asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a further statement about the Beira Patrol.

We are continuing to fulfil our obligation under the Security Council resolution to prevent the arrival at Beira of vessels reasonably believed to be carrying oil destined for Southern Rhodesia.

Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the Beira Patrol will be included in the defence cuts announced yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Does he not agree that it is a piece of nonsense, and an insult to British industry which is now working a three-day week, that we should continue this pointless exercise—an exercise that achieves nothing since the Arab countries have said that they are sending no oil to Southern Africa?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that we are still bound by the United Nations resolution of 9th April 1966; but those on patrol will do all they can to conserve fuel.

Will the Minister reject the blandishments of his hon. Friends, because a moral obligation is involved and we are committed to the United Nations? [Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen want anarchy they will get it, but we have made an arrangement and entered into an agreement.

What I have said covers the point. The resolution continues in force and we shall do all we can to conserve fuel.

While the Navy is undertaking this work, can it not at the same time do something useful—that is to say, keep observation on the potential threat to this country of the activities of the Russian fleet in that area?

Observations of that character are indeed carried out by our ships in the area.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what is the annual cost and fuel consumption of the Beira Patrol.

I refer my hon. Friend to my answer on 14th December. It is not possible to quantify the costs of this operation compared with the costs of the duties on which the ships might otherwise have been engaged.—[Vol. 866, c. 206–7.]

As the Beira Patrol must now be desperately in need of a change of scenery, would it not be appropriate to end this farce and, in view of the national emergency, move the patrol to British home waters where it could blockade the tankers which are diverting oil which is desperately needed in England to more profitable markets overseas?

That is a rather large issue. As to a change of venue, this patrol is one of the many tasks carried out on a rotational basis by Royal Navy ships, east of the Cape, and the ships would not be idle if the Beira Patrol were discontinued.

Is the Minister aware that some hon. Members resent the practice of sniping at Service men who are engaged on this important task?

I had not appreciated that there was any sniping at the Service men involved in this task.

As our so-called partners in the Common Market are some of the biggest sanction-busters regarding Rhodesia, will my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to ask the Council of Ministers to make a contribution to the cost of oil used on the Beira Patrol?

I shall confine myself to saying that I shall see that the words of my hon. Friend are recorded and reported to my right hon. Friend.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Conservative Members who consistently attack the Beira Patrol swore an oath of allegiance to the Crown? Does he agree that the patrol is doing its best to bring down a rebellion against the Crown? Are not some hon. Members engaged in a measure of treachery?

Nobody doubts the loyalty of my hon. Friends to the Crown. I am sure that the same can be said of Labour Members.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's present policy towards naval co-operation with the South African Navy.

We continue to co-operate with the South African Navy in the context of the Simonstown Agreement.

Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there is no intention of increasing the degree of cooperation with the South African Navy? Will he agree that, if there were any tendency in that direction, it would be unfortunate at a time when there is growing confrontation in the African continent since it might appear that we were aligning ourselves militarily with the forces of oppression in Southern Africa?

Our co-operation with the South African navy is broadly as it has been in past years. We have recently carried out a successful joint exercise with the South Africans, which I welcome.

Does not the present restriction in oil supplies underline the vital importance of the Cape route? Can my hon. Friend say when my right hon. hon. Friend the Prime Minister will carry out the promise he made when in Opposition to supply adequate arms for the maritime defence of the Cape route?

The second part of my hon. Friend's question is hardly a matter for me. In fact, he is absolutely right, since recent events show the importance of our oil routes and our vulnerability when our oil supplies are disrupted.

Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise the undesirable features of the supply of helicopters to South Africa? Will not this antagonise the whole African continent, including Nigeria?

The helicopters are being provided under legal obligations into which this country had entered. We have had no strong representations about this matter from other quarters. Matters of this character are for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

asked the Minister of State for Defence why by 3rd December 1973 the hon. Member for West Ham, North had not received a reply to his letter of 26th October regarding damage being caused by RAF planes; and whether he will expedite this reply and ensure speedier replies to his correspondence in future.

I wrote to the hon. Member on 3rd December. Correspondence is dealt with as rapidly as the subject matter permits; and in this particular case a detailed investigation was necessary.

I am grateful to the Minister for writing me a letter after I had tabled a Question on this matter. Will he take it from me that it does not take a month to send a reply? Will he look into the matter again? When things of this sort happen, people are not always available to make notes of times and dates. If there is a responsibility falling on the Minister in this connection, will he look into the matter again?

