asked the Secretary of State for Defence what decision he has made about ordering the maritime version of the Hawker Harrier aircraft for the Royal Navy.

We are determined that a decision should be taken as soon as possible within the context of the defence review. In the meantime, design work continues to be supported.

In view of the complementary nature of this aircraft to the through-deck cruiser, does not the doubt hanging over the maritime Harrier also cast doubts on the future of the cruiser?

The plans for the cruiser are not dependent on the outcome of our V/STOL studies. The design of the ship incorporates the option of operating V/STOL aircraft, but her main capability will be the deployment of Sea King antisubmarine helicopters, together with the command and control of naval and maritime air forces and the contribution to area air defence provided by her Sea Dart system.

Has the Minister had a chance to discuss this matter with his experts, and has it been made clear to him that without this aircraft the Royal Navy will be completely unable to fulfil its traditional function of protecting our trade routes? Will he try to do a better job on it than the previous Government did?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman will be pleased to know that we are determined to do a better job on this and all aspects of defence than did the previous Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards the report of the Naval Welfare Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Seebohm, and indicate what progress has been made towards its implementation.

We accept in principle the majority of the recommendations made in this most valuable report, and with the assistance of the existing staff we are pressing ahead with implementation as quickly as we can. In particular, arrangements to develop a professionally trained element within the Navy's social service are well under way.

I am grateful for that answer, but what progress is being made in recruiting staff for the new naval social service department? Who is to head it? Will it be someone recruited from outside or from within Government Departments?

I should like to pay tribute to the hon. and learned Gentleman's deep concern for this aspect of naval policy, which is well known. The head of the Naval Social Services will be at a senior professional level, at the appropriate salary scale. We hope to make the appointment in the not-too-distant future. We expect the top post and one or two other posts at the senior level to be filled by social work administrators from other Government Departments. Other posts will be open to qualified social workers currently employed by local authorities or other social service agencies.

A major problem revealed in the Seebohm Report is housing in all its aspects. Can the Minister give us any information about increasing the coordination between local authorities and Service Departments?

I recognise that there is a serious problem here, and I am taking steps to make sure that there is the fullest possible consultation not only between my Department and local authorities but between all relevant Government Departments at national level.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he can now make a statement on his plans relating to the cost of keeping British forces in Germany and Asia.

Our commitments in Germany, the Far East and elsewhere are being examined in the defence review. The examination will take into account all relevant factors, including cost.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is easier to reduce the cost of the main item—namely, manpower— than the cost of equipment, and that if he were to do this it would be in accord with Field Marshal Montgomery's view that larger ill-equipped forces are less effective than small well-equipped forces? Does he agree that the Armed Forces abroad were responsible last year for a deficit of£423 million on the balance of payments, of which£300 million was incurred in Germany?

I cannot follow the diktat of Lord Montgomery. The series of cuts in one year introduced by the Conservaitive administration meant that projects had to be cut. In our examination we shall look at commitments. We hope in due course to be able to cut back commitments in an orderly run-down—not too far—without cutting into our NATO commitments and in that way lessen the effect on industry.

The right hon. Gentleman said that the Conservative Government cut projects. Will he name them?

Within a few weeks' time, after the whole assessment has been made, I shall be obliged to name them, and they will be the result of the right hon. Gentleman's cuts.

Will the Secretary of State halt the lavish and expensive recruiting campaign so as to avoid having to make men redundant later?

No, I am sorry to say that I cannot do that. Our recruiting figures are down on last year. It is necessary to maintain recruiting, and present circumstances require the right level of recruiting, as my hon. Friend knows.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will strengthen military control of the frontier between Northern Ireland and Eire.

The deployment of the Armed Forces within Northern Ireland is a matter for the General Officer Commanding. In deciding how to allocate the forces under his command he naturally takes into account all the operational factors involved including those outlined by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, last Thursday.— [Vol. 873, c. 1435-36.]

Does not the Secretary of State agree that anyone can cross the border by keeping off the roads? The longer this situation continues, the more difficult it becomes for our forces to cope with the IRA. Is there not scope for the British Government and the Southern Irish Government jointly trying to exercise more control over frontier-crossing once the situation in Belfast has been restored?

