda campaign which is normally directed against units which are particularly successful in Northern Ireland?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. As he knows, we keep the level of our forces in Northern Ireland under continual review. If the level of violence continues to decrease we shall, of course, bring more troops home. My hon. Friend is right in saying that there have been a considerable number of general charges of brutality, and these are usually directed against successful troops. Specific allegations which are backed by evidence we investigate carefully, but general charges are entirely repudiated.

In view of the mounting toll of deaths which have been brought about in the past fortnight by the British Army, about which it has expressed regret and said that mistakes have been made, and in view of the harassment that is now taking place in the city of Belfast and throughout Northern Ireland, will the hon. Gentleman say whether any different policy is being pursued by the Army? Is he aware that if the Army continues with the present attitude in Northern Ireland, the whole of the White Paper proposals will be in serious danger of defeat?

I strongly deprecate the expression used by the hon. Gentleman about the mounting toll of deaths brought about by the British Army. The mounting toll of death has been brought about by incidents of terrorism in Northern Ireland. If the Army makes a mistake and there is an accident the Army greatly regrets it—and, indeed, the Army has expressed its regret, as I express my regret. That is undoubted. But the whole House will agree that, faced with the terrorist situation which the Army has faced in the last two years, we have been extremely relieved and grateful that accidents so seldom happen.

There appears to be a very much larger range of activity by the military police in conjunction with the RUC. In welcoming that, may I ask whether my hon. Friend has any plans to extend this type of force, which has been outstandingly successful?

I agree that the force has been successful, and when opportunities arise we shall seek to extend it.

May I say on behalf of the Opposition that we defend the Army's position in Northern Ireland? We believe that our troops have performed a magnificent task and we give them our wholehearted support.

I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the security situation in the Ardoyne area of Belfast.

There have been a number of serious outbreaks of violence in the Ardoyne area, but recent weeks have seen a considerable improvement. The situation is still not satisfactory, and the Army will continue to take all practicable steps to protect the community.

I welcome my hon. Friend's answer. Is he aware, however, of the extent to which people are suffering in this area due to extensive terrorist activity? Such activity particularly affects elderly people. Will my hon. Friend give an assessment of the success that there has been in the last few months against the IRA in this area? In particular, will he give an assurance that the Ardoyne area will continue to be given top priority by the security forces?

As my hon. Friend knows, the detailed deployment of troops on the ground is a matter for the local commanders. While the situation remains as it has been in recent months, I am sure that the local commanders will give the Ardoyne very high priority.

I can produce figures—and I will send them to my hon. Friend—which show that there has been a dramatic fall particularly in the last two weeks in the number of incidents compared with the first three months of this year.

Will the hon. Gentleman, in his discussions with his Department and with the local commanders concerned in the Ardoyne, point out to them that a White Paper has been passed which, it is hoped, will bring a new climate and a new approach to problems in Northern Ireland? Does he accept that it is very necessary that those who may in the past have been hostile to the Government and to the Government's intentions should be able to see on the ground the change which is reflected in the White Paper? Will the Minister accept that the harassment of Republican clubs, which seems to have gone on apace and which has increased since the Republican clubs have been withdrawn from the proscribed list, is something which must be considered carefully if we are to have the peace which is wanted in the Ardoyne area in future?

I very much welcome the opening remarks of the hon. Gentleman. I do not accept that there is deliberate harassment by the security forces. The hon. Gentleman knows that if there are complaints they are carefully investigated Machinery exists, which is well known, for that purpose.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a small housing estate on the left-hand side going up past the Ardoyne fire station and that the people living in that estate have been subjected to terrible harassment? Is he aware that they have been attacked as they have gone in and out of the estate? Will he give an assurance to the House that the security of these people—they have already made representations to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland —will be carefully considered and that everything will be done to give them personal safety?

I assume that the hon. Gentleman is not referring to alleged harassment by the Army?

No.

I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's confirmation. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the needs of that area will be borne in mind by the local commander, in the way in which he normally pays attention to areas which are in special need.

Will not the hon. Gentleman accept, even for once, that most of the trouble and much of the loss of life in the Ardoyne area is due to the excesses of the Parachute Regiment in particular? Will he now issue instructions that the paratroops be withdrawn from the area?

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman is saying. What is more, the facts do not support what he has said. In the first three months of this year there was an improvement in many other areas but there was regular trouble in the Ardoyne. The position in the last few weeks, since the Parachute Regiment has been there, is that the trouble in the Ardoyne has diminished.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he is aware that low-flying aircraft, presumed to be on military operations, showered pellets, of which samples have been sent to him, on Bredon Hill, and in particular on domestic premises occupied by constituents of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, and that one of the aircraft was identified by the fuselage markings; what steps he is taking to prevent this nuisance and noise in the area of Bredon Hill; and what instructions he has caused to be given to the pilots.

I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the aircraft with the registration G-AXBD about which he has written to me. This is a civil aircraft employed in agricultural aviation and is in no way the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence. Its activities are therefore a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who I am sure will ensure in future that no pellets will be directed at my hon. Friend's constituents or himself.

I fully exonerate the Ministry of Defence on this rare occasion for not showering missiles of one kind or another on my constituents. Would not my hon. Friend recognise that these pellets, as they are called—large granules—are excessively poisonous, should not be used and should be proscribed? Will he use his influence to prevent further missiles being distributed and to persuade the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to forbear on future occasions?

I suggest that my hon. Friend uses his own influence on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will now make a statement on the employment of VSTOL aircraft by the Royal Navy.

The project definition study of a maritime VSTOL aircraft for the Royal Navy is expected to be completed at the end of April. We expect to announce our decision on the project before Parliament rises for the Summer Recess.