I wrote to the hon. Member before he tabled his Question.

It was dated the same day.

Yes, but it was before the Question was tabled. The hon. Gentleman's letter raises three rather substantial points. The first relates to sonic booms which, he believes, are knocking down his greenhouse. It is important if one has a greenhouse that it should not be knocked down by a sonic boom. Secondly, he raised the subject of flights from RAF Coltishall. Thirdly, he raised the matter of the fuel crisis. All these matters are important and they needed investigation by three different sections of the Ministry of Defence. I have such respect for the hon. Gentleman that I was determined not to get the matter wrong, so it took a little time. On the question of sonic booms in particular, because of the large number of aircraft in our air space it takes a long time to find out which boom is sonic on a particular day.

In view of the need to reduce public expenditure, could the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) be persuaded to reduce his output of Questions? Might not this result in speedier answers for us all?

Order. That has nothing to do with sonic booms.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what plans he has for reducing the scale and number of military exercises in Scotland in the interests of fuel economy.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what instructions have been given to the Armed Services for the conservation of oil supplies.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what recent instructions he has issued to the Armed Services, and in particular the Royal Air Force, about the need to conserve fuel.

I refer the hon. Members to the statement I made during the defence debate on 12th December.—[Vol. 866, c. 531.]

Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the article in the Scottish Sunday Mail of 2nd December, in which it was indicated that defence exercises which had taken place during the previous week had consumed an estimated 2 million gallons of fuel? Will he undertake to stop this sort of thing forthwith? Can he tell us whether the aircraft sent to Glasgow from London in order to bring the Foreign Secretary back for a dinner in London was a military plane, how much fuel it used, and whether he will stop that sort of thing as well?

I will write to the hon. Gentleman about the last point he raised. He referred to military exercises, and I remind him that it is necessary to keep our forces in a state of operational efficiency. While the exercises that the hon. Gentleman mentioned were looked at in particular, nevertheless it was decided that in the interests of efficiency they should go ahead.

Will my hon. Friend refute the argument of 100 or so Labour Members who have tabled an early-day motion urging restriction of low-flying exercises? Is he aware that this is already done as much as practicable? Can he make those hon. Members aware that in the interests of flight safety, let alone operational efficiency, these exercises must continue?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for what he has said. As I said in the defence debate last week, low-flying exercises are carried out no more than we can avoid because we know what a nuisance low flying is. Therefore, the room for further reduction is correspondingly small. It is certainly necessary to continue with low flying in the interests of operational capability and efficiency.

While no one would question the need to keep the forces in a high degree of efficiency, is not the hon. Gentleman concerned that the forces are not carrying a proper share of the necessary fuel cuts, particularly in low flying, which is causing such great inconvenience—and this at a time when factories are to go on a three-day week in the New Year?

As I pointed out last week, we intend to try to achieve a 10 per cent. overall reduction, but there are some areas in which we do not feel it right, in the interests of national defence, to make cuts of that size. It may mean that overall we do not achieve the full 10 per cent., but we shall keep a close watch on the situation.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what representation he has received about the consumption of quantities of fuel through military exercises following the Government's appeal to the public to cut back on energy consumption.

Several hon. Members have put down Questions and there is the early-day motion on the Order Paper. There have also been a few representations from members of the public.

Notwithstanding his earlier replies, it is a little disconcerting that the Minister suggests that he may not even be able to achieve a cut of 10 per cent. in fuel consumption. Will he outline the areas in which he feels it will not be possible to achieve a 10 per cent. reduction?

They are the areas where operationally it is undesirable to impose limits, such as Northern Ireland and areas in which a high degree of training is necessary to enable us to fulfil our operational rôle.

In view of the increasing murderous activities of traitors in Ulster and their agents nearer home up to and including today, may we have my hon. Friend's assurance that there will be no economy whatsoever that can affect the security of the people of this country and the defences of the nation?

I assure my hon. Friend that it is those duties that we have in mind in the allocation of fuel.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what details of the nature and effects of the new chemical riot control agent, CR gas, officially authorised for use in the United Kingdom have been given in the appropriate scientific journals; and if he is satisfied that they meet the requirements of the Himsworth Committee.