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he approached that supplementary question. As he knows, there are about 300 miles of border and 280 crossings. We have border patrols, in which the Ulster Defence Regiment plays a prominent part. To cover areas where there are not any crossings we have helicopter patrols as well. Certainly we want more cooperation from the South, and in recent times that has been forthcoming.

Is the Secretary of State saying that it is an impossible job?

No, not impossible, but obviously difficult.

Does the right hon.Gentleman agree that spiking the roads is of no use because the IRA can operate a shuttle service?

We recognise the difficulties. To try to help the British forces in the North, we have been trying to seal off some of the roads. It would be impossible to have a Berlin-type wall along the frontier.

Is my right hon. Friend prepared to consider consultations between his opposite number in Eire and police forces on both sides of the border, which might make a useful contribution to reducing terrorist activities?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. If the authorities in Southern Ireland were prepared to talk along those lines, we would certainly be willing to comply.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what were the total strengths of the Armed Forces serving in Ulster on 1st Januray 1974 and on the latest available date.

The strength of the Regular Armed Forces engaged on security duties in Northern Ireland on 1st January 1974 was approximately 15,500. Recent reinforcements have temporarily brought this figure up to around 16,000. The strength of the UDR—including women members—on 1st January and 15th May was 7,927 and 7,754 respectively.

Is the Secretary of State able to confirm that the level of British troops in Ulster at the moment is not below the level for which the Commander-in-Chief in Ulster has asked? Secondly, when deciding on the future level of British troops in Ulster will he bear in mind that the overwhelming majority of people living there want the strength of the British troops to be maintained and that any reduction in their number would give comfort only to the extremists on both sides?

On the first point I assure the hon. Gentleman that Her Majesty's Government have responded to the request by the General Officer Commanding on the spot by granting him the troop additions that he requires. Secondly, I agree that while we have the present amount of terrorism and violence in Northern Ireland the troops must be maintained at this level and that until we build up the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Ulster Defence Regiment no troops can be withdrawn.

Despite the sniping from this side of the House, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the great majority of people who appreciate the nature of the difficulties in Northern Ireland wish us to continue to defend law and order in the Province?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his support. I think that most hon. Members will welcome what he said.

Is there any chance that the tours of duty by Her Majesty's Forces in Northern Ireland could be cut shorter than they are at present? Is there any limit on the tours of duty that officers and men are asked to undertake?

I am sorry to inform the hon. Gentleman that there is no limit on the tours that they are asked to undertake. It is a worrying feature that they have to go back so often. As the hon. Gentleman will have noticed recently, the Devon and Dorset Regiment has been worried because it has to go back for the third time covering a Christmas period. While the terrorism and violence continues in Northern Ireland it will not be possible to lower the levels of troops there and consequently lengthen the period between their tours of duty.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is a question not of sniping but of facing the reality that 16,000 English and Scottish soldiers will not help solve the historic problem of Ireland?

The House has heard my hon. Friend's views. He has expanded on them before. I must reiterate that while the violence continues the force levels must remain as they are. If the situation worsens they will have to be increased.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what defence cuts he has in mind; how far they are liable to affect naval establishments and dockyards; and if he will make a statement.

I have nothing to add to what my right hon. and hon. Friends and I said in the defence debate on 13th May.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is becoming increasingly difficult in the Weymouth and Portland area to get industrial development certificates, because these decisions are taken in the context of defence activity? Will he give us an absolute assurance that defence activity will not also be cut in the Portland area?

It is too early to say what measures might have to be considered. We are holding a systematic review and not indulging in arbitrary cuts. Naturally we appreciate that there is some anxiety among civilian defence workers. The Government have made plain their commitment to the interests of Service men and civilians alike and their determination to ensure that the valuable human and capital resources which may be released continue to be used in the best possible economic and industrial interests of the nation.

The hon. Gentleman will be fully aware of the concern felt in the Portsmouth area about the possible future of Portsmouth Dockyard. First we want a decision, but, as a secondary and subsidiary point, if thoughts are being turned in the direction of civilian employment in the dockyards, will Portsmouth Dockyard have advantages similar to those in areas in the north of England in the construction of North Sea oil rigs and other activities?

Naturally, as the responsible Minister, I am concerned about the future of all four dockyards in this country.