Meanwhile I am glad to be able to announce that the order for the first through-deck cruiser has now been placed with Messrs. Vickers, Barrow. The ship is to be named HMS "Invincible".

I welcome the fact that at long last that we are to have an announcement in the House on the future of the vertical take-off aircraft in the Navy. Will my hon. Friend say when the statement will be made about which Service is to operate the aircraft?

I think my Friend slightly misunderstood my answer. I did not say that a decision had been taken on VSTOL aircraft but that a decision had been made about the building of the cruiser. As no decision on VSTOL has yet been announced, it would be premature to say which Service, if any, would fly the aircraft.

Does the Minister agree that future policy on through-deck cruisers is intimately related to the future of the vertical take-off aircraft and its use in the Navy? How soon will he clarify overall policy? If the Government decide to go ahead with vertical take-off aircraft, one through-deck cruiser will not make much sense.

Although the two things are connected, they are also at the same time fairly separate because the through-deck cruiser has other functions of command and control and in relation to the Sea King helicopter. Therefore, we would have proceeded with the through-deck cruiser—and indeed, we are proceeding with it—irrespective of whether we buy VSTOL aircraft.

I warmly welcome the ordering of HMS "Invincible" and I congratulate the Government on their efforts. Will my hon. Friend recognise that the two things are slightly connected and that during the Royal Air Force debate the Undersecretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force, in the course of a wise and sensible passage in his speech about defence of trade overseas, said that the trade would be looked after? Does not this mean the use of seaborne aircraft in some shape or form?

They are connected in the sense that if the Navy has VSTOL aircraft they will fly from the cruiser. I am also saying that we shall have the cruiser in any event.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the unit cost of the cruisers, less aeroplanes or helicopters, is likely to be £70 million-plus? How many ships are likely to be purchased, and can this cost be maintained within the Ministry of Defence's long-term costings?

The hon. Gentleman will know from his own experience in the Ministry of Defence that Her Majesty's Government are not accustomed to revealing the cost of any defence projects or to announcing in advance how many ships of a particular class will be built.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what is his policy towards the formation of a possible nuclear force in which all EEC member nations would participate.

A European nuclear force remains a long-term possibility but there are no plans for pursuing this issue at present.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his reply that this project remains a long-term possibility will intensify the anxiety now being felt throughout Britain and Europe on the idea that ultimately a nuclear force may be formed with Community nations equally participating, and that ultimately the NATO force will be replaced by this new European concept? Is he further aware that the British Labour Party is overwhelmingly opposed to the idea that such a nuclear force should be established? Will he reconsider his answer?

I do not agree that there is overwhelming anxiety either in this country or in Europe on this matter. If the long-term possibility—and I stress long-term possibility "—of a European force ever came to pass, it would be part of NATO.

Before we become involved in a Euro force, can my hon. Friend the Minister say whether there has been progress in the possible re-equipping of our nuclear force with Poseidon?

No, Sir; I have nothing to add to what I have already said.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) has raised an important matter of European policy. Has there been a commitment of any kind to the concept of an Anglo-French nuclear deterrent?

No, Sir. As my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has said many times, the discussions which we have had with the French Government have been only to the extent that we have both agreed that the problem of Anglo-French nuclear collaboration is one for the future.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the action he is taking following the introduction of phase 2 to improve the remuneration of lower paid civilian personnel in Ministry of Defence establishments, and on the action he is taking to remove the anomalies in the rates of pay to such civilian personnel.

Rates of pay of civilians employed in Ministry of Defence establishments are common to the Civil Service as a whole. Increases within the limits applying during the present stage of counter-inflation policy are a matter for discussion by the appropriate negotiating bodies.

Will the hon. Gentleman see to it that he does everything possible to guarantee that there is absolutely no delay in implementing any increase that is due following the annual review? Is he aware that there are still far too many civilians in these establishments on deplorably low rates of pay? What action will be taken to improve their predicament? Finally, will the hon. Gentleman take action with the Civil Service Department to remove anomalies whereby too many people who are doing exactly the same work are on completely different rates of pay?

asked the there is no delay. The question of low pay generally is a matter for discussion between Government Departments and the trade unions. As for anomalies, there are bound to be discrepancies in an organisation as large as the Ministry of Defence. We shall do our best to remove them as much as we can.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what criteria he uses when placing orders for the construction of British warships in British shipyards.

British warship orders are generally placed on the basis of the most advantageous tender, taking all relevant factors fully into account.

Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that efficient firms outside the development areas—for example, Vosper Thornycroft in Southampton—will not be penalised when his Department places orders?

I give that assurance gladly. We have the highest regard for Vosper's. I think that the only time when the company felt that it was hard dealt with was over the accelerated shipbuilding order of 1971 which was designed specifically to help unemployment in depressed areas, which, luckily, Southampton is not.

Since the hon. Gentleman says that he always accepts the lowest tenders, can he say how many tenders there were for the £70 million project to which he referred in answer to an earlier Question?

I did not say that we always accepted the lowest tender. I said that we accepted the most advantageous tender. We do not necessarily believe that a cut-price tender is the best. We take a number of factors into account. As for the cruiser—I did not mention the figure of £70 million—there was only one tender. We placed the shipbuilding involved in that with Vickers.

asked the Minister of State for Defence why servicing facilities for lorries of a Dutch agricultural products marketing touring exhibition were provided by the Royal Air Force at High Wycombe; and whether similar facilities are available to the Milk Marketing Board and the Fat-stock Marketing Corporation.