A report on the nature and effects and the treatment of individuals contaminated with solutions of CR was published in Medicine, Science and the Law of October 1973. An annotation covering the same ground appeared in the British Medical Journal of July 1973. These are the first of a series of reports on the extensive medical and scientific research carried out on CR as a riot control agent which are being made available for publication in scientific journals. I am satisfied that the steps taken to secure publication of the details of the nature and effects of CR are consistent with the recommendations of the Himsworth Committee.

Because of the obvious dangers, did not the Himsworth Committee conclude that such details should be printed immediately in the relevant scientific Press? Is it not a fact that a number of eminent professors have protested that a brief paper has been published in only one obscure paper—the one to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—and that, therefore, the release of the gas officially is premature?

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we are unable to direct scientific journals as to what articles they will or will not publish. There is also a certain degree of delay in their publications. We have no control over that aspect either. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's assumption is correct. As I have said, at least two articles have been published already.

Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of stocks of CR gas, and such other weapons as he may feel necessary, being kept readily available at London Airport so as to guard passengers and employees there from the barbaric attacks to which passengers and airport employees were subjected only yesterday in Rome?

Some stocks of CR gas are available both in Northern Ireland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend will not expect me to specify the exact nature of the stocks or where they are kept.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress that has been made on improving the conditions of British soldiers in Northern Ireland.

We are continuing to do all we can to improve the conditions of British soldiers in Northern Ireland. A mid-four break of 96 hours with free travel is now available to those on four-month emergency tours. Progress continues to be made in improving accommodation. Two new swimming pools were completed this summer and two more are under construction. We are also spending £100,000 on launderettes, bowling alleys, sauna baths and squash courts, some of which have already been completed.

Does the hon. Gentleman recollect that about a year ago there were reports in the Press of very poor conditions for our soldiers in Northern Ireland? Can he assure us that our soldiers there are now living in decent and comfortable circumstances? Can he also give an indication of the maximum number of tours that any soldier is likely to do in Northern Ireland?

It is not possible to give any assurance about the maximum number of tours which any soldier or unit may have to do. The maximum number of emergency tours that any unit has done so far in Northern Ireland has been five, I believe.

Is any consideration being given to the X factor in the pay code for soldiers serving in Northern Ireland, as I suggested in last week's defence debate?

My hon. and gallant Friend will recognise that the X factor is intended to be of general application and not particularly for a situation such as that in Northern Ireland; but this and other related matters are subject to review.

In view of the importance of our troops in Northern Ireland, and speaking as one who has seen them operating and has been struck by their fine morale, I ask the hon. Gentleman to resist any cut in expenditure which may be asked for by the Treasury on amenities and other matters for our troops in Northern Ireland which have been discussed already across the Floor of the House.

I very much appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said. He has been a firm supporter of our troops in Northern Ireland, and I very much welcome that. We do not envisage that cuts in Defence Estimates for the coming year will have any effect on our capability in Northern Ireland. In bringing about further improvements, we shall continue to allot priorities where they are considered most appropriate.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the force levels currently deployed in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

I am satisfied that the current force level in Northern Ireland is right. As I said in the defence debate on 12th December, we watch the situation constantly and very closely and the force level will be adjusted to meet whatever operational situation should arise.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there is enough manpower available for operations on the border which take place over wide areas? Is he getting co-operation from his opposite number in the Republic on this matter? To make the best use of manpower, will he consider the formation of a Regular company for each Ulster Defence Regiment battalion, as this would be widely welcomed?

As my hon. Friend says, there is disquiet in the border areas about the incidents there, but they are the direct result of the success of the security forces in the Belfast area. The terrorists have been driven to making rather spectacular but less effective expeditions and excursions into the border area. I am sure that it would be wrong at this stage to move troops from Belfast to the border area, but we are certainly keeping this under review. We have looked at the formation of Regular companies for the UDR, but there are recruiting and other difficulties. We are continuously considering this, but we are not at present satisfied that it would be the right thing to do. Even the conrates are not fully recruited.

Is the Minister satisfied with the standards of liaison and the assistance given to the families of our soldiers in Northern Ireland who are wounded or killed?

I do not know that we can ever be fully satisfied about anything. We certainly do what we can, and our general record is very good. If the hon. Gentleman has in mind any particular case where we have fallen down, I shall be glad to look into it.