Will the Minister give an assurance that if civilian work of this type is put to the dockyards it will not be done at the expense of civilians in other parts of the country? No one would be much better off if that happened.

Naturally, any steps taken in that direction will be taken in the fullest possible consultation with all other Government Departments.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will clarify the future role of the naval dockyards in his review of defence expenditure.

The naval dockyards will of course continue to fulfil their role of supporting the Fleet.

One wants to know how large the Fleet is to be.

As a result of this review we are determined to have an effective Navy continuing to play its full and dynamic part within the alliance.

Will my hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State to have consultations in advance with the Secretary of State for Industry in the event of our needing some redeployment from naval to civilian use of these important facilities?

Consultations are already taking place between relevant Departments, and my hon. Friend's suggestions are very much in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilians are employed in each of the following Royal Navy dockyards: Chatham, Devonport, Portsmouth and Rosyth.

Rounded to the nearest hundred the numbers are as follows: Portsmouth 8,900, Devonport 12,000, Chathham 6,500, and Rosyth 6,000.

Does the Minister deny that a reduction in the strength of the Royal Navy would require the closure of one of those yards and that a large-scale reduction in the strength of the Royal Navy is inevitable if the commitments of his party in opposition are carried out?

As I said in answer to a previous supplementary question, should there be any spare capacity as a result of the defence review the Government are concerned to see the human and capital resources used in some other direction in the best possible interests of the nation.

Representing some of the 6,000 who work at Rosyth, I should be willing to see that work force run down so long as civilian work could be provided for North Sea oil rigs and development. It would be perfectly sensible to turn Rosyth naval dockyard into a base for North Sea oil.

My hon. Friend will recognise that it is far too early to make any predictions about changes in naval demands on the dockyards. Should such changes occur, we are determined to make sure that the rich resources of human and capital investment in those yards are fully utilised in the interests of the nation.

The Secretary of State for Defence was honest enough in his speech to admit that cuts in defence equipment would lead to unemployment. Surely exactly the same applies to the Royal dockyards? Would it not be more honest for the hon. Gentleman to admit it?

The right hon. Gentleman has played this theme for a long time, not least during the recent General Election. We recognise from first-hand experience and surveys that there are rich resources of capital equipment and human ability in the dockyards which we know can make an important contribution to the economic and industrial well-being of Britain.

Is my hon. Friend aware that we want a firm assurance that both the civilian and the military personnel at Rosyth will be maintained at their present strength, if not increased? Will he give an assurance that full consideration will be given to the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) so that we may have a contribution to our essential NATO defences and civilian work on North Sea oil?

My hon. Friend will recognise that the dockyards at present are more than fully occupied in meeting Service requirements. If at any stage they are able to take on additional work in the interests, for example, of North Sea oil development, I shall be only too glad to see them moving in that direction.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state the proportion of the gross national product devoted to arms in the United Kingdom and the average for other European NATO countries on the latest available figures; what the annual saving would be in cash terms if Great Britain's share were cut to that average; and if he will make it his policy to make such a reduction.

For the United Kingdom, some 5-1 per cent, of the defence budget on national definition in 1974-5 and some 6 per cent, on NATO definition for 1973, the latest year for which NATO figures are available. For other European NATO countries on NATO definition, the average in 1973 was about 4 per cent. National and NATO definitions do not necessarily coincide. The saving on NATO definition last year would have been about one-third of the defence budget on my hon. Friend's assumption. Percentage GNP is not the sole criterion, and I do not propose to be committed to a specific total for savings until the review is completed.

Would not one-third of our defence budget be£1,200 million a year and, therefore, is not the request of the Labour Party Conference for a saving of£1,000 million a year a reasonable one? Has the Minister noted today that the Dutch Ministry of Defence is proposing a cut in arms spending to 3 per cent? Why cannot we do the same?

The NATO definition is a common standard, and in some cases it omits expenditure which some countries think should be included and in other cases it includes expenditure which the countries concerned think should be omitted. The difference in 1973 on our reckoning is that the NATO definition adds at least£120 million to the national definition.

Is not the best guide to our defence expenditure not what our friends spend but what our enemies spend on defence?

If the hon. Gentleman had attended last week's defence debate he would have heard what I said on that occasion, which was quite clear.