I have found no evidence that servicing facilities were provided by the Royal Air Force at High Wycombe for the lorries referred to. I think I should explain to the House that this Question arose from a reporting error in the Shropshire Star. This referred to "RAF'' mechanics. It should have referred to "DAF" mechanics. DAF is a Dutch motor company The error was corrected in a later edition. It is hardly surprising that Dutch lorries should be helped by a Dutch motor company.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will instruct the Chief of the Defence Staff to cancel his proposed official visit to Greece.

No, Sir. It is the normal practice for Chiefs of Staff of NATO countries to exchange visits.

Recognising that I might just as well have withdrawn the Question for all the good that it would do, may I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind for future occasions that from the point of view of the Greek Government visits of this kind have nothing to do with the North Atlantic Alliance? They are desired and exploited by the Greek Government solely to convey the impression that that Government enjoy the blessing and support of Western Governments. May I at least have from my hon. Friend an assurance that that impression is mistaken?

My hon. Friend's Question was wasted only in the sense that the visit has already taken place. It is not for me to say how the Greek Government view visits from our Chief of Defence Staff or from others. The Greek Chief of Staff was in London in 1971 as the guest of our Chief of Defence Staff and normal courtesy would involve an invitation to pay a return call, which he did. Obviously it is our general policy in NATO, as it is of other members, for military chiefs to exchange visits.

Is there not a real danger of the military chiefs in Greece using this occasion to bolster their own prestige and ensuring that this is regarded as a measure of approval from the British Government of activities in Greece? Did the Secretary of State himself approve this visit?

Of course the Secretary of State approved the visit. But it is not for me to say how the Greek Government would view a visit. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the Greek Minister for Industry came here on an official visit in 1969 at the invitation of the Labour Government.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a cause for rejoicing that we have an ally as determined to contain Communism as Greece is? Does he agree further that instead of attacking those countries which are our allies and which seek to contain Communism—like Portugal, Greece and South Africa—it would be more fitting if there were cancellations of visits to Soviet Russia and other Eastern European countries?

As my hon. Friend implies, Greece occupies a position of great strategic importance on the southern flank of the Western Alliance. We have normal trade, defence and other relations with a number of Governments whose internal policies we do not necessarily endorse.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the principles for which NATO stands require no encouragement from any form of Fascist Government? Since the colonels in Greece have broken their word time and time again by trampling on the principles of freedom and democracy, will the hon. Gentleman give serious consideration to any future visits which are planned?

I do not believe that the strategy of indiscriminate denunciation does any good to NATO or to our other alliances. To call in question or undermine Greece's position in NATO will not help Greece but it may undermine the position of other countries.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what plans he has to pay an official visit to the Polaris base in Scotland.

I visited the Clyde submarine base in September 1971. I have at present no plans to make a further visit.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that these bases provide little security but are always capable of provoking a nuclear attack on this country? Does he not agree, further, that the cost of improving or replacing our Polaris submarines is prohibitive? Would not the money be better spent on providing employment for our people and decent homes for them to live in?

I do not believe that the presence of the bases in Scotland constitutes any danger to Scotland. I believe that our nuclear deterrent is a deterrent designed to prevent war. I also believe that the presence of these bases in Scotland is extremely popular.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the future equipment and rôle of the Royal Naval Reserve.

The Royal Naval Reserve is an indispensable part of the Navy. As stated in the Defence White Paper, it provides crews for 11 minesweepers and supports maritime and other headquarters in communications, naval control of shipping and other tasks. In addition the Royal Naval Reserve provides a nucleus of naval expertise within the ships of the Merchant Navy and fishing fleets. No change in these rôles is envisaged. The coastal minesweepers are planned to remain in service into the 1980s.

May I suggest that the continuance of the minesweeping rôle as opposed to a transfer to the mine-hunting rôle for the RNR is somewhat to be regretted? Will my hon. Friend consider the adoption of another rôle for the RNR with fast patrol boats, missile-equipped, which would do much to increase the morale of the force and would also augment our coastal forces, which at present are very inadequate?

I shall consider the first part of my hon. Friend's question. As for the second part, at this stage I cannot hold out any hope, in view of the decision by an earlier administration, about the sort of craft of which my hon. Friend speaks.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that within the Reserve there is anxiety about reports that the Government may be considering the use of helicopters in future mine-clearing operations? Is he able to clarify thinking on this issue?

That is a rather different issue. I have not in my encounters with the Reserve found there to be any low morale. Recruiting is not bad. The Reserve is only 5 per cent. below strength. If there are anxieties about the rôle of helicopters, I have not heard of them. I will look into the matter. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me know where his information comes from.

Can my hon. Friend say that when the present minesweepers are replaced, as they must be fairly soon, they will be replaced by ships which will give the Royal Naval Reserve an active sea-going rôle?

As I indicated earlier, it is anticipated that the Ton class craft will continue until the 1980s. We are considering the options open to us regarding replacements.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what consideration has been given to moving the Royal Armoured Corps Gunnery School from Lulworth.

The Royal Armoured Corps Gunnery Range at Lulworth is one of the sites being reviewed by the Defence Lands Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Nugent of Guildford under terms announced by my right hon. Friend on 14th January 1971.—[Vol. 809, c. 244–247.]

May I ask whether, if the Nugent Committee requires the return of this range and the land to the public, consideration has been given to the cost or whether an estimate has been made of the cost of moving the gunnery school and of building new barracks elsewhere?

I think my hon. and gallant Friend will agree that until the committee has reported, and until its recommendations have been considered by Ministers, it is premature to talk about the cost of doing anything which the committee might or might not recommend.