Has my right hon. Friend considered the possibility that some of our forces in Northern Ireland might be required over here to keep essential services running?

No, we have no plans at all at present to withdraw troops from Northern Ireland to this country.

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

The security forces have played an important part in the creation of a climate in which recent political developments could take place. The fight against terrorism will continue so that constitutional progress can be maintained.

In view of what has happened in Horseferry Road, does my right hon. Friend believe that the people of Great Britain are even more squarely behind our forces and our people in Northern Ireland in a struggle against terrorism which has no border? Is he fully satisfied, despite the recent encouraging co-operation from the South, that there is the fullest liaison not only between the RUC and the Civic Guards but between the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom and the Republic? Has not the time come for staff talks?

I agree entirely with the first part of my hon. Friend's question, except that I think the British people were already fully behind our forces in Northern Ireland. There is a good deal of co-operation with the forces of the Republic, but obviously we always welcome any improvements that there might be.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether supplies of Soviet arms into Northern Ireland for the use of the IRA are still continuing? If so, will he ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to see what he can do about the matter with his friends in Moscow?

We have no definite news of the arrival of Soviet arms in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend will have seen Mr. Twomey's claim that he has sophisticated weapons. Naturally we are taking action against that eventuality.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what assistance the Naval Construction Research and Development Establishment at Rosyth has given to the petroleum industry in the United Kingdom.

As much assistance as possible has been given, including advice, research and testing, within the limits imposed by the need for the Naval Construction Research Establishment to devote its resources primarily to the defence programme.

Does not the Minister concede that, with the unique opportunity for the development of the North Sea, the special facilities of this establishment should be used to give advice on the design and testing of production platforms for the North Sea, that much more of the establishment's activity should be in the civilian field and that, if necessary, the establishment should be built up and expanded for that purpose?

I have great sympathy with the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman. If specific projects are put up by industry, they will be considered sympathetically.

Are not these limits another reason for the setting up of the proposed North Sea environmental command outlined by Professor Erickson, to which I referred in the defence debate?

Again I have sympathy on that point, but we still await Professor Erickson's report. We look forward to receiving it and will give it our careful attention.

In view of the massive expenditure on military research and development, does not the Minister agree that, in the context of the current crisis, it would be advantageous if the maximum possible resources were to be deployed on research into alternative sources of energy and on less energy-intensive means of production?

That is probably a good point, but it goes much wider than naval research. We are anxious that the facilities available should be utilised in the way envisaged by the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will now make a statement on the employment of V/STOL aircraft at sea, and particularly in the new through-deck command cruisers.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a further statement on the proposed Royal Navy variant of the Harrier aircraft.

I have nothing to add to what I said during the defence debate on 12th December.—[Vol. 866, c. 434–435.]

Is it not likely that these aircraft will be operating in the American, Spanish and even the French navies before operating in the Royal Navy? Is my hon. Friend aware that many people feel that these command cruisers will be a waste of money unless they operate with V/STOL aircraft? When will he be in a position to make a statement?

In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, with respect my hon. Friend is under a degree of misapprehension. The aeroplanes that are being used by the American Marines and that will be used by the Spanish navy are the Harrier version that we have already, not the maritime Harrier. Obviously, we have now to look at our defence programme as a whole in the light of the emergency, and I cannot give a definite answer as to when we shall make an announcement.

Have not the Government been dithering on this issue year in and year out? Is it not high time, one way or the other, that the Fleet Air Arm was put out of its misery? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House frankly that it is one of the casualties of the present cut-down and part of the £178 million?

That is untrue, because we have not yet made a decision. When we do we shall communicate it to the House. As I have said before now to right hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Front Bench, they should be cautious of opening their mouths on this matter. On their defence policy, in so far as they have one, there is no question of the maritime Harrier being afforded.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that export sales of this aircraft could recoup the development costs? Furthermore, would it not be a dangerous precedent that would not go unnoticed in the Kremlin if industrial action in this country were so to disrupt the economy as to incur a unilateral cut in defence expenditure on critically important programmes like this?

As my hon. Friend knows, we are fully aware of the export potential of this fine aircraft, and it is certainly one matter that we have to take into account. On the second point, as I said before, we have to assess the priority of this aircraft against other equipment.

May I send a public message to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that each through-deck cruiser costs £120 million and that through-deck cruisers were considered by many naval officers to be vulnerable and not worth the money even before recent events?