Will my right hon. Friend agree that, given the determination to have a defence system for the United Kingdom, the experience of Sweden shows that in terms of defensive contribution collective defence within NATO is a far cheaper defence contribution than neutrality? When we examine the Swedish figures and take into account the fact that Sweden has been at peace for 142 years—and incidentally has had a Socialist Government for 42 of those years—must we not conclude that defence expenditure in Sweden in both GNP and per capita terms is far higher than is the contribution made by the United Kingdom?

That was an excellent contribution by my hon. Friend. He rightly says that we believe in collective security. Part of our collective security system is within NATO, in which we play our part. At the end of the defence review I hope it will be shown that we shall still make a positive contribution.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the principles on which he settles the level of defence expenditure.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what principle he will be guided by in determining the level of defence expenditure in the review that he is now conducting; and if he will make a statement.

I refer the hon. Members to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Fletcher) on 21st March—[Vol. 870, c. 153-4.]

I welcome the statement made earlier this afternoon that to fix the level of defence expenditure to the average paid by our allies is an utterly mistaken principle, but how does this square with the principle set out in Labour's General Election manifesto? Surely the right principle is to ensure that within our economic strength, in conjunction with our allies, we afford what expenditure we can to meet the expenditure of any potential aggressor.

I laid down the principle that we intend to maintain a modern and effective defence system while reducing its cost as a proportion of national resources. That is the main principle on which we stand. We also indicated in the manifesto that we would look at the GNP figure compared with NATO and try to bring the figures into line with those of our major European allies. That is still the commitment.

In making his review, will my right hon. Friend pay regard to the fact that we have now the highest balance of payments deficit, of over£4,000 million? Will he also have regard to the fact that in Europe there are countries with a balance of payments surplus which spend less on defence than we do?

I am sure my hon. Friend will be aware that our NATO allies know our economic circumstances and well understand why a defence review is imminent.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that since most of our NATO allies have conscripted forces a straight comparison is fraudulent?

The hon. Gentleman is quite right, but I have tried to indicate many times in this House that the GNP figure in relation to NATO is only one of the criteria; there are other factors to take into consideration. In absolute terms some NATO countries spend more money than we do on defence; some use conscripted forces as well.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the current trends in recruiting to the Armed Services on the basis of the latest available information; and if he will make a statement.

I am glad to say that the small but hopeful improvement in recruiting first noted at the beginning of the year appears to be continuing. However, it is too soon to predict how the situation might develop.

For the benefit and enlightenment of his hon. Friends the Members for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) and Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), will the right hon. Gentleman agree with my hon. Friends and myself that we should welcome the reversal in recruitment trends and place on record the fact that a prudent regard for national defence must require significantly larger forces than we currently possess?

I would not agree that it is necessary to have significantly larger forces than we possess at present, but in terms of total strength in the Armed Forces the figure is 349,000. Since the forecast total strength in last year's White Paper was 353,000, there has been a discrepancy over the year of about 1 per cent.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if mansions were given to all naval sub-lieutenants and all Army captains this might have a remarkable effect on general recruitment, especially among homeless young people?

If we were able to offer homes to all our Service men this would no doubt have a great effect, but we cannot talk in those terms yet.

Will the Secretary of State give an idea of how this small but welcome improvement in recruitment affects each of the three Services? Is the Army participating fully in the improvement?

In the past the Army has suffered most and the Royal Air Force least, but since we are now getting over the hump in respect of the problem of the raising of the school leaving age the Army figures are beginning to improve.

In considering the recent report of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body and the princely award of 50p per day to soldiers fighting in Belfast, did the Secretary of State take into account the effect of pay awards on recruiting?

Yes, Sir. One of the reasons for making the statement as quickly as we did was that we wanted to help recruiting. I felt that morale in the Armed Forces might be affected because of the problem of pay. The award of 50p a day—which amounts to£3-50 per week—for service in Northern Ireland has helped the situation considerably.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the development of the multi-role combat aircraft.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the multi-role combat aircraft.

Ground testing of the first MRCA prototype has been going well and the aircraft is expected to make its maiden flight very soon. Other than that, I have nothing further to add at this stage to the statement made by my hon. Friend on 9th April—[Vol. 872, c. 133-6.]