Is my hon. Friend aware that while there are a number of people who would like to see the area of land in military use reduced—perhaps he can tell us when the Nugent Committee is likely to report—no one in Dorset wants to see the Army go? Is he aware that the Army employs 800 people and brings some £2 million into a county which has practically no industry? Is he further aware that the presence of skilled soldiers has for generations added much to the social and economic life of the country?

We expect the Nugent Committee to report very soon. I note what my hon. Friend has had to say about the presence of the Army. That is a matter which I am sure will have been taken into account by the committee.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether the recent announcement on improved pensions to those injured and the dependants of those killed will apply to all Servicemen serving after March 1973; and why the ex gratia payments are limited in time and to those having served in Northern Ireland.

As I said in the defence debate on 15th March, I hope that we shall shortly be able to make a statement about improved pensions provisions for death and injuries attributable to service, which will apply to all regular Service men who serve on or after 31st March 1973. At the same time I explained that, because these general improvements cannot apply retrospectively, we had thought it right to make some special provision outside the formal pension scheme for men invalided and women bereaved as a direct result of terrorist activity in Northern Ireland.

While the Minister's statement is welcome, may I ask him to explain why a distinction has been made between classes of Service men? First, all Service men, regardless of service in Northern Ireland, will benefit if they are injured or killed after 31st March of this year and are serving generally. Before 31st March of this year, and since 1969, that has applied only to those serving in Northern Ireland. How does he explain the situation to existing pensioners and dependants and to those who suffered in the last war and previously? Why should ex gratia payments be confined to those killed and injured between 1969 and 1973 in Northern Ireland as distinct from those killed or injured in other parts of the world?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, whenever an improvement is made in pensions there are bound to be some people just outside the line who will be disappointed. We regret that. However, we thought that both the House and the country would consider that Northern Ireland was a special category and that those who have been killed or wounded seriously in Northern Ireland should be dealt with as special cases.

My hon. Friend may have seen the early day motion in my name signed by more than 100 right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House calling for special financial provision for those brave men who undertake special risks in Ulster today— namely, the Bomb Disposal Squad. Is he prepared to give consideration to such a request?

I have seen the motion to which my hon. Friend refers. As I said to my hon. Friend during the defence debate, we are considering this matter.

I realise that the Minister has drawn a line, but how does he explain the distinction to all the other Service men who might have benefited?

I hope that I can rely on the help of the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members. As I have said, the explanation is that we thought Northern Ireland was a very special case.

asked the Minister of State for Defence how many Royal Air Force stations and airfields have been closed since 1945; and how many of these are still retained by the Ministry of Defence.

I regret that, due to the large numbers of stations and airfields which were created during the war, this information involves a great deal of research. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as I have the information.

I am very disappointed by my hon. Friend's reply. He told me some time ago that 120,000 acres were still being held. By my computation that adds up to approximately 133 airfields. Why do we have to have the remnants of the Second World War still littering the British countryside?

I suppose it could be said that the majority of airfields are remnants of the Second World War.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will have discussions with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the possible formation of a specialist anti-terrorist unit.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has the major responsibility for measures to counter terrorism in Great Britain: the maintenance of law and order is primarily for the police.

Accepting that statement from my hon. Friend, and leaving to one side situations like Northern Ireland, may I ask whether it is not clear that the problem of terrorists, like those of urban guerrillas and hijackers, is likely to be with this country for many years to come and indeed within Europe? Is it not therefore a matter of urgency that a specialist section, probably involving consultations, certainly with his Department, should be urgently considered?

I accept the general point that my hon. Friend made at the start of his question, but there have been no proposals from the Army for a special anti-terrorist unit as such. However, there has been a good deal of contingency planning, with which my Department has been fully associated.

Would the Minister agree that it is vitally important that the Army does not lend itself to any departure, no matter how well-intentioned, which may amount to an infringement of the well-established frontier of civil/military relations?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I think that I said as much in our recent debate.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were employed in the wool textile industry at the latest convenient date; and what was the comparable figure for June 1970.

There were 113,500 in January 1973 and 142,000 in June 1970. The figure for January 1973 is provisional.

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that such a shortfall in employment in an area so heavily dependent on the wool textile industry is very severe? Will he bear it in mind that, in spite of the very welcome prosperity of industry at the moment, the cyclical trade may cause a downturn? When that happens, will he do all he can to try to reassure the industry and possibly introduce a redundancy scheme for the older workers, on similar lines to the schemes in the coal industry and the docks?

I understand that the "Neddy" on wool has some proposals, which I have not yet seen and which will of course be studied. The hon. Gentleman is right in that prospects for wool textiles are looking up. Order books are full in most firms, I understand, and unemployment has fallen by more than 2,500 over the year, from 5,840 in March 1972 to 3,100 in March 1973, so that is encouraging.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that all sections of the wool textile industry deserve warm congratulations? They have increased aggregate earnings to £32·7 million in January and February, which is a 45 per cent. increase on the commensurate period last year. Will he speed up the consultations which are being undertaken under the Industry Act with the NEDC for the textile trade, because it is important that it be made fully competitive for the next decade?

While I can endorse the achievements that my hon. Friend has mentioned in relation to the industry as a whole, I will draw my right hon. Friend's attention to what he has said.

Is the Minister aware that, although I follow the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) in the long term, in the short term there is a shortage of skilled men in the wool textile industry, and not only in that industry but in the engineering and building industries? What are the Minister's proposals to rectify this shortage?

I pay tribute to the work of the training board for the wool industry and I hope that the proposals which are now being discussed in Committee on the new Bill will help if further in its work.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to discourage advertisements which suggest ways of avoiding the implementation of the Equal Pay Act.