I have noticed that even the hon. Gentleman's private communications become public. Unfortunately, I missed the hon. Gentleman's speech in the defence debate in which he said that the Government had assented to that figure of £120 million, and I intended to write to him today about it. That figure of £120 million is not correct; it is purely his own figure.

Do I understand the Minister to say that he is still considering priorities? Does that mean that he does not know where the £178 million cut is to fall?

We do not know the exact details. Nobody pretends that we selected £178 million. The defence budget is making its contribution to the grave national emergency but, obviously, we cannot at this stage settle the exact details of the cuts.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will undertake that no decision to acquire a Poseidon submarine will be taken prior to full discussion in this House, having regard to the view of the Defence Subcommittee of the Expenditure Committee that it has seen no evidence that such acquisition would be worth while.

I have nothing to add to what was said on this subject by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force in the defence debate on 12th December.—[Vol. 866, c. 535.]

The Under-Secretary was rather vague about the matter, whereas I think the Minister will agree that the Committee was quite positive. It went rather beyond what is said in my Question. It said that the conversion to Poseidon should not be made. Is it not right and proper for us to ask the Government to give an undertaking that they will not embark upon any such conversion without full discussions in the House beforehand?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, this matter was covered by my right hon. and noble Friend in his evidence to the Select Committee. The hon. Gentleman knows that complex issues are involved. It would not be in the public interest to go into the details of those complex issues.

Surely the Minister can give an assurance. We are being told that we must make enormous cuts in capital expenditure. As Poseidon has to be obtained from America, surely it is not one of the Prime Minister's sacrosanct pets?

I do not accept the assumption or the imputation of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He will have seen my right hon. and noble Friend's answer to the Select Committee on this matter.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's replies, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what progress has been made in expediting the construction of Services married quarters and in particular the review of surplus land held by the Ministry of Defence in Gibraltar as recommended by the Third Report of the Expenditure Committee.

Since publication of the recommendations of the Third Report of the Expenditure Committee, invitations to tender for 136 married quarters have been issued. It is hoped to start construction in May 1974.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the extreme importance which the Gibraltar Government and the Gibraltar people place on the early relinquishing of MoD-held land and buildings which are no longer required for defence purposes? Is he aware of the need for Gibraltar to expand economic activity in the private sector to combat Spanish economic restrictions?

I agree that this is an important matter. However, there were over 100 sites to be examined. That could not be done immediately. We are looking at the results of the report.

Taking into account how bad some of the married quarters are in Gibraltar, and the cost and the length of time taken to build permanent married quarters, will my hon. Friend consider the use of more mobile homes?

We are considering the possibility of improving the married quarters which are already there. We shall take advantage of my hon. Friend's suggestion and consider it.

Does my hon. Friend realise that in my constituency, at the station of North Coates, there are 240 married quarters which have not been used for the past three years? Will he make an early announcement about what will happen to that station?

This matter has come up on a number of occasions during previous Defence Questions. I do not think that my hon. Friend's constituency has much to do with Gibraltar.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on current defence equipment expenditure and on the economies now envisaged.

As I said in answer to a Question by the right hon. and learned Gentleman on 22nd November, it is too early to make a reliable assessment of the expenditure on defence equipment that will take place in the current year. So far as economies in the future years are concerned, I am not yet in a position to give details of how the defence contribution of £178 million towards the savings in public expenditure next year announced yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be made up.—[Vol. 864, c. 492.]

As the Minister, on his own confession, has little idea where the £178 million cut in defence expenditure is to be made, and as it is as a figure no more than one plucked from the air to placate the Treasury, will he reconsider the galloping expenditure on research and development which in 1970 was £222 million and which in the current year is £418 million, an increase of over £100 million in the same figure terms over two years? Will he try to deploy some of that research and development capability in tackling the needs of fuel supply?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman was not quite fair in his earlier remarks. I said that we had not yet settled the final details of where the cuts will land. We know that £16 million will come from capital expenditure and the rest from procurement.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that I think it is much more important that defence expenditure should be maintained and that the additional saving which is now very necessary from the Government's point of view might be made elsewhere? Further, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind how excited I am to hear so many Labour Members suddenly coming down in favour of defence? It is most exciting, and we should give them every chance to have all the defence which is necessary.