Will my hon. Friend give some up-to-date figures of the cost of this aircraft? Does he agree that increasing credence is being given to a figure of£9 million? Why is it not possible to give the House an accurate estimate of what the cost will be?

On the first point raised by my hon. Friend, I am happy to be able to say that the figure of£9 million is a wild exaggeration. On the second part of his question he will recognise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers) said in the defence debate, that we are looking at what additional information can be disclosed to the House. It would be the object of my Department to reveal to the House as much information as possible.

Does the Minister agree that other than the MRCA there is in Western Europe no military aircraft with a comparable performance to the MiG 23 which is already in service in the Warsaw Pact countries? Is not an inevitable result of not proceeding with the MRCA that it will force us to buy American or, alternatively, to accept a permanent aerial inferiority in Western Europe?

The problem in providing a cost-effective aircraft is always to match performance with cost. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that buying off the peg will not necessarily make the cost of defence to this country any cheaper.

Will my hon. Friend make available to the House figures for alternatives to MRCA, and will he clarify why the figures given in the Federal Republic of Germany include manning and ground support costs during a period of 10 to 15 years of operation of the MRCA? Does he not agree that the fly-away cost to the United Kingdom will be about£3-2 million per aircraft?

Until our study of these figures and the information which can be released are finalised, I cannot even reply to the siren voice of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved). However, that information is being looked at and as much as possible will be released to the House.

Has the Secretary of State met his German counterpart since the election of the new German Chancellor, and is there any sign of the Germans changing their attitude towards the MRCA?

My right hon. Friend is meeting his counterpart tomorrow.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now make a statement on his policy towards the United Kingdom's defence commitments.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Fletcher) on 21st March—[Vol. 870, c. 153-4.]— and the hon. Member for Tyne-mouth (Mr. Trotter) on 5th April.—[Vol. 871, c. 451.]

Do not the number of spectacularly tragic incidents all over the world, ranging from Dublin to the Middle East, demonstrate the utter futility of a defence policy based upon weapons of mass destruction? May we be assured that when the review is completed it will result in very large economies?

Weapons of mass destruction could involve the strategic deterrent, and I thought that that had helped to maintain the peace for the past 30 years.

Will the Secretary of State clear up one point? In calling for the review, has any note been taken of the Labour Party conference resolution demanding a£1,000 million cut in defence?

We have noted it, of course. It would be right for Her Majesty's Government to do so. But I refuse to be bound completely to£1,000 million. What is more, it is not in the Labour Party's manifesto. In any event, it would require a majority in the Labour Party to commit either the national executive or the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make arrangements to meet the Defence Minister of the Eire Government.

I have no plans to do so at present.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that inasmuch as the terrorist tactics and weapons used on the civilian populations of Dublin, Belfast and London constitute the most loathsome form of military attack, he and his opposite number in Eire should try to find a form of liaison to have a joint endeavour against this form of attack on civilian organisations by these terrible paramilitary terrorists?

I agree fully with my hon. Friend. First of all, there is scope for much closer co-operation on security and on the border. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has already had talks on that basis. As I said earlier, if there were any specific subjects to discuss and a convenient opportunity arose I should be perfectly prepared to talk to my opposite number in Eire.

In view of the reported failure of the Armed Forces to assure the march of trade unionists in Belfast this morning, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to intensify the training of the Armed Forces in picket-breaking in support of the civil power?

That supplementary question does not flow from the original Question, which relates to Eire and not to Northern Ireland. Our troops are well trained and are doing a magnificent job in a remarkably restrained manner in very difficult conditions. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take time out to go to see them and to praise them.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has yet received the report of the Armed Services Pay Review Body; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to further increases in pay and allowances for Service men.

I refer the hon. Members to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Shaw) by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Thursday 16th May.—[Vol 873, c. 518-20.]

It would be churlish not to thank the Secretary of State for what he has achieved in this respect on behalf of the Armed Forces, but will he look at one point which was not included in the Prime Minister's answer? It concerns the level of gratuities paid at the end of terms of service. If they were increased, might not the result be a saving to public funds since more Service men would be able to find deposits for homes of their own instead of being obliged to add their names to local authority housing lists?

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that suggestion and I will look at it. The White Paper has not yet been published and will not be published until 29th May. There may be further indications in it along the lines that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. If there are not, I shall look at his suggestion.