I have not been able to trace examples of such advertisements. If my hon. Friend will let me have details of particular cases, I will arrange for them to be looked into.

Is my hon. Friend aware that advertisements have appeared recently in the Financial Times exhorting employers to anticipate equal pay day with Vaughan automatic assembly machines? Since so far it has not proved possible to replace women by automation, either in the home or anywhere else, might not such advertisements be in breach of the Trade Descriptions Act?

It remains my earnest hope that women will never be replaced by automation. At the same time, the OME report noted that equal pay might lead to the employment of women being checked by the improvement of layout and equipment so as to raise output per head, and by mechanisation and automation. Such a course is not of course forbidden by the Act, and may even be desirable in particular circumstances, even though some women may thereby lose their jobs. Obviously, we should look unfavourably on advertisements suggesting that mechanisation was necessarily the right response without considering the alternatives.

Is the Minister aware that the rigging of pay structures to avoid the obligations of the Equal Pay Act will be an offence against the Act when it becomes fully operative? There is no doubt that rigging of that kind is taking place and that the best safeguard is to activate the provisions of Section 9 and bring in the interim order this year, which would enable all these suspect structures to be submitted to the Industrial Arbitration Board.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the overriding considerations of the counter-inflation policy have not made it possible to use that section now. He knows, however, that there is room for steady improvement towards equal pay within the present pay policy. OME studies have found little evidence of employers trying to circumvent the Act.

asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the coordination between the Departments of Trade and Industry and Employment concerning the operation of paragraphs 44-46 of the Code of Industrial Relations Practice.

Yes, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I cannot agree with that somewhat complacent reply? Is he further aware that, in my constituency, the firm of Rockware Glass has mysteriously closed down without any consultations with the four major unions involved, that it had maintained an expansion programme over the past decade, so that this was a grievous shock to everybody, and that the management completely ignored the Industrial Relations Code? Ministers have said that this is because of the peculiar circumstances of the firm but are not prepared to tell the unions what those circumstances were. Will the Prime Minister consider a special inquiry into this extraordinary and bizarre situation?

I recognise the hon. Gentleman's concern over this matter, which he is quite right to express. He has, however, had a full explanation of the circumstances in this case in the letter sent to him by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industrial Development on 16th March. Everybody would regret any exceptional circumstances in which firms could not carry out the relevant paragraphs of the code, but the firm explained clearly the circumstances in which it feared a takeover bid and it had to take an urgent decision in the interests of its employees as a whole.

Does the Prime Minister know the extent to which land bidding and efforts, as in this case by Slater Walker, to buy shares induce a company to act in a hostile way and feel obliged to circumvent the Industrial Relations Code?

I do not have the details to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I have said that the firm claims that it feared a takeover bid, and in the interests of the company and its employees as a whole it decided to concentrate its production in its two other factories, both of which, I believe, are in development areas.

asked the Prime Minister on what criteria he accepts or rejects invitations to visit foreign countries.

I accept such invitations when I believe that to do so would be helpful in the national interest, Sir.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it would help the national interest if he condemned the use of torture, particularly in the light of reports about its use in countries like Greece, Turkey, Brazil and South Africa? Will he assure us that he will look at torture reports without distinction? Will he refer to the Central Policy Review Staff the question of how effectively Britain can use her influence against the use of torture in any countries?

I will of course condemn torture wherever it is to be found. I would not be selective about particular countries, especially when there are difficulties in having first-hand information about the conditions there. But if one is to condemn it, one must condemn it wherever it takes place.

Whatever criteria my right hon. Friend observes for accepting invitations for visits overseas, may I ask him to be in no hurry to copy the example of the Leader of the Opposition in going to Czechoslovakia and saying that the events of 1968 were over and done with when the Russian Army is still in occupation there?

I have no plans at present to visit that country.

Did Her Majesty's Government entertain the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs from Czechoslovakia last week?

Where was Dubcek?

Did the Foreign Secretary invite the Deputy Minister last week or did he not? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware—I think he has had reports of this—that I made clear throughout my visit to Czechoslovakia that I stood by what I and he said in 1968, and that in what has been totally misquoted by the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne)—

Well, what did the right hon. Gentleman say?

—I explained the policy of Her Majesty's Government as explained to me by the Foreign Office and said that I supported it?

The Deputy Foreign Minister of Czechoslovakia visited this country on an official visit to the Foreign Secretary, and this enabled my right hon. Friend to make representations to him, a continuing series of representations, about Mr. Hathaway. I am glad that Mr. Hathaway has been able to return to this country.

As far as Her Majesty's Government's foreign policy is concerned, it is not our policy in any way to say that the events of 1968 had best be forgotten; nor for that matter should the events of 1938, 1948 or 1968 be forgotten.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement concerning his official talks with President Thieu of Vietnam on his recent visit.

I had a useful talk with President Thieu on 10th April. Our talks covered a number of current international issues and the situation in South-East Asia in particular.

Now that we have had sounds from those who attacked the Americans for so long but who are so very quiet about what the North Vietnamese are getting up to in Laos, South Vietnam and Cambodia, I hope my right hon. Friend told President Thieu that the British Government had not forgotten those people there who want freedom and do not want to come under the heel and the boot of the North Vietnamese.

I emphasised to President Thieu that we hoped that the agreement which had been signed not only by North Vietnam and South Vietnam but by the other great Powers would be carried out explicitly in every way.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make himself responsible for housing finance.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) on 12th April.—[Vol. 854, c. 1498–9.]