I share my hon. Friend's excitement. Of course, no Department likes being cut. The Ministry of Defence likes the cuts no more than does my hon. Friend. However, in a time of great national emergency defence must make its contribution.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) has expressed a view which is held by certain Opposition Members and that it will be interesting to see whether the hon. Lady votes against her own Government on this matter.

No, that would not help.

All I say is that the Opposition believe in adequate defence consistent with the strength of our economy which has been weakened by the present Government. However, when the right hon. Gentleman makes his decision will he undertake to produce a White Paper spelling out the details?

In view of the prelogemenon given by the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), it will be very interesting to see his own attitude to his party's defence policy. There is a defence White Paper coming out very shortly. We do not propose to publish two.

Faced with these cuts, which will affect his Department, will my right hon. Friend do everything in his power to ensure that the absolute minimum possible is cut from equipment which has been squeezed in successive defence reviews to the point where the defence posture of our Armed Forces in terms of numbers of aircraft and tanks is grossly inadequate?

Obviously we shall make the cuts in the least painful way we can, but I must tell my hon. Friend that the equipment programme cannot escape.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what action he is taking to improve the level of recruiting for the Armed Forces.

I have nothing to add to what was said by my right hon. Friend on this subject in the defence debate on 12th December.—[Vol. 866, c. 431–4.]

Although temporary short-time working in industry should improve recruiting figures in the immediate future, may I ask my hon. Friend once again to have talks with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science about the possibility of allowing senior schoolboys to joint the excellent training establishments run by the Armed Forces? Will he assure the House that the financial retrenchments in the defence budget will not lead to any change in our manpower requirements?

On that last point, I can confirm it so far as can be foreseen at the moment. On the question of the recruitment of 15-year-olds, as has been said by my right hon. Friends in both Houses it is far too early to assess the permanent effect of the raising of the school leaving age upon recruitment, but we shall be reviewing the situation when the normal pattern of school leaving is re-established.

Does my hon. Friend understand that recruiting depends on giving the men the tools for the job? Will he get his right hon. Friend to issue a categorical denial of Press reports this morning that the through-deck cruiser is to be flogged off to Iran?

It is not for me to comment on the through-deck cruiser.

I asked my hon. Friend to get his right hon. Friend to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether the outstanding terms of the settlement of the Glasgow firemen's dispute have yet been notified to the Pay Board; and when he expects that body to come to a conclusion on the compatibility or otherwise of that settlement with the current pay code.

A settlement by the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Fire Brigades for the whole of Great Britain was approved by the Pay Board on 14th December with the exception of one small item relating to unsocial hours premia which the board is discussing further with the NJC. In addition, I am informed that employers and firemen in Glasgow have reached agreement about payments to cover travel expenses but that the Pay Board has not so far been notified.

I am grateful for that reply. Am I to understand from it that it is the view of the Pay Board that the settlement negotiated with the Glasgow firemen was in conformity with the pay code? If so, can my hon. Friend tell us what is the Government's estimate of the increase in earnings resulting from the settlement?

As I explained in my first answer, there are a few points which remain to be settled. It is not for me at this point to go into the details of what the amount will be.

In view of the state of confusion about this pay award, will the hon. Gentleman take all the factors into account and remind his right hon. Friend that when he meets the miners on Thursday perhaps a settlement broadly along the lines of the Glasgow settlement might solve the miners' dispute?

I have already said that the Glasgow settlement is a matter for the Pay Board. As for the rest of the hon. Gentleman's question, no doubt he will deploy his own individualistic views in the two-day debate which is to follow.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment why he has refused a work permit to the newly appointed International Secretary of the War Resisters International, Mr. Markus Bodmer, a Swiss national.

Permits for overseas workers to take executive or clerical work are issued only where the job is specialised and the overseas worker has the right combination of qualifications and experience. The application made by War Resisters International in respect of Mr. Bodmer was refused because it did not satisfy those conditions.

Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to meet a deputation on this matter before Christmas? Will he bear in mind that this organisation has had its international headquarters in London for nearly 50 years and that the man whom it appoints as international secretary is not always British?

The application was turned down because we felt that this man did not have the specialised experience. We know of the hon. Gentleman's concern. We in the Department of Employment always try to be helpful, and I shall be happy to see the hon. Gentleman to discuss the matter further.

I thank the hon. Gentleman.