Although the morale of the Armed Forces is superlative, and although pay is not uppermost in their minds, does the right hon. Gentleman think that 50p a day is the rate for the job for Service personnel serving in Ulster?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman should realise that apart from the£3-50 a week they benefited from the increase in the X factor. The Pay Code frustrating the Armed Forces Pay Review Body was imposed upon it by his own administration. The review body could recommend only an increase from 5 per cent, to 8| per cent, in the X factor. But it sought consent to increase it to 10 per cent. It means that our forces in Northern Ireland have an increase of 100 per cent, in the X factor and also£3·50 a week.

Would it be possible for my right hon. Friend to give consideration, in respect of Armed Forces Pay Review Body payments, to the possibility of some kind of ex-gratia payment to Service men who meet with accidents when they are not actually on duty?

To be honest I have not done that, although I have some cases before me. Indeed, I think I have one from my hon. Friend.

May I ask the Secretary of State two questions? The first concerns the pay increase. Although it is understood that the pay increase will be backdated to 1st April, when will the increase be received in kind by soldiers, sailors and airmen? Secondly, will any consideration be given to the Territorial Army? Should not members of the Territorial Army be considered eligible for the X factor when they are serving in camp?

I do not think the House will accept that members of the TAVR should be eligible for the X factor especially when they go to camp. They are obliged to train one or two nights a week, and occasionally they go to a weekend camp. But I cannot see any reason why they should be included in the X factor. As for the hon. and gallant Gentleman's second question about the date on which the increase will be paid, most Service personnel will receive some of their pay in June.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the arrangements for defending North Sea oil rigs.

Yes, Sir. I would, however, refer the hon. Member to my reply on 9th April 1974 to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond).—[Vol. 872, c. 81.]

Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the strategic aspect? Are there not great dangers in our becoming too dependent for our national economy on the supply of oil from the North Sea when the rigs are obviously vulnerable to air or sea attack, especially in the light of the expansion of the Soviet Navy? Is there not also a risk of sabotage or blackmail by extremist organisations?

I am sure that the House is interested in the hon. Gentleman's observations. However, he will appreciate that it would not be in the public interest to give details of our assessment of the military or the terrorist threat.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a Scottish Government would be prepared to take away from the Secretary of State any problems that he might face in defending these oil rigs?

The House always notes with interest the views of minorities in its midst.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Royal Naval Reserve very likely has a part to play here? When will he be able to tell us the results of the report, initiated by the previous administration, on the role of the Royal Naval Reserve?

The review initiated by the hon. and learned Gentleman into the reserves is proceeding apace. 1 shall naturally inform the House of the results as soon as possible. The hon. and learned Gentleman may be glad to know that I recently had a very happy day at sea with the reserves.

Will the hon. Gentleman note that the vast majority of people in Scotland are extremely proud of their contribution to the Royal Navy and would rather have the oil defended by the Royal Navy than by anyone else?

I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. I know that the Royal Navy is grateful for the stalwart assistance given by the Scottish people to its work.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he expects to have with the American Secretary of Defence.

As I announced in last week's defence debate, I am looking forward to visiting Washington for my first meeting with Mr. Schlesinger on 29th May. There will be many matters of mutual concern for us to discuss, particularly of course in the context of the North Atlantic Alliance. The meeting will also give me an opportunity to reaffirm the importance attached by the Government to our links with the Americans.

When the right hon. Gentleman reflects that the armed forces of America are larger than those of the whole of the European members of NATO and that withdrawal of those forces would leave the whole of Western Europe to be overrun by our enemies, the Russians, may I ask whether, in his discussions with his American colleagues, he will talk more about the relationship of our gross national product compared with that of the United States and not those of European members of NATO?

I know the hon. Gentleman's views, with some of which I agree. However, he will have noticed recently that President Nixon stated that as long as the NATO nations maintained their efforts there would be no question of American withdrawal. It will be our duty to maintain our effort and help to keep the Americans within the NATO Alliance.

asked the Prime Minister why he refuses to publish details of the individual salaries paid to the staff of Dr. Donoughue's unit.

I have already informed the House of the total cost to public funds, including salaries, of Dr. Donoughue's policy unit.