As on mortgages the Government have changed their minds about subsidising market prices, why have they not changed their minds over food prices as well and over interest rates other than mortgage interest rates? Does not the Prime Minister intend, with his penchant for consistency, to ensure that his Departments do U-turns in unison?

If we feel that particular action for a limited period is justified, we carry it through. In these circumstances it was quite obvious that the building societies, in the position in which they found themselves, needed assistance of this kind for a limited period.

As the subsidy to owner-occupiers has just been raised to £355 million a year, is it still the Prime Minister's intention to cut the subsidy to council house tenants by £128 million a year in real terms within the next three years? Does he think that that is playing the game?

The total going to owner-occupiers was £336 million in 1971–72, plus the option mortgage scheme, costing £28 million in 1972–73; and there are 9 million owner-occupiers. The total going to council tenants in Great Britain in 1972–73 is £400 million, and there are 5·7 million occupiers.

Would my right hon Friend care to invite the Chancellor of the Exchequer to enter into meaningful discussions with the Building Societies Association to discuss the long-term interest rate policy in order to avoid the dramatic changes we have experienced in the last 14 days?

Those meaningful discussions are already taking place.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on partnership between Government, trade unions and employers, delivered at Sidcup on 30th March.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech made at Sidcup, Kent, on Friday 30th March 1973 on the question of a working partnership between Government, unions and employers.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his speech at Sidcup, Kent on 30th March on the Government's management of the economy.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his speech to Sidcup Young Conservatives on 30th March on the subject of the economy.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library of the House of Commons a copy of the public speech on economic matters he delivered in Sidcup, Kent on 30th March.

I did so on 2nd April.

Is it not imperative that fresh discussions between the Government, the TUC and the CBI should be entered into without delay, especially in view of what has happened to the American phase 3 and in view of the need for the Government to protect those quiet people referred to in my right hon. Friend's speech who are not represented by major organisations such as the trade unions?

Yes, Sir. I hope that it will soon be possible to enter into discussions—I shall not say "fresh discussions" because discussions have continued the whole time—with the TUC and the CBI, either separately or in a tripartite arrangement. I expect that, to begin with, they will be held on a bilateral basis.

Does not the Prime Minister agree that some aspects of the speech he made about partnership spell out very dangerous trends if not corrected? Does he not agree that if he is to negotiate with either trade unions or employers or on a tripartite basis he can make concessions to those organisations only at the expense of being offensive to Parliament and the decisions taken in Parliament? If he intends to come to some agreement with outside bodies in this way, will he accept that we are now dangerously close to a form of junta government? Therefore, will he have another look at this whole trend of extra-parliamentary negotiation and agreement?

No, Sir. I cannot accept anything that the hon. Gentleman has said. If he reads the speech carefully, he will see that I said quite explicitly

"under the authority of Parliament".

I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman or any of his friends dislikes the idea of partnership instead of opposition in the industrial world. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I prefer partnership. We have now been able to achieve a very considerable measure of this and it is continuing to increase.

In his speech the Prime Minister said that the slogans of class warfare were becoming ever more meaningless. Is he aware that one of the things which encourage class warfare is telling hospital workers that they cannot have their full pay rise and then immediately launching a new £45,000 yacht? Was it not a totally insensitive act to do that at a time of freeze and squeeze, when he is expecting low-paid workers to accept curtailment of their wages?

I have always been opposed to class warfare in this country. I do not believe that anything I have done has ever contributed to it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] When the hon. Gentleman can only descend to personalities instead of arguments on the merits of the case, it shows how little case he has got. Nor do I believe that those who were working on my boat, who are proud of this superb example of British craft-manship, would in any way share the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman.

If my right hon. Friend should notice some familiar faces missing from the Opposition benches on next Tuesday week, will he say whether those hon. Gentlemen will draw their parliamentary pay, or strike pay, or whether their families will draw social security benefits?

It is not really for me to see who is here or not.

Does the Prime Minister recall saying

"As Conservatives, we must not forget the quiet people of Britain"?

Will he explain why the quiet people of Britain forgot the Conservatives at last Thursday's elections?

The quiet people of Britain already recognise the immense amount which the present Government have done, particularly for the poorer sections of the community. I have to tell the House that the figures I previously gave for the extent to which the position of the poorer had improved under the present Government have been revised.

The real net income, after allowing for tax and family income supplement, and after deducting the cost of school meals, milk and so on, rose between October 1970 and October 1972 by 6¼ per cent. a year for the man earning only £15 a week. For the man on average earnings the rise was 4½ per cent. a year. For the £200-a-week man it was 3½ per cent. a year. I have to tell the House that those figures are higher than the figures I gave the House last time.

Whatever difficulties the Prime Minister may encounter in preaching conservatism on either side of industry, will he at least give general support to the call of the European Commission for basic rights protected by statute for workers within industry, the spread of profit-sharing and a two-tier system of administration in companies?

We are taking a full part in the discussions on these proposals, which originate from the summit meeting. We are now giving careful and detailed consideration to what the Commission has in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to what extent the industrial and regional policies of Her Majesty's Government will be affected by the recent increase in steel prices.

The forthcoming price increase will not affect the Government's industrial or regional policies. The concurrent move to the ECSC basing point price system will mean variations in the delivered costs of steel between one area and another, but the British Steel Corporation has sought to minimise the impact of the change by adopting a multi-basing point system.

The corporation's prices had fallen below an economic level and in deciding to raise them—from 30th April—by an average of 9½ per cent. the corporation has, I believe, struck a fair balance between the need to earn a return on its capital and the needs of the Government's counter-inflation programme, which it recognises as important, not only to the economy as a whole but also to its own business.