I know that my right hon. Friend has given the global figure of£35,000. Why will he not give the individual figures? He knows my salary and I know his. Why should we not know the salaries of Dr. Donoughue, Mrs. Carmichael, Mr. Andrew Graham, Mr. Richard Graham, Mr. Richard Kirwan, Mr. David Piachaud, Mr. Adrian Shaw and Mr. Gavin Davies? Either we get them or my right hon. Friend should cease to talk about open government.

My hon. Friend and I and all members of Dr. Donoughue's policy unit fully earn our salaries. We have followed the precedent set by my predecessor when, in the case of the appointment of the CPRS, the total figure and the salary of the head of the unit were given, as has been done with Dr. Donoughue but not the individuals. In many cases—whether the CPRS or in this instance—when individual salaries are negotiated regard is inevitably given to what people were previously earning. It has not been the practice in such cases to publish the figures.

So that taxpayers may know what they are getting for the£35,000, may I ask whether any members of the political Mafia feature with some of the right hon. Gentleman's junior Ministers on the list of those to whom sensitive documents have to be denied for security reasons?

For the hon. Gentleman's question to have any meaning would mean that the story he so readily believed this morning was true. In fact there has been no change in the arrangements by which such material is available to those who need to know it— "need to know" is the basis of security— whether Ministers or officials, in the proper performance of their duties. Con- trary to this morning's story, which is totally without foundation, no distinction is made under this Government, any more than I understand there was under the previous Government, on the basis of the individual Ministers concerned, and members of Dr. Donoughue's unit are not Ministers.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that he has two distinct functions in regard to policy, one as Prime Minister and the other as Leader of the Labour Party? Does he also agree that the function concerning political and policy research should rightly be connected with the Labour Party? Therefore, will he look at the whole question of transferring Dr. Donoughue's staff to the Labour Party, paid for by the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—and initiate talks with the Leader of the Opposition to make sure that every party represented in this House has equal facilities in the formulation and research of party policy?

Not being a schizophrenic, I have never been able to distinguish between the position of Prime Minister and leader of a party, whatever party happens to be in power. That is essential in democracy.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the secret nature of the reply, I beg leave to give notice that I shall seek the earliest possible opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his speech at Glasgow on 5th May on Government policy towards the Press.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his speech of 5th May at Glasgow about the difficulties facing the Government.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech made on 5th May at Glasgow on economic matters.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his speech at Glasgow on Government policy.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech at Glasgow on 5th May on the Government's problems.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech at Glasgow on 5th May on the implementation of Government policies.

I did so the following day, Sir.

With reference to the Prime Minister's absurd suggestion in that speech that certain sections of the Press were out to make Parliament unworkable, why is it that he still cannot realise that the function of the journalist and the television man is limited to getting news and getting it into newspapers and on to television? Does not the Prime Minister realise that those are not my words but are a quotation from his secretary, Mrs. Williams, in her description of his own attitude to the Press?

Yes, Sir. Concerning what I said in the House, the Press would fail in these endeavours if it were not for the fact that certain Members of the Opposition had aided it in what it was trying to do. On the general question, the House had an extremely constructive debate on the Press last week. I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the somewhat lengthy speech I made last Tuesday on all the points he has raised.

Is not the fact of the matter that in that speech the Prime Minister's words were to the effect that there was a clear intention that certain sections of the Press and Tory back benchers wanted to make this Labour Government unworkable? If that is so, has not my right hon. Friend an obligation to the Labour Party and its supporters outside the House to seek a fresh and full mandate? Would not this week be a most appropriate time to do that?

No, Sir. I said that there were some who were seeking to make Parliament unworkable and who had obviously failed. But my hon. Friend is certainly nattering right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition——

I would never do that in my life.

It is most uncharacteristic, but for once my hon. Friend is flattering them if he is suggesting that they are making Labour government unworkable. The successes of the present Government are clear to the whole country, as we have seen, and hon. Members opposite know that. They are whistling to keep up their spirits, which are not very good these days. But certainly Conservative Members—I defend them from my hon. Friend's charge— have not sought to make the Government unworkable, because they never vote against any major Government measure.

Was not the point about that speech that the invective and innuendo that was indulged in against unnamed newspapers and unnamed Members of Parliament are calculated to bring this House and the Press into disrepute? Could not the right hon. Gentleman for once, either inside or outside the House, speak like a Prime Minister?

There are certain precedents that I would not want to follow —despite the fact that the hon. Gentleman used to brief him. But concerning imputations against the Press, if they have been condemned by anything I said, it was not by my words but by their actions in certain cases. The hon. Gentleman objects to people being unnamed, but I am surprised that he wants to rise and identify himself.

Does not my right hon. Friend think that by the vehemence of that speech he may inadvertently have won some sympathy for Her Majesty's loyal abstentionists, so much so that a former Labour voter is now willing to let bygones be bygones and to take the Conservative Party into his protective care? Will my right hon. Friend explain why the Conservative Party seems to be more worried about the fact that Labour has lost that vote than the fact that it is gaining that vote?

I am always trying to invoke sympathy for people suffering, as I said in that speech, from withdrawal symptoms. Concerning the Conservative Party, however, there is no ministerial responsibility for anything that it does—nor, apparently, is there Opposition responsibility either.

Does the Prime Minister agree with Miss Joan Maynard's view that the best way to get rid of muckraking is to get rid of the muck?

Yes, Sir. That is certainly true. Indeed, because of great anxiety on certain matters among a very small minority of local authority representatives, the Leader of the Opposition rightly set up the inquiry under Lord Redcliffe-Maude—who has now reported; I hope that his report will be available in a day or two—and I have announced the establishment of a Royal Commission on corruption. If the hon. Gentleman is sensitive about my use of the word "muck-raking" in that speech, I shall try in future, in respect of certain hon. Members of the Opposition, to give up using that word and to use the words "smearing" and "mud-slinging" instead.

Is it fair to blame the Press entirely for making Parliament unworkable when the Opposition Chief Whip himself made a notable contribution to that end last night?

I am sorry that I was not able to be present last night, but I will study the record.

In addition to displaying his persecution complex, in that speech the Prime Minister touched on industrial relations. Can he, therefore, explain to the House why his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland deplores political strikes whereas his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment exalts them?

That question was very laboured. As to a persecution complex, the hon. Gentleman will know that I used to enjoy all the attacks he made on me, both when he was a City editor and when he was editor of the Spectator: there was no question of that. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office rightly deplored, as I hope all Members of the Opposition deplore, what has been happening in Northern Ireland this week. This is not only a political strike; it is a sectarian strike which is aimed at destroying decisions taken by this House of Commons, both as regards power sharing and by the elected Assembly. It is being done for sectarian purposes having no relation to this century but only to the seventeenth century.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that when he announced his intention to set up a Royal Commission on the Press he was being far too kind to the Press when he talked about the appalling lack of public faith in the Press? I think that those were more or less his words. Is it not, in effect, a healthy public scepticism about the Press? If that were not so, my right hon. Friend could never have been returned as Prime Minister again.

I think that we dealt with these matters fully. Most hon. Members, on both sides of the House, dealt with these matters fully and very fairly in the debate last Tuesday. What was then said about the Press, whether friendly or critical—there was a mixture of both—has been fully accepted by most sections of the Press.

The Prime Minister knows —I will reassert it in the House in public—that Her Majesty's Government will have every possible support from the Opposition in dealing with the situation which has arisen in Northern Ireland. We believe that they should take all necessary action with the security forces to ensure that barricades are not allowed to remain, because we have learned the lesson of what happens when they are built up for some days. In all of this the Prime Minister is aware that we shall support him entirely, knowing that this is a political strike against the creation of the Assembly, against the Executive and against the Sunningdale Agreement.

I am only too ready to agree that in the matter of Northern Ireland the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have given this Government the same full-hearted support on everything that it has been necessary to do, within the basis of a continued policy involving a series of Governments, as we gave to the right hon. Gentleman's Government—and that was totally extended both by voices and in the Division Lobby.

What I do understand is that when the Government are really faced with a situation, as they are in Northern Ireland, they are forced to stand, and when they are in opposition they will always give way to political action in this country and to intimidation.

The right hon. Gentleman always has an obsession about this. [Interruption.] Of course he has. It was the obsession which brought the three-day working week and which planted him back on that bench. There is no parallel, as the right hon. Gentleman knows.