Does not the announcement made by the British Steel Corporation blow a hole right through the Government's counter-inflation policy? Will the Minister confirm that price increases of this magnitude would not have been permitted under phase 2 had they been subject to the Counter-Inflation Act? However desirable it may be—and however anxious the corporation is—for the corporation to increase its prices, would it not, like everyone else, have had to fall in line with Government policies if external considerations had not exempted it?

Can the Minister answer the following questions? How much will the announced price increase add to industrial costs? Are manufacturers expected to absorb these additional costs or pass them on in higher prices? What effect will the increase have on the retail price index? Is it not a fact that the corporation is to increase its prices by about an additional 7 per cent. at the end of phase 2, which will in turn further increase industrial costs? Does the hon. Gentleman recall that in the Prime Minister's "at a stroke" statement on 16th June 1970 he promised to break into the price-wage spiral by taking a firm grip on public sector prices, such as those for steel? Is this the firm grip about which the Prime Minister was talking? Has this promise now been dumped, along with all the others?

Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman says, this certainly does not blow a hole in the Government's prices and incomes policy. There is nothing about it which is incompatible with the policy. I was asked whether the increase was inconsistent with phase 2 Had the Corporation increased its prices by its allowable costs it is unlikely that there would have been any lesser increase than that which is now proposed.

The hon. Gentleman also asked by what amount the price increase would add to industrial costs. He further inquired about the effect on the retail price index. It is estimated that the effect on the retail price index will be to add less than one-quarter of 1 per cent. to the index. The increase in industrial costs cannot be estimated throughout, but estimates suggest that it will add about 1¼ per cent. to the cost of motorcars and possibly about 1 per cent. to shipbuilding costs. Coming to consumer products, it will add six-hundredths of a penny to the cost of a 16 oz. tin can. I believe that the hon. Gentleman will feel that these increases are not likely to cause any disruption in the price pattern.

He said that he understood that there would be a second round of increases of about 7 per cent. by the corporation. I would ask the hon. Gentleman not to endorse everything he reads in the Press on these matters. What the corporation has said is that there will be a second increase of a much smaller amount at the end of phase 2. There is no authority for saying that it will be 7 per cent. The hon. Gentleman should not give credence to that figure.

He asked whether this move was compatible with what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about controlling public sector prices in the price-wage spiral and taking a firm grip. He must recognise what has been done to hold down prices in the public sector. Steel prices were held down to a level which the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries criticised as being too low. The increases were held down to 4·6 per cent. last year and 7 per cent. in the previous year.

The price of electricity and gas and other things has also been held down. It is nonsense for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that the Government have not absolutely fulfilled to the limit the pledge which they gave.

Will my hon. Friend not agree, in the light of the events of the last few months, that the existence of a massive nationalised sector in steel subject to arm-twisting by Governments and available for permanent subsidy from the taxpayer is becoming increasingly hard to reconcile with our commitments as a member of the European Coal and Steel Community? In view of that, and of the overriding priority which my right hon. Friends have always given to our European objectives, should we not now draw the appropriate conclusions?

My hon. Friend is right in saying that it is our wish to follow the spirit of the European Community. We have done so and are doing so. In fixing its prices the corporation has set them at a level which will give a return on its investment so that the large resources employed in the industry produce a proper return. I am sure that my hon. Friend will think that is right. This is the pattern which he supports.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how final and comprehensive is the list that appears in the Press showing the multiple basing point system? Does he not feel that Glasgow comes out very badly because of the small number of products which appear to be based there?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong because Glasgow has more basing points than any other centre in the United Kingdom.

Will my hon. Friend state clearly whether it is true that the present price increase will be followed by another in the near future?

In its announcement the corporation said that a second but smaller increase will be made after the end of phase 2.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many users of steel in this country are as much concerned about delivery dates from the corporation as about the price of steel? Is he further aware that the delivery for steel now being quoted by the Corporation has been extended from four months to eight months and, this week, to 10 months? Is it not a fact that if the corporation talked less about closing steel factories and a little more about producing more steel to meet the needs of British industry the proposed price increases might not be necessary because of increased efficiency and production?

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The delays in the delivery of steel—and he quoted some very exceptional cases—are nothing to do with the proposed closures arising from the strategic planning of the steel industry. The price increase will have a contrary effect to that which he suggested. One problem—and it is only one because another involves the unfortunate strikes to which certain parts of the industry have been subjected—has been that the price levels in this country have been so much below the price levels overseas. This has had an effect on the availability and supply of steel here.

Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the menaces of price control is that when one eventually has to catch up with reality it is a sharper and more disagreeable experience than would otherwise be the case? May I ask him to comment on the extent to which he was consulted by the British Steel Corporation about this decision? Did any discussions take place between himself and the corporation? Did he indicate to the corporation the Government's view about the preferred rate of increase? Above all, may I ask him to comment on the somewhat damaging assertion on the radio this morning by Mr. Dominic Harrod, the prestigious economics correspondent of the BBC, that the Government had asked the corporation to limit its rate of increase to 5 per cent.?

My hon. Friend's last comment is without foundation. The price increases put forward are those of the corporation alone. There have been a whole series of consultations between the industry and the sponsoring Minister at regular intervals throughout the last 12 months. In such consultations and meetings, amongst other matters discussed was the possible price level, the pattern of the corporation's pricing, the pattern of its supply, and so on. The decision was made by the corporation alone.

The Minister mentioned the return on capital as one of the Government's requirements of the British Steel Corporation. How far will the price increase enable the corporation to meet the Government's target of an 8 per cent. return on its net assets?

The target is an average return on net assets of 8 per cent. on this year and the next three years taken together. This still remains the corporation's target.

Is my hon. Friend aware that British steel is already artificially among the cheapest in the world, that these price increases are overdue, and that without them the precarious finances of the British Steel Corporation will suffer a disastrous downturn once again?

I agree that the price increases are overdue. I think that the British Steel Corporation has struck a balance between making an appropriate increase to achieve the return and at the same time taking account of the Government's counter-inflation policy which it wants to support in its own interests as well as those of the national economy.

May I ask the Minister to investigate the view held by many steel users that there has been a large stockholding of steel by producers in anticipation of these price increases and that this stockholding has resulted in the delay in producing equipment, particularly for North Sea oil use?

Secondly, may I ask him to comment on the effect that these price increases will have on the shipbuilding industry which has taken on board many contracts at fixed prices?

I have no evidence that there has been any large building up of stocks by stockholders. Indeed, it is physically impossible for this to take place to a large extent.

I understand that a large number of shipbuilding contracts are supported by long-term contracts with the steel suppliers. They will, therefore, be protected to that extent from the impact of these price increases.

Is my hon. Friend aware that while Glasgow and the west of Scotland shipbuilders and engineers will be glad about the basing points allocation, there is concern that on the east coast, where we have a major North Sea oil and steel development, the new system will result in an addition to the price? May I ask my hon. Friend to indicate what percentage increase will be involved in steel prices in the east of Scotland compared with prices available in the West?

I should not like to quote specifically for one area. I understand that only in exceptional circumstances will the increases relating to basing points exceed 4 per cent. I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind, too, that when consumers study the price list and the impact of the basing points and at the same time look at their own mix of products and the possible variation in their ordering pattern, it might enable some of the impact to be minimised.

When steelworkers once again freely negotiate their own wages may I ask whether the Minister will welcome or regret their use of the figures that he has used in relating these increased costs to the effect on the price index? The hon. Gentleman is obviously not following the question that I am putting to him. He has a most perplexed look. May I ask him whether, when steelworkers once again freely negotiate their wages, he will regret or welcome their use in those negotiations of the figures that he has used between a 9½ per cent. increase in steel prices and its effect on the price index?

In any negotiations we welcome all the true figures coming forward. The material figure that the hon. Gentleman may have in mind is the impact on the retail price index, which I have said will be less than one-quarter of 1 per cent

Does my hon. Friend's statement mean that he proposes shortly to return to the pre-freeze arrangement whereby all the nationalised industries were required to show a certain return on the net capital invested and that there was no artificial holding down of prices? May we therefore expect an increase in prices for electricity, gas and all other nationalised industries authorised by the Department to bring the whole lot into line and resume the position which we had before the standstill in prices?

I note what my hon. Friend said, but it goes a bit wide of the Question that was put to me.

May I ask the Minister to clarify the exact extent of his own or his Department's responsibility? First, did the British Steel Corporation consult the Minister, did he give his approval to the increase, and did he consult the Steel Consumers Consultative Council?

Secondly, did the Commission consult the Government and did the Government agree to a price recommended by the Commission.

Thirdly, did the Commission consult the Council of Ministers, and what view did the British Minister on that Council take? If the Minister is right that this responsibility belongs to the BSC alone, then is he not abdicating totally his responsibility for prices in this large nationalised industry?

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the BSC had consulted me, I refer him to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr Biffen) on that matter.

Regarding approval, the question which I considered with the British Steel Cor- poration concerned its overall corporate plan and pricing policy. It was for the corporation to say, as it did, what increase it proposed to make.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether I or my right hon. Friend consulted the Commission and whether the Commission approved or recommended a price to the Government. It is not a matter for us to consult the Commission upon, nor did we. We do not require to ask for or to obtain the Commission's approval and it does not need to obtain ours. It is a matter for the British Steel Corporation to give the Commission notice that it is making an increase, and it will have done this. Some weeks ago the Steel Consumers' Consultative Council put forward its proposal for a two-tier stage increase, not dissimilar from that which has been put forward by the corporation. I read, as no doubt did the right hon. Gentleman, the Steel Consumers Consultative Council's comments upon this matter today. It is generally favourable to what has been done.

It is a matter of public record that the Commission approached the British Government about the freeze in steel prices under phase 1. What answer did the Government give to the Commission on its approach on steel prices?

Secondly, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to answer the question: what rôle did the British Minister in Brussels play when the BSC approached the Commission for its view on the proposed price increases?

There is no effective consultation between the BSC, the Commission, and the Government on this matter. The corporation gave the Commission notice of the price increases which it proposed to make.

Regarding correspondence and consultation between the Commission and the Government, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Commission expressed concern that steel prices had not been increased before but had been held on 1st January under the standstill. The Commission has recognised the problems and the need for the country to deal with inflation. It has accepted the position and will now have received the proposals which have been put forward.

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, may I seek your guidance? I twice put to the Minister a question as to the attitude adopted by the British Minister in the Common Market about the proposed price increases for steel. The Minister did not answer this question. This has happened before.

I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, on a point of parliamentary accountability, whether a Minister is responsible to the House of Commons for the vote or decision of British Ministers in the Common Market where these decisions affect domestic matters and therefore are of concern to the House.

With regard to the first point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, I think, as he knows, that this is not a point of order. The Chair is not responsible for the content of ministerial answers.

The second point raises rather wider issues and I will consider whether it is necessary to make a ruling on that point.

It might be helpful, Mr. Speaker, if I were permitted to comment on that point of order.

I have ruled that the first was not a point of order. Perhaps it is to the second point of order that the hon. Member wishes to speak.

Mr. Grimond—a point of order.